Everyone can go back to talking about me now.
Magnus, no nazi talk.
Iambig, no talking in circles and ignoring people’s responses and no talking about whatever it is that you think dasein means.
Only a man who cannot not care thinks that not caring is some sort of great strength.
You cannot trump arguments by showing indifference to them.
In the same way you cannot resolve problems by running away from them.
Indifference is a means, not an end.
Note to others:
What do you think…is this true? 
Obviously: godot is off the hook too.
You know, whatever that means.
This sort of observation reminds me of the arguments you get from Satyr/Lyssa and his ilk at KT: a “general description” of the human condition that they almost never bring down to earth.
Let’s delineate a particular context in which value judgments come into conflict and explore the extent to which, using the tools of philosophy, we can or cannot “approach it”. A resolution, for example.
Something a bit more substantive than this:
Or is this…tongue in cheek?
What difference can that possibly make to mere mortals? In other words, “for all practical purposes”.
The whole point of inventing Gods is to anchor the value judgments of mere mortals in a transcending Truth.
God is said to be omniscient. God is said to be omnipotent. And whether He never existed or existed only “in our head” when Nietzsche killed Him, we’re still stuck “for all practical purposes” when value judgments come into conflict.
Unless of course we’re not. And all I can do here is to examine the arguments of moral objectivists who [more often than not] define and deduce Virtue into existence.
And while I have no capacity to demonstrate that they are necessarily wrong, none seem able to come up with an argument that all of the other moral objectivists agree is necessarily right.
Suppose we lived in a world where all of us could embody this enjoyment and there was never any chance that it would come into conflict with the enjoyment of others.
In la la land, for example.
Come on, is “serious philosophy” more intent on examining the particular enjoyment that particular people are able to feel or in perusing the consequences of living in a world where what brings one person pleasure brings another person pain?
What path seems more intellectually challenging to you?
And how do you react to others when that which brings you enjoyment is attacked by them? When they insist that you ought to enjoy what they do instead? How are you not entangled in my dilemma?
Please note a particular context [conflict] in which all of this played out in your head.
Seriously: Is it even possible to be more abstract than this? Can observations of this sort be further removed from actual existential contexts in which “good” and “enjoyable” come to, say, blows?
That’s not my point. I would never argue that Hitler’s narrative/agenda wasn’t relevant to, say, among others, Jews. I’m considerably more curious instead about exploring the extent to which philosophers are able to establish that his narrative/agenda is either necessarily moral or immoral. My argument is that, in a world without God, this does not seem possible to establish. But: that [psychologically] most mere mortals are not able to abide that. So they invent Gods and deontological political/philosophical contraptions in order to be thought of as “one of us”. The good people.
Note to others:
How on earth can this be thought of as a substantive/substantial response to the point I raised? What wisdom is he imparting here that I am just not able to fathom?
Instead [in my view] we get “analysis” like this:
Is this true? Is this false? Well, pertaining to what? And what happens when we look out at the world around us and conclude that any number of things are not “fertile and beautiful”?
Really, there are actually times when I am thinking here that maybe you are just pulling my leg. This whole VO spiel is just an exercise in irony. The more you embrace the more you mock it.
But that’s just me. I’m trying to understand how an intelligent man can talk himself into thinking like this. In other words, as, no doubt, you think of me.
Okay, you question folks and they give you reasons why as individuals they loved and trusted him.
My point would then be this:
1] the reasons they give are rooted existentially in the lives that they lived more so than in the capacity of philosophers to establish the most reasonable point of view
2] the reasons that others did not love and trust him are in turn rooted here — and then revolve around conflicting goods regarding arguments pertaining to why one ought or ought not to love and trust him
3] that, aside from whatever particular reasons particular people give, what counts “out in the world” is the extent to which one side or the other is able to enforce their own personal narrative/agenda
But my point is that one “moves beyond good and evil” only in taking a particular political leap to a particular subjective opinion. And that all of us get “stuck” on “shoulds” and “morals” because existentially we come to conflicting assessments regarding that which is seen to be “enjoyable” or “good”.
Right? Isn’t that what human interaction has always basically revolved around?
In other words, if we do live in a world where, “morality isnt logical nor is logic moral” how are we to resolve conflicts other than through political agendas that revolve around 1] might makes right 2] right makes might or 3] democracy and the rule of law.
Rooted always in politcal economy.
All of that is fine and dandy until actual flesh and blood men and women walk out the front door and then, in acting that out socially, politically and economically with others, conflicts occur.
Then they may well be forced to probe the extent to which they have come to know/overcome/master their “self” is predicated largely on the contours of the particular historical and cultural and experiential context in which “I” took root and evolved.
That, in other words, “I” here is largely an existential fabrication/contraption subject ever to the vicissitudes of contingency, chance and change.
Well, if only from the cradle to the grave.
I have long since given up engaging you in a substantive exchange regarding these relationships.
To you, ILP seems to be just one more manifestation of “social media”. You come here [apparently] to chat it up with others. To exchange retorts and ad homs.
And to remind us all of just how incredible it is to be you.
Again, I do not rank you in with the Kids here. That’s true. But, really, in a philosophy venue, what’s the difference?
Arguments are not the same as real life. In real life, I can be totally indifferent to you and whether or not the argument is trumped doesn’t even matter. You sure do have a lot of specific ideas about how you want your ideal man to be. Are you gay?
None of this is relevant to the OP.
Iambiguous, here’s an unambiguous thing all (reasonable, when standard) men of good will agree on: Nazis are pigs. Because they have access to the knowledge of millennia and still think the devastation of peoples and lands is a proper approach to power.
Can you deny that you agree? And that all men of good will, being understood reasonable as good will standardized, must also think nazis are pigs? They only wouldn’t bother if
-
Nazis don’t really matter or,
-
We are too nihilistic about life to remember what matters. Tiredness.
Also, Nietzsche didn’t kill anybody.
God just died.
Probably not, but I like to remind people of it just the same. 
You’re a weird fuck.
Something has to exist to die. Imaginary nonexisting things don’t die they instead just fade away from conception and held consciousness.
In other words, this is not just a reflection of your own subjective political prejudice [rooted existentially in dasein] but an actual demonstration that all rational men and women must agree with if they wish to be thought of as “one of us”.
The good guys.
And how is it demonstrated? Well, it is what you believe to be true “in your head”.
Of course others insist it is not the Nazis that are pigs, but the Communists. Or the capitalists. Or the feminists. Or the anarchists. Or the nihilists. Or the Islamists. Or the abortionists. Or the liberals. Or the conservatives. Or the Nietzscheans.
A suggestion:
For two weeks read this…
[b][i]1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.
4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.
5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.
7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.[/i][/b]
…at least once a day.
After the two weeks are up come back to this thread and note how it either is or is not applicable to you.
It is the psychology of objectivism that I always come back to.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Besides, in so many predictable ways here, you fit right in. 
You are deeply mentally ill and everyone hates you.
I don’t hate him. 
Give it time.
Ironically, it is this mentality that has historically given rise to all kinds of nationalism and subsequent killings. Some time back, those pigs killed our forefathers and took our land. Now it’s our turn.
If you look at history of Yugoslavia, for example, you’ll see that when Tito was in power, all dissent (from intelligentsia) was kept down. Once Tito died, all hell broke loose, and all of the sudden people chose to remember every slight and offense their neighbor did in WWII. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War … n_of_Serbs
I see this theme repeating again and again. It is too easy to turn people against each other.