The logical anti-nihilism argument goes something like:
1. Nihilism claims that no truth exists
2. But then the nihilists themselves cannot claim to truth
3. Ergo not 1
Silly anti-nihilists. As though the fundamental basis of nihilism is a rational, logical claim. It is not; it is the despair at despairing of ever having come across the truth thus far, and knowing not with any degree of sincerity that one will ever come across it, while at the same time the only pathway to human (not merely mechanistic) sanity or hope (i.e. not rational quantities) lies within the certainty of same. It is nothing less than radical doubt, an ontological characterization that cannot be refuted through epistemological ready-mades.
Thus, the philosophical refutation of nihilism approaches the problem in grounds far afield of those in which nihilism is essentially embodied. This is similar to the way in which it is nothing better or worse than comical to use instrumental reason to argue against the notion that instrumental reason is flawed.
Also, too many people use reductio ad absurdum to mean that’s so surreal it must be bullshit!
People should only open their mouths if they know what they are talking about. Problem: nobody seems to know what they are talking about, to say nothing about the utterly necessary problematization of speech and its particulate constitutionals. Solution: it would seem that nobody should open their mouths.
Fuck you all.
Corrollary: I am better than, or worse than (take your pick) anything or anyone you can care to name, including yourself.