So x is this behaviour of being center of attention normal for a nihlist sounds ironic does it not.
It doesn't sound ironic to me, but then, I actually know the definition of irony.
Trust me, as much as I enjoy defending myself, I wish I didn't have to. I wish Rosston et al weren't so intent on defaming me.
My nihilism = 'gaming nihilism': nothing said here (unrelated to things that actually matter) really matters and it is all a game.
This is completely true. I wouldn't argue if I didn't enjoy it. Trollussa's philosophy and your pseudo-philosophy have no actual impact on your lives, and I reject philosophy itself. So it is nothing more than a sport.
you agree that objectiveness doesn't exist, subjectiveness exist though, and for the subject is relevant!
Relevance is different from meaning. I agree that my subjective perspective is the only one that is relevant to me. Still, it carries no meaning.
And anyway, since my subjective view of the world is a nihilistic one, what can you do to change it? If you reject objectivity, you reject with it logic and truth. So what are your tools to convince me? If our subjective viewpoints are equal, what makes yours preferable?
I'd also like to point out for rosston and the other half-wits that Trollussa is justifying with his philosophy the murder of children. He didn't blink for a second in his reaction to it. Worse than I ever did.
About planets, there is not even need to answer, about evolution: yes, if some animals have a will, they can produce their own meaning as well, the fact that it isn't complex doesn't require that it doesn't exist.
Durrrr
Maybe for pigs and goats your philosophy is nice. Because then they can give meaning to eating grass and rolling around in the mud. And they can call themselves Ubergoats and Uberpigs. And there can be Ubercrabs who can give meaning to sucking blood from the pubis. How lovely for everyone.
About Heidegger I just want to say that I have been aware of his theories only after that I had already found on myself those concepts, I always talk about him because quoting him should me quicker than explaining every time the whole stuff.
Fair enough. I guess Heidegger is slightly less incomprehensible than you are.
last paragraph
Nihilism is no achievement, it is a null hypothesis. All your silly self-justifiying philosophies that appeal to the heart and not the mind fail to convince me. You cannot even prove that it is better to be right than to be wrong. So, if you think I am wrong, than let me be wrong. Why I should want to be correct is beyond me, and beyond you.
So call me an existentialist. I will spend the rest of my life giving subjective meaning to things. How much differently will I act? Not at all. What will happen to me? Nothing. Why should I bother with philosophy, literally 'the love of knowledge', when everything I know indicates that knowledge is worthless? You tell me.
Look at the two of us. We're both arguing, with equal disrespect, on the internet. So how does existentialist Trollussa differ from nihilist Trollussa?