Nihl: Comming Up Short To Nothing

As a nihilist some issues about 'authority' will and do come up as an argument against the reality of nihilism. One such issue is the argument against a nihilist even being able to generate 'meaning' due to the fact that a nihilist sees no 'intrinsic meaning' in life. I in no way believe that 'personal meaning' is not a thing that we can create and utilize, rather that cosmically all things are meaningless and worthless. This is actually wonderful because we are thereby not bound to some 'intrinsic' meaning that dictates our valuation of both our own personal lives as well as the lives of others. A good example is the idea of say someone's family heirloom, it has no meaning to those without a connection to the heirloom itself, but perhaps great meaning to those who value it. As an object in and of itself it has no valuation at all, it can neither value itself nor contain any intrinsic value of its own; we bring to value. The very concept of life also has a similar valuation, the difference is that we are not inanimate objects, and so we value ourselves and others despite the obvious cosmic insignificance that we present. This in no way is to be depressing, rather it should be relaxing, it means that in the end all is for nothing, and while this may cause some great anxiety, it is in truth a perfectly acceptable truth. It should calm most anyone, as it shows what the world was like before we were born and what it will inevitably be like after our extinction. It in no way takes away the beauty of life, the struggle that life faces in the void of emptiness; the inevitable return to said emptiness. It may at first seem horrid, terrible, or depressing, but as with all things sad and difficult, acceptance allows us to move on from our grief that we are not ultimately significant to the universe and even to life itself.

However, even after accepting such a thing a nihilist will come across the argument of "How shall we live?" and before one can answer the follow up will be "How can you have any significant say on the matter, given the fact that anything you prescribe is basically an emotive opinion?" In this regard their is no concrete answer to provide, realistically a nihilist may use the descriptive powers of science to make arguments, they may outline a preferred system that they champion as a 'better system of life' but they would have as much 'authority' in both a moral and  subjective sense as anyone else. This however proves the point that the nihilist's arguments are no more valid or invalid than anyone else, on the contrary I would argue that they are slightly more honest; being as their positions are argued from the place that nothing but humans are the definers, movers, shakers, designers, and enforcers of society and its values. A theological positions, for example, would perhaps argue that God is the prime mover of all things moral and valuable; this has, as history has shown, proven nothing about their claims as true. Quite literally though they and their multiple splinter groups have shown that their humanity proves that they cannot agree and are perpetually diverging from one another in arguing about "who is right" from a concrete theological prospective; throwing out the idea of the 'concrete' bit allows us to see our systems as they are, human made constructions who serve us, not the other way around. This says nothing of the seemingly suicidal and destructive nature of some religious systems. I often find that the desire to 'bring on the end times' is much more disturbing than realizing the cosmic worthlessness of ourselves. The reality that we are the ones who create and shape our temporal meaning and worth in the here and now.

In other words, a nihilist cannot make a 'concrete value/moral claim' and recognizes as such. This in no way means that a nihilist cannot live by moral principles and even attempt to enforce or convince others of such morals or valuations; as personal meaning and personal moral judgment are things unique to the conscious mind and thereby generated as reaction to the world around us; willingly or unwillingly. The fact that we value and create morality is more of a reflection on the reality that the creation of valuation and morality has allowed us to generate greater survival mechanisms rather than the intrinsic existence of either morality or value. Value and morality are in fact creations from our emotional reaction of the world around us and the effects it has upon us and those things around us that we interact with, they are generated by us so as to attempt to create a system by which predictability can be established. A 'moral and ethical' society, aka a place where people generally know the ins and outs of human interaction, is a society more conducive to predictability and therefore easier to navigate and secure one's own survival. Thus morals are adaptations of the species
to continue its existence, this would be one of the general scientific descriptions of the 'purpose' of morality; this in no way means that a valuation of morality has taken place. The fact that a species would view an adaptation that secures its own survival as 'good' is entirely coincidental to the description; just as describing sex's biological function does not in any way commutate its 'value' as an experience in pleasure, that's just coincidental that sex as an activity has evolved to include pleasure, which itself happens to be seen as 'good' by the species.

I do understand that there will be some people who will view the lack of authoritative morality and valuation as a problem. The issue I see with this however seems to me that such a thing has never existed in the first place and that we have been behaving in this nihilistic framework the entire time and just have not recognized it as such. Let us take the example of Christianity, some people in the community argue to care for the poor, some argue that none shall eat if the don't work, which of these has more authority than the other, which is more moral? The answer is that on both sides they see themselves as moral and authoritative, I rest my case, they are participating in individual and group valuation and morality; neither is more authoritative nor more 'correct' they are humans arguing over human arguments. Either could make a case, such a case could or could not be persuasive to their fellow humans sentiments, but in the end they are both emoting their desires based purely on nothing but themselves. Neither is 'right' and neither is 'wrong' this is not an attempt to play the both sides are the same, rather that neither of them have some special authority over the other. They can argue which system would work more fluidly to establish a more predictable society and make life for the species less unpleasant perhaps, but that is about the only descriptor beyond the emotional that they have, and they will both use the emotional as the bulwark of their argument; with or without the scientific descriptors to back it up. This can be applied to anything, religion, politics, economics, anything that is not a physically concrete thing, anything in idea space can fall under this line of argumentation.

Now I understand that even some people who may indeed view themselves as receptive to nihilism at this point may shake their heads and say, "Now that's where you lose me. I cannot accept this reasoning. Not because it may indeed seem to be correct, but because it would grant that morality and valuation do not exist and thereby this makes my arguments against what I would deem immoral behavior to be that much the harder to argue against." Now, while I concede that this may indeed be true, I again would argue that nothing really has changed. We as humans will still be arguing the same points, but we will be arguing them more honestly now. In many arguments within our society, what we are arguing is about our preferences, and what those preferences are, are preferences of predictability. We are fighting about how we want the gears of society to turn, which cogs do we wish placed where, for what purpose and to what end. What we are arguing is how we will construct our civilization, and this is very important, it is very personal to each and every one of us; for one glaring reason. We are the only ones coming to save us. We build and tear down, we despair and inspire, we grow and we change; this is the magic that is our lives. A purposeless existence is like a blank canvas to an artist, full of possibilities and more beautiful that we can imagine; not because of the blankness on the slate, rather for the color pallet of the artist, and we are the artists. And I, as a writer, pen the moments of my story with intent and creativity; with limited understanding and blurred comprehension. Yet my words, as are all of our words, stained upon the parchment, are bound to time; the pages drying, paper cracking, and the wind sweeping up and away to dust, forever to be forgotten, forever to be lost. Each book has a story, and each story is lost; this does not diminish its beauty, while it lasts.

The Feedback Test

Placed into position of understanding that one can see beyond time to a slight extent. One is given the view of options that one could live one's life. The first choice is a life a short term pleasure, though this is the highest level of pleasure one could attain, for the whole of one's physical life; though nothing of any lasting impact will be left behind after death and you will be completely unknown. The second is a life of struggle and difficulty, yet some of it will remain for other persons to glean from an admire; these things will also be perceived as having done 'great things' for society, however, they will be forgotten ten years after your death and no one will remember you or what you did. The third and final possibility will be to live a life of sorrow and suffering unparalleled and die in misery, but you will be viewed as a hero and lauded as one of the greatest people to have ever lived; though after one-hundred years you will be utterly expunged from mental history and the minds of all people. Which would you choose, given the reality that in all three scenarios you and your actions will be forgotten utterly?

Analytics: When The Watchdog Is Tamed By The Burglar

The complacency of the modern media to the power elite is and has become a truly disgusting and unnerving trend in our societal realm of discourse. We have watched as the watchdog of the powerful has become the guard dog of the privileged; as they walk right on in and strip all and every thing not nailed down. How and why has this occurred? This is an unpleasant truth to recognize, but one I think that all journalists are faced with in a real world scenario on a day to day basis.

Why do the journalists 'sell out' to the powerful? For power itself. Power comes in many forms, as we all know, it comes in the form of money, it comes in the form of access, friendships, higher levels of autonomy are granted the more complacent and less critical you become of the one you are watching; its easier to fuck someone when they don't think you're judging them constantly. As such we find that the media is under a certain level of pressure from the powerful, by the very offer of power itself, and can there by be corrupted by it. As we all know, their are two powers the media can possess, but they can only have one; not both. Either you will wield the power of the public, which oft comes with little but the warmth of self congratulation and the knowledge of doing one's own journalistic integrity; things which do not usually come with many friends in high places. Or the power of access and money, in societies where the government runs the media, flatter the government, in societies where capitalism and the profit motive reign, kowtow to the rich and the powerful for access and higher ratings. Each are corruptive influences that remove a certain level of objectivity.

As a journalist, the media in general, fear should be the thing the powerful should have in the back of their minds when you are around. They should be uncomfortable, if they have something to hide, and you should have the air about you of a bloodhound; searching for the truth, wherever it may lead. But under a system where money is the motivating factor of ones livelihood, it is the source of the money, in any system, that is most corruptive of all. Where are journalists getting the funds to pay their bills, Is it run for profit, is it run by the government? Thus, one can only surmise that all news, in the best case scenario, is and should be run as a non-profit enterprise. We cannot find ourselves dependent on persons whom are dependent on the same persons they are meant to be most critical of; not friendly.

In capitalist economies the profit motive has ruined objectivity and real investigative and in-depth journalism in favor of gossip and access to the powerful byway of softball questioning and flattering episodes of humanizing interviews with those with the most power over the weaker among us. This is both an offence and a disservice to the very concept of the media and the very profession of journalism. It has rendered both of these things into corporate propaganda machines tailor made to promote the irresponsible acts of journalistic negligence upon an unwitting public so as to prolong the redistribution of national wealth from the masses to the wealthy. As the process of journalistic watering down has continued the profession seems more and more to have the look and feel of reality television; with nothing but 'shock' and 'he said she said' types of gossip yellow journalism. This is how truth is reduced to disinformation and how peoples knowledge becomes confused by the perpetual white noise of incessant mediocrity and confusion. This byproduct of the profit motive upon the media, and thereby the masses, creates a grotesquely misshapen idea of what journalism even appears to be. In our profit motive news infrastructure have witnessed gross censorship of certain information. Opinions not conducive to the wealthy or the powerful, things that, if aired, would threaten access or money influx, are either briefly mentioned with a passing comment, or are not even acknowledged as having even occurred at all. This type of control over information brings society into a dangerously close proximity to a type of lifestyle that we have often seen in the nightmares of human history.

The profit motive must be removed from journalism, it has created a mass disinformation network the likes of which we have only seen in totalitarian regimes. Both, total government control and profit motive are not trustworthy means to allow journalism to exist; as it fosters the issues of money, access, and censorship. Under either the press feels the pressure to 'make nice' with those whom hold the reigns of power and attempt to garner trust; thereby corrupting their objectivity and their critical faculties that would inform them to inform the masses of any wrongdoing. This is a very important part of the system of society, when the press is corrupt, when it is broken, we cannot reform, we cannot bring ourselves even begin to speak about justice when we do not even know that injustice has even occurred or that it was even unjust to begin with; as the inquiry and the judgment/framing of the offence is the duty of the media.

As such, the media is required, should it wish to be an arm of human decency, to be a member of broader society; not an arm of the powerful few. The media is, and should be, the people, it should reflect their hopes, dreams, struggles and nightmares. A non-profit media seems requisite; as a self-righteous for profit media with the wings of justice seems to me to be either a fantasy or a brief anomaly in the practice of for profit industry. We must understand that corruption of ideals and decency never occurs instantly, that people do not often even notice their own moral and ethical capture at the hands of the powerful and uncaring system that lords over the human peoples of the world. The media needs be immersed in humanity, drowning in the morass of the human experience; that experienced reflected in the very suffering that we as humans wish to soon forget and push aside as reflecting upon it causes great discomfort. The media must be courageous and forthright enough to venture into those places long ignored, those places off the path, those places where eyes dare not, or do not, travel. They must be a light who chooses to wander in the darkest patches of our world, with intent, seeking out the blight and the sorrow, the pain and the rot, those places we've forgot; for in this atmosphere of spectacle and short attention spans we forget both the immensity of the suffering and the power we have to alleviate it. The media, journalists, artists, and the dreamers of the human experience, both perceived and real, are to be here with us, with the people, the masses, reflecting both the beauty of fantasy, but also the horror of reality and its ever present effect upon us all. They must be willing to suffer with the miserable, must be willing to discomfort the well to do, they must wish the hatred upon themselves of those with the most power, influence, and access in order to understand that to be with the public is, more oft than not, to be against the powerful. The media, the greatest threat to those in power, should be neither government nor corporate, must be an independent body of humanity. This is the mandate of the media, the commandment of knowledge, that truth has no price too great to pay for it and no one can keep it from us.

Valuation: What It Feels Like

   Now I have been struggling to find a beautiful illustration for why it is nihilism is not to be feared, on the contrary, it should be seen as a beautiful thing. After much pondering I think that I have found it, it is odd but reassuring in a way. For most of my life I have always been of the opinion that "it is not what I feel or think about myself or my work that is what matters, rather it is what others perceive that denotes its worth." And that was just it, this statement applies to all things, including myself, that was what I was missing in my description of beauty for the concept of nihilism. This is not to diminish the concept of self-worth which any individual can and does bestow upon one's self. No, this is rather a realization that even self-worth is something appointed by a thinking mind onto itself and thereby making a thing that would have had no initial value garner the mantle of 'value' by its very own valuation. As such the mind is valuing itself, though it is valueless in and of itself, and thus the value bestowed upon it is firstly of its own narrow individual perspective.

   But here is the beauty, the part that is unique to nihilism in and of itself, for it is one thing for one to value oneself, it is another thing entirely for another to value you, to be seen as valuable by another mind is and should be aw inspiring, to be an object of value to another person, a thing that they view as worthwhile and important to their own existence and happiness. The most powerful words a nihilist can say or can be told are "I love you" or "Happy birthday" or other such life affirming and existence celebrating statements. They push forth the desire for one to exist, the pleasure and joy derived from the presence of another, and the self-imposed/generated valuation that either the observer or the observed can and does place upon the one being valued.

   Nihilism is life celebratory, it should be a thing that creates within us a feeling of gratefulness that we exist at all; that we even can experience consciousness, however brief it is. Yes, all things are for naught cosmically, but this in no way means that the momentary is not beautiful because it does not last forever; on the contrary, the flower is even more beautiful because we know that we cannot appreciate it forever, for if it always stayed in bloom we would find it mundane and average. We mourn the deaths of those we value because we know that no one else is them, they are the only one of themselves that we will ever know and so we bask in their presence in the momentary while we can. Us applying value to others gives them the feeling of being valued, for without our valuation of them they would only have the lonely approximation of themselves to fall back on. And so, all I as a nihilist can say is "Everyday, tell the ones you love that you love them. Say it in passing, say it with a kiss on the cheek, say it before they leave, before they sleep, before you hang up the phone. No one hates to be loved, for love is the greatest act of valuation to be bestowed upon another."

   In a meaningless world divest of intrinsic value, we must settle for the feeble human valuations of our fellows, of our families, of our friends and our lovers. Are they cosmically significant to the universe? No. Do they mean the world to us? Yes. This is the wonder of nihilism, that it makes us equals on the scale, we value and we are valued in turn, there is no cosmic force that values or scorns us, rather it is only us that does that. Saying "I love you" can be a powerful thing under certain circumstances, but so is another thing, a reverse more horrid that hate on a nihilistic framework, the statement of "I wish you had never been born" the ultimate desire for the destruction of all of an individual's personal and collective value; to desire this is to desire both the removal of the value attributed by the self of the individual and the value of all who value said person. This is the most cruel thing to desire under a nihilistic framework, because it desires that even the brief experience of life experienced would have been better without the experience of another; in all possible ways, by all possible people.