Ok, this is my first try at this...

I probably would not (probably could not) try to argue against the beliefs/doctrin portion of the thesis, but argue against the actions/way of life suggested.

In attempting to live to the fullest & ignore judgements by society, one may find themselves locked up in one of society's special places for nihilists (many of whom don't even know they are nihilists). Where they may find it much harder to enjoy life to it's fullest, since bigger tougher nihilists there may intentionally remove that joy, as a form of entertainment.

But if Bains is a sado masochist as well, this argument may hold little sway.

Barcell.

That assumes the common way of life is only common for reasons other than it being rewarding & bringing happyiness to those who live it...

So an existential nihilist, as described might have a fine life, if the whims he acts on, are not deemed antisocial enough to rise to the level of broken laws/ruined relationships (if he values relationships). But if his whims include murder, he will likely end up not having the fun he was looking for. Though, again, if being put in prison is not a negative to him he may still be having fun!

Philohof wrote:
Maybe the best thing in this case would be to give up thinking for oneself and stick to the rules of society?

I think the "rules of society" depending on how you define them, gives people a fairly wide continuum of acceptable lifestyles/behaviors. And if you don't mind moving, there may be countries/locals that even more specifically suit a given predilection.

I am refering more to breaking laws & ending up somewhere unpleasant... But if it is basic acceptance you are looking for, as in a need for the approval of society, that is a far narrower continuum... And is just not gonna work out if your doing the wrong crazy stuff

I think he means, all ethics (may?) come from society... Your personal ones, maybe through a lifetime of absorbing your environment, are still arrived at through societal influences... and the external ones, how you are judged by others (or is it, how you THINK you will be judged?).

But still, the two may be in conflict & be different... Where ever my personal ethics come from, they are not like society's and are not like anyone I know... To me, society's ethics seem distant, insulated from my own... not even really related, whatever the origin(s) of mine.

Philohof wrote:
Now, please, tell me: How do your individual ethics enter in conflict with society's ethics? What is society's ethics for you?

Best wishes philohof

How do they "enter" in conflict, do you mean "in what way does you ethics conflict with society's?" or do you mean "How does this conflict manifest?" ...or something else?

It is not so much a conflict with specific persons, that I mean... More like, I view society's ethics as a whole, in relation to a given topic as- [A]. While my personal ethic on that topic is- [B]. Not that I find myself at odds with a specific person over weather A or B is correct, or I am doing B and a person tells me I should do A instead.

I think societal ethics generally support the death penalty, I do not, but not for same reasons as most others who don't. I find myself fairly alone in my reasoning on the subject, but not quite so on the general position... But I don't go around starting conversations about it, so I don't end up in conflict over it.