Your description of active nihilism seems off. As I understand it active nihilism is the philosophy that after discovering there is no inherent meaning you choose to create your own meaning. Active nihilism is kinda like existentialism. In fact the wikipedia page you link to says the same thing:
This alternate, ‘active’ nihilism on the other hand destroys to level the field for constructing something new. This form of nihilism is characterized by Nietzsche as “a sign of strength,”[53] a willful destruction of the old values to wipe the slate clean and lay down one’s own beliefs and interpretations, contrary to the passive nihilism that resigns itself with the decomposition of the old values. This willful destruction of values and the overcoming of the condition of nihilism by the constructing of new meaning, this active nihilism, could be related to what Nietzsche elsewhere calls a ‘free spirit’[54] or the Übermensch from Thus Spoke Zarathustra and The Antichrist, the model of the strong individual who posits his own values and lives his life as if it were his own work of art.
The philosophy you’re describing is not nihilism but a different philosophy that preaches active indecisiveness. I personally never heard of it.
Active nihilism described in the paragraph definitely includes, but is not limited to, the negation of values. The active nihilists of a moral parliament may paralyze the parliament as a means to an end; perhaps, to cause systems other than the moral parliament to be the primary determinants of action, rather than the moral parliament.
So the very next sentence on the wikipedia page is:
It may be questioned, though, whether “active nihilism” is indeed the correct term for this stance [...]
And I agree that this is no longer nihilism but rather existentialism.
EDIT: The reason this matters is because you need entirely different arguments against existentialism.
The active nihilists of a moral parliament may paralyze the parliament as a means to an end
As soon as there is an actual end, it seizes to be nihilism. It’s not that I don’t want to debate existentialism, but rather there has already been so much criticism written about it that I’m not up to date on. If you are interested in arguments against active indecisiveness I suggest you start there.
Your description of active nihilism seems off. As I understand it active nihilism is the philosophy that after discovering there is no inherent meaning you choose to create your own meaning. Active nihilism is kinda like existentialism. In fact the wikipedia page you link to says the same thing:
The philosophy you’re describing is not nihilism but a different philosophy that preaches active indecisiveness. I personally never heard of it.
Active nihilism described in the paragraph definitely includes, but is not limited to, the negation of values. The active nihilists of a moral parliament may paralyze the parliament as a means to an end; perhaps, to cause systems other than the moral parliament to be the primary determinants of action, rather than the moral parliament.
So the very next sentence on the wikipedia page is:
And I agree that this is no longer nihilism but rather existentialism.
EDIT: The reason this matters is because you need entirely different arguments against existentialism.
As soon as there is an actual end, it seizes to be nihilism. It’s not that I don’t want to debate existentialism, but rather there has already been so much criticism written about it that I’m not up to date on. If you are interested in arguments against active indecisiveness I suggest you start there.