It seems most deeply rooted in pessimism from an initial belief of eternal optimism; and from there all dichotomies are dissolved ... which was the point of my comparison of nihilism to buddhism, one comes at the prospect of dissolution of reason rising from pessimism, whilst the other falls down from optimism to the depths of pessimism.
I do not understand when Nihilism is talked about in this way, there is nothing pessimistic about nihilism as it is simply a rejection of objective meaning. I do not know of any argument against Nihilism that makes logical sense, only that God bypasses the rules of subjectivity. Most people have what I call pseudo objective moral law which means objective morality without God and really, I've never heard any sensible explanation for pseduo-OML. Most rejections of Nihilism I am confronted with, are rejections of the perceived outcomes of Nihilism and so pseudo-OML is their convenient lie. I would have no problems with this lie if I believed it was beneficial. I also disagree with Buddhism's answer to the view that "all misery stems from desire" , a view I agree with.
Buddhism says desire causes misery, so eschew it. I think desire is also largely responsible for happiness, so I don't like the idea of eschewing it just because it's dangerous, rather I want to control desire because it's dangerous and Nihilism is necessary for that.
The end game of infinite subjectivity is essentially nothingness. The very frame of the subject dissolves.
I disagree. My answer to infinite subjectivity is utilising the ego to make actions subjectively meaningful. People already do this, you
already do this, in this philosophy forum! You argue about things even you agree are subjective; passionately and with belief in their meaning and you defend your pride in arguments, as you did against me in your thread about living one's life forever.
The ego is a catalyst of meaning for all actions, thoughts and feelings. Self-improvement for the sake of the ego, earn money for the ego, beat others in debates for the ego, get fit for the ego and the list goes on forever. Obviously this is not a simple topic and my solution is not simple, this is my very short explanation of one way of living happily with Nihilism.
I believe eternal and unwavering happiness is obtainable using entirely philosophy and without lifting a finger, Nihilism is key to that. I think Nietzsche was an idealist, his views about "the super man" lack the pragmatism for how I believe values ought to be organized. Without a proper framework behind an idealistic pursuit, it becomes a source for misery and despair. Most value systems are essentially created to be "you must become the change I wish to see in the world", they are not inspired by a pragmatic approach to give an individual what they need or what is best for them.
So I agree that throwing away values or eschewing desires, both really bad ideas because what they offer is too valuable and almost essential. However we don't need objective morality for that and many would be better off without it.
My main argument for this is that objective morality essentially means there is no flexibility when it comes to measuring values by empirical benefit. You forfeit the right to say "what is good for you", you can only think "this is right for all". Many values simply cannot be good for everyone, many values are competitive and there must be losers, many values force us to adopt counter-productive and self-inhibiting attitudes. It is not certain that a value will be undesirable, it is only necessary that if a value is undesirable then people should be able to identify that and get rid of it. Objective morality not only stops people from being able to do that, it also means that people cannot utilise the social advantages of a subjectivity-based assessment of values.
If a value is only relevant subjectively, we can modify it. You may be able to agree with me if I use examples of things that you would agree, do not fall under the category of objective morality but are entirely subjective: a social outcast believes in the same values as others, presumably some of these values explain his isolation - this individual could be a homosexual, a nerd, a loner - doesn't matter, as long as it's something you agree there's no objective validity to whether this thing is good or bad. That social outcast now has the problem of convincing both themselves and others, that they are not deserving of their isolation. If someone like that posted here, I wonder what you might say to them?
What I would advise is to change your value system, so that you don't hate yourself for being the way you are - gay, fat, ugly or whatever. You find ways to give yourself confidence, make a value system which finds fault in others that you can use to make strong arguments for your worth, something you can't do with their value system which basically says you're an undesirable. You invest in yourself and stop investing into a value system which is depriving you of your success.
I think this is a better solution than breaking through that with charisma, courage, hard work and perseverance. Assuming you even can break through it, something which is often not possible. However you can't do what I am saying if it's an issue of objective morality. If it's well understood in your culture that you have an irredeemable trait which you must spend your life working around then it becomes even harder, Fundamentalist Islamic culture's attitudes to women is an easy example.
Objective morality from what I've observed, extends past "right and wrong", it encompasses many values and attitudes. Many people do not and refuse to recognise the entirely subjective nature of their distinctions. You tell them that the only difference difference in value between a doctor and a gambling addict is your opinion and they will shake their heads in disbelief. Hence putting pressure on themselves to succeed in a very competitive world, standards on their behaviour and image that become necessary for contentment but a source of stress, disappointment and embarrassment. If you evaluated these values purely on practical benefit and nothing else, one could recognise that this emotional baggage is an obstacle to lasting happiness and success.
So the my conclusion is, if we recognise the positive benefits of values and desire, we can't choose buddhism. If we recognise the dangers and inefficiency of values then we'd rather not view values and morals as having intrinsic worth. So if it's possible to live a meaningful life without objective morality, the only remaining question is, how to maximize the benefits and minimize the dangers and that is the start of my philosophy. The answer must involve nihilism, that is my belief. However I do not want to call something nihilism if it means something else, I'm also concerned that peoples negative views of nihilism will just prove an obstacle in using the definition even if it's applicable but I'm not sure what to do about that.