The morality of God is power

[EndogenousRebel]

Brutal

 

[onesteptwostep]

Brutal

Yeah.

As a Christian I think Nietzsche is what happens when you try to engineer a society by your own will. One has to be really spiritually awake to distinguish what is true in the eyes of God to really pursue righteousness. I think the moment you replace faith with a system or something self-engineered you bring in something profane into your soul. Nietzsche brought all his celebral might to try and stay pure to himself, because the system that was given to him wasn't really what God had intended. If anything I like to think that Nietzsche has been forgiven by God and is resting for all the trouble he endured. That I think would be justice. Earth was hell for him enough.

 

[ZenRaiden]

What's this supposed to mean? Are you saying Nietzsche is irrational?

Either way if you're trying to disprove the reality of LOTR for some reason, then you have an odd obession with disproving something which purportly you claim has no merit in the first place. That obession in itself seems much more harmful than the subject which it claims to criticize. Wouldn't it be more rational to ignore it?

I don't know what you mean, but it was an analogy.
Bible is story telling. Its how people in the past learned to adopt culture and learn.
Since in Jesus times, for mere plebs schools did not exist, religion was also educational device.
But Nietzsche lived in a world where people already had access to wider education.
There were more literate people, and people used more concepts and understood more things in life than people around year zero who were still living rather limited lives.
Its kind of like today you don't have to worry about people being wholly illiterate.
But unlike LOTR people actually act on biblical knowledge.
But like LOTR its a question of how much Bible can be actually tested against reality.

I would not fault a medieval person for explaining lighting as result of Thor striking hammer and anvil.

I would not fault people in LOTR fan club imitating orcs or speaking elvis.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Yeah.

As a Christian I think Nietzsche is what happens when you try to engineer a society by your own will. One has to be really spiritually awake to distinguish what is true in the eyes of God to really pursue righteousness. I think the moment you replace faith with a system or something self-engineered you bring in something profane into your soul. Nietzsche brought all his celebral might to try and stay pure to himself, because the system that was given to him wasn't really what God had intended. If anything I like to think that Nietzsche has been forgiven by God and is resting for all the trouble he endured. That I think would be justice. Earth was hell for him enough.

So you aren't really interested in truth.... makes for awkward conversation then.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I'm not saying he's wrong, I perfectly empathize with his thoughts. His notions aren't really in the category of true or false because they're more an exploration of "faithlessness". I see his experience as another hue in the experiences of mankind.

Faith is religious concept where people believe whatever religions doctrine happens to be now.
People who have no faith, still have to act on beliefs and assumptions.
Because people act on the world, and the world acts on them.
Things are in reality based in various ways in social context, but the natural world seems pretty consistent.
Nietzsches humanistic belief in humans being able to create a morality that overcomes Christianity, maybe in some way a untestable belief it self.
But Nietzsche is not some lonesome wolf philosophere, not in philosophy or even the current world.
He was definitely not the first or last to point out flaws of religion.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Brutal

Yeah.

As a Christian I think Nietzsche is what happens when you try to engineer a society by your own will. One has to be really spiritually awake to distinguish what is true in the eyes of God to really pursue righteousness. I think the moment you replace faith with a system or something self-engineered you bring in something profane into your soul. Nietzsche brought all his celebral might to try and stay pure to himself, because the system that was given to him wasn't really what God had intended. If anything I like to think that Nietzsche has been forgiven by God and is resting for all the trouble he endured. That I think would be justice. Earth was hell for him enough.

I do not think that the origins of ones thoughts are so black and white. That a demon cannot be purified so to speak. Stripping away the sin is something we must believe no? Why can this only happen in the after life?

Is it not something we here on Earth have to contend with where Nietzsche would have ended if his life was not cut short?

The origins of why you believe what you believe are not observable by me, and vice versa. Why ought I believe that the seed planted in you were not constructed by man and not God? To me as I've made clear throughout the thread, they are the same thing.

If God created a world that corrupts man, then God willed it. Then if the task man, does not include moving towards "perfection"- warts and all, then well you must appeal to "God works in mysterious ways".

It is true that our imperfection grants us grace, but it sure as hell also generates evil. The healthy person is just moving towards some sort of growth or maturity of course, but that is only narrowly different from perfection, it is so easy to get wrong in one's own conceptions.

This faith you speak of is indeed powerful, but t/his mystery is also something that has driven man to heights unimaginable to our ancestors. What good is faith that does not withstand the truths? It is faith despite truth. I am not trying to challenge whatever you have going on in that noggin of yours, probably something deeply personal.

Maybe that is where the analytical betrays us. However the sanctimonious preaching of people who preach faith is hideous to most who are devout to analysis.

Tricky dicky

 

[ZenRaiden]

Maybe that is where the analytical betrays us. However the sanctimonious preaching of people who preach faith is hideous to most who are devout to analysis.

This is what Nietzsche considered Christianity alienated from reality and people.
And as far as reality goes, less and less educated people are religious, which goes to show that more than 100 years from his artistic musings he was not that wrong.

Plus alienation of Church from people is happening right now in many corners of the world.

That is why I love this movie.

 

[Black Rose]

But unlike LOTR people actually act on biblical knowledge.
But like LOTR its a question of how much Bible can be actually tested against reality.

I would not fault a medieval person for explaining lighting as result of Thor striking hammer and anvil.

I would not fault people in LOTR fan club imitating orcs or speaking elvis.

People who have no faith, still have to act on beliefs and assumptions.
Because people act on the world, and the world acts on them.
Things are in reality based in various ways in social context, but the natural world seems pretty consistent.

The origins of why you believe what you believe are not observable by me, and vice versa. Why ought I believe that the seed planted in you were not constructed by man and not God? To me as I've made clear throughout the thread, they are the same thing.

If God created a world that corrupts man, then God willed it. Then if the task man, does not include moving towards "perfection"- warts and all, then well you must appeal to "God works in mysterious ways".

I am a Neo-Gnostic Christian so all things of intellect are of value to me. Every "Truth". Yet what truth I have found may or may not be true. Only that what proof I need is has been provided. Like everyone, this proof is has happened to me and only me so I believe what I believe. Jesus had good things to say, Nietzsche had good things to say. But what proof they themselves encountered led them to their conclusions ended them. And to those ends came more people with more conclusions. To a hopeless future or to something grand.

Anything that shapes us should be questioned but eventually, it is up to Divine Revelation. Whether it is nature, your mom, your "God".

The ubermensch is already here, they already understand man's destiny.

Spoiler: Digital Jesus is the resurrection of the dead.

 

[onesteptwostep]

What's this supposed to mean? Are you saying Nietzsche is irrational?

Either way if you're trying to disprove the reality of LOTR for some reason, then you have an odd obession with disproving something which purportly you claim has no merit in the first place. That obession in itself seems much more harmful than the subject which it claims to criticize. Wouldn't it be more rational to ignore it?

I don't know what you mean, but it was an analogy.
Bible is story telling. Its how people in the past learned to adopt culture and learn.
Since in Jesus times, for mere plebs schools did not exist, religion was also educational device.
But Nietzsche lived in a world where people already had access to wider education.
There were more literate people, and people used more concepts and understood more things in life than people around year zero who were still living rather limited lives.
Its kind of like today you don't have to worry about people being wholly illiterate.
But unlike LOTR people actually act on biblical knowledge.
But like LOTR its a question of how much Bible can be actually tested against reality.

I would not fault a medieval person for explaining lighting as result of Thor striking hammer and anvil.

I would not fault people in LOTR fan club imitating orcs or speaking elvis.

So you're now saying being religious is okay?

Yeah.

As a Christian I think Nietzsche is what happens when you try to engineer a society by your own will. One has to be really spiritually awake to distinguish what is true in the eyes of God to really pursue righteousness. I think the moment you replace faith with a system or something self-engineered you bring in something profane into your soul. Nietzsche brought all his celebral might to try and stay pure to himself, because the system that was given to him wasn't really what God had intended. If anything I like to think that Nietzsche has been forgiven by God and is resting for all the trouble he endured. That I think would be justice. Earth was hell for him enough.

So you aren't really interested in truth.... makes for awkward conversation then.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say I'm not interested in the truth. Truth that god does or does not exist? Truth in the sense that Nietzche accurately wrote down what he felt and experienced? Or something like truth that his notions resonate with oneself? Because I find truth when I read the Psalms sometimes, as much as I find 'truth' in Nietzche's experiences with faith or notions of gods. I think if you read Nietzche strictly through the eyes of an atheist you're missing much of the sadder aspects of Nietzche's thoughts. His writings are rife with cues on his psychological state of mind, like how the Psalms can show you the depth and spiritual fragility of the psalmist.

 

[ZenRaiden]

So you're now saying being religious is okay?

Honestly I don't know. Maybe it is, maybe it is not.
It definitely depends on what you do with that religion.

Truth in the sense that Nietzche accurately wrote down what he felt and experienced?

Wait? Its all about feelings and experiences? I did not know that.

His writings are rife with cues on his psychological state of mind, like how the Psalms can show you the depth and spiritual fragility of the psalmist.

OK. As far as I know his psychological state was questioned, but of that, most of it is apocryphal and speculative.
I have heard lots of people assume that this means his writings were megalomanica and what not.

 

[onesteptwostep]

So you're now saying being religious is okay?

Honestly I don't know. Maybe it is, maybe it is not.
It definitely depends on what you do with that religion.

So.. what did you really mean when you said that what I wrote wasn't really related or interested in truth?

Truth in the sense that Nietzche accurately wrote down what he felt and experienced?

Wait? Its all about feelings and experiences? I did not know that.

To me his works are an ode to his faithlessness and him trying to rationalize it the best he can.

His writings are rife with cues on his psychological state of mind, like how the Psalms can show you the depth and spiritual fragility of the psalmist.

OK. As far as I know his psychological state was questioned, but of that, most of it is apocryphal and speculative.
I have heard lots of people assume that this means his writings were megalomanica and what not.

Hm, I've had my share of psychological instability so I pretty much understand where Nietzsche was. Later on in his life I think the anxiety and stress got to him that he turned hypersensitive, and then had a manic episode.

You know, it reminds me of Edgar Allan Poe. In some sense Nietzsche is just like him. We might marvel at the certain feelings or mood they can provide to us, but if you really understand the circumstances in which they were developed, it goes to show the depths of human morality and fragility. I think in a more perfect world we would need to strive to help people who are in those kinds of predicaments, not to egg on or place it on a pedestal. I don't think anyone would want their own children to end up suffering like Nietzsche or someone like Poe.

 

[ZenRaiden]

So.. what did you really mean when you said that what I wrote wasn't really related or interested in truth?

You were talking about Nietzsche, but not his work, which is just a way to undermine some position with strawman.

To me his works are an ode to his faithlessness and him trying to rationalize it the best he can.

Rationalization, means you try to say something rational about irrational position, to prove your position.
So you are saying him pointing out something is wrong with Christianity is irrational position and he was just nut trying to use rational thoughts to oppose religion.

Trouble is that his job as philosopher is to arrive at certain level of knowing or understanding, even if not truth impeccable truth.
Sometimes philosophy is about reaching a point of thinking, not necessarily what science does where the knowing must correlate with reality and be testable.
So philosophy is about knowing how to arrive at truth.
Science is arriving at the truth, no matter how dumb, or smart you are.

Hm, I've had my share of psychological instability so I pretty much understand where Nietzsche was. Later on in his life I think the anxiety and stress got to him that he turned hypersensitive, and then had a manic episode.

You know, it reminds me of Edgar Allan Poe. In some sense Nietzsche is just like him. We might marvel at the certain feelings or mood they can provide to us, but if you really understand the circumstances in which they were developed, it goes to show the depths of human morality and fragility. I think in a more perfect world we would need to strive to help people who are in those kinds of predicaments, not to egg on or place it on a pedestal. I don't think anyone would want their own children to end up suffering like Nietzsche or someone like Poe.

Many people are sick or crazy. None are perfect.
Newton was nuts and miserable.
John Nash was nuts.
Steven Hawking was miserable.
Kierkegaard was nuts and miserable.
Jung was nuts at least some part of his life.

We can dismiss their works on that basis, or empathize with their dead ghosts.

How do you distinguish his point of view as being tainted by his affliction and result of thinking and training.
And maybe you are right.
Does him being miserable erase the quality of his work, or make it lesser philosophy, or you are saying his word don't stand on their own merit?

 

[onesteptwostep]

So.. what did you really mean when you said that what I wrote wasn't really related or interested in truth?

You were talking about Nietzsche, but not his work, which is just a way to undermine some position with strawman.

I don't follow.

To me his works are an ode to his faithlessness and him trying to rationalize it the best he can.

Rationalization, means you try to say something rational about irrational position, to prove your position.
So you are saying him pointing out something is wrong with Christianity is irrational position and he was just nut trying to use rational thoughts to oppose religion.

Trouble is that his job as philosopher is to arrive at certain level of knowing or understanding, even if not truth impeccable truth.
Sometimes philosophy is about reaching a point of thinking, not necessarily what science does where the knowing must correlate with reality and be testable.
So philosophy is about knowing how to arrive at truth.
Science is arriving at the truth, no matter how dumb, or smart you are.

I think you're misunderstanding my words. I mean rationalization as in trying to 'explain'. His method is more closer to polemics. I was merely echoing what you wrote in some post above, that you cannot approach religion through rationality, or something.

Hm, I've had my share of psychological instability so I pretty much understand where Nietzsche was. Later on in his life I think the anxiety and stress got to him that he turned hypersensitive, and then had a manic episode.

You know, it reminds me of Edgar Allan Poe. In some sense Nietzsche is just like him. We might marvel at the certain feelings or mood they can provide to us, but if you really understand the circumstances in which they were developed, it goes to show the depths of human morality and fragility. I think in a more perfect world we would need to strive to help people who are in those kinds of predicaments, not to egg on or place it on a pedestal. I don't think anyone would want their own children to end up suffering like Nietzsche or someone like Poe.

Many people are sick or crazy. None are perfect.
Newton was nuts and miserable.
John Nash was nuts.
Steven Hawking was miserable.
Kierkegaard was nuts and miserable.
Jung was nuts at least some part of his life.

We can dismiss their works on that basis, or empathize with their dead ghosts.

How do you distinguish his point of view as being tainted by his affliction and result of thinking and training.
And maybe you are right.
Does him being miserable erase the quality of his work, or make it lesser philosophy, or you are saying his word don't stand on their own merit?

I would say Nietzsche was nuts to a higher degree than most of the people you mentioned there. Newton was respected during his time and was honored and had a place in society. John Nash had a stable job and was coveted for his ideas on game theory. Steven Hawking was respected until his death and his intellectual labor is known by most people. Kierkegaarad wasn't really nuts, just really depressed- but I would also say that Kierkegaarad didn't forward anything during his own lifetime that put a mark on Christiandom as a whole. In fact I feel like, through what I read of Kierkegaarad, he was disregarded by the Christian system at the time. Jung, he was famous when he was alive. Also notice that in continental philosophy, no one really builds on what Nietzsche wrote. Lots of philosophers are fans or are influenced by him, but they never really forward his style of existentialism. Philosophers who really did forward cultural development were people like Ludwig Feuerbach, who really did influence Nietzsche himself to a high degree.

Either way you cannot just place Nietzsche as some philosophical giant that happened in some vaccum. The reason why existentialists were born in the first place was that they couldn't handle or understand the sheer size of the program Hegel envisioned about everything. In front of Hegel or Kant, the existentialists are nothing. They're simple teenagers still grasping with their responsibility as adults in the annals of human civilization. When you sort out the misery of your soul, is when you begin to open your eyes to the grand scheme of the human enterprise, from the genesis of being itself to the heights of human power and order. In other words, you begin to see the threads that binds logic to reason, reason to culture, culture to politics, and politcs to human economy, and then truly become free as an agent and member of society and the world at large.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

My balls could be bluer I guess

 

[Black Rose]

My balls could be bluer I guess

When Nietzsche discovers God is not real:

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think you're misunderstanding my words. I mean rationalization as in trying to 'explain'. His method is more closer to polemics. I was merely echoing what you wrote in some post above, that you cannot approach religion through rationality, or something.

If something is rationalization, then that is exactly what philosophers cannot do.
In philosophy that is a carnal sin.
Not saying he never did, but even if we don't agree with someones reasoning, does not mean its rationalization.
Rationalizations is like saying I ate chocolate for dinner, because chocolate makes me slim. Even if its not true. You might says chocolate is not good for dinner.
You rationalization would be it makes me happy, and therefore I am slim.
That is blatant rationalization.

I would say Nietzsche was nuts to a higher degree than most of the people you mentioned there.

Could be.

Newton was respected during his time and was honored and had a place in society. John Nash had a stable job and was coveted for his ideas on game theory. Steven Hawking was respected until his death and his intellectual labor is known by most people. Kierkegaarad wasn't really nuts, just really depressed- but I would also say that Kierkegaarad didn't forward anything during his own lifetime that put a mark on Christiandom as a whole. In fact I feel like, through what I read of Kierkegaarad, he was disregarded by the Christian system at the time. Jung, he was famous when he was alive. Also notice that in continental philosophy, no one really builds on what Nietzsche wrote. Lots of philosophers are fans or are influenced by him, but they never really forward his style of existentialism. Philosophers who really did forward cultural development were people like Ludwig Feuerbach, who really did influence Nietzsche himself to a high degree.

That might be true. Never said Nietzsche was the mightiest of them all, or that what he wrote is shattering the world paradigms.

But to dismiss his work on account no one build on his work is kind of remotely post fact.


More importantly his book that I quoted is exactly the opposite of prescriptive and he is working hard to be anything, but an enclosed system where it tells you how to be. There is clear reason why its called Anti Christ.
Literally the opposite of trying to preach and tell people what to do.

He is opening a avenue of people trying to not be oppressed or be limited by conventions or cultural a priory reasoning.
His book is aimed at Christianity mainly as that is the cultural background he understands as well that is literally the whole point of his work.

 

[Black Rose]

If I were to posit Gods, I like the Platonic Forms idea. Thus these concepts being more real than our reality, emerge in our reality and within us.

I'm more likely to follow a religion with large pantheon such as ancient Greek mythology, as at the very least they tried to derive knowledge from representations.

Zues, being the ego, Aries being our aggression, Gaia being the Earth such and such.

This unifying supreme being would be the universe itself for me. Very different from what you are getting at. My interpretation says that we are all a part of God in a way.

I wrote this:

Consciousness is flow – it is energy in a medium.

the background space of the universe there being would be one unified whole.

all energy would be felt by the being of total reality.

like we feel the energy in us.

platonism is just maths that could exist.

what does exist is either conscious or unconscious.

You can call anger mars and love venus as it is within you, you are living cosmos.

but what if something is aware of all things inside it?

what if the universe is self-aware at the highest level?

you me and everything.

that would not be platonic that would just be the consequence of existence existing.

maybe it has a will, everything acting on everything from a single point of unity.

 

[scorpiomover]

2) If they thought that they were intelligent, then they should at least realise that the point of not trying when the game is rigged, is because there isn't anything more you could do in 100% of circumstances. So to say that "the individual could do more in 80% of circumstances", implies that the game isn't all that rigged, but merely that you are given the impresssion that the game is rigged, so that even when you can do things in your benefit, if you are a moron, then you will give up before you start.

Thus, the smart move is to do more in 80% of circumstances. So the intelligent person would see through the illusion, realise that it's in their interest to do what they could when they could, and so would do what is in their interest.

Yes I brought this up pretty much from the start.

Is the avoidance of narcissism and this consideration of a pluralistic moral system the only way to not be a stupid, evil, or otherwise winny bitch? Sounds like a brain crunching process to figure out how you are going to tango with reality.

You mean to make it sound easy if one is smart. It is not easy. That is one of the reasons people don't like change. When people feel secure in their position, is when they like change the least.

I guess I wasn't clear enough about what I meant here by "intelligent".

You can be as smart as Oppenheimer and still be persuaded to make a nuclear bomb.

But if you are usefully intelligent in the form of wisdom, and you know what really matters, then you will probably realise that you'll probably make a lot more money with a lot less stress and be a lot happier by being a plumber.

If you are good at things like calculus and modern physics, but not that good at understanding what really matters, you may find that you'll spend your days and nights studying calculus, only to end being in an office under pressure every day to make targets, or end up making navigational systems for WMDs and then bitterly regret your career choices.

The Institution of Science is not some scared cow that is escaping my criticism. That being said, science itself is a methology. It is redundant to add this qualification.

Not sure what you mean here by "methodology".

IME, accountants are called "methodological", because they follow a strict set of rules that dictates their process, in such a way that anyone following the same methodology should come up with the same results.

As you pointed out, scientists like to "ask interesting questions" and come up with their own theories. But no-one seems to say how scientists go from "observing evidence" to "coming up with the particular theory they thought of." It's almost as though they just pick what to observe, what to theorise, and the details of their experiments, by whatever happens to pop into the scientist's head at the time.

Can you say what things are methodologies and what are not? So that I can have a categorical list so that I can compare science to your lists and see which list science belongs in?

Boomers colloquially speaking are people that have been "blue pilled" by ideas coming from the boomer era.

And here I thought that Boomers were people born between 1946 and 1964, like
Bill Clinton (born 1946), Obama (born 1961) and Oprah Winfrey (1954).

How silly of me.

Since you define boomers by ideas coming from "the boomer era", either your definition is circular and so meaningless, or you mean that "Boomers colloquially speaking are people that have been "blue pilled" by ideas coming from the era they were born and raised in." Then any Millennials that were "blue pilled" by ideas coming from the era they were born and raised in, i.e. any <illennials that were "blue pilled" by ideas coming from the Millennial Era, are also Boomers.

See what I did there?

Post WW2 nations came together after the horrifying scene of war and got drunk on idealisms and sold the next generation propaganda about patriotism and what radicalism was to them.

Before WW2, the sorts of criticisms that people now level at their countries, would have been considered indications that the critic was a traitor to their own country and their own people.

A large part of the reason why you see so many Westerners being critical of their own nations nowadays, including criticising their own politicians and their own institutions, and including saying their own people were racist, sexist and homophobic, was because they were so horrified of what the German people had done out of patriotism for their country, and were terrified of becoming like a patriotic Nazi Germany. So they went the other way entirely.

An example of this is people's reaction to 9/11. IIRC, polls that asked what would happen if another airliner was heading for another skyscraper, that had hundreds of innocent passengers, showed that most Americans would approve shooting down the plane, while most Germans would approve letting it crash.

The Americans are afraid of being as complacent as they were before WW2, that allowed Nazi Germany to rise and take power, and so would rather take out the plane to save innocent lives in the skyscraper. The Germans are afraid of becoming like Nazis, and so would rather not shoot any civilians, and if that means lots more will die as a result.You seem to have a lot of boomer mentality. Is that bad? Perhaps you hold pride in it? The only observation I made is that people who are reminiscent of such things are very touchy about said beliefs, perhaps not for a bad reason, but it comes off as childish when someone kinda just blows off what someone is saying in favor of protecting long held beliefs.

Prescriptivism is advice that one is suggested to act on. A doctor prescribes medication. He cannot force that medicine down the throat although, through his diagnostic opinion, you probably should.

He can in the UK. Most countries, actually.

All that is needed is 2 doctors to state that he is liable to cause harm to himself or others for no good reason, to be declared in a state where the state has a duty to act against his will for his protection and the protection of others. It's called "sectioning" in the UK. It's a pretty standard ruling that also exists in the USA.

As long as the doctor is willing to state that the person is physically harming himself for no good reason by refusing to take such a medication, and he can get at least 1 other doctor in the world to agree with him, he can override the patient's will.

If I am prescribing anything, I suppose I would say that people take a good look at the world that people just blindly accept. Conventions work until they don't. Conventions should be updated like an operating system as people become familiar with the architecture of it and abuse the weak points as much as they can.

I have not prescribed a response to what one should do about these. I have just been making the case, that there is an inherent problem right down to the core of the human condition regardless if such institutions or society exist or not.

Well, you can do that. But you have to consider how software updates work. The Linux Foundation updates contain feature updates and bug fixes based on their bug reports and feature requests. Who exactly makes these demands? Why, the Linux users, of course.

What happens if an OS manufacturer has issues that a user of said OS is unhappy with, e.g. Windows users? Then if the OS manufacturer doesn't fix enough of those issues to satisfy them, they'll try switch to another OS, such as all those Windows users who switched to MacBooks and all those Windows users who switched to Linux.

The equivalent, say, for the Democratic Party, would be if the Democratic voters publicly criticise the Democratic Party, and if the Democratic Party don't fix the issues, then they'd vote for the Republican Party instead.

But from i see, most criticisms of Democrat voters seem aimed at the Republican Party. When things are not fixed, Democrat voters seem to think/say the reason is that not enough people are voting Democrat and seek to convince even more people to vote Democrat.

So what happens in modern politics tends to be the opposite of what happens with software, and that's even with the progressives. IME, most modern social issues also seem to have behavioural patterns more like modern politics, and the opposite of what we see happens with software updates.

Do you think people that go to Ivy League (really any higher tier) schools play the same game you are playing? We are all playing the game of life really, but how different do you think their parameters and dials are?

That has been studied immensely. Most people who went to Ivy League schools and similar schools like Eton in the UK, tend to start planning their child's application to such schools before they are even born.

If you were told by your dad that he had chosen your university before you were even born, what would your reaction be?

I've seen interviews of the kids in these private schools. They tended to say things like "I feel very privileged and grateful to be able to attend such a great school, and intend to not waste my privilege by making as much use of my privilege as I can".

Imagine if a white person in the USA said that he feels very privileged and grateful to be born white, and intends to make the maximum use of the privileges that come with being born white.

You are told to disrespect your parents, to do as you please, to see your privileges as unfairness, and that it is immoral to gain from your privileges.

They are told to respect their parents, to follow their parents' plans for them, to see their privileges as lucky breaks, and that it is immoral to waste their privileges.

Books out here teaching us to not "think like a poor person", meanwhile the upper class pays other people to think for them, and in fact the more you can do so, the better your odds of success are. You're already poor as soon as you start thinking in terms of performing labor.

Mega-rich people hire accountants who know clever tax loopholes that can save them millions, even billions. However, there's no shortage of con-artists who will claim to say the same, in order to fleece people with more money than brains. So the only way the mega-rich stay mega-rich, is by doing a heck of a lot of work themselves making sure that the people they hire, are competent and trustworthy.

When I first started working in IT, I got a few jobs with some of these corporations whose shareholders were mega-rich.

The first one gave us all a "standard industry test", that tested your skill in understanding the actual values of bytes in memory when your computer created things like linked lists. You couldn't really pass a test like that unless you were a genius at programming. They would regularly hold social gatherings for the employees at the local pub across the street. Every time, it was "open bar" on the company's tab. You could drink as much as you like.

Another one was a Swedish company that hired women in positions of authority, and hired Irish, British Greeks, West Africans and Black British people. The office manager was a lesbian who was completely open about it. This was back in the 1990s. They fired someone and had him marched out of the building with 2 big security guards at his side, because he had lied on his CV about having a degree.

One of the bosses' nephews also worked at the company.

The mega-rich care very much about making sure that the people they hire are competent, reliable and trustworthy. If you come up to their standards, they treat you better than elsewhere. If you break that trust, they will make sure you do not work for them again.

They demand the best, and give the best, and refuse to drop their standards. So they get the best.

They meet you with a smile on their face and think about how they will use you and choose how much they can respect you based on what you tell them what you can do for them. Hell they even got you to buy into an ideology that allows them to exploit you, the world just seems like it's perfectly made for them, and that is the only thing they will ever love about you.

They sell you on that ideology, because it's what you want to believe. You want to believe that they are pure evil and you are purely good, that the world is unfair to you. It justifies you feeling like you deserve to be where you are, because you think the world is unfair. So you never feel like you should make more of an effort to become anything more than what you already are.

You don't know enough deplorable people. I have been sitting in the car with someone who throws their fast food bag out the window and act like they didn't do anything questionable.

A few years ago, I attended a funeral of a friend who used to live on a council estate. We all went around to a friend of his who lived on the same estate, for his wake. While we were there, a friend of theirs came in, sat down, and started smoking what looked like a small pipe, which we quickly realised was a crack pipe.

We pointed out that we were just back from a funeral. He said he didn't realise, and continued to smoke his crack pipe right in front of us.

Even despite how much I've talked down to humanity, you seem to be giving me a run for my money every time we get into a prolonged exchange.

I don't just hang out with middle class people who don't have a criminal record and have been to university and have a nice job, whose worst crimes that they aren't afraid to let people know about, are eating junk food and chucking rubbish out of the window.

People used to have at least communities they could be loyal to, but that seems to be dying out, and it is because cynicism is wining (imo).

In the UK, most people met in the local pub. As a result, the local pub became the unofficial de-facto community centre.

1) But then prices on beer in pubs were increased by 800%, while beer bought from supermarkets was kept incredibly cheap. This of course meant that people were drinking at home and thus increased alcoholism, especially in kids, as they were seeing their dads drinking beer in front of them every night.

2) But at this point, a lot of smokers were still going to the pub, in order to ensure they wouldn't smoke at home where their kids would breath in their second-hand smoke. So about 50% of people in pubs were smokers. The smoking ban was then introduced with insane legislation that made it uncomfortable to go to the pub and smoke, and formed an unconscious motivation to stay at home and smoke and drink.

By this point, most pubs were struggling due to massive losses of sales, that most of them closed down or became family restaurants where you went for lunch, but not to hang out.

3) Add to that everyone going online or on their phone, and people didn't even realise that they weren't socialising anymore.

So the unofficial community centres were vary carefully phased out.

This has the advantage for politicians that people no longer gather and talk verbally where they can talk about issues where the government cannot monitor their speech and suppress it, and where the people used to plan demonstrations to force politicians to change things for the better.

So now, fighting despots has become much harder.

Of course, the lack of human social contact has also resulted in a pandemic of mental illness. Do your policiticians care about your welfare?

Again, I would just blame this on the prior generation doing a poor job at passing on valuable traditions to the following generation.

The anti-smoking lobby argued that anyone who opposed the smoking ban was just being selfish and not caring about health of the people who used to work in restaurants and pubs.

You seem to equate people to sheep. Which is true, but if we are taught something and we enjoy that thing, we will seek it out despite any obstacles. Such as smoking.

I equate people to wolves.

Wolves stay in packs. Most years, only the Alpha pair breed. Only when there is plenty of food, do they let another pair breed, and even then, only 2 pairs are allowed to breed. If the Alpha pair see any other wolves in their pack acting like they are sexually interested in each other, they give them a small bite to remind them what is in store if they even try to have sex. Wolves are incredibly obedient to the Alpha pair.

Sheep regularly go off on their own, which is why there are so many stories of shepherds having to chase sheep that have gone off on their own. The only animals that sheep obey, are professional sheepdogs like Alsatians.

I grew up with a few Alsatians. Great guard dogs. They can chase a 6ft man, pin him against a wall, and have their fangs right at his throat in 3 seconds flat. They can also bite at a bee and snap him clean in two, as if a scalpel had dissected the bee, without ever getting stung.

Sheep obey Alsatians, because they're vicious killer animals that rip any sheep apart in seconds, and so the sheep are simply way out of their league to even try to disobey them. Alsatians are used as sheepdogs, because sheep are so disobedient, that anything less than a vicious killer would not keep a sheep in line.

So extremely disobedient people are like sheep, and extremely obedient people are like wolves. The wolves are predators of sheep, and the sheep are prey for wolves. The wolves can only conquer the sheep, because they are organised in teams.

Even sharks work in tightly-organised teams when they are eating sardines that roam in massive shoals near the Humboldt Current.

Even the Romans knew this. They were able to rule most of Europe, because their soldiers were brutally trained to be highly organised and highly obedient, so their teamwork tactics were extremely efficient and highly effective against their disorganised enemies.

But the poor people are taught that the poor people are compliant and obedient, and the rich people don't follow any rules. This gives the poor people the impression that to be powerful, they have to break the rules and act as a "lone wolf". So those who seek to become powerful, act alone and in a disorganised fashion, which makes them easily overcome by an organised and highly disciplined troop of soldiers from a regiment formed from the sons of the wealthy upper classes.

The poor who are organised, disciplined and obedient, in turn associate those traits with being powerless, and so never seek to use their own teamwork, organisation and disipline to take power.

So by teaching the poor the reverse of what happens, the poor remain mostly unwilling to take power, and those that try, are extremely likely to fail.

It's a catchy idea, because most people don't like the idea of having to do what they are told and prefer to do what they want, and so it plays into people's id that the powerful are those who don't do what they are told and do what they want.

One can say that Kant didn't mean to be a self-help guru, and that regardless of what he said, if you only look at Kant you are missing a lot.

The little that I picked up that Kant said that made any sense, such as his Maxim of Universality, has turned out to be an incredibly clever way of understanding why popular ideas so often turn out to have extremely deleterious side-effects, and how to ensure that an idea can become popular and still be wildly successful.

 

[ZenRaiden]

But the poor people are taught that the poor people are compliant and obedient, and the rich people don't follow any rules. This gives the poor people the impression that to be powerful, they have to break the rules and act as a "lone wolf". So those who seek to become powerful, act alone and in a disorganised fashion, which makes them easily overcome by an organised and highly disciplined troop of soldiers from a regiment formed from the sons of the wealthy upper classes.

Nope.
You are right rich and successful people have discipline.
But I am not poor.
One thing I notice is I have more time and space and more options, than say a poor person.
So my thinking is going to be different from someone who has very little time do anything but fend for themselves.
Kind of like its easy to be philanthropist and not lift a finger. Just sit around on meetings and dish out money.
If a poor person wants to be philanthropist they have to do it with their time and hands and hard work.
That means they would have less time for family or anything else they care for.

So rich people get what they want despite the discipline and hard work, because once they are finished they can go home and enjoy fruits of labor.
Now as opposed to that someone working three jobs and not having enough money to pay bills, pay for loans and debt, pay for their car and pay for utilities and what ever else they need, they are stuck in one cycle whether they like it or not.
They might not even have time to think or understand how the world works, because everyday all day their only concern is to do what they are being told.
Which leaves their wants elsewhere.

The rich are disciplined, because they know how the system works in their favor, and they know if that system works in their favor it would be irrational not to do what obviously leads to success no matter what.
On other hand poor people often work hard and still barely scrape by.
Even hardworking people have to wait it out and work long hours for long time to eventually afford things.
Most poor people have to go in debt to banks to afford a real life.
Very few people who are poor can make life happen without debt.
The working class people are often very disciplined, but they know that discipline just means more work, and little bit of more pay.

You were in IT, your job was to figure things out.
So you get payed more as to a business person you are greater asset than a manual labor person who is replaceable and easy to come by.
But if working class people never did anything and were undisciplined then you would never have to be IT, because there would be no manager to manage people, and there would be nothing to organize business for since people who actually make things happen would be happy sitting on their hands.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Sheep regularly go off on their own, which is why there are so many stories of shepherds having to chase sheep that have gone off on their own. The only animals that sheep obey, are professional sheepdogs like Alsatians.

SHeeps and dogs are not nature, they are breed and domesticated pet projects of humans.

This is how clumsy sheep are....


This is what real nature looks like


Why wolfs have to be disciplined and cant hump like rabbits?
Because their life is contingent on how much prey they have.
Rabbits don't care, so long as they have grass.
So hunter packs have to be reasonable of how much food they can get and they have to be disciplined, because they have no option. They die.

So if you have no cheap labor to exploit with " finesse and acumen of exploiter"
it becomes wolf eats wolf world.
And that is what happens in pyramid where the number of people creating potential value becomes too much burden for people creating actual value.
The more you exploit the working class the less people want be working class.
The more working class people opt out to be disciplined and study and learn the less intelligent the working class becomes.
Because even people like Penny make it and try to have career in exploiting rather than working full time and cheese factory.
Because even people like Penny know they won't have a life.
So you have sheldons and pennies exploiting, who does the actual work?

Of course the have nots, the lazy and undisciplined people are only left to do actual work.

 

[ZenRaiden]

But of course since I can afford to think this way, most people do not.
Not through their own fault.
Mostly you are just born into exploitative system and you tell yourself stories that is just how things are.
Well satans goats don't the holy sheep role over.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

platonism is just maths that could exist.

Maths is pretty mean tbh. Also a man made construct that is only incidently correlating with reality. (Gödel's incompleteness theorems)

platonism is just maths that could exist.

what does exist is either conscious or unconscious.

You can call anger mars and love venus as it is within you, you are living cosmos.

but what if something is aware of all things inside it?

what if the universe is self-aware at the highest level?

you me and everything.

that would not be platonic that would just be the consequence of existence existing.

maybe it has a will, everything acting on everything from a single point of unity.

Maybe your brains is too connected to itself. Nudge nudge. My mental health crisis was comparable to a psychedelic experience. I believe that the system that is my brain is isolated from everything else and there is nothing to make me believe otherwise, even though sometimes parts of my brain might sometimes make it feel like that is not so.

Personally I think I prefer this, like an isolated wire that is not reacting with anything else if my closed system excersices control. I don't know why you would want some other even accross the world to effect you in an instant, because that is what it sounds like you believe. Quantum theories might be your salvation here, but I would think that such a thing would only matter in some instances with specific particles. I'm just talking out my ass though.

But if you are usefully intelligent in the form of wisdom, and you know what really matters, then you will probably realise that you'll probably make a lot more money with a lot less stress and be a lot happier by being a plumber.

If you are good at things like calculus and modern physics, but not that good at understanding what really matters, you may find that you'll spend your days and nights studying calculus, only to end being in an office under pressure every day to make targets, or end up making navigational systems for WMDs and then bitterly regret your career choices.

There are competitive markets everywhere. Yes- choose the path of least resistance is a practice of wisdom. I don't think that means that the person who had the more "ambitious" goal deserves to get shafted.

I would be perfectly happy being some sort of sanitation worker for example, a garbage man. EVEN IF garbage collection was a competitive job market, as long as people are doing things on their own terms, that is what we as a society should allow people to do. Otherwise we are not free.

You don't see how you are cherry picking here?

The Institution of Science is not some scared cow that is escaping my criticism. That being said, science itself is a methology. It is redundant to add this qualification.

Not sure what you mean here by "methodology".

IME, accountants are called "methodological", because they follow a strict set of rules that dictates their process, in such a way that anyone following the same methodology should come up with the same results.

As you pointed out, scientists like to "ask interesting questions" and come up with their own theories. But no-one seems to say how scientists go from "observing evidence" to "coming up with the particular theory they thought of." It's almost as though they just pick what to observe, what to theorise, and the details of their experiments, by whatever happens to pop into the scientist's head at the time.

Can you say what things are methodologies and what are not? So that I can have a categorical list so that I can compare science to your lists and see which list science belongs in?

Methodologies are good because you can devise the outcome of something based on the process. A strictness is only relevant to adherence to the process.

This is why the methodology portion is separate from the abstract section, and the conclusion section, and the discussion section.

If someone gives you a valuable tool and other people use it like an idiot, that doesn't mean you have to do it too.

Boomers colloquially speaking are people that have been "blue pilled" by ideas coming from the boomer era.

And here I thought that Boomers were people born between 1946 and 1964, like
Bill Clinton (born 1946), Obama (born 1961) and Oprah Winfrey (1954).

How silly of me.

Since you define boomers by ideas coming from "the boomer era", either your definition is circular and so meaningless, or you mean that "Boomers colloquially speaking are people that have been "blue pilled" by ideas coming from the era they were born and raised in." Then any Millennials that were "blue pilled" by ideas coming from the era they were born and raised in, i.e. any <illennials that were "blue pilled" by ideas coming from the Millennial Era, are also Boomers.

See what I did there?

Get used to it. A new advent of communication invented by the latest generation: Evolving dynamic language.... It was a binary switch, day to night when we switched from Latin a couple millennia ago, just as it has been from every other proto language before and after it..

I would say the blue pill is the pill that people take when they want to lie to themselves which seems to be something humans reflexively do even though they want to believe they don't. So yes?? I don't know what ghost you're fighting right now but it ain't entirely me.

Post WW2 nations came together after the horrifying scene of war and got drunk on idealisms and sold the next generation propaganda about patriotism and what radicalism was to them.

Before WW2, the sorts of criticisms that people now level at their countries, would have been considered indications that the critic was a traitor to their own country and their own people.

A large part of the reason why you see so many Westerners being critical of their own nations nowadays, including criticising their own politicians and their own institutions, and including saying their own people were racist, sexist and homophobic, was because they were so horrified of what the German people had done out of patriotism for their country, and were terrified of becoming like a patriotic Nazi Germany. So they went the other way entirely.

An example of this is people's reaction to 9/11. IIRC, polls that asked what would happen if another airliner was heading for another skyscraper, that had hundreds of innocent passengers, showed that most Americans would approve shooting down the plane, while most Germans would approve letting it crash.

The Americans are afraid of being as complacent as they were before WW2, that allowed Nazi Germany to rise and take power, and so would rather take out the plane to save innocent lives in the skyscraper. The Germans are afraid of becoming like Nazis, and so would rather not shoot any civilians, and if that means lots more will die as a result.You seem to have a lot of boomer mentality. Is that bad? Perhaps you hold pride in it? The only observation I made is that people who are reminiscent of such things are very touchy about said beliefs, perhaps not for a bad reason, but it comes off as childish when someone kinda just blows off what someone is saying in favor of protecting long held beliefs.

This red pill blue pill metaphor is an over simplification. People can accept truth and also accept lies in the same breath.

Is what I bolded in the quote true? Can you provide a source? Or is this simply reflecting what most people would genuinely believe about Germany?

It seems like you are trying to say that Americans are morally conscious and feel obligated to do something in the rest of the world? Why do you think that is? To some extent I do indeed know it is true. Even the left says that America thinks itself the police of the world. But people believing something and it actually happening are different things.

It sounds like you believe that fascism is impossible in the US or something like that.

I can simply give credit to the fact that US was never predicated on monarchy and authoritarianism, and that Germany was. I have already said things akin to this, the bureaucratic legal and enforcement system was a good idea. You are speaking to values of individuals who were in two different contexts, that is just criminal.

Prescriptivism is advice that one is suggested to act on. A doctor prescribes medication. He cannot force that medicine down the throat although, through his diagnostic opinion, you probably should.

He can in the UK. Most countries, actually.

All that is needed is 2 doctors to state that he is liable to cause harm to himself or others for no good reason, to be declared in a state where the state has a duty to act against his will for his protection and the protection of others. It's called "sectioning" in the UK. It's a pretty standard ruling that also exists in the USA.

As long as the doctor is willing to state that the person is physically harming himself for no good reason by refusing to take such a medication, and he can get at least 1 other doctor in the world to agree with him, he can override the patient's will.

ouch big if true. In US it depends state by state. I'm pretty sure there is some process you can fight. For example they can't put you in a insane asylum for too long if you didn't ask to be there.

If I am prescribing anything, I suppose I would say that people take a good look at the world that people just blindly accept. Conventions work until they don't. Conventions should be updated like an operating system as people become familiar with the architecture of it and abuse the weak points as much as they can.

I have not prescribed a response to what one should do about these. I have just been making the case, that there is an inherent problem right down to the core of the human condition regardless if such institutions or society exist or not.

Well, you can do that. But you have to consider how software updates work. The Linux Foundation updates contain feature updates and bug fixes based on their bug reports and feature requests. Who exactly makes these demands? Why, the Linux users, of course.

What happens if an OS manufacturer has issues that a user of said OS is unhappy with, e.g. Windows users? Then if the OS manufacturer doesn't fix enough of those issues to satisfy them, they'll try switch to another OS, such as all those Windows users who switched to MacBooks and all those Windows users who switched to Linux.

The equivalent, say, for the Democratic Party, would be if the Democratic voters publicly criticise the Democratic Party, and if the Democratic Party don't fix the issues, then they'd vote for the Republican Party instead.

But from i see, most criticisms of Democrat voters seem aimed at the Republican Party. When things are not fixed, Democrat voters seem to think/say the reason is that not enough people are voting Democrat and seek to convince even more people to vote Democrat.

So what happens in modern politics tends to be the opposite of what happens with software, and that's even with the progressives. IME, most modern social issues also seem to have behavioural patterns more like modern politics, and the opposite of what we see happens with software updates.

Democratic party has been the only party to be offering solutions since Obama was elected. Republicans operate under making dems pay for that. No policy proposals, just appealing to corporate interests and spading any value that comes from democratically supported bills. It would be a treat if the now Republican house to approve a progressive bill. How likely is that? Well, all eyes are them, but how afraid are they is the question?

This is why democrats need to push certain narratives about voting.

Do you think people that go to Ivy League (really any higher tier) schools play the same game you are playing? We are all playing the game of life really, but how different do you think their parameters and dials are?

That has been studied immensely. Most people who went to Ivy League schools and similar schools like Eton in the UK, tend to start planning their child's application to such schools before they are even born.

If you were told by your dad that he had chosen your university before you were even born, what would your reaction be?

I've seen interviews of the kids in these private schools. They tended to say things like "I feel very privileged and grateful to be able to attend such a great school, and intend to not waste my privilege by making as much use of my privilege as I can".

Imagine if a white person in the USA said that he feels very privileged and grateful to be born white, and intends to make the maximum use of the privileges that come with being born white.

You are told to disrespect your parents, to do as you please, to see your privileges as unfairness, and that it is immoral to gain from your privileges.

They are told to respect their parents, to follow their parents' plans for them, to see their privileges as lucky breaks, and that it is immoral to waste their privileges.

I was in one of the top 100 schools in the US. Private. Coming from a place that people there described as "no where" just because my city (one of the biggest and most powerful in the country btw) doesn't have a good reputation and isn't in the movies.

Something in my head broke when I realized that the people I was sitting in classes with as "good hearted" as they may be/think they are, we are fucked.

An intelligent person acting mild mannered and appealing to a wide swath of people is no shock to me. They might as well be a politician or doing their own PR on a micro level.

What of this respect? When it seems like respect is earned, and considering everything in this conversation, why would a child who understands nothing respect their parents when they can see the superstars on TV and see something very different? If they are lucky they grow up and make amends with their parents and can end up embracing the person that at least tried to give them a life.

This whole disrespect your parents thing is bullshit. No one tells anyone that shit. That is just reality collapsing on top of the less fortunate. Get off your high horse.

 

[Black Rose]

platonism is just maths that could exist.

Maths is pretty mean tbh. Also a man made construct that is only incidently correlating with reality. (Gödel's incompleteness theorems)

Maybe I should have said:

all possible relationships. space and temporal.

all shapes.

and include all possible qualia in the case of consciousness.

but not all are realized in our immediate vicinity.

platonism is just maths that could exist.

what does exist is either conscious or unconscious.

You can call anger mars and love venus as it is within you, you are living cosmos.

but what if something is aware of all things inside it?

what if the universe is self-aware at the highest level?

you me and everything.

that would not be platonic that would just be the consequence of existence existing.

maybe it has a will, everything acting on everything from a single point of unity.

Maybe your brains is too connected to itself. Nudge nudge.

medial-lateral vs anterior-posterior.

That would give me more of a female brain than a male brain.

The ACC is very strong in me but maybe not so many connections between left and right sides?

My mental health crisis was comparable to a psychedelic experience. I believe that the system that is my brain is isolated from everything else and there is nothing to make me believe otherwise, even though sometimes parts of my brain might sometimes make it feel like that is not so.

It may be isolated from everything else but that does not mean it does not influence everything else. I know that has influenced me.

Personally I think I prefer this, like an isolated wire that is not reacting with anything else if my closed system excersices control. I don't know why you would want some other even accross the world to effect you in an instant, because that is what it sounds like you believe. Quantum theories might be your salvation here, but I would think that such a thing would only matter in some instances with specific particles. I'm just talking out my ass though.

What I think is that we do not have to experience what is observing us.

Only that something may be observing everything without us noticing.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

What I think is that we do not have to experience what is observing us.

To me this is merely a potentiality. the first time you became self-conscious in your youth, you had no idea what you were made of, and a lot of your old self would be lost to you outside of what other people tell you. Some of why you are the way you are lost to you unless there are people around you who know what you were, and then you are risking buying into inaccuracies and such.

So unless you have an organ like the hippocampus (for simplicity) is operating in such a way that makes everything else coordinate to make a coherent experience, this hypothetical situation is pointless because from what I know, there is nothing that enters the closed system that is the brain except through the blood brain barrier and the 5+ senses.

In other words- your mind if you are careful is the only place you can be free...

 

[Black Rose]

If God can read minds it would not be like a 2D retina.
It would be from the vantage point of all space and all time simultaneously.
But of free will, there must be constraints.
potential events are known by God but not what will happen.

-

I am confronted with God knowing my thoughts all the time.
In dreams, I met entities and they are neither me nor separate from me.
I am not even in complete control of my mind but I can condition it to behave in certain ways.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think you're misunderstanding my words. I mean rationalization as in trying to 'explain'. His method is more closer to polemics. I was merely echoing what you wrote in some post above, that you cannot approach religion through rationality, or something.

If something is rationalization, then that is exactly what philosophers cannot do.
In philosophy that is a carnal sin.
Not saying he never did, but even if we don't agree with someones reasoning, does not mean its rationalization.
Rationalizations is like saying I ate chocolate for dinner, because chocolate makes me slim. Even if its not true. You might says chocolate is not good for dinner.
You rationalization would be it makes me happy, and therefore I am slim.
That is blatant rationalization.

Do you really think Nietzsche was going to analyze or use logic to dismantle religion?

This is what I was referring to.

I would say Nietzsche was nuts to a higher degree than most of the people you mentioned there.

Could be.

Newton was respected during his time and was honored and had a place in society. John Nash had a stable job and was coveted for his ideas on game theory. Steven Hawking was respected until his death and his intellectual labor is known by most people. Kierkegaarad wasn't really nuts, just really depressed- but I would also say that Kierkegaarad didn't forward anything during his own lifetime that put a mark on Christiandom as a whole. In fact I feel like, through what I read of Kierkegaarad, he was disregarded by the Christian system at the time. Jung, he was famous when he was alive. Also notice that in continental philosophy, no one really builds on what Nietzsche wrote. Lots of philosophers are fans or are influenced by him, but they never really forward his style of existentialism. Philosophers who really did forward cultural development were people like Ludwig Feuerbach, who really did influence Nietzsche himself to a high degree.

That might be true. Never said Nietzsche was the mightiest of them all, or that what he wrote is shattering the world paradigms.

But to dismiss his work on account no one build on his work is kind of remotely post fact.


More importantly his book that I quoted is exactly the opposite of prescriptive and he is working hard to be anything, but an enclosed system where it tells you how to be. There is clear reason why its called Anti Christ.
Literally the opposite of trying to preach and tell people what to do.

He is opening a avenue of people trying to not be oppressed or be limited by conventions or cultural a priory reasoning.
His book is aimed at Christianity mainly as that is the cultural background he understands as well that is literally the whole point of his work.

I don't dismiss Nietzsche's works, but I don't see his works as something that adds onto to the program of human civilization. In fact, you can argue that it did the opposite: that it lent strength to facist powers during the early 20th century, whether Nietzsche wanted to or not, and legitimized facist movements through a sense of 'philosophy'. It might be a crude comparison, but Jordan Peterson could be a figure that might be analogous to Nietzsche, that he argues for sense of life, but lends strength to unforeseen political implications which neither of the figures most likely wanted. That in itself shows you that the notions Nietzsche held had sinister implications when culturally manifested.

 

[Black Rose]

As long as you have not experienced the greatest suffering possible God is still an option. Even if you have experienced the greatest suffering possible your suffering proves nothing about God's existence only her character. Which is that of deism.

Nietzsche proved God is and can only be a deist god.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I don't dismiss Nietzsche's works, but I don't see his works as something that adds onto to the program of human civilization. In fact, you can argue that it did the opposite: that it lent strength to facist powers during the early 20th century, whether Nietzsche wanted to or not, and legitimized facist movements through a sense of 'philosophy'. It might be a crude comparison, but Jordan Peterson could be a figure that might be analogous to Nietzsche, that he argues for sense of life, but lends strength to unforeseen political implications which neither of the figures most likely wanted. That in itself shows you that the notions Nietzsche held had sinister implications when culturally manifested.

Nazis were Christian socialist, would you say that about Christianity.
They also read Buddhist books and carried them with them.
Would you say they were following Buddha?
Ideology has been used and books alike with all kinds of ulterior motives.
Even the bible one could argue, but then if anyone can interpret it anyway they like its hard to say how can one miss use it.
Plus Nietzsche talking about Germans .... well he had very low opinion of them.
Then again Nazis were not exactly about reading the damn books, so they basically just used Nietzsche as symbol.
Its even hard to say what impact he could have had on Germans as whole.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I don't dismiss Nietzsche's works, but I don't see his works as something that adds onto to the program of human civilization. In fact, you can argue that it did the opposite: that it lent strength to facist powers during the early 20th century, whether Nietzsche wanted to or not, and legitimized facist movements through a sense of 'philosophy'. It might be a crude comparison, but Jordan Peterson could be a figure that might be analogous to Nietzsche, that he argues for sense of life, but lends strength to unforeseen political implications which neither of the figures most likely wanted. That in itself shows you that the notions Nietzsche held had sinister implications when culturally manifested.

Nazis were Christian socialist, would you say that about Christianity.
They also read Buddhist books and carried them with them.
Would you say they were following Buddha?
Ideology has been used and books alike with all kinds of ulterior motives.
Even the bible one could argue, but then if anyone can interpret it anyway they like its hard to say how can one miss use it.
Plus Nietzsche talking about Germans .... well he had very low opinion of them.
Then again Nazis were not exactly about reading the damn books, so they basically just used Nietzsche as symbol.
Its even hard to say what impact he could have had on Germans as whole.

It doesn't really matter what Nietzsche thought about Nazis. What matters is that somehow his writings resonated with them and helped with carry on their facism. Would you agree that elements of Nietzsche's writings, especially about the Ubermensch, can help forward facist ideals? Again, Nietzsche himself might not have agreed, but in the light of history, did they or did they not provide some intellectual strength to Nazism? If you can answer this question, then can you say that Nietzsche in any way, helped forward human civilization to something better?

 

[Black Rose]

Ubermensch is not something that can be created.

It exists only as something superior to man.

No Nazi ever was an Ubermensch.

Ubermensch is not even something that supports fascism.

A better being is not driven by hate greed or any human failers.

Nazism is a slave morality.

Nietzsche was not antisemitic.

Nazism proves that God is a deist god.

The Ubermensch will create a God, The a.i. that resurrects the dead.

 

[ZenRaiden]

It doesn't really matter what Nietzsche thought about Nazis. What matters is that somehow his writings resonated with them and helped with carry on their facism. Would you agree that elements of Nietzsche's writings, especially about the Ubermensch, can help forward facist ideals?

I mean they could be used that way sure.

Again, Nietzsche himself might not have agreed, but in the light of history, did they or did they not provide some intellectual strength to Nazism?

I doubt Nazi Germany was built on Nietzsche's work. I think whether that book existed or not they would have done the same stuff.
Politics is often result of more than few simple factors.
That being said Nietzsche did not invent war nor power principals that humans behave by.

 

[onesteptwostep]

It doesn't really matter what Nietzsche thought about Nazis. What matters is that somehow his writings resonated with them and helped with carry on their facism. Would you agree that elements of Nietzsche's writings, especially about the Ubermensch, can help forward facist ideals?

I mean they could be used that way sure.

I think you generally don't care for the wellbeing of society or just are apathetically ammoral.

Again, Nietzsche himself might not have agreed, but in the light of history, did they or did they not provide some intellectual strength to Nazism?

I doubt Nazi Germany was built on Nietzsche's work. I think whether that book existed or not they would have done the same stuff.
Politics is often result of more than few simple factors.
That being said Nietzsche did not invent war nor power principals that humans behave by.

That isn't what I said. I said that the book lent support for the cause of facism. If you lived during the times of the facists in the 30s and 40s of the 20th century, wouldn't you try to denounce anything that would support that kind of movement?

 

[Black Rose]

It doesn't really matter what Nietzsche thought about Nazis. What matters is that somehow his writings resonated with them and helped with carry on their facism. Would you agree that elements of Nietzsche's writings, especially about the Ubermensch, can help forward facist ideals?

I mean they could be used that way sure.

I think you generally don't care for the wellbeing of society or just are apathetically ammoral.

Again, Nietzsche himself might not have agreed, but in the light of history, did they or did they not provide some intellectual strength to Nazism?

I doubt Nazi Germany was built on Nietzsche's work. I think whether that book existed or not they would have done the same stuff.
Politics is often result of more than few simple factors.
That being said Nietzsche did not invent war nor power principals that humans behave by.

That isn't what I said. I said that the book lent support for the cause of facism. If you lived during the times of the facists in the 30s and 40s of the 20th century, wouldn't you try to denounce anything that would support that kind of movement?

many things can lend to many other things.

what specifically made Nietzsche's work lend to fascism?

Isn't that kind of superficial? Nietzsche did not suport fasism did he?

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think you generally don't care for the wellbeing of society or just are apathetically ammoral.

What you think is OK, but not true so what do I care, if you think something, about something, without any supporting evidence. Or reason.

That isn't what I said. I said that the book lent support for the cause of facism. If you lived during the times of the facists in the 30s and 40s of the 20th century, wouldn't you try to denounce anything that would support that kind of movement?

So now you are going to burn books or treat the content according to what Nazis though of the book?

Kind of like saying Marx is responsible for Lenin or something.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think you generally don't care for the wellbeing of society or just are apathetically ammoral.

What you think is OK, but not true so what do I care, if you think something, about something, without any supporting evidence. Or reason.

Ah, we're talking about truths now?

That isn't what I said. I said that the book lent support for the cause of facism. If you lived during the times of the facists in the 30s and 40s of the 20th century, wouldn't you try to denounce anything that would support that kind of movement?

So now you are going to burn books or treat the content according to what Nazis though of the book?

Kind of like saying Marx is responsible for Lenin or something.

You can start by denouncing it? It's clear you haven't thought about the implications Nietzsche had during the imperal era. It's only in the 60s that Nietzsche was cleared of his affliation to Nazism. Before then it was widely known that Nietzsche's works gave intellectual backing to facism.

Let's try this again: in what way did Nietzsche's work help forward human civilization?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

He provided others analysis that they **could refer to...

Just because he built some sort of ethos from the content of his words, doesn't save his work from being distorted to conveniently fit what some man down the line wanted it to.

You as a Christian don't see the irony in what you're saying or are trying to use it at some point yourself?

 

[onesteptwostep]

He provided others analysis that they **could refer to...

Just because he built some sort of ethos from the content of his words, doesn't save his work from being distorted to conveniently fit what some man down the line wanted it to.

You as a Christian don't see the irony in what you're saying or are trying to use it at some point yourself?

I'm not saying anything definitive, I'm arguing a point that Nietzsche didn't help forward humanity in some meaningful sense, but that it could be argued that he influenced people to act more ideologically at a time when facism was at its height. I think in the context of history, with the convergence of the World Wars, Nietzsche has had a more negative impact on the world. If the early 20th century was peaceful and the industrial revolution continued on without much conflict, it could be said that Nietzsche brought on a transformation regarding religious culture and society in general. But as we all know, that didn't happen. This isn't the fault of Nietzsche, but rather one of circumstance. Either way, my question still stands. What did Nietzsche bring to the world that helped progress humanity in some sense?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

He provided others analysis that they **could refer to...

Just because he built some sort of ethos from the content of his words, doesn't save his work from being distorted to conveniently fit what some man down the line wanted it to.

You as a Christian don't see the irony in what you're saying or are trying to use it at some point yourself?

I'm not saying anything definitive, I'm arguing a point that Nietzsche didn't help forward humanity in some meaningful sense, but that it could be argued that he influenced people to act more ideologically at a time when facism was at its height. I think in the context of history, with the convergence of the World Wars, Nietzsche has had a more negative impact on the world. If the early 20th century was peaceful and the industrial revolution continued on without much conflict, it could be said that Nietzsche brought on a transformation regarding religious culture and society in general. But as we all know, that didn't happen. This isn't the fault of Nietzsche, but rather one of circumstance. Either way, my question still stands. What did Nietzsche bring to the world that helped progress humanity in some sense?

After 200 years of Nietzsche I'm sure that's a pretty easy claim to make, hard to prove. I'm seeing a pattern here.

Maybe the quality of something is indicative not by if it's "good or bad", but how much people can use it? Design theory thoughts

(please notice my human intervention thread)

 

[ZenRaiden]

Ah, we're talking about truths now?

Also. Then again.... Some arguments don't necessarily have to be definitive truths.
I am not here saying Nietzsche was completely right about anything, but Id say he got some really good points.

You can start by denouncing it? It's clear you haven't thought about the implications Nietzsche had during the imperal era. It's only in the 60s that Nietzsche was cleared of his affliation to Nazism. Before then it was widely known that Nietzsche's works gave intellectual backing to facism.

Let's try this again: in what way did Nietzsche's work help forward human civilization?

Maybe if Czechoslovakia weren't a complete doormat, and did not roll over, when Germany invaded, we would not have WWII. But then they would have to read Nietzsche to know, that humanity behaves in such way.
Maybe if states of Benelux did read Nietzsche they would not roll over when Germany invaded.
Or Poland or France.
In stead Hitler took those nations for free and it started a chain reaction.
Chamberlain was a good example of power principal. Instead of helping allies, throw them to the wolfs so we can reap benefits of this.
Wolfs are opportunists. They hunt sheep. Because they are weak.
A Lion say who meets a bull that is willing to fight will lose. One on one or even one bull against many lions the bull wins.
Christians themselves seem to have used power principal to enforce Christianity.
US would obliterate Iran if they could, but Iran is way stronger nation than Iraq.
Why? Because hitting a stronger opponent is hard to win a fight.
People fought wars, and will and neither Nietzsche will make them start wars, or Christianity end them.
That is simply my stance.

What did Nietzsche bring to the world that helped progress humanity in some sense?

Good point, but at the same time, hard to answer.

 

[Black Rose]

Most of Nietzsche is prophecy. And prophecy is not always about good things.

So he was accurate on most things. A true prophet.

Now what is yet to be is the final ubermensch, the highest Ubermensch.

The meaning of the world. With no flaws and is superior to all else.

To fulfill the destiny of mankind.

To understand reality / physics to the fullest extent.

To take the reigns and do with reality what he wishes.

To bend the laws of nature to his will.

The most powerful being in the universe.

 

[scorpiomover]

But unlike LOTR people actually act on biblical knowledge.

I gather that a lot more people in Western countries make the effort to learn Elvish than make the effort to learn Biblical Hebrew.

But like LOTR its a question of how much Bible can be actually tested against reality.

I would not fault a medieval person for explaining lighting as result of Thor striking hammer and anvil.

I would not fault people in LOTR fan club imitating orcs or speaking elvis.

Except that LOTR is quite literally fiction, and even the most diehard of LOTR fans could not deny that Tolkien himself would say he made it up. You can't test it against reality, and if you did, the results are meaningless, because it's pure fiction.

You'd be better off trying to discover if there really is someone like Rick Sanchez who has a portal gun to parallel universes. At least the idea of a multiverse is actually based on physics. So there is a possibility that someone might have invented a device that transports people to parallel universes.

 

[scorpiomover]

Maybe that is where the analytical betrays us.

Analysis is like vitamins. In small amounts, they improve whatever you have already. But in large doses, at best, you just p*ss it out the other end, and it's a total waste of your time & effort.

However the sanctimonious preaching of people who preach faith is hideous to most who are devout to analysis.

Those who are "devout" about analysis will probably end up spend so much time analysing that they will end up with analysis paralysis.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Maybe that is where the analytical betrays us.

Analysis is like vitamins. In small amounts, they improve whatever you have already. But in large doses, at best, you just p*ss it out the other end, and it's a total waste of your time & effort.

However the sanctimonious preaching of people who preach faith is hideous to most who are devout to analysis.

Those who are "devout" about analysis will probably end up spend so much time analysing that they will end up with analysis paralysis.

I would say analysis paralysis happens when you have all the means to do something- but don't because you are combing through details you have already done "sufficiently".

 

[Drvladivostok]

It's simple. Power decides what is right and wrong.

We as humans have our own mortal morality let's say, and it's very flexible depending on context and what we (some of us) decide.

But it seems that, in a manner of speaking, change manifests via the movement of "energy" in one way or another.

Of course the variables are limitless. We have to consider what is an instance of "Power" and what is not.

A chemical reaction "just is". But when something/someone "wields" that, it becomes power. I'm not necessarily including intent, though that may be an issue.

Anyways, it is still a grave issue that humans have to contend with, as it is at the core of pathological thinking and game theory rationals. It all starts at the individual level, then goes into the group setting, and then society..

You're damn right, the Ultimate Morality, which is to say, the Objective Morality is therefore determines by the ultimate Judge.

A religious person can answer a praxeological and Ethical Question with Logical Consistency, of why a certain action is 'wrong' (Albeit a logically Lazy one); because God said so.

This is Why I believe that Atheists can never have a Morally Objective Reason why a certain action can be categorized as wrong or right, other then a utilitarian consideration on Happiness vs Suffering of himself or others, but then again such utilitarian morality is a flimsy one, this is my objection with Sam Harris' Moral Structure.

If you publically torture a person in a giant Stadium, you broadcast it as a superbowl opening event, 10 million people cheer as this guy gets his skin removed in front of their TVs. How could you say it's morally wrong?

Also this Utilitarian and Secular Morality, of 'Science of Morality' not only would be Epistimologically and logically flimsy, but would also not be very efective in Social Engineering, since people are hard-wired to follow and base their action through emotions and meta-physical believe (even if they're wrong), and not logic.

Since society is a Positive-Fiction, believed by people who inhabit it, and is built Upon Culture and Institutions who enforce law on morality on itself, therefore a society built upon Religion in other words, bult upon a Fiction of Strong Objective Morality is stronger compared to one of Atheist and Secular Values.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Since society is a Positive-Fiction, believed by people who inhabit it, and is built Upon Culture and Institutions who enforce law on morality on itself, therefore a society built upon Religion in other words, bult upon a Fiction of Strong Objective Morality is stronger compared to one of Atheist and Secular Values.

I think every culture/sub-culture has it's Matrix "take the blue pill or the red pill" moments, and accommodates people who take either.

You can blind yourself and we'll see you as a wounded dove or something, or you can accept "the truth" and depending on what you do with that we can put you in a neat category that may garner respect or it's opposite.

Empiricism, is very strong, and coopted by everyone even if incorrectly. Some people are understandably skeptical of empiricism they didn't "see" as verified, but usually that is because they have a competing belief that is more important to them than whatever empiricism has to say.

I would be weary of thinking your cohort have a monopoly of a certain rationality, as I see such mentalities as divisive. A sort of elitism/naivete.

The reality being that just because your belief system is has ancient roots (dogma), doesn't make it any more rationally compelling than the hip new moral system that may or may not actually be better. I would bet on the newer prototype or morallity tbh.

It (religion) would honestly be better off integrating the new realities into it's moral systems, but it can't because people that typically hold on to traditions do so because new things scare them.

Not eating swine for example is a pointless thing to adhere to. The people of that time, in absence of good protocol for dealing with diasease that comes with eating close relatives of ours, the pig. Now we shouldn't eat pig perhaps because they are sentient? Yes, no? Idk, I know I feel bad when I eat meat, yet I still do it. I hardly buy it myself but when I'm craving the taste and I feel like treating myself.

**Am I bad person for doing it anyways? Are you a bad person if you criticize me? The morality of God says no. But also if one of us kills the other one for hold such opinions, then perhaps also, to one of these it says yes.

 

[Black Rose]

Morality is all about how you "Feel".

Mostly genetic but not "outside" the universe.

God does not prevent bad things nor does she punish.

She simply has empathy. She sees all.

Why do things happen? She would know.

But what is the prescription? Only how you "Feel".

Can people agree? yes. it is how feeling got into the genes.

We kill the sociopaths.

That way the tribe did not fall apart.

But then there were outsiders.

And they invaded.

So we defended ourselves.

Evolution in action.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Morality is all about how you "Feel".

Mostly genetic but not "outside" the universe.

God does not prevent bad things nor does she punish.

She simply has empathy. She sees all.

Why do things happen? She would know.

But what is the prescription? Only how you "Feel".

Can people agree? yes. it is how feeling got into the genes.

We kill the sociopaths.

That way the tribe did not fall apart.

But then there were outsiders.

And they invaded.

So we defended ourselves.

Evolution in action.

Sounds like eugenics. Killing these obvious sociopaths just means the intelligent wolfs in sheep's clothing breed more.


Crazed faith in some sort of salvation aside, I think Cash gets it right.

 

[ZenRaiden]

A religious person can answer a praxeological and Ethical Question with Logical Consistency, of why a certain action is 'wrong' (Albeit a logically Lazy one); because God said so.

This is Why I believe that Atheists can never have a Morally Objective Reason why a certain action can be categorized as wrong or right, other then a utilitarian consideration on Happiness vs Suffering of himself or others, but then again such utilitarian morality is a flimsy one, this is my objection with Sam Harris' Moral Structure.

If you publically torture a person in a giant Stadium, you broadcast it as a superbowl opening event, 10 million people cheer as this guy gets his skin removed in front of their TVs. How could you say it's morally wrong?

Logical means you start with axioms.
The grounding axioms of life are not always well defined.
God said so, is not well defined, its just plain ignoramous bull.
Plus sayings like "Live by sword, die by sword." do this and not do that, are based on what seems to be superficial understanding of humanity.
I would not hold 30 year old Jewish heretic idealist culpable for falling short on this front.
Its a tall order.

As for torturing people who done nothing wrong, well, Christianity nor any society that held beliefs were not above or beyond this behavior.

 

[Drvladivostok]

Empiricism, is very strong, and coopted by everyone even if incorrectly. Some people are understandably skeptical of empiricism they didn't "see" as verified, but usually that is because they have a competing belief that is more important to them than whatever empiricism has to say.

I would be weary of thinking your cohort have a monopoly of a certain rationality, as I see such mentalities as divisive. A sort of elitism/naivete.

I agree that Empiricism is important factor in determening moral judgement, but empiricism by itself tells us nothing why an action has moral weight, the question is bassically answered by Humme with Utilitarianism; the idea that Utility, ie: Wellbeing is good, and therefore moral.

But as I said before, Utilitarianism, especially the branch that has been prevalent in the west, which is just Utilitarianism without religion plus science, have some epistimological and logical weaknesses. Not to mention the ramification it had on western society; cultural weakness.

The reality being that just because your belief system is has ancient roots (dogma), doesn't make it any more rationally compelling than the hip new moral system that may or may not actually be better. I would bet on the newer prototype or morallity tbh.

Well, as I said and that you have agreed on your first post, delegating God to judge objective morality is a rationally consistent take. If you take the assumption that Power is determines morality, which is ultimately the case we assume to be true.

Now, I wouldn't call utilitarianism hip and new, The Utilitarianism that Sam Harris and you I imagine subscribe to is rooted in Hume, harris just wrote a new Fatwa on how to apply natural science on Utilitarianism.

Ultimately Secular Utilitarianism and Moral Empiricism Suffer from two main practical and rational problem; one, that it has flimsy epistimological basis on how to morally judge certain actions, Take the assumption that torture or rape is 'bad', why? Because it brings suffering and suffering is non-utility, and non-utility is bad, why What if I don't care about it? Well the argument boils down to the fact that the The Government will punish your ass, inlined with the assumption that Power=Monopoly on Morality.

However what if the Government isn't here, since you don't care about suffering of others and can't be bothered to follow Utiitarianist morality, the reason why torture is bad, becomes hard to define. Epistimologically Flimsy.

Now if I'm a religious person subscribing to Islam or Cristianity, the reason why rape is bad is becasue god will fry my ass. And since Power=Morality therefore The Objectively sound answer is that rape is bad because god said so. I can't choose to run away from god or ignore my covenent with god like I can do with a Government.

Two, it has practical problems, in implementing this morality in a society, since people are more inclined to be motivated by emotions and meta-physical believe, a system based on 'science' will be less socially effective, than one based on Religion.

Therefore, Utilitarianism, even fails at being utilitarian.

Well lets assume both My Ideology and Your Ideology be neither more or less 'better' and have simmiliar value, mine has a precedent in working for the history of the human race, yours doesn't.

It (religion) would honestly be better off integrating the new realities into it's moral systems, but it can't because people that typically hold on to traditions do so because new things scare them.

Agree on this one, religious people are stuck in the trap of stagnation sometimes.

Not eating swine for example is a pointless thing to adhere to. The people of that time, in absence of good protocol for dealing with diasease that comes with eating close relatives of ours, the pig. Now we shouldn't eat pig perhaps because they are sentient? Yes, no? Idk, I know I feel bad when I eat meat, yet I still do it. I hardly buy it myself but when I'm craving the taste and I feel like treating myself.

Ok, why is Sentience valuable? And why is Suffering something bad? If I decide to become a dog killer, going around slicing the neck of Dogs, and hiding from Cops, why shouldn't I do it? What If I'm a Psychopath?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Well, as I said and that you have agreed on your first post, delegating God to judge objective morality is a rationally consistent take. If you take the assumption that Power is determines morality, which is ultimately the case we assume to be true.

Who is to say God did this or God didn't do that? God did everything. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Just because your cult has drawn boundaries around what they believe is good and bad doesn't mean that this is purely God's "will".

Now, I wouldn't call utilitarianism hip and new, The Utilitarianism that Sam Harris and you I imagine subscribe to is rooted in Hume, harris just wrote a new Fatwa on how to apply natural science on Utilitarianism.

Ultimately Secular Utilitarianism and Moral Empiricism Suffer from two main practical and rational problem; one, that it has flimsy epistimological basis on how to morally judge certain actions, Take the assumption that torture or rape is 'bad', why? Because it brings suffering and suffering is non-utility, and non-utility is bad, why What if I don't care about it? Well the argument boils down to the fact that the The Government will punish your ass, inlined with the assumption that Power=Monopoly on Morality.

However what if the Government isn't here, since you don't care about suffering of others and can't be bothered to follow Utiitarianist morality, the reason why torture is bad, becomes hard to define. Epistimologically Flimsy.

I feel like you're just repeating my point back to me. In this thread I have made it clear. I won't reiterate this again to fit everyone's permutation of opinions. You're not telling me things I haven't already said, even if you are giving new examples.

If you are intelligent enough you can make anything appear moral via rhetoric, then you can.. Even to people who are looking for logical arguments, if they get flustered or discouraged because they aren't confident that they are right, then logic loses because other forces intervened and the will of the person trying to make an airtight conversation faltered.

Now if I'm a religious person subscribing to Islam or Cristianity, the reason why rape is bad is becasue god will fry my ass. And since Power=Morality therefore The Objectively sound answer is that rape is bad because god said so. I can't choose to run away from god or ignore my covenent with god like I can do with a Government.

Two, it has practical problems, in implementing this morality in a society, since people are more inclined to be motivated by emotions and meta-physical believe, a system based on 'science' will be less socially effective, than one based on Religion.

Therefore, Utilitarianism, even fails at being utilitarian.

Utilitarianism fails when it has to restrict people's pleasure to create more pleasure. Who's pleasure is being restricted and where is that going? "Fairly" is the answer but who decides what that is? At who's expense? What brings the most utility and would that be a nightmare if it was implemented and thus how should adjust trajectory.

You are appealing to ignorance here, and you're an inch from straw manning me. I didn't put forward utilitarianism for this purpose. We just don't have all the answers (nor means apparently) to get at what we should do to maximize pleasure.

It (religion) would honestly be better off integrating the new realities into it's moral systems, but it can't because people that typically hold on to traditions do so because new things scare them.

Agree on this one, religious people are stuck in the trap of stagnation sometimes.

Not eating swine for example is a pointless thing to adhere to. The people of that time, in absence of good protocol for dealing with diasease that comes with eating close relatives of ours, the pig. Now we shouldn't eat pig perhaps because they are sentient? Yes, no? Idk, I know I feel bad when I eat meat, yet I still do it. I hardly buy it myself but when I'm craving the taste and I feel like treating myself.

Ok, why is Sentience valuable? And why is Suffering something bad? If I decide to become a dog killer, going around slicing the neck of Dogs, and hiding from Cops, why shouldn't I do it? What If I'm a Psychopath?

I would say that a totality of a pluralist moral systems would be need to be assembled, then from that we look at the most overlapping moral values, these are the moral values that are most likely to be sound, though of course every value should be questioned.

Thus, something like being wasteful I think would be ascertained from this. Being wasteful is the ultamite moral sin. Ungreatfulness for what we have, and when we can't even see the value of the way things are,

We are wasting sentience when we kill an animal. Is this true or not? I say yes. The animal is already dead, if I don't buy it, someone else will, and if no one else does then it will go to waste.

Again, this is the third page of the thread, we have gone through this. Maybe you are a psychopath? You have unconventional beliefs and act on them. Society says that is a crime. Does God? Well from a certain interpretation if you get caught you will be punished, so yes. BUT what if you don't get caught?

This is not something I have to answer to lmao. This is something evangelicals have to answer to if they want to protect their Gods image in other people's eyes.