"As a moral, existential, and political nihilist" 1define your use of the term political nihilism. 2 did you read my above linked essay on the subject? "who at one time consciously built out a mode of humanism-like ideology as a means of "picking a direction" in the void which eventually lead to becoming an anarchist" 3 Political Nihilism as I define it is a consequence of moral nihilism and thus claiming to be both is a contradiction in terms as anarchism is a moralist position. "while still also concurrently being a political nihilist." 4 I wonder if you are using the term in the same sense that I am? "However, these things don't link up in any particular way: nihilisms are about foundations" 5 moral nihilism is a position in meta ethics. "and anarchism is an orientation," 6 not sure what you mean that it is an 'orientation', perhaps you could flush that statement out a bit.
"1) I'm not going to do that, it's clear enough that neither of us mean the same thing.2) I did not and do not intend to: It was sufficiently clear in your OP that any conceivable arguments would rest on definitional usages I would reject before the fact.3) No nihilisms are of themselves necessarily consequent to any others, though they may circumstantially arise in clusters. Anarchism can certainly be read as having moral character, but only in so far as it is comprised of ways of doing things, and doing things is comprised of decisions, and decisions are always interpretable as having moral content. However, no moral reading of this sort need necessarily be incompatible with moral nihilism.4) We definitely are not. At the least, you seem to have rather more narrowly defined the matters in question than do I.5) Orientation as in the direction one might find themselves facing after having been spun in a game of pin the tail on the donkey."
If you are not going to define your usage of basic terms in your thesis, then we cannot have a prophetable discussion.
"No nihilisms are of themselves necessarily consequent to any others" yes they are as I've shown in my essay. All arguments rest upon definitions...
Anarchism is moralistic. It assumes non irrealist positions in meta ethics, moral nihilism negates the existence of moral epistemology, and objectivity etc.. Therefore moral nihilism and anarchism are necessarily in opposition to one another. You can make up your own definitions of these terms but then you have removed your self from the on going philosophical discussion.
You can read my book on meta ethics free here http://www.power-nihilism.education which argues for a qualified form of moral nihilism.
Power-Nihilism: To answer your question, when I say 'moralist' I'm generally referring to those who have a moral realist position in meta ethics
'i'd like to hear an example of what this means to you.
yes dot. after perusing the site i can only concur with you. endless rationalizing of knuckle-dragging reactionaries and their miserabilist cosmology mistaken for 'how it really is'... of course sanctified with a shitty, all-too-common interpretation of nietzsche. (that is, like their tooth and claw cosmology, they forget theirs is only interpretation)
an @101 nietzsche geek
"fuck him and fuck his site."
Seconded, I started reading PN's essay when they posted it and immediately started writing down notes regarding it's general crappiness, so as to write a comprehensive comment here, but SD, AF and BAA beat me to the punch ;)
For anyone who's interested, here are the disorganised thoughts I had whilst reading PN's essay (I didn't get close to finishing it, the self-righteous tone was too off-putting):
Fixation on what is rational and 'logical' is off-putting and spookish, in my experience appeals to reason are pretty much always appeals to spooks. My anarchism is based not on objective moral principle but desire, and is therefore completely irrational and illogical - if my desires were to be confined by logic then surely, being a white, (culturally) middle class male, logic would lead me to desire the status quo, because it is to my benefit in a lot of material ways. But I don't support the status quo, I'm not a statist, I'm an anarchist; not because heirarchal relationships are immoral but because I don't like them, I don't enjoy them.
Coming across the phrase 'I-Theist' I winced. If this means what I think it means, I don't have much time for it, or anything else that reifies yourself for that matter.
With regards to 'political theory', I as an anarchist do not cleave to Stirner or Nietzsche, I cleave their ideas to me, PN's writing on the other hand comes across as deeply ideological, rather than egoistic or authentic.
"I'm a moral nihilist who values consistency and thus will not put forth baseless moral arguments against goverment."
Well I'm an egoist (among other adjectives) anarchist who values consistency and so I don't put forth baseless moral arguments against government. In fact I think you'd be hard pressed to find an anarchist on here who would.
To wrap things up, Sidney Parker, after disavowing anarchism, critiqued anarchism from a Stirnerean perspective, arguing that anarchism was incompatible with egoism because of anarchism's alleged inherent moralism, but to my mind he wasn't very successful either, because he couldn't imagine an anarchism rooted in desire rather than principle.
Nietzsche hated 'anarchists' like yourself for many of the same reasons I do.
Then what the hell are you doing here?