Help me bring nihilism to an END
Importantly, surely in a world of natura pura one is only able
to imagine that God came down and assumed human nature (homo
assumptus), that is, he adopted human nature, which of course was
really different from the divine, just as nature was really different
from grace, or absolutely different. In addition, the first Adam was
just that, the indigenous inhabitant of the world of natura pura, and
he was made in the image of God, for how could they be made in
the image of the second Adam, which would be nonsensical in such
a serial world. Now in the world of natura pura, there had been a
veritable revolution in terms of knowledge. Rather surprisingly, in
this world people were able to abort unborn babies at will (caring
more about polar bears, which were a protected species unlike
human babies), and end the life of the elderly, efficiently and
painlessly, of course. And even more odd, to say the least, the very
existence of humans was now doubted by the most learned. Now
of course there had been something called natural law, but the only
problem was that only one tribe among many actually believed in it.
Nihilism is the most ‘uncanny of guests’ (Nietzsche), so how do we
approach it? How does one choose nihilism? These types of question are
‘wrongheaded’, because if nihilism were the case then it could not be
chosen. Indeed, nihilism is the absence of all choice. But this absence
comes in the form of a particular ‘plenitude’. For nihilism to be ‘possible’
it must not be a choice, but must be, in a sense, every choice, in that every
choice must be available to it. The reason for this is quite simple. Nihilism
is typically characterised in terms of ‘lack’. Nihilism, it is argued, is a lack
of values, a lack of God, substance, horizons, and so on. If this were the
case then nihilism would not amount to much. If nihilism were to be
found wanting, then we could easily surmount an attack, utilising this
perceived lack as the basis for such an offensive. This is wholly to miss the
point. If nihilism is the case then it does not lack anything, or more
accurately, it does not ‘lack in lacking’. This conundrum merely points to
the obvious fact that nihilism may lack God, but it also lacks this lack of
God. Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin'If you wanna be with me
Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin' Accompanying any radical absence is an absence of absence, and so
to attribute a negativity to nihilism is one-sided. This type of accusation
articulates its protestation only ‘within the sides’ of a metaphysical
imputation, since it must presume the absence of nihilism so as to be able
to accuse it.
Pro-choice? More like pro-nihilist corpse fucking polar bear loving hippy materialist atheist shit hugging cunts. (PRAISE YHWH)
Behind every materialism/atheism/naturism lies a sexually confused overweight 17 year old girl living in a garage in Alabama.
HEGEL catfish'd you all into believing that NOTHING was actually BEING.nihilism is not dynamic becoming. its like a fake Hawaiian girlfriend can't read his can't read his, no you couldn't read his poker face
bluffin' with my muffin
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I read a book written by him, and I am unsure if it actually said anything.