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’

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.

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

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’?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

All mind is thought and belief. — creativesoul

No, I think mind is something which can create thoughts, which can believe or disbelieve them.

Ok.

If all the external world is an illusion, the mind does not need to be an illusion. But if the mind is illusion, the world must also be an illusion. That is what I mean.

The solution to deal with its demoralizing power. ‘Solution’ sounds confusing, I’ll change that.

His sister hates Jews, perhaps women too? I’m not sure whether her editing has been corrected or not.

Ok, thanks

Ok... Thanks for figuring that out. I wrote it all by myself and I haven’t written something this long about philosophy before. By the way, what do you mean by ‘N.’? Does that mean ‘None-‘?

An overman will not be concerned with morality. Nor do he need morality, as he is not interested in hurting or dominating others and he don’t like doing so. What he concerns about is what seems meaningful to him.

The pursuit of meaning or meaningful things, perhaps? It’s hard to figure out with self observation.

Maybe I should say ‘promote’ or ‘harm’?

I think if one observe closely, people tend to define good and evil based on their definition of meaning. Those things which increase meaning are considered good, those things which decrease meaning are considered bad.
As an overman defines meaning by himself, he also defines good and evil.

was — unenlightened

I think some people believe that the god created the physical laws of this universe and then let human themselves decide their fate.

Ok, that sounds different but the point is similar

In a world of overman, there still needs to be office clerks.

My overman relay on his self awareness and will to power to know what he should or shouldn’t do.

Ok, I understand

You mean he wanted to destroy what other people once believed, instead of expressing his own opinion accurately?

Well, then the only thing I can say is I refuse to accept it.

Well I can’t make any sense of it. Perhaps he rely entirely on intuition, which could be affected heavily by emotions? I’m not sure.

Perhaps he hate women because his pursuit of partner was very unsuccessful.

Of course I know everyone makes mistakes. I was speaking against the idea that “Becase humans (Menschen) are nature's biggest mistake.“

How can humans, the only being capable of distinguishing right and wrong, see themselves as a mistake? That sounds ridiculous to me.

Anyway, I should not have relied entirely on it

Well, I should not have relied so heavy on Microsoft word to find my errors

You say this as if an overman’s world is a terrible one. I suppose my overman does not seem to be harmful?

Or perhaps I should say that I’m not certain about ‘we can’t be certain about anything’ , because if concerts like ‘certain’ ‘we’ do not make sense, then this sentence also does not make sense.

We can’t be certain about anything in this world, and that is not something in this world.

Ok, thanks

You mean ‘overman’ is outdated translation? Well, I’m not a native English speaker and ‘overman’ is what google translate tells me to translate that word to.

You mean my overman looks too perfect to be realistic?