Any books about the current zeitgeist? Some have been saying we're past the postmodern in the metamodern now?

Brave new world

>the universe has no purpose; we get to dictate what its purpose is
ok, so we should just ignore the fact there's no objective purpose and make one for ourselves (and act like that genuinely means anything). pure cope
>do the things that make you feel good, you get to decide whatever this means for you
if this is the case, nobody has any right to say what another person does is wrong. everyone should just be able to do whatever "feels good" for them. welcome to the subjective void

>Life is meaningless!
>What? You can’t just make your own purpose! Staaaaahp!

I swear. The evil beast-cloud that hangs around the theist is such a curse

>make your own purpose
Cope.

>ignore the fact there's no objective [meaning]
More like embrace it. This is quite freeing.
>PURE COPE
>Cope: to manage, deal with, recover.
Yes. A good thing.
>if this is the case
Moreover, it has always been the case.
People can get together and arrange their lives how they want and not how an elite sociopath or schizophrenic tells them to.
>whatever feels good
There’s that evil beast-cloud again. Always against love and happiness

See above, little one.

We will see how satisfying your made up purpose turns out to be after a few months.

so you have never thought or told someone that what they are doing is wrong? if you have, on what grounds?

Meaning what?
You’re the malcontent with an evil funk weighing you down

are you mad that the video is right?

Do you think people from before weren't somewhat aware of their immediate truth? Do you think something as big as society just comes to pass without individuals coming together and coping with their existences through invented purpose? Do you really think this is the first time someone has gone and thought "hey, wait, maybe all of these structures of religion and power are just bullshit!", or God forbid, a number of people?
Do you even know what nihilism is? Have you read Nietzsche? Here's a hint: he never says spiritualism is bullshit and an individual's life is completely devoid of meaning. It always struck me as odd how nihilism became synonymous with pessimism when the two couldn't be further apart, and how even places that should know better like Yea Forums are still full of people making this semantically dishonest mistake.
The truth doesn't have to be scary. Christ.

not so much that as I am curious why its conclusions have been emerging everywhere as part of the zeitgeist

What am I doing that’s wrong?

It’s been emerging that life is worth living for its own sake?
Maybe we’ll make after all.

I'd say it's that new sincerity finally hitting the intellectual spheres. Do keep in mind the actual collective unconscious just moves in mysterious ways, but after decades of pretending the truth is dark and dreary maybe we just collectively got fucking sick of it and decided that maybe it's all not so bad.
It's also not as widespread as you'd think.

>have you read Nietzsche?
Quite literally the definition of nihilism does affirm complete lack of meaning and Nietzsche was not a nihilist... and nobody is saying he was; if anything he has more in common with the existentialists like Sartre and Camus that obviously have a more positive outlook

nothing, but you've said people can get together and arrange their lives how they want; if it's all subjective, what gives you the right to ever infringe on that by telling them they shouldn't do something?

I stand partially corrected. Thank you.

Like there’s a couple of good ways to eat an egg. I think we can agree we shouldn’t burn them or poison them to kill someone.
>How dare you befriend your neighbors and love each other! Don’t you realize god is dead and we have killed him!?

people might find it advantageous to their survival to burn, poison, or kill someone; in your view, they are fully justified in thinking that because they get to determine what's right for themselves just as much as you do

They do it already.
They did it during the Sun King’s reign, Emperor Augustus, the Pharaohs.

>people might find it advantageous to their survival to burn, poison, or kill someone; in your view, they are fully justified in thinking that because they get to determine what's right for themselves just as much as you do
That doesn't mean you have to respect their perspective.

It's not zeitgeist, you silly... it's kurzgesagt

Basically the West has gone full retard since the 1800s or so and this is the result of it. There are anons here that are too retarded to see how stupid this is and embrace it because they're incapable of accepting objectivity.

The thread stops here

>there is no objectivity
>objective claim
it does get tiresome

The coping is what continues the eternal suffering of human beings. I would rather we drop the copes and embrace extinction.

Nietzsche's entire philosophy is anti-nihilist so of course he says those things.

Nihilism and pessimism are not interchangeable terms but it is incredibly dishonest of you to disregard their many shared qualities.

>evil
What?

My meaning is that you're only playing pretend. Unless you have genuine faith (meaning total, unwavering belief in X), any 'purpose' you create for yourself will be unfulfilling, because even you will not consider it a true purpose.

>ok, so we should just ignore the fact there's no objective purpose and make one for ourselves (and act like that genuinely means anything). pure cope
And if there were one, an objective purpose, would it mean anything? If there were one then you would just have to cope with the fatalistic reality of your life's meaning being beyond yourself.

>if you have, on what grounds?
That it make me Muy Maddo inside. If they still disagree I get madderer until they do agree with me. Problem solved.

>>ignore the fact there's no objective [meaning]
>More like embrace it. This is quite freeing.
This is also not nihilism. Defining one's own meaning is hypocritical at best (recognizing that there is no objective meaning but holding values in spite of that), and the "freedom" the lack of ethics this leads to is concerning at best. If you truly hold that there is no meaning in anything, and don't replace it, you will end up a husk with no value for anything.

>worth living for its own sake
How is that not intrinsic meaning?

>>there is no objectivity
>>objective claim
>it does get tiresome
Well if there's no objectivity then I am free to make a claim using the terminology of objectivity. Doing so makes a claim sound more forceful and it would be too tedious to say everytime I disagree with something "killing people is in discordance with my fee fees ". Much more forceful and simple just to say "Killing people is bad ". It gets across the message better. I don't see how using the terms good and bad inherently contradicts with the belief that morality is not objective. Though I'm not really decided on that question personally.

Shut the fuck up. If you're going to kill yourself, don't push suicide onto others. What a self-defeating perspective.

>missing the point

>I don't see how using the terms good and bad inherently contradicts with the belief that morality is not objective.

For the love of Buddha, re-read this.

>people might find it advantageous to their survival to burn, poison, or kill someone
How is it advantageous to burn and poison people? Maybe for a dictator (and they already do and have done these things irregardless of debates around moral philosophy) but for your average joe killing people has no real advantage, whereas being nice to people and pro-social has way more advantages. That aside it's really boring to me when people turn debates about moral philosophy entirely into debates about social utility, as though social utility has any bearing on the truth or untruth of these questions.

I'm not going to kill myself I'm simply not going to breed.
>inb4 'that won't be difficult then'

I'm not going to kill myself because one of the major reasons I do not wish to create life is due to the inevitability of death and the terror that accompanies it.

You sound incredibly confused. It's kind of sad.

>For the love of Buddha, re-read this.
Explain the contradiction. These are just terms and words in themselves aren't what is significant here. I can say "killing people is bad" while not believing the term bad refers to anything outside my feelnigs.

>You sound incredibly confused. It's kind of sad.
K so you have nothing real to offer. I often see this cope "NOOOOO YOU CANT USE THE TERMS GOOD AND BAD YOU JUST SAID YOU THINK ITS NOT OBJECTIVE REEEEEE"
Wetbrain, I can use whatever word I want to. And it not being objective doesn't mean someone stops making moral judgments or moral beliefs, just that the foundation for those judgements doesn't exist outside of us.

Not him, but where do you think your feelings come from?
Certainly, in other cultures, like Feudal Japan, killing peasants for so much as not stepping out of your way was considered acceptable. Where does your humanist conception of murder is bad come from other than the society you live in/interact with?And what was this society built on, other than the Holy Bible? Yes yes God is dead and all that, but his corpse remains pungent, infecting all of society.

>Not him, but where do you think your feelings come from?
No one knows. We could play ring around the rosy, but we'd never leave the circle. Any exploration will reach an unsatisfying end point where no more questions can be asked. "It's from God. No it's from evolution. No it's from society." And on and on.
>Where does your humanist conception of murder is bad come from other than the society you live in/interact with?And what was this society built on, other than the Holy Bible?
Certainly the concern for the impoverished and weak came from Christianity. However, taboos against arbitrary killing, however differently defined, exist in most cultures. There's no culture where you can just kill anyone and everyone without punishment. Niet puts too much emphasis on Christianity imo because he's obsessed with it. Plenty of Christians had slaves, or engaged in forms of extreme religious violence.

>source of morality genetic fallacy

>just that the foundation for those judgements doesn't exist outside of us.
This contradicts
>And it not being objective doesn't mean someone stops making moral judgments or moral beliefs
This should seem like common sense but you can't make moral claims since every claim you make is redundant and is based on your fee-fees, you'retrying to have your cake and eat it too. If you don't get it now you never will.

Are you saying it's objectively true that "it not being objective doesn't mean someone stops making moral judgments or moral beliefs...." if not why should I care; moreover, why should you ever care about being right if it's just what's right for you
listen to this guy ^

>moreover, why should you ever care about being right if it's just what's right for you
I can just as easily turn that around. Why should you ever care about being right if what is right has nothing to do with you? It's the opposite if anything. If rightness derives it's rightness from being the transcendent word of God, or a Platonic form, there's no reason in the world to ever care about it.

I hate pop philosophy youtube videos. They're even more offensive than "history" or "science" youtube videos where they just read off of Wikipedia with shitty animations as a background since the pop phil videos are literally manufactured to help you accept your place as a good wagie.
"Improve your productivity with [watered down version of serious philosophy]"

Or actually to rephrase, not that right has nothing to do with you, but that the rightness itself is not defined by you, That is what strikes me as fatalistic about the notion of objective morality.

>you can't make moral claims since every claim you make is redundant and is based on your fee-fees, you'retrying to have your cake and eat it too
You've just restated the same claim with no evidence. Why can't you make moral claims based on feelings? A moral claim is fundamentally an assertion over another person or social group to call them to action or move them. The claim itself is the instrumental use of feelings over others to accomplish certain desired ends. If morality is determined by humans, I don't see how that has any bearing on the terms that are used.

re: your rephrase, I can see where you're coming from... fatalistic because you have no control over the good. There's no proving any of this, but plato can speak for himself: in the metaphor of the sun + cave, the sun is the form of the good, your eyes are your soul, and the light from the sun is knowledge and truth. The sun is what provides light but isn't light itself; once outside the cave your eyes will adjust and be able to perceive the light. Sounds good to me

Attached: sun.jpg (639x359, 32.99K)

it's just because religion is slowly dying in the west so new cope come to replace the old ones

Fair enough, I know not enough about history to argue that point, and I had misimterpreted your earlier message to be a defence of your statement that murder is bad as objective in a world that you claim is non-objective, my bad for not reading.
Still though, I think there are quite some strong defences for objective morality. Off the top of my head, within your earlier statement that "murder is bad because of feelings", does that not suggest that within our subjective existence(our world) there is still some objective metric? (our feelings) Not to say that this metric in itself is logical, nor consistent, but upon application to the wider world, it becomes objective through our code of law, and society, and so forth, even in the absence of any meta-narrative.
I am a brainlet, please explain what you mean, I put my statement within the context of western society, and to my knowledge the genetic fallacy is an assertion that the current situation is flawed because of history, without taking into context thr current situation.

>You are being hypocritical
okay and, I don't have any objective standard teling me not to be.

Nigger, you have zero justification for anything you say or do, thus becoming redundant. Your feelings aren't justification. Again you're never going to get it either due to your stupidity or wilful ignorance.

>I am a living contradiction
Yea Forums isn't bringing their best.

We're still living in postmodernity

>where do you think your [moral] feelings come from?
implying the truth/untruth of something is determined on where it comes from. genetic fallacy moment