this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2026
680 points (98.7% liked)

Greentext

8708 readers
1117 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] csolisr@hub.azkware.net 74 points 6 days ago (3 children)

To a few philosophers, particularly the hardcore rationalists, Nietzsche's struggle for self-ownership as meaning was, in modern terms, a truckload of copium

[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz 12 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I can see the argument for that. It kind of fits the narrative of ~~"slave morality"~~. Can I read these philosophers statements? I kind of want to know what they're about

Edit: completely misspoke. Don't know wtf I was talking about there

[–] csolisr@hub.azkware.net 8 points 6 days ago (19 children)

On the rationalist hub per excellence, LessWrong: lesswrong.com/posts/NxYgL5nPMT…

Criticism of Nietzsche has been out there for a good while. Bertrand Russell, for example, wasn't a fan of Nietzsche, calling his ideology "an appeal to the emotions": reddit.com/r/Nietzsche/comment…

Calling Nietzsche's philosophy "irrationalist" is still a common trend: monthlyreview.org/articles/on-…

Even Marxists hammer on Nietzsche's hardcore individualism: queer-bolshevik.medium.com/a-c…

[–] JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 13 points 6 days ago (2 children)

The fact that I know about LessWrong because of Behind the Bastards should say a whole lot about how "moral" their "rationalism" really neither of those things and personally I feel like their thought predecessors would be pretty embarrassed by them

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 days ago (8 children)

Britt Hartley takes existentialists to the woodshed, pointing out that it's a fine philosophy if you're living a comfortable life, but if nothing means anything and your life sucks, might as well put a quarter in the suicide booth if existential philosophy is all you have.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (6 children)

Is that a refutation? I admit, when I consider how my distant ancestors and the majority of humans throughout history lived, I wonder why they chose to go on, and to create new generations who also lived lives like theirs, and the only answer I have is that they lacked perspective. Maybe a philosophy that teaches one to refuse a life without dignity is, in that context, correct philosophy.

[–] Antares@fedinsfw.app 9 points 6 days ago

Lots more community. Relationships and physical play (e.g. sports, theater, art, ritual, dance etc.) were the primary form of entertainment. Brains were capable of enduring in silence for 10 minutes without exploding in anxiety. Plant medicines were socially acceptable including "drugs".

Yeah there were diseases, famines, wars, etc. But these weren't constant threats, often regional until empire developed with (inter)continental trade.

People had joy and fulfillment, a bit of boredom, and many lacked effective contraceptives, so kids happened.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] flandish@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago

yeah. didn’t he get turned down on a proposal, he had someone else make, and kinda get cucked? he was prob an incel of his time, huh?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wrinkle2409@lemmy.cafe 54 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

hedonistic meaningless living

As if a life embedded in asceticism was supposed to be any more meaningful

[–] FavouriteShapes@sh.itjust.works 33 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Right! I'm glad to see someone thinking critically about what hedonism to fundamentslly means, rather than relying on the more pejorative usage of the term.

I realised once that, even tho I was a drug free tee totaller who didn't party or have sex much, I was still a hedonistic at that time because I played videogames as much as possible.

[–] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)

What would be considered hedonistic back then? Talking a walk in the woods and climbing mountains for pleasure?

[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

In the text it means any choice you make that sacrifices long term benefits for instant gratification. Nietzsche was way into promoting things that give you pleasure, just not at the cost of your health and prosperity

Obviously Hedonic Philosophy isn't about that either but he wasn't thinking of hedonism as a philosophy, he was describing a problem humans have with how we make choices

[–] FavouriteShapes@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Unironically, yes maybe. If it is seen as avoiding your responsibilities, and doesn't contribute to some area of society (but rather sees-to the "worship" of you yourself) then it is hedonistic

Edit: other guy said it better than me

[–] Juice@midwest.social 6 points 5 days ago

Nietzsche was explicitly, spitefully against asceticism. On the Genealogy of Morals is largely about how church clerics valorized ascetic lifestyle in order to trick the public into always believing they are not doing good, when actually the church has explicitly created two moralities because the rich, powerful, and aristocratic were not expected to (and Nietzsche was not in favor of) living ascetic lives.

The whole point of this meme is that Nietzsche was a life-affirming philosopher. He absolutely did not advocate for an ascetic lifestyle because he believed the joy was the highest pursuit of human life.

Now, if you find this contradictory, well Nietzsche is an extremely contrary and frustrating writer. His writing is beautiful and prosaic, but he's endlessly skeptical In one line he is saying something so profound and affirming, and the next line ascerbic and devastating. He flatters you, makes an airtight case for the flattery, then rips it to shreds; then he rips that to shreds and he is back to flattery. I'm sort of unconvinced that he even is a philosopher, but I love his writing and prose.

[–] Leviathan@fedinsfw.app 2 points 5 days ago

I mean, hedonism isn't the only option, what about Epicureanism?

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 13 points 5 days ago

This also skips on how his sister edited his yet-unpublished works after his death, to include her German ultranationalist and antisemitic views, while he was opposed to them.

A kinda similar situation to that of Kafka, wherein Max Brod, who was supposed to burn all of Kafka's manuscripts, instead e.g. rearranged the chapters of ‘The Trial’ for no good reason, such that it probably reads way more surrealistically. I've recently listened to some kinda restored edition that attempts to put back the intended order, and while it's still a mess at times, the happenings are pretty understandable.

[–] Archimedes@sh.itjust.works 25 points 6 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] vegafjord@slrpnk.net 23 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Paganism is good though. Praise wilderness!

[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz 12 points 6 days ago

(my body is devoid of worldly power but I low-key agree because physically building personal meaning and protecting the wilderness trumps all)

[–] DonutsRMeh@lemmy.world 27 points 6 days ago (7 children)

Having kids (one of whom is special needs) plucked me out of the nihilism well that I was drowning in. I’m so thankful for them. Now, I don’t even have time to think or contemplate life. lol

[–] Carnelian@lemmy.world 23 points 6 days ago (9 children)

If you accept that caring for the wellbeing of your kids is inherently meaningful then you must also accept there is meaning inherent in taking care of your own self :3

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Nihilists can have, and love and care for, children.

It's all about making your own meaning, and I imagine having kids is one way a lot of people do that.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach you 'bout the raising of the wrist. (Socrates himself was permanently pissed).

[–] dontbelievethis@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 14 points 6 days ago

He should have tried warning people not to look into the abyss or something.

[–] TheStaffmaster@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days ago (1 children)

"That's Cute." -Machiavelli

[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Ooh. Very stigmatized ethos surrounding that one. Guess I need to find out what the heck happened there

[–] TheStaffmaster@lemmy.world 29 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The short version is that Machiavelli is a rather profound Stoic philosopher, but everyone misses that in a lot of his work he is being slightly sarcastic to throw the "powers that be" off the scent that he was criticizing them. When you hear how he suggests that "Princes should be feared rather than respected." he actually calling out the despots of his day. It's kind of how Stephen Colbert portrayed a right wing pundit on "The Colbert Report" as a way of satirizing right-wing pundits.

[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz 19 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Oh, okay. Well with that summary I'm at least interested in reading more and trying to see if I can parse the satire. Thanks for pointing me in that direction

Edit: Jesus this is like way obvious after you read how his career in state politics ended. But we named a dark triad psychological trait after him. That's so dirty

[–] TheStaffmaster@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

not a problem. Overly Sarcastic Productions has a wonderful series on YouTube for those looking to get into Machiavelli, and other stoic philosophers.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Leviathan@fedinsfw.app 10 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (7 children)

I always found his frantic fear of nihilism to be a little adolescent, like "how could humanity possibly survive the death of God? How will we live a life without inherent existential or moral purpose?" You just do, Freddy.

[–] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

There is a quote from Futuristic Violence and Fancy Suits that I think of every time this comes up.

“You can lie to yourself, say that you never had a choice, that you weren’t cut out for this. But deep down you’ll know. You’ll know that humans aren’t cut out for anything. We cut ourselves out. Slowly, with a rusty knife. Because otherwise, here’s what’s going to happen: you’re going to die and you’re going to stand at the gates of judgment and you’re going to ask God what was the meaning of it all, and God will say, ‘I created the universe, you little shit. It was up to you to give it meaning.’”

“You really think God uses that kind of language?”

“Yes.”

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Yet here we are, celebrating people whose moral purpose is nonexistent at best and usually completely evil.

[–] jangyik@lemmy.zip 5 points 5 days ago

my take on life is that yeah it doesn’t have inherent meaning, but you don’t need a meaning for everything you do. you can just enjoy being alive despite the meaninglessness, it actually gives you a lot of freedom to do whatever you want to do for the sake of it.

for the morals: just don’t bring in needless suffering, nobody choose to be here and nobody wants to suffer, the only thing we can do is to make the existing lives better

[–] ZMoney@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

Yeah and Kierkegaard already solved this decades before him, in exactly the way you describe (although he didn't personally think it was possible).

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Juice@midwest.social 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

If you have an interest in philosophy or Nietzsche, Rick Roderick is one of my favorite, and most charmingly relatable commentators. He has a whole series on Nietzsche which is very good. But he covers Nietzsche in the first episode in his "Self Under Siege" philosophy series

Highly, highly recommend!

[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz 4 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Fuck yeah I am. I've got a living playlist of lectures I can add this into, thank you!

Actually I see a yt video at the top of the page here, can I watch all the episodes there as an option?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DrStanleyGoodspeed@lemmy.zip 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 days ago

Active vs passive nihilism

[–] mo_lave@reddthat.com 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] mo_lave@reddthat.com 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Anon after reading nihilist philosophy.

[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz 14 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Oh no. It turned him into anime

[–] majster@lemmy.zip 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Some author I read said that nihilism can only be temporary and then natural evolution will be towards stoicism/pragmatism. Later she argued that pragmatism isn't so awesome either, but no concrete arguments were put forward. Quiet pragmatic

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 5 days ago

I don't think nihilism and pragmatism are mutually exclusive

[–] jangyik@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 days ago

i’m pretty sure gods and religions were invented exactly because of people were thinking there is “no higher meaning”

meaning that religion had to be a response to nihilism

load more comments
view more: next ›