Funny meme but you can’t be a nihilist and an ideological “extremist”, lol. The whole point of being a nihilist is that, by default, you don’t believe in anything strongly, you don’t stand for anything. People who “just wanna have fun” and don’t think of anything else are nihilists, for instance, from the average old habitual party goer with no attachments nor responsibilities to, idk, American pedophilic oligarchs.
If that was the point and I got wooshed, then my bad. 😅
Class consciousness is so low and any real chance of the revolution needed to bring apart the urgent change before climate collapse means that they think it’s never going to be achievable, so might as well take out a CEO on your way.
I’ve usually seen it defined as meaning you believe that life had no “meaning” or objective purpose. In that sense, you could absolutely be a nihilist and also strongly stand for something, so long as the internal justification for your conviction wasn’t based on it being somehow objectively correct, just a strong personal liking for that position. Sort of like, “the universe might not care, but I do.”
“Nothing matters” isn’t a position that demands, well any kind of ideology or behavior, because self indulgence or apathy are just as meaningless in a meaningless universe as following some arbitrary and self-assigned code to the bitter end would be.
The reasons for why you care are your beliefs though. Also, objectively correct? In this world there’s only uncertainty (beginning at the lowest levels of reality!) and axioms, when you stand for something (like “thou shalt not kill”, for instance) you don’t stand for it because it logically follows, because ought doesn’t follow from is (stances are informed by reality but not their causes, both a righteous victic or a well informed ally of American imperialism and Henry Kissinger knew exactly the reality on the ground, one cares and the other doesn’t), you stand for it because it’s right. It becomes axiomatic, but “objectively correct” or “objectively true”… those are things only God knows.
Sorry, I wasn’t arguing with you, I just wanted to expand on things/talk into the void. You’re right, people do often go by that more existentialist definition.
Funny meme but you can’t be a nihilist and an ideological “extremist”, lol. The whole point of being a nihilist is that, by default, you don’t believe in anything strongly, you don’t stand for anything. People who “just wanna have fun” and don’t think of anything else are nihilists, for instance, from the average old habitual party goer with no attachments nor responsibilities to, idk, American pedophilic oligarchs.
If that was the point and I got wooshed, then my bad. 😅
Anarcho-nihilism is the belief that shit is irrevocably fucked, but that you can still go down swinging.
Gonna have to say that’s a misnomer then.
It would only be a misnomer if it was purely nihilism, but it’s not and as such it describes itself perfectly.
Never heard of it before, fair enough! But maybe shit isn’t irreparably fucked, we just need to rebuild with different, more solid bases, idk. 👍
That’s the nihilistic part in play.
Class consciousness is so low and any real chance of the revolution needed to bring apart the urgent change before climate collapse means that they think it’s never going to be achievable, so might as well take out a CEO on your way.
I’ve usually seen it defined as meaning you believe that life had no “meaning” or objective purpose. In that sense, you could absolutely be a nihilist and also strongly stand for something, so long as the internal justification for your conviction wasn’t based on it being somehow objectively correct, just a strong personal liking for that position. Sort of like, “the universe might not care, but I do.”
“Nothing matters” isn’t a position that demands, well any kind of ideology or behavior, because self indulgence or apathy are just as meaningless in a meaningless universe as following some arbitrary and self-assigned code to the bitter end would be.
The reasons for why you care are your beliefs though. Also, objectively correct? In this world there’s only uncertainty (beginning at the lowest levels of reality!) and axioms, when you stand for something (like “thou shalt not kill”, for instance) you don’t stand for it because it logically follows, because ought doesn’t follow from is (stances are informed by reality but not their causes, both a righteous victic or a well informed ally of American imperialism and Henry Kissinger knew exactly the reality on the ground, one cares and the other doesn’t), you stand for it because it’s right. It becomes axiomatic, but “objectively correct” or “objectively true”… those are things only God knows.
Sorry, I wasn’t arguing with you, I just wanted to expand on things/talk into the void. You’re right, people do often go by that more existentialist definition.