/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14153896]

How do you beat nihilism without religion?

[Anonymous No.14153900]

>>14153896
with a bat or my fists I guess

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14153930]

>>14153896
Any way you like.
I would suggest something positive.

[Anonymous No.14153933]

Nietzsche is probably your best option.

[Anonymous No.14153945]

You can't . One cannot overcome nihilism unless you believe that each human has some intrinsic value which is to say a gift from God. If you don't believe in God then we are just random specs of matter living in a random world with random things in it that have no meaning.

[Anonymous No.14153986]

>>14153945
Create your own meaning if it bothers you so much (if it does bother you)

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14153990]

>>14153945
Incorrect. Go away. Back to your christie threads.

[Anonymous No.14154001]

>>14153990
Prove it,

[Anonymous No.14154004]

No theologian, no founder of religions thought about this, that if you accept God as the creator, you are destroying the whole dignity of consciousness, of freedom, of love. You are taking all responsibility from man, and you are taking all his freedom away. You are reducing the whole of existence to just the whim of a strange fellow called God.
"But Nietzsche's statement is bound to be only one side of the coin. He is perfectly right, but only about one side of the coin. He has made a very significant and meaningful statement, but he has forgotten one thing, which was bound to happen because his statement is based on rationality, logic and intellect. It is not based on meditation.

"Man is free, but free for what? If there is no God and man is free, that will simply mean man is now capable of doing anything, good or bad; there is nobody to judge him, nobody to forgive him. This freedom will be simply licentiousness.

"There comes the other side. You remove God and you leave man utterly empty. Of course, you declare his freedom, but to what purpose? How is he going to use his freedom creatively, responsibly? How is he going to avoid freedom being reduced to licentiousness?

"Friedrich Nietzsche was not aware of any meditations – that is the other side of the coin.

"Man is free, but his freedom can only be a joy and a blessing to him if he is rooted in meditation.

"Remove God – that is perfectly okay, he has been the greatest danger to human freedom – but give man also some meaning and significance, some creativity, some receptivity, some path to find his eternal existence.

"Zen is the other side of the coin. Zen does not have any God, that's its beauty.

"But it has a tremendous science to transform your consciousness, to bring so much awareness to you that you cannot commit evil. It is not a commandment from outside, it comes from your innermost being. Once you know your center of being, once you know you are one with the cosmos – and the cosmos has never been created, it has been there always and always, and will be there always and always, from eternity to eternity – once you know your luminous being, your hidden Gautam Buddha, it is impossible to do anything wrong, it is impossible to do anything evil, it is impossible to do any sin.

"Friedrich Nietzsche in his last phase of life became almost insane. He was hospitalized, kept in a mad asylum. Such a great giant, what happened to him? He had concluded: "God is dead," but it is a negative conclusion. He became empty, but his freedom was meaningless. There was no joy in it because it was only freedom from God, but for what? Freedom has two sides: from and for. The other side was missing. That drove him insane.


"Emptiness always drives people insane.

[Anonymous No.14154006]

>>14153896
Painkillers

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14154025]

>>14154001
Okay.
I live with meaning. There.

[Anonymous No.14154032]

>>14154004
Read Berdyaev.

[Anonymous No.14154044]

>>14154025
But Butterfly, wasn't Nietzsche himself a nihilist? The key here is to distinguish passive nihilism from active nihilism. Passive nihilism is being a retarded lit poster who clings to religion or some other meme like Guenonism, for instance, while active nihilism is using nihilism as a tool to break down all the morals to create new ones. How is it possible to be a happy nihilist without creating new morals?

[Anonymous No.14154045]

>>14154004
You still have a lot to learn child.

[Anonymous No.14154058]

>>14154045
Shut yo ass up. I know life. God is a lie

[Anonymous No.14154063]

>>14154004
Reminder that this pajeet monkey poisoned people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_attack

[Anonymous No.14154075]

>>14153896

Nihilism is not something to be overcome, but accepted as true. Not that this "should" be done, or that it matters, of course. We merely suggest that it's more pleasant to a right thinking person like myself to be in the real truth, however unpleasant.

Not that it matters, of course.

[Anonymous No.14154078]

>>14154063
that was sheela tho
Dumb fuck christian

[Anonymous No.14154080]

>>14154025
your meaning has no ontological value

[Anonymous No.14154082]

>>14153896
you can't

[Anonymous No.14154084]

>>14154025
No you don't.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14154086]

>>14154044
Naw, he presented a way around the loss of god and the fear of nihilism. He "solved" nihilism.
>passive nihilism from active nihilism
I donno, man.
>active nihilism is using nihilism as a tool to break down all the morals to create new ones
Okay, but I think it's a mistake to refer to oneself as a nihilist as one has *made* something to live for

[Anonymous No.14154112]

>>14154086
>He "solved" nihilism.
I don’t know about that, dude went insane.

[Anonymous No.14154114]

nihilism is only a problem for the weak and mundane that need to justify their shitty existence

[Anonymous No.14154128]

>>14154112
Exactly, that’s what it took, exhausted the brain,
>dude
LowIQ jargon dumb cunt word

[Anonymous No.14154130]

>>14154114
Cringe take. Stop using my image, I don’t want Butterfly to confuse me for you.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14154151]

>>14154080
My ontologicool is valuable to me.

>>14154082
It's easy.

>>14154084
Jealous.

>>14154112
He had a condition. That's a physical ailment. These things happen to people. The spiritualists would have you believe god or satan was responsible. "Dude fried his brains" stupid

[Anonymous No.14154152]

>>14154078
>He wuz a good boi, he dindu nuffin
Why are all browns exactly the same?

[Anonymous No.14154157]

>>14154130
Both of you are fucking cringe my dude.

[Anonymous No.14154158]

>>14154004
God gives us a standard of what love is . Love can mean anything to anyone else but Gods definition is the only true one and it is our job to not stray from that standard. You can go fuck your cats and marry your park benches and swings because according to you "Love is Love" but in reality love is not love. God is love and you have come to hate God because you love your sins too much and are rebelling against him because your heart is wicked and rebellious.

[Anonymous No.14154160]

>>14154128
>LowIQ jargon dumb cunt word
Do you have a cat?

[Anonymous No.14154172]

You can beat nihilism without religion by not taking any part in the culture at all. If there is no belief in anything beyond yourself, your own existence, you will be free to live a completely free life without any obligation to anyone else, regardless of their moral and cultural norms.

There is no need for any religion to exist, and if there is no God, there is no need for any religions. There is only us. And in us is all the world.

It is not too late to change this world. The only thing that makes it difficult is to understand it. To see that it is the only one. It is the only world.

The world is not the result of some grand cosmic accident. The world is created. It is always being created, and the process of creation is not a matter of chance. It is not inevitable that one of us will be able to create the universe. It is not some cosmic law of evolution or of nature.

[Anonymous No.14154187]

>>14154151
>He had a condition. That's a physical ailment. These things happen to people. The spiritualists would have you believe god or satan was responsible. "Dude fried his brains" stupid
The ailment gave rise to his philosophy, and it also made him go insane. I don’t think you should try to distance the two as much as you’re trying to.

[Anonymous No.14154204]

>>14153896
Right now, we don't fully understand our universe. As a result, philosophizing over it requires working with incomplete information—which is, by definition, conjecture. If one really wishes to unlock the secrets of the universe, the advancement of science should be the forefront goal (real science, not pop-science). This can be achieved through a number of ways, one can become a scientist or support them by—at the very least—being a functioning member of society.

A sizable amount of philosophers use their philosophy to justify nihilism or shallow hedonism, whereby in spite of their claims to be looking for the truth, they act in opposition to it by straying off scientific progress. One must reject any lifestyle that teaches such things.

[Anonymous No.14154207]

>>14154172
Pretty easy to see how these atheists end up like they do. In secular school they're taught that they are just a random beings set in a world with things in it. Meanwhile in religious schools you're taught to believe that your life is a drama and you're playing it out and that everything you do has meaning and consequences. No wonder these atheists are so lost .

[Anonymous No.14154224]

>>14154158

No, he doesn't, since he doesn't exist. What you really mean to say is that you already have a standard of what love is on account of human nature, which itself exists, and that you project that standard onto a false deity, itself an example of a metanarrative fiction which human beings are regrettably (because false) predisposed to invent for themselves, exactly on account of the reality of the existence of human nature, which itself is not one such "god" or spook to which I myself am "ironically" susceptible, but a real and observable phenomenon (statistics of human behavior as opposed to unfalsifiable theological claims). If you spoke truthfully with knowledge of yourself, this is the sort of thing that you would instead say of yourself, but you don't, bcause you can't.

Basically god isn't real, Marx was wrong, and only the very small minority of persons who can square a certain "conservative" atheism actually perceive reality properly. Nor, above all, would I wish to see in reply to this a precisely-zero value post from a certain somebody, though regrettably this probability is itself as close to one by this point, as makes no difference. I am smart and I am right.

[Anonymous No.14154248]

>>14154004

*gets bitchslapped by Calvin*

[Anonymous No.14154252]

>>14154204
Philosophy creates, science discovers. This is evident by the fact that science is a spawn of philosophy, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.14154264]

>>14154252
>science is a spawn of philosophy
That is absolutely incorrect. Philosophy happens the most in developed civilizations. Developed civilizations require technology, a product of science.

[Anonymous No.14154275]

>>14154264
>Developed civilizations require technology, a product of science.
How do you think technology was created? Did technology birth itself?

[Anonymous No.14154284]

>>14154275
>How do you think technology was created?
Technology was created out of necessity for survival, not philosophy.
Perhaps you could use a definition:
philosophy - the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

[Anonymous No.14154295]

>>14154284
What’s your definition of science? Why were all of the fucking scientists throughout history originally philosophers?

[Anonymous No.14154313]

>>14154295
>What’s your definition of science?
science - the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
>Why were all of the fucking scientists throughout history originally philosophers?
Because they knew much less about the universe and made guesses to satiate themselves.
Tell me, do scientists and philosophers overlap nearly as much today?

[Anonymous No.14154323]

Modern science only started like 200 years ago

[Anonymous No.14154353]

>>14154004
>Friedrich Nietzsche in his last phase of life became almost insane. He was hospitalized, kept in a mad asylum. Such a great giant, what happened to him? He had concluded: "God is dead," but it is a negative conclusion. He became empty, but his freedom was meaningless.

How ironic that Osho spent the last years of his life as a paranoid and psychotic drug addicted invalid. Stop spamming this HIV ridden faggot. Your esoteric messiah reeked of curry and BO and had nothing particularly worthwhile to say.

[Anonymous No.14154358]

>>14154313
>science - the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
A branch of empiricism, which is a philosophy.
>Because they knew much less about the universe and made guesses to satiate themselves.
To even come up with an appropriate system to analyze the world with, they had to use philosophy. The scientific method did not pop out of thin air.
>Tell me, do scientists and philosophers overlap nearly as much today?
Philosophy creates, science discovers. (they both technically discover things, but philosophy is the ultimate tool, and science will forever remain its child)

[Anonymous No.14154378]

>>14154358
>A branch of empiricism
Prove it. That's what this whole argument is about.
>To even come up with an appropriate system to analyze the world with, they had to use philosophy. The scientific method did not pop out of thin air.
Philosophy is not defined as "thinking", dumbass. I can rationalize a method to test things without philosophy.
>Philosophy creates, science discovers.
I've asked you to prove that, you still haven't done so.

[Anonymous No.14154389]

>>14154086
How did he solve ?

[Anonymous No.14154391]

>>14154378
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
I think you’re on the wrong board, buddy >>>/sci/

[Anonymous No.14154394]

[Anonymous No.14154400]

>>14154391
Posting a link is no argument. Try again.

[Anonymous No.14154403]

>>14154400
seethe and dilate, reddit

[Anonymous No.14154409]

>>14154204
>real science

Optimal ways to cull millions of people is a 'real science' you mong

[Anonymous No.14154410]

>>14154403
I'd say it's pretty Reddit-like to not have an argument.

[Anonymous No.14154416]

Why don’t you guys just chill out?

[Anonymous No.14154417]

>>14154409
What?

[Anonymous No.14154438]

Philosophy may be called the "science of sciences" probably in the sense that it is, in effect, the self-awareness of the sciences and the source from which all the sciences draw their world-view and methodological principles, which in the course of centuries have been honed down into concise forms.

[Anonymous No.14154442]

>>14154417
Your claim of 'science' has a presupposition attached to it that is irrelevant to the idea of 'science' in itself. Your idea of science is only ever associated with progress, regardless of the fact that knowledge of the universe can be applied to literally anything, even outside of this safe humanist thing you think is science. Do you think we will advance as a species by trying to come up with computer-generated models of how sand behaves in different liquids?

[Anonymous No.14154460]

>>14154442
My idea of science concerns understanding things. Whatever things we end up understanding is only of concern to me if it could prevent us from future knowledge.

[Anonymous No.14154462]

>>14154438
Philosophy is the blind man’s effort. It is said: Philosophy is a blind man in a dark room on a dark night, searching for a black cat which is not there…

[Anonymous No.14154464]

>>14154460
>Whatever things we end up understanding is only of concern to me if it could prevent us from future knowledge.

Congrats, you have introduced a philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14154465]

>>14154462
Shut the fuck up Osho.

[Anonymous No.14154468]

>>14154462
I agree, logic isn't real as it cannot be proven.

[Anonymous No.14154479]

>>14154464
>Congrats, you have introduced a philosophy.
As I said earlier:
Philosophy is not defined as "thinking".

[Anonymous No.14154484]

>>14154465
OSHO was a philosophy teacher himself for 7 years then realized it was useless.
>>14154468
u agree with osho?

[Anonymous No.14154487]

>>14154479
No your imposition on what 'science' is and isn't allowed to understand is a philosophy. Philosophy isn't "thinking" but it does involve categorisation of abstract concepts.

[Anonymous No.14154501]

>>14154487
>No your imposition on what 'science' is and isn't allowed to understand is a philosophy.
By the fucking definition of "philosophy", no, it certainly isn't.
>Philosophy isn't "thinking" but it does involve categorisation of abstract concepts.
Kek, stop trying to warp the definition. I've already given a mainstream definition here: (>>14154284)

[Anonymous No.14154507]

>>14153896

simulation theory

[Anonymous No.14154511]

>>14154507
Get the fuck out

[Anonymous No.14154514]

>>14154501
Why should I follow your definition? What makes that definition more accurate than my definition?
>inb4 because more people agree with it
Bandwagon fallacy.

[Anonymous No.14154515]

>>14154462

It is said: philosophy is a cult leader with a flotilla of rolls royces who fled his home country in disgrace

[Anonymous No.14154518]

>>14154468
That very sentence would be self-refuting by that nature, then, since it makes a statement in logic.

[Anonymous No.14154521]

>>14154511

s i m u l a t i o n t h e o r y

[Anonymous No.14154523]

>>14154501
So science as 'understanding things' in no way involves 'the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence'? Isn't science the knowledge of things that exist in reality? And the ideas of study, fundamentality, nature, knowledge, reality, existence aren't abstract concepts that are categorised? Is language just pure science or something? Is putting a limit on what science is allowed to understand just a 'thing' that is 'understood'? Where was it observed or tested, etc.?

[Anonymous No.14154524]

>>14154514
>Why should I follow your definition?
Why should I follow yours?
>>inb4 because more people agree with it
>Bandwagon fallacy.
Language is a huge bandwagon, consisting of definitions. Get over it, retard. The fact that you've resorted to such a shitty argument is proof that I'm right in my original post.

[Anonymous No.14154527]

>>14154524
So this is the power of science

[Anonymous No.14154532]

>>14154523
I'm going to ignore the plethora of random questions you asked and answer your main one.
Science is "understanding things" and philosophy is the understanding of that understanding. That is the way I see it, feel free to show otherwise.

[Anonymous No.14154533]

>>14154501
Any discourse involving the meaning of "science" and the boundaries of its application is philosophical in nature. Have you ever taken a philosophy course?

[Anonymous No.14154537]

>>14154524
>Why should I follow yours?
This is the essence of philosophy, and I’m not the same guy you were arguing with.
>Get over it, retard. The fact that you've resorted to such a shitty argument is proof that I'm right in my original post.
>resorting to ad hominem instead of proving why I should follow your definition then proclaiming that you’re right

[Anonymous No.14154538]

>>14154527
>being so insecure that you can't admit you're wrong

[Anonymous No.14154541]

>>14154538
Wrong meaning what exactly?

[Anonymous No.14154542]

>>14154533
>Any discourse involving the meaning of "science" and the boundaries of its application is philosophical in nature.
Prove it.
>>14154537
>This is the essence of philosophy
Arguing over definitions to no end and to no avail, because none of them are more correct or less arbitrary than the other? Yeah, I know. That's part of the reason I oppose it.
>>14154541
Incorrect.

[Anonymous No.14154544]

>>14154532
I accept your resignation. You may leave.

[Anonymous No.14154546]

>>14154544
Not an argument, try again.

[Anonymous No.14154547]

>>14154542
Us fellow scientists please observe this, what we call 'damage control'

[Anonymous No.14154549]

>>14154542
>Prove it.
Prove that you exist.

[Anonymous No.14154555]

>>14154546
You're really reaching into your bag of tricks like we've only been on 4chan for a day huh

$10 says u reply ;)

[Anonymous No.14154557]

>>14154542
Ever hear of "philosophy of science?"

[Anonymous No.14154559]

>>14153896
What I recommend to anyone reading this is to take up meditation, introspection and ultimately make your own being the center of your existence. It already is, anf always will be. But I'm saddened to see so many on here report an inability to make meaning for themselves, and to instinctively prefer a socially-inherited institution of meaning like that of Christianity, in which no individuation occurs on the individual's part, only conformity to an ancient set of rules, rituals, and beliefs. It might be easier to proceed through life believing whatever you've been told to, and it certainly appeals to us instinctively, but you're ultimately failing to realize your own true nature by doing so, and therefore trading a shadow of life for something far more substantial. Start with meditation, which I consider the most important practise ever, and from there gradually make the attempt to find greater and greater connection to your own existence. It doesn't have to be connection to a larger social institution, and that might be especially difficult in today's society. But nevertheless I firmly believe most of you can overcome nihilism without receiving a meaning-of-life™ package at your nearest ancestral institution. I mean, your ancestors had to formulate their own answers to these questions, while you merely adhere to whatever they happened to have said, even though you yourself, given the nature of time, have access to far more information of reality than they ever did? That's not very creative at all, let alone wise. Try not to do that, regardless of how easy it might be.

Also remember you can be spiritual without believing in a theistic creator, so remember that you don't have to choose between theism or no spirituality whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.14154564]

>>14154555
>555

[Anonymous No.14154572]

>>14154547
>>14154555
4channel is used for discussion, and argumentation.
>>>/r/eddit
Please go back.
>>14154549
I exist in your reality, and you can only act in accordance with your reality. Thus I exist necessarily.
>>14154557
Yes, I have heard of that.

[Anonymous No.14154578]

>>14154572
4chan actually has a minimum age for posting as well

[Anonymous No.14154586]

>>14154578
I know, that's only more of a reason that you shouldn't be posting here.

[Anonymous No.14154588]

>>14154572
>I exist in your reality
How do I know I’m not dreaming?

[Anonymous No.14154595]

>>14154588
You can't know, but your potential dream-state is *your* reality either way.

[Anonymous No.14154596]

>>14154586
Yeah I seen that one before, back in the day

[Anonymous No.14154608]

>>14154595
>You can't know
So why should I treat you as anything other than a dream?

[Anonymous No.14154610]

>>14154596

[Anonymous No.14154615]

>>14154608
I've just told you why. I exist in your subjective reality, and you act in accordance with your subjective reality.

[Anonymous No.14154626]

>>14154615
>I exist in your subjective reality, and you act in accordance with your subjective reality.
That doesn’t change the fact that you’re still merely a character in a dream. Is “I can’t prove otherwise” your final answer?

[Anonymous No.14154631]

>>14154626
>That doesn’t change the fact that you’re still merely a character in a dream.
Why are you now asserting this as if you KNOW it's true, when it can only be a possibility? Try to at least be consistent with you argument.

[Anonymous No.14154642]

>>14154631
>Why are you now asserting this as if you KNOW it's true
How can we know that anything is true? Your senses do not give you an objective interpretation of the world.

[Anonymous No.14154651]

>>14154642
>How can we know that anything is true?
We can't, but we can know things within our subjective reality (flawed as it may be) to be true.

[Anonymous No.14154659]

>>14154651
>We can't, but we can know things within our subjective reality (flawed as it may be) to be true.
So truth is subjective? Why then should I believe in your truth over my own?

[Anonymous No.14154660]

replace god with whatever obsession
replace god with whatever high power (universe, physics, nature, mathematics, etc)
utilitarianism
Camus
Nietzsche
SSRIs (if you actually feel that nothing brings joy and everything is abstract and has no meaning)
opiates and other hard drugs if SSRIs didn't work
have social life outside of here if SSRIs and opiates didn't work

[Anonymous No.14154666]

>>14154659
>Why then should I believe in your truth over my own?
You should believe in your reality, because you can only act in accordance with your own. I've said this way too many times by now.

[Anonymous No.14154669]

>>14154666
>You should believe in your reality, because you can only act in accordance with your own. I've said this way too many times by now.
Okay. In my reality you are wrong and therefore not worth listening to.

[Anonymous No.14154677]

>>14154669
>In my reality you are wrong and therefore not worth listening to.
Okay, if you say so.

[Anonymous No.14154701]

>>14153896
Without using religion, one would have to fix the current state of nihilism. Right now faggots use nihilism as an excuse to attribute whatever meaning they want to whatever object they want. But a proper nihilist would strive recognize that their wants, desires, and thoughts have as much real existence as God, and that there is no "I". Meditation helps accomplish this realization. If religion is still on the table as an option, then Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.14155260]

>>14154114
I want to fuck Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.14155274]

>>14154660
Don't follow this advice

[Anonymous No.14155282]

>>14154353
t. christain

[Anonymous No.14155545]

>>14153896
You can't beat it, it is inevitable. The more you fight it, the more it will possess you. You just have to make peace with the simple fact that you are a destroyer as well as a creator. Nihilism is not an enemy, it's a tool. But yeah, before you can use it to your benefit you might accidentally set your head, house and family on fire.

[Anonymous No.14155550]

>>14154701
Wrong and stupid

[Anonymous No.14155576]

>>14155274
obviously the best advice is god but since op said no religion i didn't put it there. do you have any better advice that isn't god? asceticism is still higher power and an obsession

[Anonymous No.14155621]

>>14153896
You cannot beat nihilism in any way, religion is just a coping mechanism that only distracts you from undeniable truths.

[Anonymous No.14155926]

>>14154501
Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom").

[Anonymous No.14156271]

>>14153896
Magick

[Anonymous No.14156313]

just forget about nihilists, they'll beat themselves.

[Anonymous No.14157598]

>>14153896
read my diary desu

[Anonymous No.14157628]

>>14153986
You cannot create meaning. It is an oxymoron.

[Anonymous No.14157645]

>>14153896
T. Dosto

[Anonymous No.14157934]

Strong Ethical Philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14157955]

>>14157628
This statement is false

[Anonymous No.14158083]

>>14154224
For someone with complete faith in his own rationality you type a lot of unfalsifiable claims

[Anonymous No.14158116]

>>14157955
Not that anon but actual meaning is supposed to be something inherent, not a social construct or cope that you create in your own mind - so yes the idea of "creating" meaning is a contradiction

[Anonymous No.14158139]

>>14158116
>actual meaning is supposed to be something inherent
Justify this statement

[Anonymous No.14158156]

>>14153896
Define "beat nihilism." I don't see how religion beats nihilism in a way that any other set of ethical beliefs can't.

A man who has no conception of "purpose" or "meaning" has no more need for it than the wind or the trees. While nihilism is a simple rational conclusion to reach once our own lack of free will is seen, neither you nor I are perfectly rational creatures. Man will do what he wills but cannot will what he wills. Nihilism is a nonissue. My behavior would not change in a "nihilistic" world versus a non-"nihilistic" world. We are necessarily slaves to our own unconscious will, which, as Jung pointed out, is what is often the thing most clearly manifested in religious imagery.

[Anonymous No.14158164]

>>14154025
/thread

[Anonymous No.14158486]

>>14153896
Find a job you are good at and that you enjoy. Become the best at that job.

[Anonymous No.14158494]

>>14158139
if its not inherent then a schizo who thinks he's god is experiencing meaning

[Anonymous No.14158571]

>>14153986
>create meaning
This is impossible. Meaning is felt and understood.
No more can you create meaning than you can create energy. You may be able to transmute meaning, like you can transmute energy, but never create it.

[Anonymous No.14158581]

>>14158139
If any can be felt or reached, then by necessity it is intrinsic in the metaphysical (if not even the physical) realm.
However, this also means that God is.

[Anonymous No.14158679]

>>14158494
Ad hominem
>>14158571
>Meaning is felt and understood.
No more can you create meaning than you can create energy. You may be able to transmute meaning, like you can transmute energy, but never create it.
You haven’t provided any semblance of proof for any of these statements.
>>14158581
>If any can be felt or reached, then by necessity it is intrinsic in the metaphysical (if not even the physical) realm.
Justify this statement.