Choosing Nihilism

Related image

Most people live their lives as if they were asleep. They live in a dream-world so to speak. Most people live their lives obeying imaginary concepts, thinking about the past or the future, pretending to be someone else, or simply being oblivious to the harsh, indifferent universe they are inhabitants of of.

But there are a few people in the world who awaken from this dream-world. They awaken and they see that they are surrounded by a dark, unforgiving universe that is indifferent to their feelings. They realize that they are tiny specs, on another tiny spec, floating in a vast, seemingly endless expanse of time and space. They realize that death is more than likely the end of everything – that religion is like a bedtimes story told to people to calm them down and keep them happy. They realize that their lives are most likely meaningless, that life is filled with undeserved suffering, and that they are essentially always alone.

One becomes nihilist or depressive. When one reaches this state there are usually two options. They search for a new meaning – something to try and justify their existence and support their will to live; or they kill themselves.

The former option is the one I have chosen – the one that many people have chosen. I may be a nihilist, but my nihilistic beliefs are what keep me alive.

I have accepted that my life, and every life and every existing thing, is without inherent value – it is all meaningless. I have accepted that life is mostly undeserved suffering, that there is no reward for our pain, and that pain only ends with death. Death is the end of consciousness, the end of ‘you’. There is no afterlife, no reincarnation, no ‘other existence’. Death is non-existence – it is truly the end. I have accepted that hundreds of years from now no one will know who I was or what I did. I have accepted that the sun will explode in 5 billion years, destroying the earth and everything that has ever happened on it.

I have accepted that there are no morals or ethics that are objective – that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are merely subjective human words. There is nothing inherently good, bad, moral, immoral or evil about anything – things just are the way they are.

I have essentially accepted the meaninglessness of my own existence. This is what keeps me alive. It gives me freedom to do what I want. It allows me to live my life unbound by petty morality, social norms, ‘altruistic’ behavior and other notions that keep people in chains.

Being a nihilist has allowed me to break many attachments, and to realize that the secret to tranquility lies in apathy.

When one awakens from, as Kant called it, a ‘dogmatic slumber’, they usually come to see the world as a terrible place with no hope and no meaning. The goal then,  in order to please the human ego, is to find new meaning to live for – a new code, a new set of laws, a new belief system. I have simply chosen nihilism because it is the most flexible.


Nietzsche: The Ubermensch (Part 2)

Image result for nietzsche art

As I discussed in my last post, Nietzsche believed that nihilism was going to sweep across Europe following the ‘death’ of Christianity and objective morality. In order to prevent Europe from sinking into nihilism, Nietzsche believed that man must re-invent himself. Man must become an Ubermensch (German for Superman or Over-man).

An Ubermensch is a man who is able to overcome the herd perspective and is capable of creating a new perspective without dogmatically forcing his perspective on others. By herd perspective, Nietzsche is referring to dogmatic beliefs that are widely held and accepted by society. Many of these beliefs go unquestioned, and thus we live in a sort of ‘herd’ similar to sheep (the term sheeple is probably the best representation of this). By overcoming the herd perspective, a man can free himself and achieve new heights.

The Ubermensch is supposed to act as the answer to the problem of nihilism. Since God is dead, that means there is no objective truth or morality. Thus, an Ubermensch acts as his own ‘God’, abandoning the herd instinct and determining his own morality. He is neither slave nor master, as he does not impose his will on others. He is a master of self-discipline. He must be willing to embrace suffering and learn from it. In a way, the Ubermensch is the next step in human evolution. It’s a new intuition, perspective, and greatness for mankind.

As Nietzsche wrote ‘Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?”

The Ubermensch does not focus on life after death or on other worlds. Rather, an Ubermensch focuses only on his current life. He loves life, and thus embraces it. Nietzsche believed that religion, specifically Christianity, was bad because it taught people to focus more on the idea of an afterlife than on their current existence. Thus, an Ubermensch is the opposite. He does not focus on the afterlife, he only focuses on his life now, on his current existence.

Despite the struggles and suffering that will inevitably come as a result of such an existence, the Ubermensch does not look for ways to ease his suffering. Instead, he embraces the suffering and uses it to his advantage. As Nietzsche said, ‘that which does not kill us makes us stronger.’ An Ubermensch must use the pain and suffering they feel to better themselves. They cannot turn away or try to subdue the pain. Rather, they should use the pain they feel as motivation to take control of their lives.

We always try to give a meaning to our suffering. For example, a Christian will suffer and believe that once they die, the will go to Heaven – a place of eternal peace. Similarity, a Buddhist or Hindu suffers because they believe that eventually they will break samsara (the cycle of rebirth) and this ascent to Nirvana or Moksha (also a place of eternal bliss or peace). Basically, when we suffer we try to tell ourselves that it is for a reason. But with nihilism, it would mean that our suffering is meaningless. We suffer for no reason, and there will be no positive outcome from our suffering. We suffer and that’s that. There is no meaning, no end goal.

The idea of an Ubermensch was supposed to give meaning to suffering. In other words, mankind will suffer because by suffering they can become the Ubermensch. Thus, suffering no longer seems meaningless.

There is no objective way of achieving the Ubermensch. It is an individual process, and thus can differ from person to person. A person becomes an Ubermensch by themselves – they create their own path towards the overman. Personally, I like to image that there are two cliffs.

On one side is man, and on the other side is the Ubermensch. Below is a dark, seemingly endless abyss. The goal for the man is to reach the other side. How he does this up to him. Maybe he builds a bridge, or perhaps he attempts to jump. Perhaps he goes down to the bottom of the abyss and climbs back to the top on the other side. There are numerous ways to reach the other side – none of them are really ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. It all depends on the individual. In order to become an Ubermensch, the individual must do it themselves.

Again, there is no ‘one’ way to become an Ubermensch, however Nietzsche did give some advice on how to achieve it. This included abstaining from alcohol and religion and accepting that our desires dictate our lives – and therefore we should use envy as a guide to try and get what we want. By abstaining from things that numb our pain (such as alcohol or religion), we can see the world as it truly is and thus overcome it.

The Ubermensch is supposed to act as the cure for mankind’s current illness. Perhaps the greatest test for the Ubermensch is the Eternal Recurrence, which I will explain in part 3


Image result for monks with guns
I am a very strong supporter of the idea that people should be armed with weapons. To say ‘I support the Second Amendment’ would seem hypocritical though, at least to me, seeing as how I view the constitution as nothing more than a worthless piece of paper. Nonetheless, I guess you could say I am very pro-gun, in that I do believe people should be able to own guns for personal use. I do not care what kinds of guns – automatics, glocks, an AK47 with a grenade launcher. I take things one step further though, and I ultimately believe that people should be able to own any weapons they want. Brass knuckles for some reason are illegal in most states, yet I think that they are a legitimate form of defense. If a person wants to buy and own a grenade, a land mine, a sawed-off shotgun, a missile, a working tank, a fighter jet – honestly I am not opposed to making any of these things illegal. If a person wants to own a weapon, and if they are willing to pay for it, then by all means they should have it.
But I digress. The point of this post is to show that I am very pro-gun (pro-weapon is more accurate term actually). One of the things that bothers me the most are those miserable liberals who want to not only ban certain weapons, but they want the government to take away weapons that people already possess. The worst kind of liberals are those that want to ban all guns in general, or enact a very strict gun law similar to ones in Europe. The idea of civilians being disarmed, and having only the military and police have firearms is a thought that disgusts me. I do not trust the police or the military. They are simply puppets to the government. People need weapons (like guns) to protect themselves not only from criminals, but from the police and military. The whole idea behind the Second Amendment was that, in case of an emergency, the common folk would be armed and able to defend themselves. While I don’t care for the constitution, the reasoning behind the Second Amendment’s creation is logically sound and understandable – weapons protect people.
Another reason I am pro-gun is because gun ownership is very individualistic in nature. A man with a gun is able to protect himself and those he cares for. Without a gun, a man must rely on the police or military to protect him. A man must essentially give away his ‘freedom’ to protect himself. His fate is now largely in the hands of the police and military. This idea is a dream for liberals though. Liberals are like children and they view the government as a strong adult – they want to be taken care of, provided for and protected. The liberals cannot do these things themselves, and thus any person who espouses a lifestyle of individualism, self-protection and resourcefulness is deemed a threat to them.
Guns are a necessary tool that man must use for self-defense. Liberals talk about championing “equality” – yet they are opposed to guns, which essentially make everyone equal. Think about it – it doesn’t matter what gender, or race, or height or weight or sexuality a person is – a gun will protect them better than if they had only their bare hands. On a one-on-one fight between a 6’7 300 pound linebacker and a 5’6 100 pound woman – there is no denying that the 6’7 guy would win. But if each one of them had a gun then it would be a ‘fair’ fight for the most part – or at least, it would be a much fairer fight than the two of them going one-on-one. Guns make people equal, or at least near the same level.
The other hypocritical thing about liberals is that they are constantly bashing the police for brutality, or the military for its many aggressive acts of war and violence towards civilians – yet these same liberals want these same police and military to be the only ones allowed to own guns.
These same liberals seem to believe that banning guns will help end crime, or it will stop school shootings. But again, banning things never seems to work. The government banned marijuana and yet the plant is practically everywhere in the US. The government banned numerous other drugs and yet, with not much effort, one can easily find a drug dealer who can sell you an illegal drug. If banning drugs did not work than how will banning guns work?
A person who wants to shoot up a school or commit a terrorist attack will do whatever means necessary to obtain a gun. They won’t think “oh no, guns are illegal. I guess I won’t shoot up that school now”. No – if a person is really that psychotic to even contemplate on shooting up a school then surely some petty little law won’t stop them from going underground and finding an illegal arms dealer.
Are guns dangerous? Yes, they are. But so is just about everything else. Cars, airplanes, the food we eat, the technology we use – all of its dangerous. Indeed, dangerous things are usually quite fun (at least to me). A world without dangerous things would be a boring world. But I digress.
I am against any form of gun regulation or ban. I see any form of gun control as nothing more than an authoritarian attempt to limit mans freedom and to make him dependent on the government.
Guns should not be made illegal and they should not be regulated. I do not need the police or the military to protect me – I can protect myself with my own weapons, as should every other man who is not an absolute leech.


‘Those Who Think For Themselves’

Image result for avant garde art

I mentioned this briefly in the last post, and decided that the subject deserved a separate post of its own. The term ‘Those Who Think For Themselves’ is, in my opinion, a term that refers to those few individuals who do not care for conformity, socially-acceptable social norms, or the general herd-mentality. These rare individuals are people who truly ‘Think For Themselves’ – they think about themselves, they know what they want, and they are not afraid of expressing what they want or doing whatever seems necessarily in order to obtain what they want. This last part is crucial to the the idea of people who ‘Think For Themselves’ – because there are many of us who may know what we want, but we are afraid to chase after it – either because we are afraid of the consequences or because we lack the will power to see it through.

Just off of the top of my head, I would say individuals who represent the ‘Think For Themselves” category include Friedrich Nietzsche, Varg Vikernes, Aliester Crowley, Charles Manson, Julius Evola, the Unabomber, and Yang Zhu. Now, I do not agree or support all of these people (Varg is a racist and convicted murderer, Manson is an insane psychopath), but the point is not that I agree with these individuals, the point is that I believe these to be individuals who truly ‘Think For Themselves’. These individuals had no concern regarding the norms or restrictions imposed on them by both laws and society in general. These individuals were willingly to go to extreme lengths to explain, showcase, spread and express their unconventional, unique views – and it is because of this that I classify them as ‘Those Who Think for Themselves’. All you have to do is look up each one of these individuals, read their viewpoints and beliefs and you will surely see what I mean.

Thinking for yourself is a hard task, but in the end you do become a unique individual, and not some commonplace sheep. Be radical. Be different. Do not be afraid of expressing your views or being a person who against the conventional modern world.

On Consistency

Image result for inconsistency art

For some reason people seem to love consistency. I mean this in the sense of consistency of ideas. This is especially true in the world of philosophy/politics. People seem to prize themselves on being adamant. And yet I do not understand why.

Everything is subject to change. Change is natural, change is inevitable, and change is everywhere. Yet, whenever someone ‘changes’ their opinion they seem to get alot of backlash. In regards to politics, people who change opinions more than once are viewed as being unreliable, or a ‘flip-flop’. The idea of say, a Communist becoming a Fascist is somehow a ‘bad thing’ so to say. If a person switches from being a Communist to being a Fascist, I guarantee many people will bring this up as a negative. They will say things such as ‘oh, well that guy was a communist at one point in his life, so why should we take his opinion seriously’ or ‘well that guy switched from being a communist to a fascist, so we shouldn’t listen to his ideas, because he clearly doesn’t know what hes doing’.

Of course this is only one example. A person who switches religions will probably get hate from his previous religion, and people in his new religion may view themselves as being better than him (since they were in the religion from the beginning). Lets say a person coverts from Christianity to Buddhism. His Christian friends will view him as a traitor, and his Buddhist friends will think ‘well he may be a Buddhist, but he has not been a Buddhist as long as I have,’ or ‘he may be a Buddhist now but he was once a Christian’.

Of course these are simply allegories but still. The point is that people dont seem to like change. They want consistency. People who are adamant are prideful of this. People are always bragging about how long they’ve been this, or how long they’ve been that. How long they have been a member of X organization, or more importantly, how loyal they have been to that organization. This is especially evident in Conservative religious groups, who pride themselves on how they have ‘never strayed from tradition’. Even the liberals, who claim to be proponents of change and progress – they too like to brag about how long they’ve supported X belief. They mention how they have always supported Gay Rights since its conception, or how they have been pro-choice since the creation of birth control – or something like that. In other words, both groups use their ‘well we’ve been supporting X since so-and-so year’ which is essentially another form of saying ‘look how consistent we are’.

In my opinion everything is subject to change. Change is natural, and people should not be afraid to change. If you want to change religions then do so! If you want to change political parties then do so! You dont even have to have a radical ‘change’ so to speak, yet most people will try hard to say consistent.

For example, there are some people in the Republican Party who were once pro-life but are now secretly pro-choice, but they do not want to admit this. Why? Because this would seem inconsistent. By disagreeing with one tenet of their party, they will come off as being ‘not in line’ with the rest of the party.

Many people are afraid of researching or reading about ideas that may conflict with their own. Why? Because they are afraid that they may find something that will change their minds and opinions. They are afraid that they may like what they have read and thus must now make a decision – should they change opinions and face scrutiny or conceal their true feelings and wear a mask in order to seem consistent.

I met one man, a Catholic, who said that he was interested in Satanism (not interested as in he wanted to become a Satanist, but interested as in he was fascinated with its ideas and was curious about it; similar how a person may be interested in say, baseball. It doesn’t mean they want to become a baseball player, it just means that they want to know more about it). Anyway, this Catholic man said that he was interested in Satanism but that he did not want to read any more about it because he was afraid he might like it, or agree with. And of course I asked ‘so what if you like it? If you prefer Satanism, then become a Satanist.’ But he did not want to become a Satanist even if he liked its ideals, simply because he was afraid of changing ideas.

He was raised a Catholic, and he was afraid of anything that might turn him away from being a Catholic. Thus, subconsciously speaking, this man was afraid of being inconsistent. To go from being a Catholic to a Satanist is very inconsistent – you are essentially adopting the anti-thesis of your previous beliefs.

And why was he afraid of being inconsistent? Because our society seems to prize consistency. We do not like change, as I have mentioned above, and we do many things to try and discourage change. Sure, we tell people to ‘think for themselves’ – but people who really do ‘think for themselves’ end up like Nietzsche, or Charles Manson, or the Unabomber. Now, I am not saying all people who ‘think for themselves’ become terrorists or killers (hence Nietzsche), but what I am saying is that people who really do ‘think for themselves’ tend to become very distant from societies rules.

Society does not want too much change, because society is based off of consistency. A society functions best when everything follows a certain pattern. Change is detrimental, and thus there seems to be this unconscious fear that anything ‘inconsistent’ is somehow bad. Thus, we look down on people who are inconsistent. We view them as being unreliable or untrustworthy. We view them as being lower than those that never change their views.

A person who rarely changes views will probably hold themselves very highly. They will probably think that they are always right, and that is why they have never had to change their views. But I largely disagree. A person who remains adamant is not necessarily right, they are simply afraid of changing views because it will look inconsistent. Whether consciously or unconsciously, they refuse to admit that they may be wrong, and thus stubbornly hold on to their beliefs.

I personally do not mind inconsistency. As I have mentioned above, change is natural. Change you views! Change them as much as you want! There is no law, neither man-made nor natural, that states you must believe X all your life, or that you can only change opinions X amount of times! You are free to change your views as much as you want! So do it! If you want to change your views and admit it to the world than you should! Who cares about consistency? I dont, thats for sure.

The world is a chaotic place. I do not see why opinions should be any different. If you really want to be true to yourself then you will believe what you want to believe and will admit it proudly – regardless of how ‘inconsistent’ your ideas may appear over time.

On Morals

Image result for ubermensch

I do believe I have mentioned my views on morals in the past, but I have never made a full post dedicated to my position on morals. Basically I believe that morals are subjective. There is no such thing as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – at least not in an objective sense. ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ are merely human words – human creations. Same goes for terms such as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, or ‘evil’ or of course, ‘moral/immoral’. Tell me, is there any scientific proof or say, a mathematical formula that proves morals exist? Is there some kind of equation that shows ‘X is immoral’ or ‘Y is moral’? No, there is not. Why? Because science, which is based on objectivity – is emotionless. Science does not depend on emotion – morals do. Morals are based entirely on emotions. How X action makes a person feels determines if X action will be viewed as moral or immoral by that person. If an action upsets a person, then that action will be viewed as being immoral. If an action pleases a person, then it will be viewed as being moral. And of course, what pleases/diseases people varies from person to person, thus indicating the subjectivity of morals.

What upsets me is when people act as if morals truly are naturally good or bad. As if there really is some ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ characteristic inherently sewn into an action or thought. There is not. An action is simply an action. A thought is simply a thought.

Morals are just concepts created by an advanced consciousness. Humans love to categorize and arrange things – they want everything to be organized and meaningful. Hence they developed ‘morals’ – sets of rules that other humans must live by in order to ‘fit in’.

Most of the ‘morals’ that people abide by are pathetic. They simply believe what they are told to believe and follow them through. A person who follows the morals of others is too weak and too stupid to think for themselves. They need other people to tell them how to act. They need other people to tell them what is right and what is wrong. They need guidance – they cannot handle the responsibility of creating their own moral code. They cannot think for themselves and indeed, they hate the thought of thinking for themselves. Thinking for oneself is a dangerous game, and one that does not always result in comforting answers. No – it is much easier to simply accept what you’ve been told than to think for yourself – and this is of course where morals come in. Where people tell you what is right and wrong and you believe them because its easier than actually contemplating on how fragile ethics are.

And of course what I advocate for is creating ones own moral code! Since morals are subjective, you might as well create a moral code that is in line with your own desires. You might as well follow your own code that will work to your benefit.

Or perhaps you do not want a moral code at all. That is fine too. Have no morals whatsoever. Be absolutely free from even your own restrictions. It is a challenge but nonetheless a possibility.

Overall, I believe morals are subjective and that ultimately you are free to create your own ideals on what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ (and you should).