minorthreat412

....but you would still be valuing the truth if you accept that logical contradictions can't exist as the truth.

I think the message they're trying to display is that people aren't monolithic and labels are bad. Which I agree with. I don't understand the problem. I think the message might be directed towards people like yourself.

This is my first post here. I know that existential nihilism isn't easy to discuss. Most of the time people conclude that it's not logically possible. I'd like to talk about what would be required for nihilism to be possible. This is interesting because instead of developing new principles in exchange for others, I think understanding nihilism is a bottom up process, and starts with no principles. Definition of nihilism that I'd like to use: Life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Personally, I cannot easily say that I am a Nihilist because I'm not convinced completely that it is possible or what it would entail in every area of what I believe. I'm a subjectivist, if anything. Notable arguments against nihilism (in my own words): It is impossible to believe that nothing has value because you would be valuing the truth by holding a belief that you are correct. If value does not exist, then the idea that anyone "should" do anything doesn't exist. For example, if someone wants to live, they should drink water. Nihilism would require that happiness is not valuable, food is not valuable, and the truth is not valuable. For the sake of robustness... It can be assumed that inductive reasoning cannot be truly justified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction