Current year

explain yourselves.

Nice shitpost fam 👌

Post doggy with big belly please.

Prickly would fuck that tbh.

^ tbh

I'm 100% serious (That nihilism is a false meme at least)

no

sage goes in all fields

This is a no shitposting board.

What did he mean by this?

Also tbqh transhumanism is trash. I'm all for getting augmented and whatnot, but the problem with transhumanism is that it is essentially the progressivist tendencies of liberal humanism taken to their extreme.

Transhumanism posits an essential human subject who is merely being modified and augmented with prosthetics, to more fully express the essential humanity of the human subject. It relies heavily on progressivist thinking about how things are going to turn out in the future, and in the worst strains of transhumanism it does this without any social awareness.

It places more responsibility onto science than it can handle in that regard. Anarcho-transhumanism, to its credit, at least recognizes that transhumanism would be a fucking disaster if we don't create a better society for these new technologies, but anarcho-transhumanism is generally really weak otherwise in terms of theory and in terms of meaningfully combining anarchy and transhumanism. And IMO, the biggest mistake anarcho-transhumanists make as anarchists is missing the point that we cannot make predictions about post-revolutionary society from within bourgeois society. We have to destroy this one first.

Post-humanism is the way to go. There are no human subjects, only intelligent beings whose relationships and boundaries between their species-being and technology are highly ambiguous.

Stop being mean.

did you read the post? Post-transhumanist it said.

All forms of nihilism, epistemological, ethical, etc. are false. See pic related.

m8 this is pathetic. Step up your analytical game.

Fuck I forgot to add the other shit


The fact is that nihilism and anti-nihilism are a dialecitcal pair, because everything in life matters, whatever you do is bringing things closer to their ultimate point of fruition (god, the absolute, monads, whatever) so simultaneously, nothing matters, you can do what you want.

But not in the way that everything one does is not important, it's in the opposite way.

I'm not really impressed with this half-baked assertion of Hegelian dialectics, my dude.

I'm not impressed with your lack of an argument.

There's nothing for me to argue against. You just memed about Hegel and are expecting me to uncritically accept it as correct.

For reasons already stated above, I still disagree with your progressivist thinking. You're just assuming that shit's all leading up to the Absolute and that therefore everything we do is necessary step in the dialectic, and I think it's ridiculous to make this assertion from within the confines of bourgeois values, with only bourgeois and reactionary history to analyze. You have no reason to think that everything is headed towards the Absolute, and it's unsurprising that you would think that considering that you're just reproducing the same sort of progressivist, optimistic liberal logic and conceptualization of humans as rational, ahistorical agents that the Enlightenment already did, with some jargon to obfuscate this. And in fact, materially-speaking, it may already be too late for any other kind of world for us than an environmentally-devastated, techno-fascist wasteland.

That's why I'm a nihilist. It's useless at best and dangerous at worst for the present to make claims about things that we can only understand when we are part of the living processes that would be shaped by what you're predicting. We cannot conceptualize revolutions from within bourgeois society. We have to first clear away bourgeois values by destroying the real material mechanisms that reproduce bourgeois values.

put your trip on A.W.

k

By that logic marxism is impossible.

Finally! Thanks for posting big belly doggy.

Think about what you're saying. That makes no fucking sense. "Marxism" is possible insofar as "Marxism" is a body of theory that exists.

Marx's theories aren't impossible either though. His critique of capitalism is most certainly spot-on, but I agree with Deleuze in saying that Marx is also very strongly confined to his own context as a person who was raised in bourgeois society. Not that this really matters since Marx didn't provide a programme for overthrowing capitalism, but I also am not a Leninist/Marxist-Leninist, nor do I support them. So, sure, I guess you could say that a Leninist or Marxist-Leninist revolution is impossible by my position. That's fine by me.

The Absolute is not necessarily good or bad, or pleasant. It's the sum of all human history and culture. It could be nuclear annihilation for all we know. Obviously, human history will be heading towards a point of finishing, be it in the creation of some kind of post-human or self-destruction.

The point is that whatever you do factors into this, whatever you do will lead towards this inevitable point. Unless you think the universe and humans will continue for eternity.

It is in fact, the very definition of dialectal, at least in the way I was formulating it (which I admit you can disagree with.)

One pole of "Nothing in life matters" The other of "Everything in life matters."

If you take them both to their extreme, you see that they fall into each other. If everything in life is equally significant, it doesn't matter what you do.

You can do whatever because everything is important and significant in the grand scheme of things, not because things are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

If you take the latter view, then there is no reason to do anything, talking about nihilism is literally pointless, impossible, and contradictory, much like your post.

Just following through on your idiocy, no need to be so triggered.

k, so like I said before, you're giving me a half-assed Hegelian dialectic. And as much as I hate Yui and A.W., they're right in saying that you cannot divorce Hegel's thought from his method - otherwise, you end up with people making these trite-ass analyses like yours which essentially amount to, "everything you're doing is leading up to something bro ;DDD".

The rest of this is just memeing about nihilism again. You're assuming that all of nihilism = passive nihilism, which is wrong. If there's no reason to do anything, you're right that there's also no reason to not do anything, but this is perfectly compatible with nihilism. It's called active nihilism - a comportment of the will towards the destruction of the existent values, independent of any socially-constructed meaning.

Being a nihilist, saying that "nothing matters", is saying that the ideas we have about meaning ultimately have no necessary connection to the material world at all. They're merely a way that we conceptualize the world, which is dependent on the ruling class and the narratives it's able to push. And so in becoming a nihilist, you not only disavow meaning, but actively, in the real, material world, destroy the mechanisms that make it possible to reproduce these constructed meanings. And this is of course only a temporary state of the will. The final stage of pure negation is the negation of nihilism itself, towards the authentic value-creation which will only be possible in a revolutionary society.

I don't give a shit about "the grand scheme of things". You're making a claim about something that you have no right to talk about. The fact that we know nothing about what "the grand scheme of things" will be, what the Absolute will be, means that you're just doing a lot of guesswork that ultimately amounts to wanking yourself off about how well you think you understand Hegel.

Stop renouncing responsibility onto the Dialectic and take control of your own fucking life.


You may disagree with what I'm saying but at least unlike you I have enough literacy to make a more substantial post than your one-liner shitposts.

The thing is here is we're (for the most part) in agreement here it's just we both think the other has shitty reasons (or lack thereof) for acting.

explain

I'm essentially saying that active nihilism is in a sense, true, but for the opposite reasons. I'm saying that it comes to be an authentic course of action by virtue that all of the meanings and ideas we have are significant and meaningful, and you are doing so by the rejection of that.

Granted there's some minor differences in phraseology but otherwise it's just doing the same thing for different reasons. This argument is a miscommunication.

I should clarify I mean that the difference is for the most part here is not "What is to be done" but "Why is it that we should do that."

Go put a shirt on you greasy cheeseburger eating fuck

I mean, I guess so. It's of course also only what I choose to make claims about in the present moment. If a revolution were to ever happen, I would expect my views to change accordingly. Maybe in favor of yours, maybe not. Who knows. Revolutions by their very nature change our understanding of the world in a radical way.


kek how rude

fuck off randy!