Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dead_battery
its not commitment, its just words.
|
that's true, in a way, but you realize the implications of those words, right? they're massive.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dead_battery
what good comes out of our impetus that we all must value the right things? thats just more chaos. thats allowing the possibility we can all be manipulated the "right" way. its not necessary.
|
it's not that it's a must, it's that we all do it.
ironically enough, right here you're valuing: good (what good?), non-chaos (peace? order?), freedom (non-manipulation), and a kind of minimalist thrift (necessary vs. superfluous?).
earlier you said baudrillard is great, upper class academic marxists are shit.
etc.
i.e.,
you care.
and that's not really nihilism, is it?
to simply debunk stupid social constructs does not a nihilist make. or does it?
even diogenes, who was more radical than any professor of the last few centuries, had his own notion of virtue. i.e. he stood for something.
nihilism is a matter of degrees i suppose. the absolute nihilist would just stop breathing, no?
we can all be like humpty dumpty and decide that a word just means what we choose it to mean, but i think if we want to communicate with some clarity, "nihilism" is one of those words that have too many meanings for their own good and we have to be careful with it and put it into a specific context, e.g., "xix century russian nihilist" or "existential nihilist" or "nietzschean 'passive' nihilism", etc.
in other words, the word alone means too many things at this point to make sense casually on its own. or maybe 'glory' just means 'a nice knock-down argument', after all.