Saturday, May 20, 2017

Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism - Ebook Edition

You can purchase an ebook copy of my book "Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism" on via this link

You can save 1$ by emailing me at . In your email just state your interest in purchasing my ebook. Then pay me 9$ via PayPal and I will email you the ebook.

To read a recent review of my book click this link http://www.lulu.

'As you read this book, leave your pride and preconceived beliefs at the door. Withhold judgement until you have finished it. Have open-minded Skepticism towards what you read and I am sure you will see the foundations you once held dear slowly crumble away.
James makes no apologies in this book, your worldview will be challenged and if you are fortunate enough, you will be set free from the chains of moral realisms.' — Matthew Ray

'James Theodore Stillwell III enters the fray with Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism, a short book which affirms a Nietzsche-Redbeard view of nihilism as the need for the individual to not be ruled by the herd, and find meaning where it is relevant to the individual...
Stillwell writes in an open style, merging contemporary idiom with philosophical language, that allows the book to introduce a dense concept and then breathe as it explores its depth at a more leisurely pace...
The book affirms the basic idea of nihilism through a study of morality which it rightly views as conditional. That is, if someone wants to survive, they must eat; however, there is no universal commandment that all must want to survive. With that in mind, Stillwell dispenses with the idea of objective and subjective morality, and focuses instead on the morality of survival and self-expression.' — Brett Stevens —

— Objective Morality is illusion —

— The Free Man Is A Warrior–Skeptic —

— Prescription Demands Force —

— The World Is A Battlefield —

— Life Is Will To Power —

Friday, May 19, 2017

Against Normative Realism

Justin Schieber is a moral realist who argues that "happiness" is "good in itself" and pain and suffering are "bad in themselves." That is, he claims that there is intrinsic goodness and badness.
He claims that suffering is a dis-value in itself.
He merely assumes this as an axiomatic truth.
He calls this "normative truth". In fact he calls his thesis "Normative Realism".

Why is pain and suffering intrinsically bad? Why is happiness good? His answer is that you cannot ask why because it is "philosophical bed rock". He likens it to questioning the laws of logic. However, unlike "the laws of logic" it is still possible for me to argue cogently without assuming "intrinsic value".
So, comparing his so called "normative truths" to "the laws of logic" falls apart. He has offered no cogent reason to assume his so called normative facts. Here, I can do that to, moral nihilism is axiomatic. Now what?
Also, to say that "X is a value" is to express a positive non cognitive attitude, or that it is a means to obtaining something you have a positive attitude about.
Value isn't mind-independent, it is what minds do.
Another way of putting it is, there are no values only valuers.

His assertion concerning a value or good or bad in itself is ofcourse, nothing more than peticio Príncipe (begging the question).
Such claims to intrinsic value is like arguing "God is good because God is good".
2 can play this game: So then, my response is that moral realism is false because moral realism is false.

He claims that some facts are sufficient reasons to motivate action.
He's wrong. If one is in a burning building and one correctly believes that they will die if they don't leave. This true belief would be insufficient to motivate action.
There must be a desire not to die or burn to death in order for a motivating to-be-done-ness to propel action.
(See Hume's Theory of motivation)
He claims that moral nihilism is false because there is no intrinsic value according to moral nihilism and thus no reason to value anything on moral nihilism.
This claim displays a profound misunderstanding of moral nihilism. Example, the reason we value life is because we evolved to. Is life an intrinsic (inherent value)? No, but on moral nihilism to say that 'X is a value' is to express a subjective desire for X.

I offered to debate him, but he declined my offer.

Your move Justin...

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

The Will To Truth

No one is unbiased. Organisms are valuing power hungry machines.
Many will claim to have a bias toward truth, but this is only true when truth grants them power. This is only true to a point.
For example, Christians reveal their bias against truth when they say things like "If my theism is correct you (the atheist) face eternal damnation, and if you are right then death is the end and I have nothing to lose by believing."

This clearly demonstrates that they prefer a comfortable lie over cold hard facts.
The phrase "I have nothing to lose by believing" reveals that ultimately truth is at least secondary to them and not an end in itself. That they value truth less than something else as it is only a means to something else. 

Believers will often resort to arguing that "Without God there is no objective morality, therefore God". 
Which is really just arguing "I don't wanna live in a world without X, therefore God". An appeal to consequence fallacy. 

Matthew Ray, a now former Christian apologist wrote in the the forward of my book that; "God could very well want me to suffer if it meant his glory be shown. See Romans 9). I then realized that this god was only after his best interest (his interest not mine). These thoughts deeply disturbed me but I fought them. I played them off like it was Satan trying to deceive me but then I remembered, Satan cannot do what God doesn’t allow him to do. So no matter how you look at it, God is allowing Satan to do this for his glory."(his power interest not mine)

That is he became open to the possibility that God didn't exist after realizing that if he did, he wouldn't derive benefit from it.
Most believers (in whatever) won't even question their belief until it will grant them (power) by doing so. 

I have met many believers who believe (at least in part) because they derive power by being apart of a religious in-group. That is, they derive comfort in their beliefs, they may even have a social safety net because of it etc.
I have watched unbelieving woman suddenly 'find Jesus,' after dating a Christian man. (Often times he is wealthy)

It has been said "If you want to know what someone thinks about you, look at what they are willing to believe about you".
Is this not at least generally true? 
People are more likely to believe negative accusations about those they hate or have no emotional attachment to, but will often fervently defend those who are of power importance to them no matter how guilty the accused person is likely to be. 

Look, for example what conspiracy theories democrats are willing to believe about a republican politician. Why do they buy into such theories about their opponents? Because if true, they stand to benefit, and often even if false they stand to benefit. 

Please do not misunderstand me here, I am not saying "they believe because of motive X, therefore their belief is false."
That would be an appeal to motive fallacy. 
I'm not claiming that they always make such decision consciously. In fact I think it is mostly subconscious.

Every healthy organism consciously and unconsciously seeks power, sometimes truth is power, other times it isn't. 
One thing is always true, power is always power. 
People will accept power UnAllied to truth, but never truth UnAllied to power just as they will accept power UnAllied to (purported) 'moral goodness" but never "moral goodness" UnAllied to power.

"The world is will to power..... you are will to power and nothing besides!" — Nietzsche 

Much of what people believe is due to subconscious power considerations. Natural selection selects for truth insofar as it is successful in the propagation of DNA. 
Often times a belief in falsity binds an in group together thus leading to greater in group cooperation, and thus an aid to genetic proliferation and individual survival.  
Hence religion and dogma. 
"The will to truth" is ultimately merely one of the many guises 
 of the will to power. 

Perhaps you can think of some ways in which people derive power/benefit from believing in something false. 
If so, leave it in the chat box below.

Thursday, May 11, 2017

My Projectivism

My own personal view (at the moment) is that morality at least begins as non cognitive attitudes and then elaborate beliefs and attempted justifications are constructed around them.
As a Projectionist in morals, I hold that our moral opinions and behaviors are better accounted for as reactions to a reality that consists not of value, moral obligation, or rights. This is in stark contrast to the moral realist who contends that our moral opinions and behaviors are explained by our recognition, or intuition concerning some kind of moral reality.
The human tendency is to project one's negative and positive attitudes onto reality and then mistakenly believe them to be something one locates in-the-world, as something independent of human reactivity and opinion.
For example, one could have a meta physical belief which postulates the existence of some sort of platonic 'realm of values', a belief in some kind of moral non naturalism or naturalism. In meta ethics this view is known as "Projectivism".
While I think it is clear that moral terms are used to express emotional attitudes, it is equally clear that (especially among the theologically minded) moral language is also employed in reference to some mistaken belief concerning 'objective moral values' etc. With that said, I'm not sure that many average folk think very deeply about what they mean when they say 'X is evil!'. They don't necessarily have any particular cognitive moral belief but are merely expressing approval or a strong disgust.
Think of young children for example; they use moral language but haven't had enough time and experience to accumulate nor cognitive capacity to formulate convoluted belief structures.

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Moral Nihilism Is Not Relativism

I want to clear up a common misconception concerning moral nihilism.
Over the years in discussing meta ethics with non philosophers I have encountered many who confuse Moral Nihilism with Moral Relativism.
Moral Relativism is the meta ethical view that moral language is true or false relative to a given societal, cultural, or religious standard.
Moral nihilism clearly distinguishes itself from Moral Relativism as it is the view that moral facts do not exist, that nothing is either moral or immoral; and that moral language is either false or un—true.
Neither is Moral nihilism some sort of Cultural Relativism.
Cultural Relativism is the ethical view that all cultures are valid and thus no criticism of them should be made. The Power-Nihilist may point out to the Cultural Relativist that the prescription "You ought not be critical of other cultures." is itself an ethic (prescription) that is relative to their culture, thus not an objective moral prescription.

Saturday, May 6, 2017

Argumetum Ad Moral Nihilum

Dear Antifa and other SJW morons.

As a philosopher of meta ethics I hereby inform you that it is fallacious to derive a prescription from the fact that one group of human primates (or their ancestors) enslaved another group of human primates. This is known as an is-ought fallacy. You cannot logically deduce oughts from facts.

Thus your assertion that "Every descendant of the European invaders has a debt to pay to the slaves that were uprooted from their native lands and forced to build this nation under bondage." is logically untenable.

Also, you are assuming slave value premises such as "equality is good" and "Boo slavery!" etc and as values can only be assumed they can also be rejected out right.

It Tis not contrary to reason to prefer inequality over equality, slavery over freedom, nor 'the destruction of the whole world" over "the scratching of my finger." (See Hume's Treatise On Human Nature.)

Also, as morality is based on subjective sentiment rather than facts and reason, and all oughts are based upon value premises (an if clause) there are no moral imperatives.
Thus all morality is subjective and your moral arguments are without foundation. In fact, it is logically impossible to argue about values, and only possible to dispute about questions of fact. (See Language, Truth & Logic Ch 5 by A.J Ayer)

Argumentum ad moral nihilum

Premise 1. Moral terms are non cognitive expressions and thus non propositional or truth apt.
Premise 2. "Injustice" is a moral term whose referent lacks in-the-world-properties.
Premise 3. Justice is also a moral term.
Premise 4. There are no moral imperatives (categorical imperatives) only hypothetical ones.
Conclusions, therefore "injustice" does not exist.
Therefore racial "injustice" is "evil" is un-true.
Therefore there is no such thing as "social justice".
Therefore there are no social justice warriors, only deluded primates who use these non cognitive terms as though they actually described in-the-world-properties.