Nihilism is the belief that there is no objective truth or meaning in the world. Once Truth has been removed from the picture meaninglessness and anarchy gain control over art, music and the worldview of the masses who are now free to be completely directed by “popular culture” without being restrained by belief in the objective Good.
This book is the final redpill: oodegr.co
Other urls found in this thread:
sites.google.com
bible-researcher.com
twitter.com
sites.google.com
Too deep 4 Holla Forums
You accidentally described existentialism.
Yes, because existentialism is built on nihilism
III.
THE ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY
The Chinese written texts that have been preserved to this day go back to the time of Confucius(2) or a little before. All the great philosophers were in that period, the 5th century B.C. We will speak about the greatest of them: Lao Tzu and Confucius.
First we will look at the book of Lao Tzu, called the Tao Teh Ching. This is a deep philosophy. It is a tiny book which is very profound-so profound you can get lost. The first line of that book begins with the word Tao, which means "Path." Lao Tzu used this as the central part of his philosophy, as in the West they used Logos. The center of the universe is Tao, the path of life.
The book begins by saying:
Tao, which could either mean "path" or the verb "to path";
Kuh, which means "can";
Tao
Fe, which means "not";
Ch'ang, which means constant ;
Tao
This comes out to read: "Tao can Tao no constant Tao." How do you interpret it? It is a baffling thing because you can interpret it all kinds of different ways. We have a basic verb here, kuh ("can"), and the verb "can" must take a verb after it. Therefore the word that comes after kuh, which is tao, must be a verb; and the word that comes before kuh, which is also Tao, must be a noun, the subject of the sentence. Thus the sentence says something like: "The Tao that can be Taoed is not a constant Tao." Usually it is translated: "The Tao that can be travelled on, or the Tao that can be expressed as a Tao, or the Tao that is taoable, is not a constant." Or else: "The Tao (path) upon which you can walk is not a constant path." This is something that you just let yourself go into, and you do not define it.
Here, of course, Lao Tzu is using a paradox. He does this in many other places, such as: "He that knows does not speak; he that speaks does not know," and: "How do I know this? by this!" In another place he writes: "Thirty spokes join in a single hub; it is the center hole that makes the wheel useful." Is it the spokes that make the wheel turn? No, it's the empty place in the middle. Without that there won't be any going-there will be spokes lying on the ground doing nothing. It is due to the empty space that they go. Although some people think Lao Tzu's philosophy is very mystical, I think it is more on a natural level. The language is not vague; it is actually very precise. He deliberately uses these images and appears vague because he wants to convey something that is not a precise, defined teaching. In interpreting texts like the lao Teh Ching, the Chinese say you must first of all go to the commentaries, then you must have a teacher who is supposed to teach you these things. They are very intent on this: you have to have it personally given to you by your teacher. They do not accept the idea of just reading in books; you have books, but only the teacher can give you the teachings in the books.
In Chinese piety, then, the Emperor occupies a unique place. In Russia and Byzantium, the name of the Emperor was always written in upper case letters. You can see this in the service books of pre-revolutionary Russia. The same thing was in China. Whenever the Emperor is mentioned, you have to begin a line with his name. When you come to the middle of a line and come to name of the Emperor, you have to go back to the beginning, even above the margin, to begin with him because he is the central human figure. Such was the intense respect with which he was regarded.
At one time I was thinking that if! ever got my doctor's degree in Chinese literature, I was going to write a paper comparing the Byzantine Emperor with the Chinese Emperor. There are many similarities. In both Byzantine and Chinese society, the Emperor is to be the guardian of orthodoxy.
Wrong, faggot.
In the future after you finish a single book, don't proclaim it as the final redpill or pretend like you know what you're talking about.
That there is no truth; that there is no absolute state of affairs-no 'thing-in-itself.' This alone is Nihilism, and of the most extreme kind.
If truth has no meaning, SJWs are as good as righteous people.
Because no person ever acts as a pure nihilist it is impossible
so some atheistic existentialism is mixed in
Nihilism is that there is no objective morality or meaning but it does not reject the idea of a objective reality.
Brain damaged and lobotomized people do.
Nihilism is final redpill.
Sounds like you've got a case of kike envy.
Let priests that wear creepy hats and ivory tower theologists bicker over what is "objective" and what is not.
Men with reason and common sense only care about the real world. That's why I like Trump. He puts pragmatism over ideology. America needs morals based on reason and survival.
Let me guess, it comes from the fillioque?
I dont think so.
...
What's the tl;dr, fam?
race. nation. family.
this is biologically ingrained.
Too shallow for me, at least.
Read Confucius primary sources and his apprentices, it's better than this watered down Christian interpretation.
You really shouldn't try to define nihilism into one single thing, what you are describing is skeptic nihilism, who are skeptic of all knowledge and thinks there's no single "truth"
No, existentialistic nihilism is about life having no meaning and the burden being put onto you to find meaning for life. The general definition of nihilism is the lack of belief in one of the aspects of life, like morals, meaning of life, obetive truth and other shit, they are all different types of nihilism, not one single thing.
Again, that's fucking skeptic nihilism, just a branch of nihilism, not fucking nihilism in general
No thats moral nihilism, not nihilism in general, again another person giving a single definition for nihilism when theres different types of nihilism
Idiot.
You read 1 book and you think you're suddenly Plato or Aristotle.
Read Nietzsche, read Sartre, read Heidegger then come back and criticise existentialism and nihilism.
Sage.
The problem is that whatever subtlety or complex definition to Nietzsche's work has been passed through the game of Jewish media telephone so many times that Nihilism to the average person it's an excuse to act like a degenerate while also sounding like they are a cool intellectual at the same time. Until you can communicate with someone that what they know about Nietzsche is completely wrong, and care to build a more correct understanding of his work, you will be the victim of manipulated language.