Page 2 of 4 [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Oceanfloor
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 14

15 Sep 2006, 1:06 am

Therion wrote:
Then objectivists could claim whatever they like. They could be atheists or fundamentalists, communists or libertarians, but the basis on their theory would nevertheless be based rather on reasoning from the self than real natural scientific facts. Therefore, moral objectivism is the worst form of subjectivism.



And aren't the ramifications of these teachings precisely what we've come to abhor and the overreaction what we now struggle with?

E.g. :


Quote:
I hate both religion and politics. They have caused nothing but harm in this world.


Quote:
It seems that most people percieve the world through a filter of bias by whatever labels they choose to attach to themselves, this kind of division leads to wars and violence.


Quote:
Moral values are subjective. Different people have different standards and their own ideas of what is right and wrong.


Quote:
The people considering themselves to be the most Moral, are the ones causing the most wars and death and despair and mayhem and unhappiness (i.e. the christians and the muslims). The pro-lifers and the homo-phobes are a good example, what business is it of theirs what other people do in their bedroom or with their bodies? Stop imposing Morality and being reptillian and start enjoying a peacefull life...



Our lying prophets have poisoned our sense of higher duty and hierarchy altogether, and now we want to quietly lay aside the task of truth because it involves the task of negation and nay-saying. Wills to power like the ones above go on as before, but not very well disguised in a new hypocrisy of post-modern indignant intolerance of the intolerant. There's a lot of moral satisfaction in denouncing morality, apparantly. We remain suspicious of anything with the taste of self-affirmation: because that ultimately is what the objectivists Therion spoke of did in the past, disguising it as objective realization--but this suspicion leads us to--a moral conclusion?



DirtDawg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,136
Location: Indy Area

15 Sep 2006, 1:09 am

I'm a little uncomfortable trying to label myself, but I have to resist the urge to label others. I think we all do this to varying degrees ... even if for no other reason, than to effectively distance ourselves from what we find repulsive.

Where politics is concerned, my beleifs are an unlikely mix of extremes from both sides of every issue, usually. Makes me very frustrated trying to vote in any satisfactory way.

I'm not convinced that there's a religion out there that fits me, either. I strive to live my life by the Christian ideal but I'm not truly a believer. Ten Commandments and The Golden Rule are not really bad ideas.

The problem with them is that those who take them to heart too seriously and literally tend to exile those who choose another path. That's going too far, I think. I do beleive in God ... I've been slapped by Him too many times to not accept His presence. I just can't ever get anything two way out of the experiences. He's got to come across with some answers, not just power, before I bow down with free will.

I'm not convinced that "Truth" actually exists, either. I imagine a pixelated truth where each person's biases and experiences allow him or her a view through "special glasses" that help each one to see a unique truth while filtering out opposing ideas or colors of the same picture ... not very comforting.

I like to think I consider all possibilities, before I form an opinion, but I'm limited in resources. I'm never satisfied that my mind is open enough to be totally unbiased.


_________________
It's just music for me. The other stims don't work.


Therion
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 97

15 Sep 2006, 3:51 am

Oceanfloor wrote:
Therion wrote:
Then objectivists could claim whatever they like. They could be atheists or fundamentalists, communists or libertarians, but the basis on their theory would nevertheless be based rather on reasoning from the self than real natural scientific facts. Therefore, moral objectivism is the worst form of subjectivism.



And aren't the ramifications of these teachings precisely what we've come to abhor and the overreaction what we now struggle with?

E.g. :


Quote:
I hate both religion and politics. They have caused nothing but harm in this world.


Quote:
It seems that most people percieve the world through a filter of bias by whatever labels they choose to attach to themselves, this kind of division leads to wars and violence.


Quote:
Moral values are subjective. Different people have different standards and their own ideas of what is right and wrong.


Quote:
The people considering themselves to be the most Moral, are the ones causing the most wars and death and despair and mayhem and unhappiness (i.e. the christians and the muslims). The pro-lifers and the homo-phobes are a good example, what business is it of theirs what other people do in their bedroom or with their bodies? Stop imposing Morality and being reptillian and start enjoying a peacefull life...



Our lying prophets have poisoned our sense of higher duty and hierarchy altogether, and now we want to quietly lay aside the task of truth because it involves the task of negation and nay-saying. Wills to power like the ones above go on as before, but not very well disguised in a new hypocrisy of post-modern indignant intolerance of the intolerant. There's a lot of moral satisfaction in denouncing morality, apparantly. We remain suspicious of anything with the taste of self-affirmation: because that ultimately is what the objectivists Therion spoke of did in the past, disguising it as objective realization--but this suspicion leads us to--a moral conclusion?


Higher duties and hierarchy, as well as the positive senses you seem to hold for them, is not a manifestation of higher truth but actually your own subjective bias which you view as something objective. Not unless I have misunderstood you.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,250

15 Sep 2006, 11:32 am

Heirarchy for one is the root of all bias. People need to seriously challenge and overcome their animalistic tendencies, not onlu that people need to work together to beat their animal tendencies, while at the same time embracing their individuality and individual thoughts, opinions, and beliefs, whatever that might be for the individuals. Heirarchy needs to be eradicated. Along with the dominance gene. I'm thinking about starting an inclusive philosophy that is an anti-label label that teaches about overcoming animalistic biases and tendencies and all those negative aspects.
People flock to labels because they don't wanna think... But then those same people wanna debate, on many forums much like this one... I ask, how does someone deserve the right to debate on things they haven't fully thought about? To me this just sounds arrogant.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,250

15 Sep 2006, 1:56 pm

Wobblegong, no offense but I think you missed my point in putting this post up. I "haven't found my label yet"? Well even if I did agree with something in whole, it would be the outcome of logical conclusion, not wearing the hat. I mean I do for the most part believe in anarchy, but that doesn't mean I'd always agree with anarchist leaders or popular views or patterns of thinking. Basically what I was saying is I don't **follow** anyone or anything.
I think it is possible for the individual to be unbias, because I am and if I can be unbias anyone can. I think people just need to get rid of such things as nations, religions (including atheism), socio-political labels (such as liberal or conservative), socio-political movements like feminism, or anything with a pre-outlined set of beliefs or opinions... I mean I can agree with someone on some things but not agree with them on EVERYTHING.



waterdogs
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,085

15 Sep 2006, 9:22 pm

Markendust wrote:
I hate both religion and politics. They have caused nothing but harm in this world.
agreed.



Scrapheap
Banned
Banned

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,678
Location: Animal Farm

15 Sep 2006, 11:50 pm

snake321 wrote:
Wobblegong, no offense but I think you missed my point in putting this post up. I "haven't found my label yet"? Well even if I did agree with something in whole, it would be the outcome of logical conclusion, not wearing the hat. I mean I do for the most part believe in anarchy, but that doesn't mean I'd always agree with anarchist leaders or popular views or patterns of thinking. Basically what I was saying is I don't **follow** anyone or anything.
I think it is possible for the individual to be unbias, because I am and if I can be unbias anyone can. I think people just need to get rid of such things as nations, religions (including atheism), socio-political labels (such as liberal or conservative), socio-political movements like feminism, or anything with a pre-outlined set of beliefs or opinions... I mean I can agree with someone on some things but not agree with them on EVERYTHING.


It sounds like the majority of your philisophy is anti-evolutionary. Natuions are instruments of group survival. The "anarchist utopia" you would have us live in would be squashed like a bug by any half-assed army.


_________________
All hail Comrade Napoleon!! !


Therion
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 97

16 Sep 2006, 5:35 am

Scrapheap wrote:
snake321 wrote:
Wobblegong, no offense but I think you missed my point in putting this post up. I "haven't found my label yet"? Well even if I did agree with something in whole, it would be the outcome of logical conclusion, not wearing the hat. I mean I do for the most part believe in anarchy, but that doesn't mean I'd always agree with anarchist leaders or popular views or patterns of thinking. Basically what I was saying is I don't **follow** anyone or anything.
I think it is possible for the individual to be unbias, because I am and if I can be unbias anyone can. I think people just need to get rid of such things as nations, religions (including atheism), socio-political labels (such as liberal or conservative), socio-political movements like feminism, or anything with a pre-outlined set of beliefs or opinions... I mean I can agree with someone on some things but not agree with them on EVERYTHING.


It sounds like the majority of your philisophy is anti-evolutionary. Natuions are instruments of group survival. The "anarchist utopia" you would have us live in would be squashed like a bug by any half-assed army.


The anarchist utopia would need to have a highly advanced, more or less automatic defense.



Scrapheap
Banned
Banned

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,678
Location: Animal Farm

16 Sep 2006, 1:29 pm

Therion wrote:
The anarchist utopia would need to have a highly advanced, more or less automatic defense.


An anarchist utopia would lack the necessary social orginization to build said automatic defense in the first place.


_________________
All hail Comrade Napoleon!! !


snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,250

16 Sep 2006, 1:49 pm

My point is I think current evolution is primative, why must we rely on a pre-made-out guideline for everything we believe without thinking about it? That's what most people do. I'm making a statement about individuality, I think I cleared it up when I say, why can't someone believe in some parts of christianity, some parts of buddhism, some parts of paganism, some parts of islam, as far as religion goes, taking moral values and such from here and there, and still be a scientifically grounded person with atheistic or agnostic view on god but still believe in spirituality? And agree with the liberals on some things, the conservatives on some things, libertarians on some things, socialists on some things, etc etc, but still be able to call bollocks on them all where it is neccessary, and use logick instead of emotion as a survivl conscious mechanism for life navigation?
Yeah, I realise this isn't gonna happen. I realise people are too stupid to not divide themselves and try and conquer one another. I do believe ***if*** the entire planet was in unison though and actually made a joint effort to break all these negative chains of animal behaviors in human interaction and psychology, and we actually worked towards it, together, as one, we could help to evolve it out of our gene pools over the course of many generations. Unfortunately, people will never be willing to do this, and it's because of that, that something like this can't exist. Still though, it makes me frown on humanity, we truely are an ape-like race of beings. This goes for aspies as well as NTs, humans period are ape-like creatures. It's the way life on earth is designed, we're like a biological cancer to everything around us.



Scrapheap
Banned
Banned

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,678
Location: Animal Farm

16 Sep 2006, 3:25 pm

Snake, it sounds like you're at war with your own humainty. Untill you learn to accept who and what humanity is, there's no point in discussing these issues. You have to come up with ideas that work within the parameters of a hairless, upright walking monkey. We are heirarchal, political and often savage. That's life.


_________________
All hail Comrade Napoleon!! !


snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,250

16 Sep 2006, 3:46 pm

I refuse to lower myself to a hair-brained ape. If this means I don't fit in with the human world then fine. I hate to sound arrogant but I honestly am beginning to think I'm above the majority of my speicies, intellectually and morally, for a number of reasons.
However there have been a number of philsophers and teachers throughout ancient east asia who have fought their inner animals and won.
Honestly though, I think I've delved too far in my quest for enlightenment and I've succeeded in growing beyond primitive human behavior patterns, however in doing so, I have also desensitized myself and further alienated myself from those around me.... And yet I can't stop searching for more answers, I feel like perhaps I've passed the point of no return many years ago... In my heart I still want good for all people, but in my mind I know this is not possible. While I may not know everything, the drive to wanna know as much as possible isn't ever gonna calm down in me. I'm a truth seeker, and a self-improvement believer. What I can attest to is that my drive for self improvement and enlightenment, and my drive to seek out truth, is due to the many painful experiences that have consumed my life through childhood up till the present day.
Perhaps a life of seclusion and shadow status is best for me. I can stay out of the world and just live my life on the outside, out here in the country. I do need to get my thoughts together, but I do not think I can continue to level with most of the rest of my species.... I think I will just have to live a seperatist lifestyle from the world around me as much as possible... I'm gonna be going into business for myself anyhow after I graduate colledge and become an independant animator, and move out to the Phillipines (1 american dollar is like 55 philipino dollars, so I'll become pretty wealthy).



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

16 Sep 2006, 6:05 pm

Ok, I think I know what the issue is. The issue is that you are relatively young, which leads to a struggle against your human aspects as you see them as being evil due to a sense of idealism. You will always be a hair-brained ape and intellectually and morally I doubt that you have truly accomplished much other than go through the rebellion against society, culture, humanity, etc, that most people go through.

Fighting and winning against the inner animal is pointless as that is an aspect of our nature, and I don't think that anyone has defeated the inner beast, unless you are going to count Jesus and Buddha as counting. The best we have are ascetic monks and they have not overcome their inner animal, they struggle daily for that task, and they give up almost everything to pursue that. Ultimately we are above the beast but we are not separate from it and attempts to separate ourselves from our more animal side are typically fruitless. We must seek to understand and perhaps utilize this towards our own ends, as we cannot separate man from himself, and to separate oneself from man leads to nothing.

The quest for enlightenment is your idealism and youth continuing further, you have not become greater than human and likely all you have is a smug facade of reaching above humanity. Your desensitization and your alienation is likely due to a combination of your aspieness and the oddities that one goes through as one is a teenager. You are a unique person, but everyone else is as well. you are not enlightened and you are not a truth-seeker, you are young, idealistic, and isolationist, a truth seeker is rational, you have emotional reactions to aspects of your nature, an enlightened person knows of balance and understanding, you are separate from your own kind due to an incapability to understand and seek an unreachable extreme.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,250

16 Sep 2006, 6:45 pm

No, the struggle for dominance and heirarchy is what makes life on earth evil. I don't give a plugged nickel about dominance or status, or defending biases, or running with a group. This is the core reason why nobody can get along on earth, and why we have so many wars that should never have to take place. In a since, the heirarchy is also responsible for a life to hunger every 3 seconds. Look at Africa, where one percent of the national populations control all the wealth, their leaders live in luxury while theyr people are dropping like flies from hunger and disease.



Therion
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 97

17 Sep 2006, 4:47 am

There is no thing as the qualities of good and evil separated from specific actions and situations. Evolution is not evil... or good. Life and death are both needed, since the cornerstones for life is built upon organisms which have died. To hold an antropocentric view on the universe, is to limit oneself to oneself, thus making universe an extension of the identity, rather than realising that identity in fact has the potential for true independence.

Today, we can start to control our own evolution, if we wanted.