The Romantic hero is a literary archetype referring to a character that rejects established norms and conventions, has been rejected by society, and has the self as the center of his or her own existence.[1] The Romantic hero is often the protagonist in the literary work and there is a primary focus on the character's thoughts rather than his or her actions. Literary critic Northrop Frye noted that the Romantic hero is often "placed outside the structure of civilization and therefore represents the force of physical nature, amoral or ruthless, yet with a sense of power, and often leadership, that society has impoverished itself by rejecting".[1]

There is no truth.
True or false?

Answer true for a paradox. That leaves us with false...meaning: there is truth.
That means, in my mind at least, that nihilism is ultimately absurd, if I'm understanding the term correctly.

"This is why, practically speaking, a Nihilist would be just an individual who recognises ultimately there is no intrinsic meaning to anything bar what we personally instil. You can recognise the nihilistic imperative and still have a moral system for pragmatic reasons."

That's what I said earlier in this forum and someone said that I was describing existentialism.
I don't think that a nihilist is someone who recognizes ultimately there is no intrinsic meaning to anything, but that a nihilist is literally someone who holds no beliefs about life or the world. They don't trust that their bed will be there in the morning and must have live extremely timidly.
But like I said, even if you say you hold no beliefs you are, I think, holding the belief that there is no truth...Impossible and paradoxical, I think.

I think some understanding of nihilism can be connect to certain roots. Nietzsche loved Byron. The Romantic poets loved Milton's Satan. Milton loved Shakespeare, created Satan by modifying Edmund and Iago....

Man is never a valueless creature, but he can make the Self as sort of god and embrace a pragmatist epistemology. (nothing is true....except that nothing is true....hmm)

There is no truth.
True or false?

Answer true for a paradox. That leaves us with false...meaning: there is truth.
That means, in my mind at least, that nihilism is ultimately absurd, if I'm understanding the term correctly.

a Nihilist thinks this metaphorical "house" gives us the capacity to make value systems for pragmatic reasons.

- Minimal.

I think you are attributing far too much to the Nihilist here. You are being overly generous. The 'value system' that you are envisaging can really only be that of the Selfish Gene, which survives, BECAUSE it is programmed to do so. Unfortunately, in the H Sapiens, the Selfish Gene runs up against an impenetrable barrier. This is the question: why survive? Which, of course, the Selfish Gene has never had to deal with before. And I think many nihilists fail to answer that question.

Of course, they are no longer with us.

This conception of "god" seems somewhat skewed in my honest opinion.

There is only one truth: That nothing is true except this statement.

That fixes the paradox

You can have a pragmatic epistemological perspective and still recognise precedence of others and their views - that is their ideas can be more pragmatic than our own and we can view others as more important than ourselves (i.e our loved ones). How is such a view self-worship?

Pragmatism assumes some purpose, even if it is just survival. I am sure real nihilism questions even that, and is as much a psychological condition as much as a philosophical stance. An attitude summed up in the well-known aphorism of noted social philosopher Bart Simpson and many Gen X devotees as: 'whatever'.

I mean, depression and suicide are real social problems in modern society. Nihilism, heroic or not, does not strike me as an effective philosophical basis on which to combat these maladies.

Glad I am not you, that is all I can say. I don't see the point in having a philosophy that says there isn't any point. Isn't it the case that if you argue with me, you contradict yourself?

Of course. Romanticism is history. And Milton's Satan didn't end well. I think Blake's twist on it is deeper, better. Ultimately we are social beings.

However, there is something to be said for the burning of idols, and this self-as-god romanticism is a potent brew. Consider the ethical questions that plague the young in this chaotic age. We are mortal beings...and if there is no one in charged except for an evolved prudence, this is quite a bit of rope to swing on.

regards/recon

I agree. Perhaps you assumed I was arguing a position when I was merely describing a seductive variety of Romanticism. (Satanism /Byronism).

Ethically I myself have moved (to oversimplify in terms of German Foolosophy) from Nietzsche to Hegel. Also Blake whose general idea is that true religion is just the love of great humans...and loving the greatest humans best. For me, "god" is completely incarnate...., "Humanism", I guess, is a fair word.

well that is true. But you can easily get to a place of thinking 'what is the point?'. I don't know if you are familiar with Camus. He was acutely aware of the predicament of modernity in that regard. To Camus, heroism was to be able to impart some sense of purpose to a universe were there was really none at all. But it is pretty hard to sustain, isn't it? I mean, depression and suicide are real social problems in modern society. Nihilism, heroic or not, does not strike me as an effective philosophical basis on which to combat these maladies.

Perhaps a sound alternative is provided by Viktor Frankl whose book Mankind's Search for Meaning retains an existentialist perspective while articulating a sense of higher purpose.

But as far as I am concerned, nihilism is simply an affliction, pure and simple. It has no redeeming features in my book.

At an ultimate level, I think nihilism reflects reality's indifference to our existence or non-existence, as I have previously mentioned.

The New Age movement deserves respect for its attunement to nature and its search for meaning at a time when neither nature nor meaning is valued in discourse in the humanities. New Age has a core of perennial wisdom. It exalts the brotherhood of man, encourages contemplation, and finds beauty in the moment

It makes sense. But I question whether this vision of the 'vast indifferent universe' is also historically conditioned by the emergence of industrial modernity, the vast wars of the 20th Century, the ongoing backlash against Western religion and the very real awareness that the species and civilization now possesses the power of complete self-destruction. This too is very characteristic of Camus and Sartre, existentialism and nihilism. It was made the basis for Jacques Monod's bleak vision of the human species as a 'biochemical fluke' who emerged fortuitously as a result of 'chance and necessity'. It is an outlook rooted in the aftermath of the idea of death of God.