Scholar

It doesn't work for me neither, i just hear it looping.

Yes, this however is different from moral worth. We can view all humans as equal, yet recognize that our duty towards certain individuals is greater than others. My duty to a family member is higher than my duty towards a stranger. However this idea is more of useful in structuring a societies behavior to maximize harmony, it does not really tell us about the worth of each individual being. This is why I think we shouldn't say that pigs are worth less than humans, but rather that our duty towards the pig is different from our duty towards humans. When we talk about decisions that make us choose over one individual than another, then this decision will be made in relationship to extrinsic factors, not intrinsic ones. For example, as you showed, an individuals relationship to you or others. You might for example save an ant over Adolf Hitler, because of the extrinsic factors, not because the subjectivity of Adolf Hitler is worth less than that of the ant or vice verca. Equally you could save your own cat over a stranger (human), because your duty towards your cat is viewed by you higher than the duty towards the stranger and so forth.

Yes but in a survival situation you would eat me too, that doesn't answer whether or not pigs are less individuals than humans. You gave an account that you value one over the other, but not why. Do you think just because someone is born with different DNA they are worth less? People have the intuition that other races are worth less, or are somehow an inferior form of individuals, than their own race. And in a survival context that made complete sense. But this is not the question, the question is how do we justify these positions under rational inquiry. It is precisely because we have deconstructed our irrational beliefs about other individuals that we came to value all races equally.

The question is, how do you arrive at that conclusion? What is the difference between a pig and a human that makes one worth less than the other? An intuitive justification is not sufficient, because otherwise you would have to accept the appeal to intuition that a racist would provide in his stance that some races are less an individual than others. Think this through and apply any difference you find to humans. Peter Singer provided a good argument for this, called Argument from Marginal Cases. This means any trait other than humanity itself will reduce you to a position in which certain groups of humans are considered less worthy of life, or less worthy of being called an individual, than others. This would for example apply to the mentally disabled. Do you actually believe that the mentally disabled are less individuals, or less worthy of life, than other healthy humans, or that these individuals are only as much worth of life as we because of their genetic code? If the trait is humanity, which is basically species, then you are not much different from a racist, who simply chooses race as that which we cares about. Instead of looking at what is different between two beings, look at what you truly care about. Do you really value individuals with higher cognitive abilities more than others, or is it subjectivity itself that you value, and someones capacity to experience well being and suffer?

It is inevitable. What is demanded of the workers is to treat individuals as objects, so you cannot continue to view them as individuals. If the workers did view them as individuals, they would be incapable of doing what they are doing. This should be quite obvious, any empathetic person who would work in a slaughterhouse will either psychologically disintegrate or adapt and start viewing these individuals as objects. And objects you cannot treat badly, they are just objects. There is nothing wrong with kicking or punching an object. It is irrational to complain about the abuse when the entire industry is about killing these individuals. Each workers is killing hundreds of individuals every day, that itself is abuse no matter how you cut it. Imagine it was your job to kill children, hundreds every day. You had a few seconds to slice the throat of each child. What would this do to you? Even if you started out having empathy for these children, who would you be even after a single day of doing this job? This job demands that you have no empathy for these individuals. Can you see how the consumers not only have no empathy for the animals, but also lack even the most basic empathy for these workers who are coerced by our society to do something that goes against their nature? Watch this to get some good insight: Can you see how this is an absurd contradiction: "Slice this pigs throat against it's will, but treat it with respect!"

Yes but I was hoping for a more indepth analysis rather than just this. I mean you could also make a video saying "It's all self bias guys", and it would explain everything too, in this sense.

This video illustrates it well when they go into meta-ethics. It just really looks like a language game to me. At 1:24:00 they start talking about this.

Yes but that non informative, because that's the case with pretty much everything.

We are not special, but our knowledge and privilege very much is special my brother or sister. Most individuals don't know about non-duality, most individuals struggle to survive. Most individuals cannot even conceptualize anything. In this way our position is very special, we can help the world in a meaningful way if we adopt more responsibility for it.

No, why?

Yes, the philosophers seek to create a machinery of manipulation, to align the Good with the Will. Yet, the Will and the Good are one and the same, so it is a recognition of this Truth that will align the mind with the Mind. The Good will prosper not when there is the tyranny of the Will, but rather simply if the Will is surrendered to the Good. When that happens, Grace naturally follows. It follows because it is that which we are and have always been.

Please my brothers and sisters, open your heart to the suffering of the children of this earth. Let us find ways to not exploit each other anymore and instead allow the Grace of the Divine to speak through us. It is us who are privileged enough to make the first step into the future of life of this planet, let us lead by example. May we be the first who shine light into darkness, because we are the ones who have been given the gift of this path, the gift of the light. We are the most fortunate, more fortunate than the kings and queens of the past and the present. Let us accept our responsibility to brighten this world, and align with the Will of the Divine. Yes, while consuming raw foods is important and healthy, I do think that there should be a balance. As you said, many foods are better to be cooked and they are healthy and important. Many people struggle on a raw diet and I think often it is the cause for unnecessary suffering.

Yes but these terms are used in a derogatory manner to invalidate what I am saying rather than contend with it.

Yes but I think that there is even a meaningful difference between the laws engineers have and the ideas philosophers tend to hold. You can test and use engineering laws consistently, in this sense it is objective.

Can you go into detail where the objectivists make the mistake or overlook something in terms of their positions and rationalization? You studied philosophy so maybe you can point exactly to the arguments their provide for realism and objectivism that are not sound. Where are they going wrong, where is the point of bias turning them blind? I would be very interested in a more in depth explanation for this. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/53402/what-makes-moral-realism-so-popular-a-standpoint https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/31f0gn/why_are_the_majority_of_philosophers_moral/ I don't quite understand why atheists will so easily bite the bullet on moral subjectivism but philosophers won't. I don't actually think this is about it being hard to admit that what is considered evil is objectively evil, because this doesn't quite track with how people in general adopt the position of subjectivism. To me it looks like the way philosophy is done is in some form fundamentally flawed, but at the same time it is tricky to reveal this because it is so well hidden in the vagueness of language. When I talk to philosophers it is hard to communicate my positions because there are so many assumptions they make that I fundamentally don't agree with, and I end up being called an absurdist or obscurist, a nihilist and so forth. From my point of view it looks like Philosophers just completely rely on the argumentation of previous philosophers and they kind of pick who they like most and then self-indoctronate themselves into that position and start defending and arguing for it. It just seems like the fact that none of it can be tested means that they can create any elaborate mental scheme they want.

There are objectivists who are stage orange and green.

Yes but I feel like there must be some more indepth explanation for this.

I can't remember the video of the Philosophy professor who was talking about non-duality and so forth that Leo once linked here or in the blog. Does anyone know what I am talking about?

Guys, it is a Self-bias. Get it? Self bias!

Leo once said that he recognized that when he dies, all of the universe will die with him. This is solipsism, and it is true. Yet, solipsism is only a story, and this story can be reframed like this: Upon death the illusion of time will cease to exist and all of eternity will pass in an instant. When you die, that moment of death, that returning to the unmanifested potential, will be the same moment as everything else, in all of existence, has also died and returned to the unmanifested existence. Your return to the unmanifested is outside of time, because time is manifest, and this means that all of your manifest deaths, of your return to the unmanifested, are this very moment of unmanifestation. There is only one moment of unmanifestation, and it is this very moment. Look at any being that is around you. When this being dies, from it's own perspective, which is the only perspective in all of existence, your and everyone else has also died. Upon death, a fly doesn't need to wait a billion trillion years for the headdeath of the universe, because the fly and time does not exist anymore. This illusion of time and seperation were themselves manifestations in relationship to the fly, to the particulate manifest. Simultanously, that entering into the unmanifest, is the moment when all beings that will ever exist (and from the unmanifest point of view, have existed, will exist, have never existed and will never exist) are at the same time returning to the unmanifest, that very moment is also the moment (timeless moment, unmanifest moment) at which all those beings, all the manifest in all of existence, have been born and manifested in the first place. The moment of birth and the moment of death are thus the same, they are an illusion, they are both one at the same. One big misunderstanding in society is that the opposite of death is life. This is wrong. The opposite of death is birth. Through the illusion of seperation between the Birth and the Death Life is created. Through this duality all forms are manifested and maintained. We all die together my brothers and sisters. What death is, is our all union. But our death is also our birth. All of us, we were and are all born together. Our union is also our seperation. This is our Love, our Sefllessness. An eternal Circle that has no goal but itself. It has no cause but itself. It has no description but itself. Enlightenment is not a race, it is not a struggle. Self-realization awaits us all, it is inevitable. At the end, the Buddha will be just as enlightened as an ant will be upon it's own death, upon it's own return to the unmanifest. Because fundamentally, the ant and the Buddha, and you and me, are One. We are the unmanifest. There is no one who is more or less enlightened, more or less insightful, more or less understanding. Because there is noone but I.

In other more simpler terms: To understand and recognize the Perfection and Goodness of Existence, means to understand the Perfection and Goodness of Suffering. Selfless Love is to accept everything in existence as it is. This means to accept Suffering for what it is. And because the Nature of Suffering is such that it seeks to extinguish itself, to accept the Nature of Suffering means to accept that Suffering is to be extinguished. This is why the most Loving thing is to extinguish Suffering, because that is the nature of Suffering. This is the Perfection of the Will of God. See, God does not need to tell anyone or anything that Suffering is to be avoided or to be extinguished. His Will is build into the very substance and nature of Suffering. Suffering literally is that which is to be avoided, that is it's "purpose", it's ontology, it's substance, it's Perfection, it's Will. That is what Suffering is. See, the Selfless looks at existence and accepts it, therefore allowing everything to self-perpetuate. Pleasure self-perpetuates by increase itself, that is the nature of pleasure. And Suffering perpetuates itself by extinguishing itself, that is the nature of suffering. Can you see how it requires a moralistic mind, a confused mind, to not recognize this to be the truth?

You can also frame it like this: The nature of Subjectivity is such that it desires the Good. And because all Subjectivity constitutes the Self, the Self cannot help itself but Desire the Good. Because it is inevitable to Desire the Good (in an ontological and metaphysical sense), any action already is motivated by a desire for the Good. This means to increase the Good in all of subjectivity is the only rational thing to do. Everything else is a failure of trying to achieve that which is desired in the first place. The desire for the Good is the same in the ant as in the human, and both desire the very same Good. Of course, their actions will differ to reach the Good, leading to an individualistic pursuit of the Good. But because the Self is universal, the Good is universal aswell. Suffer is universal, Redness is universal. Because of this the action which creates the most Good, and therefore can be considered to the most desirable action, is the action which creates the most Good in all of Subjectivity. In this kind of sense a natural harmony is created in the world, directly, without the need for conceptual morality. Balance will be found because it is the nature of the Good, the nature of desire, to seek itself. This is why, upon the enlightenment, there is a tendency for actions to align with harmony, because the realization of the Good for the Self makes obvious those actions which are most rational to achieve the Good. In this case I am not using Good in terms of the absolute term, but rather the substantive or ontology of the Good refering to that which is in a dual relationship to Suffering. The nature of Suffering is such that it is undesirable, that is very much what suffering is. In this way, it is a Perfect Creation. To call all of existence Universally Good, means to admit that the nature of Suffering is Good and perfect, and the nature of Suffering is to extinguish itself. Which means to say that it is the Good to extinguish the Suffering. Everything else would be irrational, as it would not recognize the Perfection of Suffering. It would be a confusion of that which is the duality between the Good and Suffering, it would be moralistic, rather than pure recognition of Perfection. This can be seen when the mind does not create Philosophy, when it is not so blinded by it's intellectual pursuits. And this is why those who have such purity in their mind can align their action with the Good to the greater degree, in this sense of not the absolute Good, but the universal, yet subjective Good.

This is important to realize: Awakening will not make you realize: Do onto others as you wish them to do to you. Instead it makes you realize: There is no other, what you do onto others, you are doing onto you. There is a lack of prescription here, a lack of ought. This is what is meant with transcending morality, morality only makes sense in the context of separation, atleast these oughts. From there we realize, morality simply can be a tool for you to discover what you want to do onto yourself. And this is why reason is so helpful. Reason will help you find the behaviour that will make you the most happiest, the least suffering. This is why, for finding happiness within the worldly Self, rationality is the basis of Morality. The most selfish thing to do, after awakening, becomes that which is the most rational and in this way moral thing to do. Because the most rational and moral will be in relationship to that which is the most selfish. It very much is a tautology.

I stopped drinking all caffeine a few months ago, and it was terrible for the first month or two, I was a zombie. But I don't regret anything, my productivity has increase tremendously and I will not go back to drinking it.

The power of radical action. Can you see what this does to us, this simple act of Love? Can you see how it raises our consciousness? Connor had many powerful experiences, but this is an attempt at embodiment. It is not at all easy, because embodiment is a different form of mastery. Imagine if Connor did this every day, imagine his entire life was dedicated to this. His life would become the embodiment, and it would serve to show us all what is possible with an open heart. The idea of Christ is not merely the idea of someone who is enlightened to his True Self. It is the idea of a mind and body, that with it's very presence, action and being, is a reminder to us all of what the True Self is. That the very actions become the teacher, the beacon of light, needing no words to explain itself.