Reddit reviews Laughing at Nothing: Humor as a Response to Nihilism

Laughing at Nothing: Humor As A Response To Nihilism

I got it from a podcast on optimistic nihilism (that I forget which. It was so long ago,) and having had associated with people who identify as hedonists in my youth...

But there's also books on the subject like this

(Edit: I believe the podcast that broke the camel's back as a radiolab episode entitled "In the dust of this planet")

There was no point but the fleeting moment of enjoyment, but so what? Are roller coasters not fun just because they end? On Monday I'll just have more sex, more physical, temporal enjoyment, because why not? No action has value or meaning, negative or positive! Might as well enjoy yourself as best as you can! There's a book I think you should read, called Laughing at Nothing: Humor as a response to nihilism (https://www.amazon.ca/Laughing-Nothing-Humor-Response-Nihilism/dp/0791458407). I don't think being a nihilist and being happy are incongruous. It's like Sisyphus, there is no point in rolling the boulder up the hill day in and out, but you can choose to be happy anyway. Look into absurdism too (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism) because while there is no meaning, no point, you can still choose to make pointless meaning for yourself. Why do you bother waking up every day otherwise? For me, it's to keep feeling awesome things while I can, because why not? There's no point in despair, you'd just be wasting your own opportunity, which doesn't matter, but isn't personally very much fun!

To combine what other comments have already stated.

1. Occam’s razor is another axiom so to speak. Sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s not (i.e. in terms of usefulness).
   
   
2. For the original comment above he pretty much hits it on the head with the teapot and talking about the liars paradox of a self referential paradox.
   
   I love nihilism. But I think people have a polar view of it especially when it comes to morality. Most things we create require assumptions. To stick with morality you have for example utilitarianism vs deontology and you even have consequentialism which aims to combine the two.
   
   All of these require assumptions or premises and that conclusions follow. If you reject the premise/assumption or pointing out that they are made up therefore the following conclusion can’t follow, that’s okay.
   
   But, by rejecting them you are without even realizing it create your own set of assumptions and conclusions that create their own axioms.
   
   Lack of acceptance of axioms or rejection of them = some set of axioms, however you go about it.
   
   In a sense it is a paradox not unlike the liars paradox due to the innate nature of what you are doing, and the resulting conclusion.
   
   For example:
   
   This true statement is false. (More or less the same thing)
   
   Saying nothing is right or wrong = a normative statement about morality.
   
   It requires a moral system (moral nihilism) to make such a statement which has its own premises, conclusions, and yes axioms
   
   I know that I know nothing = is liars paradox, self referential paradox, semantical and logical paradox.
   
   You can slice it many different ways. I love this stuff it’s fun. But it’s ultimately useless.
   
   I know.... (you know something)
   
   that I know nothing (if assume true = you know nothing)
   
   Know something + know nothing = paradox
   
   You have to know in order to know that you know nothing.
   
   It is the liars paradox but instead of involving two people, it is just you and yourself (see what I just did. My own paradox for fun. Are you and yourself two people or one?)
   
   Hope this didn’t seem too repetitive. It’s always fun.
   
   Something far more interesting is the frequent rejection of moral relativism in academic philosophy. It’s mainly because of contradictions and classical rules, but in real life we can see competing truths for a variety of reasons.
   
   Realistically, paradoxes don’t exist. Once you get to infinity in terms of all things (time, space, etc) you should have objective truth.
   
   Infinity may tell us there is no morality. Infinity may also tell us that there is an universal moral code. Could be a God, could be a spaghetti monster, could be nothing.
   
   The point is like the teapot, arguing about it is ultimately useless and not why we establish things such as morality in the first place. Morality is a component of social organization, it’s a part of the recipe.
   
   TL:DR
   
   Saying there are no axioms is an axiom.
   
   I know I know nothing = liars paradox but with only one person (i.e. you and yourself) fun paradox game: Are you and yourself one or two people?
   
   Moral nihilism is useless for social function and ignores why we use morality in the first place. Technically a chainsaw never existed to begin with, but we “constructed” it for a specific purpose. Morality is no different.
   
   If you love nihilism and only read one book, I highly recommend this one. It breaks down history, different development, different misconceptions, and shows the benefit of humor throughout life.
   
   Edit:
   
   Also, it is possible to assign probability or value assignment of actions we do it through creation of systems and everything I mentioned before this.
   
   Cat petting = good, bad, neutral. All depends on how you frame it.
   
   By saying you can’t determine or assign a value to it is one way to frame it, but still a frame so = evaluation. So you are assigning a value to it.
   
   By evaluating that something is “unevaluatable”, you are making an evaluation.
   
   ^^^ this is more or less the same exact thing as I know I know nothing statement
   
   Always be careful about getting lost in that paradoxical sauce.