So, our culture works under the premise that if you don't promote or sell yourself, meaning highlight your positive attributes, talents, or abilities, then you will not be recognized, noticed, and rewarded for your accomplishments. We are told that our best bet is to brand ourselves and in some cases exaggerate the positives to enhance our social resumes to achieve success at work, home, or relationships. However, where does it end? Are there cons to overselling ourselves? What are we losing by engaging in this form of forced narcissism?
Forgive me, but I believe you got that wrong. It's not that the society wants you to highlight some good traits of your character, or anything like that; no, they want to form your character – that being possible, your very "soul" – and what you call "highlighting" is no more (and no less) than behaving accordingly to that social construct, to the image of the person they want you to be.
We can speak about attributes in themselves and for themselves and about displaying attributes so people will like you etc.; mind: there's a difference in being honest and acting in such and such ways so people will believe you're honest – but honesty doesn't necessarily plays a part in this last case, by the way; an actor doesn't need to be as honest as the character in his personal life, it will suffice to pretend to be for the duration of the play.
And we're speaking about plays here. Either you're something, or you're not. Appearing to be, or trying to be an enhanced version of yourself, is just acting. And if there's a difference about having some trait and striving to display it in such and such a way, sometimes the latter can even get in the way of the former: if you believe that deciding this way is the honest option, but most people would think the contrary, you would have a situation.
What's the problem of that? Well, someday will will have to choose, consciously or not. Just like in the above example, you have to decide which one is most important to you: appearing to be wise, truthful, kind etc., etc., or interpreting some social character they gave you. If you try to go long without deciding, being something at home, something else in public, you will literally become insane. And if you pretend you're something, someday you will think about the reason for choosing the public lie over the personal truth and maybe, if you're lucky, discover you've got nothing for all you have given – well, at least you will still have some praises.
So, let me sum it all up: by believing that good uses of intelligence are rare nowadays, it must follows that stupidity is the norm. And if that's so, and if you agree that stupid people tend to despise anything above them, it follows that they will try the best to recreate the world, and of course everyone, to their image. So they want you to be stupid like them, to seek the empty life they want for themselves, and they will turn your life into a living hell, if they can, if you don't comply. As for being yourself, you can always strive for some self-improvement; as for being the social doll they want, the only measure for improvement is "being closer to their opinion of what's the best", that being a closed system and there's no escape of it by accepting the rules. And since you can't be both things, following one path is getting away from the other. Then by being the enhanced superman, you're giving up the option of being yourself (and improving, if that's not good enough). By choosing this, you will become empty, truly sad, and you won't represent a quality anymore, but a quantity (no more than a number). These are the cons.
The pros? They kind of people that can't like you for what you are will praise you. Kudos, I say.
My best regards.
Part of true nihilism, to my knowledge, is detachment from forms of external influence. It stresses an importance of the true 'self'. I wouldn't think that mainstream society is very nihilistic at all, and I'm not sure that this example is a proponent of 'nihilistic culture'. Mainstream society stresses duty as well as adherence to one's societal roles. This isn't very nihilistic at all.
And what "
true Nihilism" would be? Bear in mind that some Nihilists even deny the concept of truth, so it can take some time to ascertain what that means – and also, of course, "
true 'self'". Also, you can find that Nihilism provides the core of much we have in the modern world without being all of it – not a good example in some ways, but think about some Heavy Metal subcultures.
But here, let's take this comment: "All you see here, in this world, is the result of mere chance. So why do you keep worrying about morals, about 'a good life'? What does that even mean? There's no such thing as that, 'cause you have no reference; the ones they give you are based in some untruthful Metaphysics. Forget all that! There's this life, then there's nothingness, and that's it. If you spend your life trying to be 'good', you're just dumb, because there won't be any reward. But of course you can pretend to be good – or anything to this effect – because they're mostly
that dumb to believe in old morals (thanks to their education and/or a lack of some good thinking) and so acting like that will make them like you and will have two results, the most important one for you depending of your nature: a) they will leave you alone so you can live like you want, because will won't be just strange, but "strange, but cool", and b) they will the a source of pleasures for you."
Let's try to know the tree by the fruits; see if the way of thinking above can't be related to Nihilism (of some kind), then let's verify it the same words, even if not declared, don't appear to guide the modern individuals, it that's not the "'free' 'culture'" of the modern society. Choosing between "modern society isn't Nihilistic at all!", and "modern society isn't but Nihilism!", my position is closer to the latter.
My best regards.