For the rest of literary History, Non-believing in Nothing was the question being pondered by the great gap of philosophers inspired by Nietzsche and even Nietzsche himself. The point being that there exists Nothing, (in this case G-d is dead), He then proceeds within Thus spake Zarathustra to detail what non-belief in Nothing looks like in the form of the Ubermensch. Man constructs himself to become the thing that isn't (G0d). The last man is man who believes in Nothing. When one believes in this something, and that something doesn't exist, therefore all the things that something entailed doesn't exist either. This last man, which the wiki informs is the antithesis to the Ubermensch in that it seeks only passive comfort and routine, avoiding everything that could potentially bring risk, pain, or disappointment.
Nietzsche neatly separates these two kinds of men into Apollonian for the former and Dionysian for the latter. So from here on out we'll use his terms. Within the Apollonian school of non-belief in Nothing, you have Existentialism, Absurdism, and to some extent Marxism. The Apollonian refuses to believe in the Nothing, although it acknowledges that the Nothing is a fact, in this way, he tries to create something where nothing exists purely on the basis that he wants to believe in something. He wills its creation. What this implies is that Man, or such men, have full control over his own destiny.
Existentialism argues that we are the creators of our own meaning. Marxism, or in this case Marxist Freedom, argues that we should be able to plan out our lives as we see fit as opposed to believe in nothing and accept the futility of things. Absurdism is the purest form of Apollonian Nihilism as it would rather believe in the Absurd than it would believe in Nothing.
Dionysian Nihilism is to fully immerse in a Belief in Nothing. As all things are futile, there is no morality, no law, no state, no G-d, nothing. To summarize their ideas, I would like to borrow the famous maxim from my favorite video game franchise, "Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted". In this school, there are two classes, equal in regard, Structuralism and Consumerism.
The people who go to the Structuralist class believe that society is comprised of mutually conflicting but compromising social constructions. This is the basis for contemporary Neoliberalism. Those who chose the Consumerist class believe that all that exists is by desire-production meaning that all that exists is by desire for those who think of it favorably like Foucault and Land, this is best exemplified in Postmodernity.
For the growing few of us who do believe in something like the author of this article. The question of belief has always been a question that became of interest as I do not believe in at least the 40,000 other g-ds that exist in the world and I practice this non-belief Apollonically. But such non-belief exists only in the assumption that nothing exists and all we can ever do about it is chose how to react, which is a rather stoic and pessimistic attitude to life. Nonetheless it is a really interesting philosophical question to ask about
]]>He had been living near to Nature indeed; in the summer he slept upon the ground, in the winter, in a blanket on the floor; had done so for seventeen years. On questioning what had led him to so strange a life, he answered, "Because I want to be free. I saw that men were slaves of their own artificial needs, out of which have grown so many oppressive laws, systems of production, and so forth. I did not wish to work for any one else, nor to slave nine or ten hours a day to gratify a need which is only imaginary. The chief causes of this foolish industry are the need for food and clothing. Civilization, so called, seems to have a rage for every possible compound, healthy or unhealthy, beautiful or ugly, so that these increase the necessity for toil. I said to myself, I will learn to live on little, to overcome the need for so many changes of clothing, and I shall be free. I have done so. I can live very comfortably on eight cents a day, and I do not starve on five. Then you see I love what is beautiful. A fruit dinner is beautiful to look at. Mr. C. (the artist) would even like to paint it. But suppose he paints a carnivorous dinner, is there anything about it? No woman need slave over the stove to prepare my meal, and there need be no dishes to wash afterward. Oh, one escapes a great deal of slavery. One's blood is never overheated, nor subject to internal changes; winter and summer I dress the same and am never too hot or too cold. I have my time to see, to study, to think. When I do work it is because I wish.”
]]>Indeed, it's seems almost impossible to criticize "I just want to kill people" non-ideology from nihilist/egoist perspective. The dive into numerous ITS manifestos certainly drove me outside of my comfort-zone, leaving a great scar in my psychic.
So, my question is: is it even possible to find a critique to "I just want to kill people" non-ideology without moralism and speceism? Is "I just want to kill people" non-ideology has something to be criticized for?
EDIT: Maybe, I'm oversimplifying ITS non-ideology to "I just want to kill people"
]]>But then, reflecting, I was stumbled on a thought "What is my true self-identity without all that cultural levels?" What trait characterize me the most? I always thought it is "empathy". But what can be more meaningless than empathy? Why do I care about people being tortured in prisons? And why do I care relatively less about animals being tortured in food industry?
There is two outcomes: eradicating empathy in myself or removing the taint of speceism from my empathy.
For the first option, what then will left from "me"? Nothing. Maybe that is the whole point? What is value of being "me"? But even such huge nihilist as defasher still cares about people detained in "reeducational" camps!
For the second option, how? Any time when an animal being murdered experiencing the same emotions as when human being murdered? Sounds like titanic labor.
For now, before I figure it out, I will treat my empathy as some sort of atavism. I mean, I do have a tailbone, no matter I like it or not.
Not asking anything, just sharing my thoughts.
]]>