RichardY

@Sockrattes Without God, or with a Pantheistic God, morality is inherently relativistic, in the most primitive sense. Talking packs of dogs or chimpanzees as an example, "Planet of the Apes" or the "Island of Dr Moreau", where animals are made into people and then regress. In this sense to articulate Good and Evil behaviour is pointless and meaningless, unless we are talking manipulation(a form of slavery), as I think Nietzsche was getting at in Beyond Good and Evil, and Genealogy of Morals. I do however think a more developed form of morality, maybe preferable, such as Kant's Transcendental Morality. Although I take note of your point that the focus is on being right, as opposed to "Good". The later would seem to suggest more about character. Hence Kant's warning about philosophy potentially making a person very Evil without a Goodwill. I think Good can be a broad category, some might consider consciousness Good, another what they personally value, some the avoidance of pain, some the pursuit of suffering or perhaps some kind of universal Good.

Islam supposedly is based on Absolute Truth & Morality, according to your logic followers of Islam are very unwise. I'd like to avoid chopping reality into multiple levels. It's having your cake and eating it to. Moral Relativism can't be defined in words. Good, Evil are labels or accusations and must come from something not morally relativistic to have meaning. As a zen saying, zen in general an Eastern conception of the unconscious.( I got the idea from listening to "The Genius of Being.") I think the Zen quote means quite the opposite. If everything is one, how can the unconscious be a valid concept, my answer is, it can't. I did notice some similarities, with the beginning section of Jung's Aion and Leibniz's a discourse on Metaphysics. If God is perfect, then to be a part of God, as an imperfect being that can experience, would invalidate it's existence. Isn't it bad for the friends and families of those they murdered, and not inherently in society. Lot of people murder in War intentionally and unintentionally, should all soldiers be detained? What if God is Good on the absolute level? So there is Absolute Good? I more interested in Absolute or Transcendental truth morality, something like that. Not so much in appropriateness, personality wise, my agreeableness is Very Low. Morality only having value in a social situation. I think true morality comes from not knowing, which would exclude Absolute morality because it knows, and moral relativism because it is meaningless in words, and presumes to know. Torn between amorality, and Transcendental Morality.

The guy said he didn't sleep for 30 days in a show with Joe Rogan, after drinking apple cider. JP is also a member of the Trilateral Commission and has written parts of major political documents such as Agenda 21. Yeah I've played Deus Ex.

@vpandey If everyone is a devil that destroys the notion of "The Devil." I remember something like an infinite number of something destroys the idea of it. I get the idea with horns, pitchfork perhaps being a symbol of duality. Maybe there's earlier symbology. A person can have demonic qualities about them, mine would be Vanity/Envy, I suppose at least being conscious of it, might be an asset. Not sure how Buddhist and Hindu, traditions deal with Envy.

@Emerald There is a part of me that sees that moral relativism makes perfect sense from a collectivist human point of view. I see it however as base enslavement, and not divine. The fact other intelligent life forms would not be subject also dissuades me, I view humanity as corrupt and increasingly more so, in which case Nietzsche appeals far more to me, than moral relativism can. Ultimately someone has to come up with the idea of what is good and Evil, that is impossible in a morally relativist system. Although a notion may prevail, through a collective unconscious. To answer morality in the affirmative in a concise way, not because I want to be righteous, but because I want to live. That would be something. I'd imagine that moral relativism would feel pretty good, but for some reason the sense of profound loss comes to mind, not from missing out, but that things should be better. Duality. Yes I see better how I fall prey to such a thing and the various dichotomies you mentioned. Instead of Healthy and Unhealthy, or Sane and insane, perhaps there is only Health? Instead of weakness and strength only strength?

Henry should eat Bob. I'm 'Enery the Eighth, I am, 'Enery the Eighth I am, I am! I got married to the widow next door, She's been married seven times before And every one was an 'Enery She wouldn't have a Willie nor a Sam I'm her eighth old man named 'Enery 'Enery the Eighth, I am!

Practical Evil is in effect moral relativism. Which I think is wrong. Either Evil exists existentially or it does not. If it does not, then talking about good and evil drives is nonsense, unless you're a moral relativist. I fully accept the idea of an unconscious, if it helps to conceptualise, with a Freudian, Thanatos, and Eros so be it. The drawback I see with Jungian Archetypes, is the possibility to multiply to absurdity. The golden rule fails imho, a person maybe a sadomasochist. I prefer the Silver Rule, of not doing unto others, as you would not have them do unto you.

You could look at John Stuart Mill, a utilitarian & collectivist, I think he's wrong. But looks similar to some of the ideas you're thinking of.

Yes you are correct. Not so much good or bad, more like how a gamer or film lover may say this game or sequel, in this particular genre of film is better. But ultimately yes, a product. I do consider something like "The Book of Knowing" to be a good book. "Mastery" a bad book, even if right. "The Ethics" a Good book even if wrong. Yes I've noticed too much double-think(contradiction), originally I thought maybe people, are nearly all consciously lying as part of some sick joke, but after reading "1984", & Spinoza's "The Ethics", seeing it in my travels. It's a habituated to the point people can't tell the difference. I think highly functional people are also dysfunctional, or broken, Actors as a public example. I guess being functional is not good. Spinoza seemed to be totally dependent on his emotion. Skimming the introduction, I like how Kant is saying that without a Goodwill, philosophy makes a person worse, super villain warning, almost like advertising it. A Goodwill(soul), one of the things I'm biased by, is Nietzsche's critique of Kant, not explaining what a goodwill actually is, calls Kant a Theologian of old or something. The only substitute that I think would suffice is the idea of Emergentism in contrast to a soul, emergent properties say as heat is the result of friction. Not like some new matrix, but difference. The problem is, if a person's character goodwill is highly influenced by their genetics and upbringing, then to what extent can a person choose, or even want to be good? Well that really sucks. If I have freewill, why can't I choose to have a Goodwill, on the condition it is superior to Evil. Thank you for the link, I haven't really given Kant enough credit, book is pretty short, so I'll give it a listen on Scribd, I had listened to some of his "Critique of Pure Reason". The Categorical Imperative, quotes and things online.

@Sockrattes Something like "Act according to the maxim that which you will, should become a universal law." I think some people can understand that you can't make stealing a moral good, without in turn being stolen from. Or simultaneously occupy the same space at the same time, without in someway cancelling out. Transcendental Morality ( I remember Leo mentioning it was the most advanced). The Transcendental principle to Kant, being God. The issue is then, why would you follow the imperative? You may after all, only follow it, out of fear of punishment. In which case you're not really good just following the rules, which you break at your peril. As to do so would basically fracture your psyche. You may after all have malevolent intent. There is a modern reworking of the imperative termed UPB, which is a rehash of Kant. My issue is that while empirical, it depends on narrative, and so is not fundamentally different from Nietzsche in my humble opinion. As a basic rule, I like the silver rule of do not do unto other as you would not have them do unto you. a double negative. Personally I think Leibniz or Thomas Aquinas, might be more correct with Evil being a deprivation of Good , it's either them or Nietzsche in my opinion, I'm not sure which troubles me more. Anyway bit of entertainment, if I were certain I would not be here.

Because it would trigger people, which it did, maybe even delude them further, whether material or spiritual, thought I might play around with people's souls. If I tell the truth and people think it's BS so much the better. But there is only real truth in Enlightenment right? As far as I'm concerned people aren't even having a debate, just spouting talking points. "Or flogging a horse to death"(as Leo said) with no real purpose. I just wanted to make my own point, out of vanity.

@Emerald I'm in no way interested in being the more reasonable person. “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman I'm not interested in discrediting your points of view either, more out of entertainment and boredom, bored with too much SD crap. Why should I care in discrediting you? No credit to play around would have to start my own game, probably should. Well I do technically live in a shire, so you're right there.

@Sockrattes The thing with Kant is that would be a kind of rationalism, where Evil people are Evil because they are Evil, or Good because Good. He doesn't deal with the issue of good and evil. Instead he makes up an a priori realm, to justify his duty ethics. So giving someone an equal amount of poison, as of medicine, would be the most sensible way to go?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-34265882 Racial segregation In 1893, Gandhi wrote to the Natal parliament saying that a "general belief seems to prevail in the Colony that the Indians are a little better, if at all, than savages or the Natives of Africa". In 1904, he wrote to a health officer in Johannesburg that the council "must withdraw Kaffirs" from an unsanitary slum called the "Coolie Location" where a large number of Africans lived alongside Indians. "About the mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly." Well actions speak louder then words, to me at least.

Was spoken by Gandhi who thought Blacks were sub-human to Indians when he worked in S.Africa. He also slept with his nieces. Compares blacks to savages in this BBC article. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-34265882

@Principium Nexus You can't make a concept out of Evil. I'm not saying Evil, does not exist. "Those who understand Evil pardon it." - George Bernard Shaw. Good you can make a concept or concepts out of. In which case, you have no recourse against anything. Adding Fuel to the fire. As Evil is not a concept, it's not objective either.

If morality is another name for regulated behaviour, not sure how you can make a law out of it without god. Lot of labelling, no code of behaviour, just what ever is in, anything other then Moral Relativism? I don't get the race thing. But when I hear various nationalities regional groupings, I tend to think. Scotsmen - Frugal Welsh (meaning slave or foreigner in saxon) - two people and you have a choir. "It's not unusual to be loved by anyone!" Saxon - Slow burn hatred. English - Madmen Nord - Cold. Irish - Friendly crazy. West African - Plantation slave, Eunuch or Beast. East African - Good runners. Dutch - Drugs & Hardcore sex. Italians - Motherfuckers. Arab - Professional thieves. Berber - Food and farting. Persian - Quarrelsome. Turks - Bloodthirsty. Russian - Insane. Spanish - Bullfighters. German - Machines. Frank - Crazy Japanese - Run if smiling. Chinese - Counterfeit. India - Telesales. Pakistan - Nuclear. Native American - Wildmen

I think Schopenhauer is totally wrong about being free in the absence of company. The entire notion of freewill only exists because there is the other, Spinoza recognised this, although he was a Hard Determinist, for him, to be the most free, you need others. I think Ayn Rand was also wrong, with man being more free due to technology, freeing man from man. Instead I think Montaigne was right with. I think ambitious people are very much enslaved, by their own mind. I agree with The greatest part also being the worst. Often referred to as dun dun dun THE SHADOW!!!! Had a few ancestors that were Statesmen including two Lord Chancellors, 2nd one killed himself after a few days, first one didn't do too badly including being regency council head. Anyways something more entertaining than gaming, but so limited, could always aim for Enlightenment, Be Trigger Free!!! Hardly anyone wants to talk philosophy, just their own mouthing points. Probably paints a target on you, in a way, that enlightenment does not. TRUTH! Chopping wood, safer. "Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water." --------------------------------------- Women exist in the main solely for the propagation of the species. -- On Women Believe it or not, I've actually heard that said, by an Internet Philosopher Stefan Molyneux, hate to say stage orange, as I think Spiral Dynamics is profane, worse then swearing for the sake of it. I don't agree, but possibly fucked in the head. It is fitting [for a woman] to amuse man in his hours of recreation, and, in case of need, to console him when he is borne down by the weight of his cares. -- On Women Like the first part of that one.

I read somewhere that Schopenhauer did have bouts of anger, including regularly shouting at this land lady, so much for being in the now. The guy was fairly angry, a picture of him doesn't look that happy, looks pretty angry........ Maybe he was such as asshole, nobody could put up with him. The veins are literally popping out of his forehead. Believing that the world is deterministic in the "Noumena World" but, perceived as independent action in a "Phenomenal World" which give the illusion of independent action even freewill. No wonder he's pissed. It's a reversal of Kant, which has the Noumena World influenced essentially by God, or alternatively the infinite. Kant's ethics depends on freewill. ----------------------- Spinoza I think is better, but way more dangerous and also wrong, a lot of unconscious rage. "The Book of Not Knowing is similar in someways to "The Ethics" but, superior. Playing with fire there. David Hume is better than Nietzsche, doesn't have the pretensions and cynicism that Nietzsche has. I think it's a good thing he's on the Book list. I think Nietzsche is better than Schopenhauer as he is not dualistic, Nietzsche does however depend on narrative. He has a long stream of knowing. I don't whether you could equate that to a superior form of consciousness as opposed to a mixture. Pythogoras also divides the world in two, just like Schopenhauer. Probably as dualistic, as you can get. ----------------------- Such as?

If you're addicted to something including social networking, you can't be friends. Addicts can't be friends. Similar to what Aristotle said about not, having slaves as friends.

Mind the Gap! If mind doesn't exist, that would make the person a weed. Or Pothead perhaps.

It's gone. Was wrong about it being British, Australian made instead. Although by deleting it, you proved the point of the satire. ----------------------------- Religion is more powerful than socialism or a social democracy. Any equality, under socialism is impossible, as religion will supersede it. Socialism in fact could be seen as a primitive form of religious paganism, a regression. Given massive declines in birth and death rates, this should not be surprising. As mankind degenerates. Kalima- Kali ma. Fundamentals of Islam. I don't think it's coincidence it's also the feminine Hindu God of Time & Destruction. A crescent, is a feminine symbol. Also referred to in "Planet of the Apes", & the not so good Indiana Jones "The Temple Doom." If I were a Arab Sheikh why wouldn't I have stolen the oil infrastructure of BP, for my tribal clan? Then slaughtered heretic Muslim sects on the peninsula, with the help of the west. On top of that getting to wage "lesser" Jihad by having numerous children. "There is nothing in the desert, and man needs nothing." No one human group has ever expanded faster and more permanently than Islam. The Spice must flow.

As a form of pragmatism, democracy is Evil. I define Evil as deprivation. People consider themselves deprived so they vote. Justifying themselves through consensus, including pragmatism and/or moral relativism. Talking about privilege is itself a sign of depravity or satire..., same thing different form. --------------------------------------- (Mulling over ideas, insanity) How do you define wealth? Are we talking blood or capital stock, the distinction itself is irrelevant given capita means head of cattle, decapitate.... What about spiritual wealth? Perhaps rarefied BS, or perhaps very real, still listening as if it were. "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock" Instead of Money = Value =...... cocaine? Maybe fixing a value, perhaps is the equivalent of money, ABC "Always Be Closing" (Glengarry Glen Ross). Fixed value = money. "Here babe here's £50." What too much? SLAP!# Libya formerly large wealth inequality, now more equality hellhole. Venezuela, same. Cuba, same. Ancient Rome, same. Ancient Athens, same. Grow up in a hellhole/crackden, with poor sanitation I suppose you wouldn't know the difference. Society is Evil, The State is a part of society, Evil. Socialism, imposed evil throughout society. Conservatism, conserved evil, worse. Think it would be better if people were assets, rather than liabilities to be looked after. Good old Whigs, cattle herders, never was cattle so exponentially productive and free range throughout history, ever. Wherever there is capitalism, there will be socialism and visa versa, there is no light without darkness, no Good without Evil. The Good? --------------------------------------- @thehero Seen a few of those videos, satire for a cynical British youth, not so much slapstick American comedy.

Number 1! in Spiritual Self Help on Amazon Jordan Peterson is believed by many to be the greatest thinker that humanity has ever known. He is Father Figure, Philosopher-King, and Prophet to the millions of young men who are his most fervent fans and followers. He is the central figure of the Intellectual Dark Web, an academic celebrity, and an unparalleled media phenomenon who has shattered all conceptions of what it means to be modern celebrity in the Internet Age. He has, by his own admission, thought thoughts that no man has ever thought before. He has dared to dream dreams that no man has ever dreamed before. Of course, Jordan Peterson also happens to be a narcissist, a charlatan, and an intellectual con man who doesn't even bother to learn the subjects upon which he lectures. He is a defender of free speech who silences other speakers, a fearless free-thinker who never hesitates to run away from debates, difficult questions, and controversial issues, a philosopher who rejects the conventional definition of truth, and a learned professor who has failed to read most of the great classics of the Western canon. He is, in short, a shameless and unrepentant fraud who lacks even a modicum of intellectual integrity. But is Jordan Peterson more than a mere fraud? Is he something more sinister, more unbalanced, and even more dangerous? In JORDANETICS: A Journey Into the Mind of Humanity's Greatest Thinker, political philosopher Vox Day delves deeply into the core philosophy that Jordan Peterson advocates in both his written works and his video lectures. In doing so, Day methodically builds a shocking case that will convince even the most skeptical Jordan Peterson supporter to reconsider both the man and his teachings.