Pleasure

Perhaps there exists a bright-line which dictates that pleasures inevitably result in more pain.  Perhaps (worldly) pleasures are simply best avoided.

Then, however, what becomes of life? Does not the sandwich provide pleasure? It is therefore reasonable to conclude that not all pleasure is to be avoided.

How does one differentiate? Can postulation really provide a means for determining if something will provide more pleasure than pain? Is one not almost constantly a poor observer to make that call?

Biology must have this down on some level. Naturally humans seek pleasure over pain. Humans wish to reproduce and generally that which facilitates this desire is pleasurable.

So, then, does one simply follow biology? Urges? Wants? What if one happens to have enough information to know that the most likely result will be more pain than pleasure? Should one follow urges which are rationalized to be short-lived in pleasure yet long-lived in pain?

Questions into a void, I cast.

You Say Hate, I Say No

The concept of hatred is absurd to the materialist. The nature of all thing is the state in which they were to always eventually exist. The postulation of alternative outcomes and realities beyond purely theoretical and analytical context is absurd for alternate outcomes and realities could never have come to be in this universe as they are now. The soul-believer may argue alternates with the soul as a hinge, but the materialist may not. Hatred is grounded in the belief that something is bad, wrong or evil. These notions may only originate in the comparisons of that which is with that which may have been; however, how things are is all that is and could be. To the materialist, therefore, notions of hatred are absurd as would be cursing the sun for rising. This is easily extended to encompass the entirety of discontent with how things may be. Such things were always to be this way and it is absurd to postulate existence being any other way.

To all those who would say that nihilism is evil or hateful I say that their words stand as a testament to their own closed-mindedness and obscured perspective of thought. Perhaps, eventually, people will stop using the labels of “evil” and “bad” and in their place ask why they feel that way and, ideally, what circumstances and rationalizations (or lack thereof) brought that “evil” person to act as they did; the perpetual use of “evil” spawns irrational hatred which stands as a massive obstacle in the place of human intellectual development which is directly connected to scientific progress.

Surely nihilism is happiness?

Only Idiots Feel Insulted

Consider the scenario where one individual aggressively declares that another individual is unattractive. Naturally the person insulted may become upset. This is absurd for two reasons. Foremost, the first individual is bringing the insult about as a biological desire which resulted from neurological operations. There is no soul to blame, therefore to take offense is synonymous with taking offense to the rock for falling. Alternatively, one may permit the insult to be measured in two components which necessarily compose the reasoning behind the insult. It is possible that the first individual truly does believe that the second is unattractive. In this case the first individual speaks simply their subjective truth and so the second individual need only view the remark as a piece of subjective information which the first individual cannot control. The second component of the insult would be that which is facilitated specifically to cause insult and contains no subjective truth to the first individual; in this case there is no reason to take offense for the first individual is simply lying to achieve their biological goals which is as absurd as blaming that same rock.

What a wonderful thing this grants the nihilist over the moralist. A nihilist is not angry and has no grounds to respond irrationally to insult or be saddened by the petty (or serious, for that matter) remarks of another human.

Surely nihilism is happiness?

Sorry for Apologizing

The idea of regret (and the “apology”) is unfounded. On a social level this practice is reasonable insofar as an expression of sympathy; however, the extension of the practice such that it retains a sort of ethical or moral imperative with meaning is absurd give the premise of materialism. The past could only have reasonably resulted in a single future which makes a notion of acting upon the comparison of multiple possible outcomes or realities unreasonable. One may apologize to the ant for the raindrop which has impaled it out of sympathetic acknowledgment (no doubt driven by biological imperative), but a future in which the raindrop did not hit that very ant is an absurd scenario to postulate for the state of the universe before that moment would have had to be different back to the beginning of space and time. This is an absurd case as a different beginning of space and time would result in unpredictable and extreme alterations to the entire universe and it is entirely possible that no beginning state exists which could reasonably result in the alternate universe being used for comparison.

How liberating this truly is. Religions and morality hold that one should feel unhappy as a result of one’s actions. This creates a system in which one does as they see is necessary, naturally, and for that is asked to express social regret. This creates a very unnecessarily complex and unhappy situation which can only be known as oppressive. We should move for the future and in it seek the treasures of our existence, not dwell in the past with regret and remorse. How sad is the person who wastes more of their limited time by re-living the supposed “mistakes” of the past.

Surely nihilism is happiness?