Anarchy Bang: Introducing Episode 25 - Nihilism

From Anarchy Bang

About 17 years ago I made a proposal. Rather than saying that "do nothing" should be a call to leisure. I called for destruction for its own sake and without the lock-in of historical determinism or even a declaration of an end game. My thought, at the time and now, is that there is no end game when it comes to politics and that a bit of destruction, or nihilism would be a nice palatte cleanser. Time has changed and politics, of the reform away the bad variety, is more popular than ever so it's a great time to revisit nihilism by the small definition I prefer and the big definition that seems to appeal to a new school of kids who basically mean social media mob rules. What worked and what did not insofar as nihilism goes. Is anything worth revisiting. This week includes Damo in house, Ian on the horn, and who knows who else?

Join the conversaion!

Sunday at noon (PST or -7 UTC) on June 23rd at https://anarchybang.com/
Email questions ahead if you like
The real time IRC is a chaotic mess (and pleasure). There are better ways to connect to IRC but it involves some reading
The call in number is (646) 787-8464

There are 64 Comments

I don’t know how the linked article has to do with nihilism.

I was writing some things about fun and about meditation, but it all seems like gibberish now.
I wish nihilism meant nothing should be written or thought ever again.

Arguments and critique can cancel each other out, and anything written can be ridiculed out of circulation.

Can we/should we give up making sense? Nothing makes sense without intrinsic motivation. Plants and insects and single celled organisms have drives to feed and reproduce, and can sense, but not think. Some of these species face extinction even sooner and harsher than us, and they’re not revolting, not dreading the impending doom. Their type of default thoughtless nihilism works for them.

Yo' dude, you're still talking about Anarchy, but I'm talking about NIHILISM!!!

Lol, i’m way past that. Annihilism is what’s in now. We don’t even believe in nihilism. It’s like, you name it, and i’ll say it ain’t real, plus say that anything i say ain’t real either, plus nothing is real, not even this statement, fuck logic, it ain’t real.

an eternal ecstatic climb up your mounds, like sisyphus i thrust my obsidian boulder upwards in wild glee as i let out a dark giggle, delaying a life affirming spritz negation negated detouring it into a sterile void.....

it was "I", the ego-nihilist... waiting but also not waiting for you on top of the mountain, asserting the personal empire of my self-possessed Own-ness, as I sat comfortably on my beach chair under the sun shelter, sipping strawberry lime tea-lemonade, watching the Sisyphus suffering with his life's burden with a sociopathic edgy smile and a manly-manly thousand-yards stare...

upon gazing on such a visage, the visage gazed back at me, and i could no longer contain my freedom which spritzed forth upon said visage, my freedom juice upon said yeux, my wild dagger tamed by your stare

This is the most horrifying Christian philosophy that I have discovered since I came to the realization that the Protestant Reformation was partially inspired by Martin Luther's On the Bondage of the Will.

I feel like I tend to use "nihilist" as a pejorative slur for Existential aporia which is a habit that I am trying to break myself of as I have been partially influenced by Monsiuer and Frére Dupont (I haven't read anything by the other Dupont.) and feel like that might treat the philosophy unfairly. I see the current state of affairs as already being somewhat "nihilist" and see no reason to reify such conditions. Google dictionary defines "Nihilism" as being "the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless." which I wouldn't fully find to be disagreeable, but, I, ultimately, suspect that a world deprived of meaning is not desirable. Why Nihilism? I've met a few Nihilists, but, have never gotten consistent replies as to what the Philosophy is actually about.

Have you read Camus? He deflected the gloom of the nihil-esque stupor into a humorous absurdity, thus making the obvious universal negative fate into something worth living for. Similar to the Nietzschean amor fati.

I haven't read The Stranger, but, I really liked Exile and the Kingdom. To my understanding, Camus was an Existentialist. I have to work on Sunday and so won't be here to ask this, but, I have been wondering, since the philosophy of negation is Sartrean Existentialism, why should someone prefer Nihilism? Do the Nihilists just simply reject Sartre's Humanism? I'd also like to know how Nihilism differs from Existentialism. I've read the Wiki on Nihilism, but, haven't really read much of the philosophy.

You can email them this question, and they’ll read it and answer it and you’ll be able to hear it in the recording!

Nihilism and existentialism are subjective, thus the infinite possibilities.
Don't hurt your head, NOTHING is self-explanatory, and existentialism is putting some soul into the explanations.

I sort of agree. I think that Sartre's attempt to cope with Existentailism via Humanism is a little out of keeping with reality. I like Humanist ideals, but, I'm not terribly sure that they really exist. I think that they 'exist' but not really as some abstract universal, I guess. I think that critiques of Humanism, however, are slanted too far in the way of being against ideals. I'd be interested to see if any philosophies have a sort of "non"-Humanism as opposed to an Anti-Humanism.

Have you read Heidegger or Schopenhauer, some of my favorite non-humanists, oh, not really, I can get into trouble declaring that around liberals, hah?

I have read Schopenhauer. I see Schopenhauer's proto-Existential relativism as being closer to to the truth than it is given credit for. He sort of argues that there is an aristocracy of knowledge, though, and, that only the rah are capable of actualizing upon their "Will". I'm reading Heidegger now. I'm putting it off by doing this, actually. I like Heidegger a lot more than I expected that I would. The concept of Being always already questioning itself I find to be rather interesting. I think that Heidegger's concept of authenticity is where he goes wrong, though. He seems to assume that some modalities of existence are somehow more "authentic" than others and, at least from what I've read so far, doesn't really seem to put forth an arguement as to why or how. I did actually, for years, refuse to read Heidegger in protest of Continental Philosophy's failure to address that he was a Nazi, but, came around to it after having decided to read Carl Schmitt so that I could understand Giorgio Agamben. I figured that if I was going to read "crown jurist of the Third Reich" than I might as well read Martin Heidegger. I'm only so far into Being and Time, but, am suprised that I do, admittedly, actually rather like it.

Yep, Being and Time is a good rap. I think the question of modalities could not accurately be described in MH's era, now I think epigenetics may be a factor.
When people bring up MH's membership with the nazis, I say what about the other 40 million Germans also? Anyway, I bet you've read Barthes, I apply Death of Author argument to any critics of Heidegger.

ever stand up slanted, like Michael Jackson in the “Smooth Criminal” video, just to be edgy???

cuz i have...

NOVATOREEEEEEEEEEE

WEE HEEEEEEEEEEEE
CHAMONA CHAMONA
ANNIE ARE OOOKAYYYYYYYYYY
ARE YOU OKAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
HEEEE HEEEEEEEEEEE

It is relevant. You can't read over 4-500 pages of a philosopher and not take into consideration that they were a member of the NASDAP. I have read Bathes. I do think that the text is totally open for interpretation. Ijdk. I just don't think that he was a Fascist was ever adequately adressed by Continental Philosophy. It's bound to have somehow found it's way into his philosophy. The assumption seems to be that it just simply isn't there, and, while I don't think that anyone really needs to endlessly search for the devil in the details, that that should have somehow been taken into consideration. Sartre effectively saved Heidegger which I don't think that he was necessarily wrong to do, but, I do think that he and the school of thought proceeding from such things did fail to apporach Heidegger's work with enough scrutiny. He sort of thought of himself as being the philosopher king of the Third Reich. Such a disposition is bound to have had an effect upon someone's philosophy. Any text is open to any form of interpretation, though. Where would anyone be otherwise?

Speaking of problematic as fuck and fucked up authors, i recently read a curious insulting of “Society of the Spectacle”, were it not for the fact that it also has unnecessary, inexcusable and unforgivable anti-semitic, sexist and homophobic remarks. I found it by accident while looking around for more info about Debord’s earlier suicide attempt where he tried to gas himself.

https://leuven.pagesperso-orange.fr/arideau.htm

It's been a while since I've read The Society of the Spectacle, but, I don't see how the text is anti-Semitic or homophobic. The film could be percieved as being sexist. He kind of utilizes that Godard pastiche.

Debord, probably under the influence of alcohol, did call Charles-Auguste Bontemps a c*** one time. I wouldn't necessarily put it past him. I do kind of doubt that he is guilty of such charges though.

Yeah...lol

Ok

Ok?

Before text, we would all be communicating in mono-syllabic grunts, humming and singing and sign/body language, which makes sense to me. In between these noises, my girlfriend and I spend most of our time in golden silence.

yeah well my neighbor’s dog barks a lot and in between that i hear crickets

There are members of the ideological alumni of humanism who I like( Paul Goodman, Freddy Pearlman) and I fee Stirner was essentially a post-humanist who did not see it going far enough in regards to pushing lived intercoursive uniqueness.

I think that the concept of non-Humanism is preferrable to anti-Humanism which I think hazards too much in the way of reactionary pathology, but, then again, why should the terms be subject to with what potential they have to be co-opted?

I've just realized that I've never read Freddy Pearlman. Do you have any recommendations?

“Against his-tory, against leviathan” is the one everyone claims to have read or to want to read

Available for purchase at LBC! (Or free thru theanarchistlibrary.org i think)

Cool beans. I've been looking for a good deconstruction of Hobbes.

You've made it through @news bootcamp, in a week you'll be a raving Stirnerian!!

ddd: the continuing appeal of nationalism is a great perlman piece (my fave). against his-story also.

I guess I tend to think that both Nihilism and Existentialism posit that the human condition is absurd. Nihilists seek to accept such circumstances and Existentialists seek to cope with them. To accept such a state of affairs can seem to be liberatory, but, I, ultimately think that people should deviate from them. I guess I see Camus as attempting to overcome Nihilism through humor and not necessarily accepting it. He does, in some way, intend to cope with the state of affairs.

I guess I would liken Camus more to Beckett than Marquis de Sade.

I also don't know how I feel about Nietzsche's "amor fati". It does intend to cope with the human condition, but, I think that he ultimately gives too much way to pessimistic fatalism. Perhaps, I'm just too influenced by Nabakov, though. He has a great bit in the begining of Speak Memory that begins with "The cradle rocks above an abyss." You can find it here: https://thefloatinglibrary.com/2008/10/13/the-cradle-rocks-above-an-abyss/

I guess I feel like you should "rebel against such a state of affairs". You should try to liberate yourself from the pathology of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Ok, I see you are a great reader, I've waned some lately, trying more to poetically condense as much as possible into the fewest words. I want to live and think purely like an animal.
Sorry for not being a good text-wall pal ;)

Eh, It only proves that I have too much time on my hands. We are only animals, after all. Why shouldn't you?

Deleuze and Guattari have a pretty good wanton diatribe on "becoming-animal" in A Thousand Plateaus (Ch.10) if you have the stomach for nearly totally imperceptible faux-academic text.

Oh I've spent past days reading these pomo giants, then I had an epiphany, unsure of whether it was the ideas from books or my own life experiences, omg, wont get into phenomenology, but you know what I mean. After that I dropped the books and began going for long solitary walkß into arid mountain wildernesses. The best blank slate I ever found on which to find ones Stirnerian self.

Wuh?

I've given Stirner too much guff in the past. He's not really the Egotist that the RAND Corporation makes him out to be. I've never been able to get into Stirner, though. I just think that his philosophy is resultant in an aporia of human relations. I guess I believe that it is the case that human beings have a capacity for alturism and that Stirner's thought is a bit too Sophist and solipsistic. I honestly didn't give The Ego and Its Own enough of the time of day, though. Marx notoriously raged against Stirner in spite of that the Stirnerites had comprised a minority amongst the Young Hegelians which is somewhat humorous and absurd. I think that he goes on about him for over 300 pages which could be longer than The Ego and Its Own.

Shame on you *joking* To each our own, I'm a zealous individualist, thus my penchance for Max baby ;)

But yes, Camus did cope very whimsically, and amor fati has an element of drudgery in it, cos defying fate has its exhilarating side to it.

The whimsical aspect proceeding from Absurdism I think is really good. I just think that such things aren't necessarily Nihilist. To me, they would be, more properly, Existential, but, like I said, I, admittedly, don't really know too much about Nihilism, and, can only speak with some degree of proficiency on Existentialism.

The thrill of defying fate can also be seen as being somewhat negative. A person may defy too much as opposed to really dealing with the situation at hand. I guess the whole thing is rather complex.

As "self-help" as it may sound, I really do think that the proper course of action is to figure out how to cope with absurdity of the human condition rather than to adopt various defense mechanisms such as wallowing in angst or writing off too much as being "funny". Perhaps, niether Existentialism nor Nihilism adequately address such conditions, but, I would argue that such axioms would ultimately be Existential.

Yep, should have worded that differently, not defying fate, which has negative rejection still inbuilt, rather, dying a few times inside to really reignite the primal living vitality. Well, that's what my friends attribute my exhilarating positive attitude to life to, my incredible cheerful journey through situations which leave most folk shivering, crying heeps huddled together or kneeling down praying for salvation. Not that I'm callous, but one only lives once, make the most of it as cheerfully as one can, help and care for others along the way if one is able, and don't WHINE.

i’ll reject philosophy (by virtue of not being “a thinker”, yes a dumb), and if nihilism be a philosophy, it goes along with it!

"The show is over. The audience get up to leave their seats. Time to collect their coats and go home. They turn round...No more coats and no more home."
Vasily Rozanov (by way of Vaneigem)

why was i banned from the irc? : (

i’ve been going in the pas sundays and there was nothing bad that happened?

fixed. apologies, the chat client died for a second there. - thecollective_1.8

I hadn't heard Nihilism as being defined as being defined as a belief that the revolution was an impossibility. I could partially agree with that. I'm only part of the way through this, but, this helps to clarify a lot. It's pretty good so far. Thanks for going on about this.

you should have been on the IRC chat or even called in, i was expecting you

Don't you think that " revolution as an impossibility " translates as amor fati's individualized politicized version?

Perhaps. I think that a person can be pessimistic about revolution without necessarily without actualizing upon what could be percieved as being negative about fatalism, though. There's a lot more to life than revolution.

Add new comment