he would inevitably answer the question with more questions.
that's good stuff.
that kind of preface seemed admirable.
so... we've adopted this into our own dialectic.
it's difficult to discuss nihilism without mentioning 'belief'. for the earnest nihilist rejects everything. it's not just simple dis-'belief'.
dis-belief would assumes there's some-thing after the hyphen.
there is not.
so how does one discuss nihilism without lending credence towards belief?
furthermore can one remain nihilist, while espousing nihilism?
before the dialogue even begins, there are assumptions...
"I believe in [blank]."
"I don't believe in [blank]."
already accepts the basic premise of the word "belief". so how does one reject it, without ever uttering the word itself? particularly when the word so closely matches other words used to discuss it..?
we've always preferred the term 'value' over 'belief'. value seems to get to the root of things easier (and it doesn't go off accidentally like the loaded gun that is the latter). even the most mild-mannered persons can get very defensive and irate when their beliefs are challenged. yet, seem open-minded to discuss the value of things. also, value seems more appropriate to the discourse since it comes 'before the hyphen' so to speak. in other words, we are not discussing the 'what' of belief, but the 'how'...