j reacts to (specious) accusations of nihilism

and, i want to be clear about something: i am not a nihilist. i am an atheist and a secular humanist. i believe i've actually argued very strenuously against moral relativism and very strenuously against subjectivity in art. i believe in the objective reality of a world determined via scientific inquiry. there is no god in this world, but there are plenty of things that are true. in fact, i would argue that the truth value of the statement there is no god is true. that is, itself, a truth. i am a positivist. i believe truth is obtainable - and that one of those truths is that there is no guiding force in the universe.

but, i haven't been through this here. not exactly. bits and pieces.

the problem is the way the discussion is framed, to assume various things for granted. i am an anarchist; i reject hobbes. i do not believe that people need the threat of god, or the threat of some sovereign, to fall in line and behave. rather, i think that religion and authoritarianism are corrupting forces. we are not evil in despite of the state but because of it. the collapse of the state would bring us back to a "natural condition" of mutual aid and reciprocal altruism. this is not because we have a selfless nature, it is because altruism and rational self-interest are equivalent, when fully understood.

watch this, it's in the name of general education:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kWuR9Rzzlo

what that actually means is that i think that nietzsche is just a tempest in a teapot, because i reject the assumptions he was working under in the first place. understanding the obvious truth that there is no god will not collapse society, but allow it to reach it's next stage of development. nihilists should consequently be seen as reactionaries that seek to uphold the status quo - at best. at worst, they end up as straussian neocons like hillary clinton and want to take us back into the dark ages.

there is a certain line of thinking that ends with nietzsche, but it was a stupid line of reasoning that was in opposition to the real movements of enlightened thinking, anyways. his supposed crisis was resolved by aquinas, who was himself just quoting aristotle. what you see in his writings is a fool coming to terms with the idiocy of his systems of thought. but, only fools would have ever walked down that path in the first place. this is centuries after galileo!

so, i don't think that nihilism presents us with any sort of a real problem. but, if we want to be stuck in this foolish historical narrative? a very obvious and completely satisfactory solution immediately presents itself in secular humanism. and, there is consequently really no reason to take note of the man or his writings at all. he should be forgotten. instead, we should remember the line of thinking that takes us from aristotle, through aquinas and ends with comte.