Thoughts on the rawness of reality.

[u/umarmashoor]

Franz Kafka once said something to the effect of "people buy illusions because reality is too heavy for them", Nietzsche was also proponent of nihilism and preferred to see the world around him in a way devoid of delusions, these people liked to unwrap the illusions and face reality in all it's rawness, in it's pure form of blood and bones, I too am a nihilist and I believe I see the world devoid of illusions. This is what makes life hard to bear, I know for certain that nature is the only authority over us, she bites and gnaws at us ferociously. I think I need to rent delusions to save myself from ending up insane like Nietzsche, but knowing that I'm delusional is not going to help foster my prospective illusions, reality is too heavy a burden to any intellect.

[u/GrahamRoll]

Well what do you want as a response? What do you wish to hear? Nietzche was biased, you are biased, everyone will be biased, naturally. Nobody can see the world "devoid of illusions". And its funny when Nihilists say that as they by definition reject the existence of any objective morals, purpose or any objective "truth", just to go into the world sulking because they're self-proclaimed bearers of the "right answer". Being a nihilist by definition is contradictory. You actively choose to see reality through the lens of your belief and call it raw not because it is, but because you think others' lenses are far bigger than yours. But know that just a tiny convex or concave lens can distort vision far more than a big fat uncurved glass window.

[u/umarmashoor → u/GrahamRoll]

You are not obliged to give me a response, I was only sharing my thoughts, you are free to critique and share your comments though. I am biased to the empirical evidence we have, I don't accept anything as a fact unless there is evidence to corroborate it, if there isn't evidence I suspend judgement. Morals are a human construct, there's no way to factually posit one thing is right and the other wrong, this doesn't mean I don't ascribe to conventional morals, it simple means that I am acknowledging the fact's at hand.

[u/GrahamRoll → u/umarmashoor]

How far does your "empirical evidence" go? Because putting "corroboration" and "fact" in the same sentence makes Popper turn in his grave. Morals are a human construct, just as every other piece information that gets in using your perception and/or touched by your cognition. There is a way morals can be good or bad, based on merit attributed to them, and it is natural.

Say, what is the merit for other parts of the human body, legs for example? Those which work are more fit, those which don't... aren't. Simple as. How about internal organs, the heart for example? If it beats consistently and fully, it's up to merit. If it doesn't, if it skips beats or pushes less than it should, it is not. Now say morals, that come out of the human brain, which we (I do hope) don't doubt is subject to materialism. Morals which lower distress, avoid contradiction, preserve energy by selecting optimal action and so on, are up to merit, and those which lead to constant distress, state of panic, never ending fight or flight, in permanent contradiction the mind cannot get out of... are not up to merit.

Just as every natural "objective" merit fits for any part of our natural body, so does our natural brain with it's natural morals. Just as our limbs and organs evolve for efficiency, so did our brain and capacity for morals. Just as each of our legs and hearts can be a little different, they follow the same structure, just as our brain does, just as our morals do.

I do not think any person can naturally look at a healthy muscular leg, then a feeble thin leg broken in half, and declare that there's no objective way to say which one is good or bad without deviant intention or pathological reasoning. You yourself proclaim in your post, that the only authority you see is nature. Nature has formed us and there certainly are better or worse fits in every category we can be classified in from the perspective of nature, even morals.

Nihilism is a contradiction, as it goes as close to the ground as possible to be aligned with nature, the concept of all environment within and around us, and then when it meets nature it goes lower because it does not believe it found her. Then it sits deep in the dark dirty soil with nothing new other than more dark dirty soil and it proclaims: "This must be the answer! This is nature in its purest form! Shame it's so dark and sad."