Nearly one and a half century ago, Nietzsche noticed the decline of old values. He claim 'god is dead', and he believe that we must find new values in order to survive nihilism. However, more than one century has passed, and few satisfying new values are established. Many of us choose to go back to those old religions, not because they are convinced, but because they have no other choice. Nihilism is growing, and it looks unstoppable.
A major reason for this is that our scholars have surrendered to nihilism. Although they should have fought against nihilism by renewing and protecting old values or establishing new ones, they are busy deconstructing old values, which makes nihilism even stronger. Perhaps they don't have the courage and wisdom to fight nihilism, so they are raising while flag. Perhaps deconstructing old values sounds safer, more political correct, and provides more money and fame to them. We should not rely on scholars anymore. Free thinkers should stand up and establish their own values. By 'free thinkers', I'm not talking about those madman and political activists who think to prove they are right, but those who really want to achieve internal well-being and make sense of their lives.
Am I right? Is it true that most scholars are busy destroying values instead of protecting or creating values? Are they responsible for the spread of nihilism? — Rystiya

Correct!

Am I right? Is it true that most scholars are busy destroying values instead of protecting or creating values? Are they responsible for the spread of nihilism? — Rystiya

Wouldn't you agree that a house that could be demolished was never a good house to begin with? Wouldn't you agree then, that in destroying a weak, ergo dangerous, house, we would be creating the necessary space to erect a better quality abode for ourselves and our children?

The problem is, not that the values that have been attacked by "scholars" are good, but that there are no good theories to take their place. I would prefer this situation to be due to a lack of trying but it might be the case that no system of values can ever be picture perfect.

Also, I don't want to criticize traditional value systems; firstly because it's no easy task to create them and secondly because they've kept society running more or less smoothly. Perhaps, if feeling compelled to pass a comment, we might say that though we don't question the wisdom of the values themselves, the foundations for them are weak. We should probably keep the values themselves, at least those that seem reasonable to the modern mindset, and focus on finding a good, strong bedrock for them.

Nearly one and a half century ago, Nietzsche noticed the decline of old values. He claim 'god is dead', and he believe that we must find new values in order to survive nihilism. However, more than one century has passed, and few satisfying new values are established. Many of us choose to go back to those old religions, not because they are convinced, but because they have no other choice. Nihilism is growing, and it looks unstoppable. — Rystiya

Is nihilism growing or is it just deeply entrenched? I'm not sure how I would tell the difference.

Is it necessary to "create new values" to make a satisfying response to nihilism? I suspect Nietzsche's call for "new values", like the nihilism he expresses, may be accounted for as a reflection of his anxious romanticism, his precocious relativism, his unfinished reaction to the loss of faith in naive philosophical tendencies of the Enlightenment we may characterize in terms of Absolute Certainty and Absolute Good. In its original historical context, we may interpret that loss of faith along the trajectory of Gothic philosophy from medieval Christian scholasticism, to the Christian apologism of the Cartesians, rationalists, and Kantians, to the post-Kantian idealists, romantics, and existentialists.

Perhaps you're right to suggest that intellectuals influenced by the Western philosophical tradition have on the whole failed to produce satisfying responses to nihilism, and have thus contributed to the spread of nihilistic attitudes among the people of Earth as Western ideas have been exported worldwide.

At bottom, however -- isn't this more a crisis of narratives, rhetoric, and ideology, than a genuine crisis of values? Are things really so different now?

Doesn't a basic problem of value and morality raised in discussions with Thrasymachus and Callicles remain with us through shifts in cultural context?

Aren't our values rooted in our animal nature? Doesn't common sense provide us with means for characterizing and promoting enduring values that come naturally to us -- values implicated in our talk of health and prosperity, loving kindness and compassion, fairness and justice, freedom and liberty, sincerity and truth, community and unity, and whatever we should name among such things?

These aren't new values, and I see no reason to suppose they must be replaced before we can reject nihilism. We may reject nihilism by interpreting it as a facile and precocious reaction to a loss of faith in unwarranted, unnecessary, and misleading dogmas, or by pointing to the emergence in nature of principles of compassion, fairness, friendship, and playfulness in dogs, dolphins, primates, and other animals.

The hyperintellectualization of morality by intellectuals influenced by a confused philosophical tradition and motivated by institutional and market forces to publish and innovate fuels a vain search for new values, new moral theories, new legalistic systems of rules or norms of conduct. The failure of such exercises to produce satisfying results promotes and intensifies intellectual anxieties about the "groundlessness" of human values and morality.

The fruitless chatter of the intellectuals becomes another distraction and another excuse for the personal failure to commit in practice to values we already know we have and already know how to live by.

I suggest the best we can do to offset the trend of nihilism is to learn to recognize and live by the values we already have, and to speak simply about such things. The examples each of us offers in our conduct and our whole way of life is more effective than our speeches, and provides a demonstration of our principles in practice.

The false dichotomy of fideism and nihilism, coupled with the exposed weakness of fideistic (e.g. authoritarian) worldviews, is what's lead to a rise in nihilism, if such a thing has actually occurred.

This confusion of liberalism with fideism, or equivalently of criticism with cynicism, and likewise of phenomenalism with nihilism, or equivalently of objectivism with transcendentalism, leads many people, I suspect, to see the only available options as a transcendent fideistic view, or else a cynical nihilistic view. The differentiation of those superficial similarities and so the opening up of possibilities besides those two extremes is the key insight at the core of my entire general philosophy, embracing objectivism without transcendentalism, criticism without cynicism, liberalism without fideism, and phenomenalism without nihilism. — The Codex Quaerentis: Commensurablism

Objectivism without transcendentalism: There are genuine truths independent of anybody's opinions, but not independent of all experience

Criticism without cynicism: Everything is open to question, but "prove it or shut up" isn't a question.

Liberalism without fideism: Feel free to hold whatever opinions without absolute evidence to support them, but be prepared abandon them if there is evidence against them.

Phenomenalism without nihilism: There is nothing more to reality or morality than the experience of things seeming true or good, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing to reality or morality at all; the seeming of it is enough.

From an old thread ...

... despair that, despite the entirety of human knowledge, there isn't any (decideable, in/defeasible) Reason at all for any - let alone every - thing

[ ... ]

The ancients reflected on their wonder in order to discern whatever lay beyond (or behind) it all that wonder seemed, they had imagined, pointed to and which they had speculated was/is the ordering principle (logos) of whatever there is (physis). In effect, Classical philosophers strove to have their contemplative cake and eat it too: disenchanting the enchanted reality they'd found themselves in but only enough to rationally comprehend, or intuitively glimpse, its raison d'être (arche).

But what of contemporary despair? And the philosophies of despair - pro, con & indifferent? And sectarian anti-secular fundamentalisms radicalized by paroxysms of despair? And globally encompassing mega-menageries of hyper-designed popular diversions from despair? (à la 'culture industry' or 'p0m0 condition' or 'oedipal simulacra' or 'ideology of objet petit a' ...)

I'm with Freddy N. & co - nihilism is merely a symptom, or seduction, of decadence. Like Schop's pessimism. Even proletarian alienation. And Dionysian iconoclasm, or 'hermeneutics of suspicion' - just dessicated fruit of decadance. Like punkers, hip-hopsters, new atheists & radicalized suburban jihadis/lone wolf mass-shooters. If survived initially, people tend to 'outgrow' these nihilisms ... and, fatalistically or obliviously, skate the rest of their jaded days across the uneven, cracking, thin ice of despair until. Only Nihilists worry about nihilism, thereby, inadvertantly or not, distracting themselves from ... thinking all the way through the inexorable extinction of thinking. Disenchanted (hyper)chaos can't be 're-enchanted', or put back into 'the enchanted cosmos' tube! — 180 Proof

:death: :flower:

Your ideas are quite interesting.
Unlike your idea, I believe nihilism is the result of the uncertain nature of the universe, which removes the foundation of almost all values. It is not the result of decadence, because decadence don’t come into exist for no reason.
I still think something needs to be done to stop nihilism. Slogans and fake promises no longer works, which is very nice. However, why can’t we build new values upon human nature? Don’t we need to figure out how to overcome our internal weaknesses?
And yes, I do believe there is goodness in our nature. However we still need something to make sense of our lives. What’s more, I hope our feelings and instincts are not the only thing makes us respect human lives.
I wish to build my value upon human nature. It propose ‘everyone is born to seek meaning’, and it tells people how to overcome their internal weaknesses, so they can pursue the meanings they have defined for themselves.

The ancients reflected on their wonder in order to discern whatever lay beyond (or behind) it all that wonder seemed, they had imagined, pointed to and which they had speculated was/is the ordering principle (logos) of whatever there is (physis). In effect, Classical philosophers strove to have their contemplative cake and eat it too: disenchanting the enchanted reality they'd found themselves in but only enough to rationally comprehend, or intuitively glimpse, its raison d'être (arche). — 180 Proof

what if 'the ancients' did actually realise that, though? And then, culture forgot it, or abandoned it. That would be an account of nihilism, wouldn't it?

I think the challenge of our time is to find an heuristic which enables the ideas and attitudes that were associated with religion and spirituality, without falling back into archaic or anachronistic modes of thought.

The principle danger is literalism, which is understanding religious tropes and symbols as being literally true. That is, of course, mainly associated with fundamentalism, which is a kind of resolute clinging to the supposed sacred truths of religion in the face of change.

But, not all religions, or all religious types, cling to literalistic or fundamentalist beliefs. They are quite capable of incorporating whatever modern culture and science turns up without abandoning their faith.

There are many such cases - eminent scientists who are also religious.

The false dichotomy of fideism and nihilism, coupled with the exposed weakness of fideistic (e.g. authoritarian) worldviews, is what's lead to a rise in nihilism, if such a thing has actually occurred. — Pfhorrest

The actual false dichotomy that I see is between scientific materialism (the belief that only what is discoverable by scientific method is real) and religious fundamentalism (the belief that sacred scripture is literally true regardless of what science discovers.)

Well, if you ignore that 'nihilism' is not the right, or relevant, question / problem (pace Freddy Zarathustra), then okay ...

what if 'the ancients' did actually realise that, though? And then, culture forgot it, or abandoned it. That would be an account of nihilism, wouldn't it? — Wayfarer

Freddie's diagnosis from The Gay Science to Twilight of the Idols (& The Antichrist). :eyes:

His prescription:

I think the challenge of our time is to find an heuristic which enables the ideas and attitudes that were associated with religion and spirituality, without falling back into archaic or anachronistic modes of thought.

i.e. 'A revaluation of all values' (e.g. eternal return of the same) ... amor fati.

Your ideas are quite interesting. — Rystiya

Thanks. Yours too.

Unlike your idea, I believe nihilism is the result of the uncertain nature of the universe, which removes the foundation of almost all values. It is not the result of decadence, because decadence don’t come into exist for no reason. — Rystiya

I suppose I would agree that nihilism is not necessarily a product of cultural or personal decadence. And I'd agree that growth and decay are natural processes.

I don't understand what you mean about the "uncertain nature of the universe". I'm not sure I would say the universe is uncertain.

I would agree it seems our knowledge of the world is never absolutely certain. But the fact that our knowledge of the world is uncertain in this way does not seem to entail that the world is "uncertain" in itself. I'm not even sure how to make sense of a claim that the world is certain or uncertain: I'm inclined to say these terms have no application here. As if we were to ask: Is this stone right-handed or left-handed?

Moreover, I'm not sure how you propose that we connect such talk about certainty with talk about value.

To all appearances, it seems the limits of my certainty do not prevent me from being hungry, from perceiving my hunger, from perceiving food, from having more or less informed beliefs about such things as food and eating, appetite and intention, nutrition and health.

It seems I do have a sort of knowledge of the world in keeping with such appearances. I can't be absolutely certain about anything. Neither can I sincerely deny that it seems a world appears to me, and that it seems I have a sort of knowledge of the world as it appears to me, and that it seems I act, and am compelled to act, on the basis of the knowledge I do seem to have.

The knowledge I seem to have seems to include knowledge of at least some of my own values, like health and compassion and the others I've mentioned. It seems I have knowledge of these values in virtue of the way they figure in my experience as a sentient animal.

I expect there's more than one way to conceptualize the range of values of a thing like me in the world, just as there is more than one way to conceptualize the range of colors of light.

To say there are various ways to conceptualize such things is not to say there is no objective basis in experience according to which we may assess the aptness of such a conception and according to which we may evaluate the correctness of judgments that employ that conception.

I still think something needs to be done to stop nihilism. Slogans and fake promises no longer works, which is very nice. However, why can’t we build new values upon human nature? Don’t we need to figure out how to overcome our internal weaknesses? — Rystiya

I agree that nihilism may pose a threat to the good of humanity and all sentient beings, and that empty slogans and false promises would likely be ineffective, or even counterproductive, responses to that threat.

I strongly agree that it's in our interest to recognize weakness of character in ourselves and to work to improve our own habits in pursuit of right action.

As I've suggested, I'm not sure that we need to invent new values in order to do that sort of work. I'm not even sure what it might mean to devise new values, as opposed to new ways of speaking about value.

Why do you suppose it's new values that we need for this purpose? Can you give an example of the emergence of a new value in history, a value that is arguably without precedent in human experience when it emerges in history?


Don't you agree that you already have some values? Why do you do the things you do? How do you account for your own action? What are some of the values you already live by?

Don't you value some things more than other things? Don't you have preferences? Don't you distinguish between things, actions, outcomes that are good and desirable for you and for others, and things, actions, outcomes that are bad and undesirable for you and for others?

Perhaps you also identify yourself as a member of some community or communities of agents, which provides you with a conception of a common good?

How could nihilism take such things away from you? To me it seems they belong to our nature no less than appetite, perception, and action.

And yes, I do believe there is goodness in our nature. However we still need something to make sense of our lives. What’s more, I hope our feelings and instincts are not the only thing makes us respect human lives. — Rystiya

Clearly the feelings and instincts of human animals are not sufficient to make human animals respect each other on every occasion.

Clearly the norms and laws and religions and philosophies of human animals have never been sufficient to make human animals respect each other on every occasion.

Do you suppose a new list of values, or a new set of commandments or rules of action, or a new collection of poems and parables, will make human animals much more inclined to respect each other than they are now or ever have been?

As I've suggested, it's not clear to me that innovative ideas are what's required. It seems to me that more and better living examples of right action is what's required. Simple discourses that characterize right action may be helpful contributions to that way of life.

I wish to build my value upon human nature. It propose ‘everyone is born to seek meaning’, and it tells people how to overcome their internal weaknesses, so they can pursue the meanings they have defined for themselves. — Rystiya

I agree it seems most fitting to ground our talk of human values in human nature.

What does it mean to seek meaning or to pursue meaning? And how do we overcome internal weakness to pursue meaning?

I'm never sure I understand what people mean when they speak this way about "meaning".

So far as I can make sense of that sort of talk: It seems to me that meaning finds us, whether we want it or not, that we have no choice but to find meaning in our lives, to make meaning by living. This too seems rooted in our animal nature.

I might say, part of our natural weakness is that we are born and raised in ignorance and confusion. Part of our weakness is that we are born and raised to have conflicting desires and intentions, and have trouble recognizing these conflicts and resolving them.

It seems to me our lives are meaningful regardless of whether we are wise or ignorant, insightful or confused, virtuous or vicious, enkratic or akratic.... It seems the meaning we make by living changes in the course of a life depending in part on how we live.

We may make an effort to correct our own ignorance, confusion, viciousness, and akrasia. Or we may neglect to make that effort. Whichever way we go, there are consequences for us and for others.

Am I right? Is it true that most scholars are busy destroying values instead of protecting or creating values? Are they responsible for the spread of nihilism?
— Rystiya

Wouldn't you agree that a house that could be demolished was never a good house to begin with? Wouldn't you agree then, that in destroying a weak, ergo dangerous, house, we would be creating the necessary space to erect a better quality abode for ourselves and our children?

The problem is, not that the values that have been attacked by "scholars" are good, but that there are no good theories to take their place. I would prefer this situation to be due to a lack of trying but it might be the case that no system of values can ever be picture perfect.

Also, I don't want to criticize traditional value systems; firstly because it's no easy task to create them and secondly because they've kept society running more or less smoothly. Perhaps, if feeling compelled to pass a comment, we might say that though we don't question the wisdom of the values themselves, the foundations for them are weak. We should probably keep the values themselves, at least those that seem reasonable to the modern mindset, and focus on finding a good, strong bedrock for them. — TheMadFool

I really like you.

Nihilism is just for ugly people to justify wallowing in their ugliness, beastliness, and fertility, like a swine licking its own dung, and has always been around in some form or another, and easily debunked or refuted..

Pretty much every "nihilistic" idea in the recent discourse, whether Machiavelli or his plagiarist Saul Alinsky, is just a rip-off or unoriginal reincarnation of dumb ideas as old as Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic, and no even remotely sane person actually believes that ugly old bunk in real life, most or just so sheltered, hapless, and childish that they actually think it's ever been 'edgy' to begin with, as opposed to just smelly, ugly, and inferior, like a botched experiment crawling out of Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory.

Even the entire so-called "red people" philosophy which is a minor internet sensation is just a poor man's version of Nietzche, who based on the fact that he died in a state of insanity, makes his claims to "overman-hood" quite a bit questionable.

(Thankfully the fact that pop nihilism or existentialism was a passing fad even in Nietzche's outdated time, shows that any modern nihilism fad is likewise just a whim, soon to go out of style like Disco, and for the better of the good, true, beautiful people, no less).

Wouldn't you agree that a house that could be demolished was never a good house to begin with? Wouldn't you agree then, that in destroying a weak, ergo dangerous, house, we would be creating the necessary space to erect a better quality abode for ourselves and our children? — TheMadFool

Every house can be demolished.

The fact that a house can be demolished does not make it a "weak house" or a "dangerous house".

The fact that one demolishes a house does not entail that new and better houses are forthcoming in its place.

Sometimes good houses are destroyed for bad reasons and with bad effects. Sometimes good houses are destroyed for both good and bad reasons, sometimes with both good and bad effects.

Sometimes it is in the interest of some people and against the interest of other people for a house to be destroyed.

Ok, I have a much wider definition of nihilism. In my point of view, things like extremism and egotism are the results of poor mental states and lack of reasonable and inspiring belief systems. Therefore, I see them as offsprings of nihilism. I suppose they are actually growing these days.
And I don’t think nihilism is the result rather than the cause of amoral behavior.

I would agree it seems our knowledge of the world is never absolutely certain. But the fact that our knowledge of the world is uncertain in this way does not seem to entail that the world is "uncertain" in itself. I'm not even sure how to make sense of a claim that the world is certain or uncertain: I'm inclined to say these terms have no application here. As if we were to ask: Is this stone right-handed or left-handed? — Cabbage Farmer

Ok, perhaps I should replace ‘uncertain’ which ‘unknowable’, that was a bad expression. I think the unknowable nature of the universe makes all values become less convincing.

As I've suggested, I'm not sure that we need to invent new values in order to do that sort of work. I'm not even sure what it might mean to devise new values, as opposed to new ways of speaking about value.

Why do you suppose it's new values that we need for this purpose? Can you give an example of the emergence of a new value in history, a value that is arguably without precedent in human experience when it emerges in history? — Cabbage Farmer

Ok, I think I have used the word ‘value’ poorly. What I want is something which says something like ‘You must live a meaningful life, and here is how to achieve that: ....’.
Does ‘value’ mean something like ‘Here is the definition of meaning and the definition of good and evil, you are going to accept it’? That is probably not very desirable. I think the ideal case is that everyone can define their own meaning and pursue it sincerely.

Don't you agree that you already have some values? Why do you do the things you do? How do you account for your own action? What are some of the values you already live by?

Don't you value some things more than other things? Don't you have preferences? Don't you distinguish between things, actions, outcomes that are good and desirable for you and for others, and things, actions, outcomes that are bad and undesirable for you and for others?

Perhaps you also identify yourself as a member of some community or communities of agents, which provides you with a conception of a common good?

How could nihilism take such things away from you? To me it seems they belong to our nature no less than appetite, perception, and action. — Cabbage Farmer

I think I came to this world without knowing why, and I don’t even know whether the world is real or not. So I’m a nihilist myself, and I’m reluctant to accept any values from others. I do have instincts like ‘I don’t what to kill or be killed by others’, but that doesn’t seem adequate.
I think I should try my best to overcome my internal weaknesses and figure out how to live a life which I think is meaningful, so I can get rid of nihilism. In order to succeed I need an explanation of myself, so I can understand and improve myself.
Is it accurate to call such explanation ‘value’? Should I can it ‘theory’ or ‘beliefs’ instead?

What does it mean to seek meaning or to pursue meaning? And how do we overcome internal weakness to pursue meaning? — Cabbage Farmer

Eh... I don’t know what’s wrong with my expression. We all know that it is more meaningful to spend time on things like reading or outdoor activities than on playing video games or choosing luxurious clothes. However we are tempted to do the latter instead the former. Doesn’t that indicate that we have internal weaknesses which prevent us to pursue meaning?
And... is ‘pursue meaning’ a confusing expression? Is ‘pursue meaning’ the same as ‘do something because it is meaningful’?

I really like you — christian2017

:smile:

the entire so-called "red people" philosophy which is a minor internet sensation — IvoryBlackBishop

Having a morbid curiosity about dumb internet sensations, I just tried Googling for info about this, and couldn't find anything that looked relevant. Can you link or explain what this is about?

We all know that it is more meaningful to spend time on things like reading or outdoor activities than on playing video games or choosing luxurious clothes. — Rystiya

Do we really know that? How exactly are you measuring meaningfulness?

Yes, we probably do know, and I don’t think I need to prove this. And when did I say I can ‘measure’ meaningfulness?

Well you said one thing is more meaningful than another which implies some way of gauging how meaningful the things are, which is all it means to measure something (gauge how much of it there is).

In any case, it’s far from obvious to me that either of those activities is universally more meaningful than the other, and I don’t see a way of assessing meaningfulness other than how meaningful things seem to people, so if video games and shopping seem more meaningful to someone than hiking and reading, then they just are more meaningful, to them.

The problem is, not that the values that have been attacked by "scholars" are good, but that there are no good theories to take their place. I would prefer this situation to be due to a lack of trying but it might be the case that no system of values can ever be picture perfect. — TheMadFool

Well what do you want or need values for? Presumably they are a guide to actions. In which case as the world changes and peoples view of the world also changes their values would need to be continually refined and updated.

We all know that it is more meaningful to spend time on things like reading or outdoor activities than on playing video games or choosing luxurious clothes. — Rystiya

This is full of problems. I see no significant distinction between these four activities when assessing their "meaningfulness". Each of the four can be productive or informative, and each could be trivial. Why is reading a cereal box (reading) more meaningful than dressing up for a wedding or funeral (choosing luxurious clothes)?

Surely we could come up with infinite examples of "video games or choosing luxury clothes" that are more meaningful than "reading or outdoor activity".

And this does not even address the problem of what exactly you mean by "meaningful"? Isn't it possible that your "meaningful" is different than mine?

I guess Pfhorrest already said most of this. Oh well.

Well what do you want or need values for? Presumably they are a guide to actions. In which case as the world changes and peoples view of the world also changes their values would need to be continually refined and updated. — A Seagull

Well, some values, once established to be worthy, may need to be preserved for the next generation, no? For example, the value of a life seems, despite so many downturns (wars, slavery, genocide, etc), very much in the agenda of everyone except a handful. Surely it would be bad to let this value be modified/deleted in any fashion; it would spell doom for not only humanity but also for the earth itself.

Every house can be demolished.

The fact that a house can be demolished does not make it a "weak house" or a "dangerous house".

The fact that one demolishes a house does not entail that new and better houses are forthcoming in its place.

Sometimes good houses are destroyed for bad reasons and with bad effects. Sometimes good houses are destroyed for both good and bad reasons, sometimes with both good and bad effects.

Sometimes it is in the interest of some people and against the interest of other people for a house to be destroyed. — Cabbage Farmer

.

Well, look at it in terms of how much effort goes into demolition. Reminds me of the story of the three little pigs.

Sigh. What I want to say is: sometimes it is obvious to us that A is more meaningful than B, but we just keep doing B, and that indicates we have internal weaknesses. You are refuting the idea that 'choosing luxurious clothes is always less meaningful than going outdoor', and that have nothing to do with what I really want to express.

And we do not need to define meaning in order to know what is meaningful and what is meaningless, just like we don't know the definition of good and evil in order to know what is good and what is evil. If I have to define meaning, I will define it as follows:
Our instincts and will to survive tell us what shall we pursue. However, as we become aware of our existence, we can and we want to reanalyze what to pursue. And then we call our new objectives to pursue ‘meaning’

One should embrace nihilism...

Well, some values, once established to be worthy, may need to be preserved for the next generation, no? For example, the value of a life — TheMadFool

Well yes, Life as a universal value is a good place to start.
and the pursuit of happiness... and in the modern world: education... and honesty in speech.

One should embrace nihilism... — MathematicalPhysicist

Why?