This post is something that I've been thinking about since I first discovered the red pill and MGTOW. Recently, I started listening to Jordan Peterson, reading Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, and the two long podcasts between Peterson and Sam Harris. Both of which I found fascinating.

Fundamentally, AWALT and nihilism are logical conclusions of materialism. In other words, you can zoom out and view the universe from the big bang to the inevitable heat death of the universe. From this extreme perspective you may logically conclude that everything which happens in between these two limits is meaningless. Pointless. Absent of value.

This is the position Sam Harris is trying to argue against. Hume's "Is vs Ought". From a materialistic "Is" perspective all logical conclusions lead to nihilism and justify human extinction. Yes, AWALT. All women are monkeys who behave like monkeys.

To view the world this way may be the most objectively "true" way possible. Yes, you can zoom out and see the whole of the universe from the big bang to the heat death of the universe, but you cannot live there. There is no "oxygen" in space. There is no "meaning" found from the purely objective point of view. This is the point of view of an immortal indestructible intelligence. But you and I aren't that. We're monkeys too, and monkeys who need to make concessions to live. We need food and water, we need to avoid being too hot or too cold, we need to avoid diseases and injury, and we need meaning in our lives in order not to sit around and wait for death or take death into our own hands.

The materialist objection might be "Well that's not convenient" and logically it would be preferable to minimize concessions from a pure materialist point of view. In other words, humans aren't sufficient to view the world in a purely materialist frame therefore we should replace them with something better. And so we're back to justifying human extinction again.

Nietzsche pointed out these objections and the absurdity of logical materialistism in the first chapter of Beyond Good and Evil. There, he argued that the first principle of materialism "truth" is insufficient for humanity. Instead he argued for the pragmatic first principle of "life".

Objectively AWALT is true, but it isn't useful. It is looking objectively at women and saying "they're monkeys. They aren't sufficient." That's true for some kind of transcendent immortal alien perspective - but you and I are fucking monkeys, man. It's like floating in space without oxygen. Looking at the world this way will suffocate you because it is devoid of meaning.

Is there an alternative? Nietzsche argues that life is suffering. A nihilist suffers meaninglessly and may take comfort in martyrdom and complaining about their situation. Because nothing matters. The alternative is to take a pragmatic view of the world. To say that life is suffering and to sacrifice your life and dedicate your suffering to a higher purpose. Not supernatural, of course, but transcendent. To sacrficie your life by pursuing the highest good you can imagine. From this point of view everything you do matters. Everything you suffer is meaningful.

I argue that this pragmatic point of view is the proper view for a monkey to have.