morality

No Lev you cheat in the sense of making all sorts of hollow claims about having read stuff you haven’t read.
Remember Tolstoy? And then Camus? And now Nietzsche.

You have proven perfectly incapable of producing or recognizing any thought related to any of these writers.

He does not know what explosives are. As soon as he finds out he will not explode them in his face. The child- argument has always been used by political and religious tyrants.

“A man can not know what is good for him. Look at a child”.

next:

“So I will tell him what is good for him… because I do know.”

???

Who falls for this crap?

Okay…

This line of questioning is going to take six hundred years before it arrives at the point where morality is understood as a judgment.

OF COURSE morality applies TO someone.

Argh.

Man is not inherently good or bad. If there is a dark side within us, there is also a light side within us.
But in a sense I would say that evolution created us with much potential, for both good and bad. Perhaps the good pawns the bad but as you say, the dark side must be seen - and also the light side must be known.

What they have trouble with most and yet what they need most is the ability to see and know that distinction. :wink:

I’ll be the guy initiating a lot of the violence.

Death to all governments and religions! :stuck_out_tongue:

OOOOh I’m so scared!

I’ll give you five minutes survival time.

Stop avoiding the issue.

It’s a cheap trick that no one is falling for.
You said all men are good.
That is not only absurd but palpably stupid, as you prove yourself wrong at every stage.
As for reading books. I can’t know if you have read any books and it would be a damn fool for you or anyone else to think they know who has and how has not read particular books.
All I can say is that you simply enough do not understand The Birth of Tragedy. So much is obvious. Whether you have read it or not I cannot say. The same goes for your misreading (or not reading) of Tolstoy and Camus.

As for Nietzsche I’ll repeat myself, until you address the issue…

[i]
It’s amazing how a frusty old German obscurantist, can be so liberally employed as a place-marker to pretend knowledge whilst denigrating those that are genuinely and honestly puzzled by how open to a range of diverse views is any tract by Nietzsche.

The birth of Tragedy is possibly N’s most clear and thoughtful piece of writing, and as a one time student of Classical civilisation I know it pretty well. Image my incredulity when I see it bandied about as some form of explanation for a dialogue for which it has no place!
But even Nietzsche heavily attacked its naiveté, in the 1886 edition, and then later thought otherwise. Even N was confused about it!

Whilst I understand you can pretend the follow a Dionysian pathway in the place of poor reasoning, it does not, at the same time provide and adequate excuse for it. Sadly you must choose. If you want to present a coherent argument; then REASON! If you would rather sing poetry whilst drinking vast quantities of wine, then do that. But pretending one as an excuse for the other is not viable.[/i]

Even if I was all full of doubts, at least I am sure you’re right in this part.

I would imagine if such reasoning actually did take place, the point would be less the conclusion than the process.

I personally think that philosophy, and most other things, are either useful for life or not of much use at all. I don’t mind entering into that kind of inquiry, small nuggets of value can be dredged out of most things, especially thoughtful inquiry, but as for my personal deeper studies as I said before I think the practical or prudent virtues will yield much more use for living.

Why is it that the women are so often the ones to point out the obvious to a bunch of men apparently incapable of seeing it? Women apparently can’t hold onto reasoning even though they can see it and state it, whereas men can see reasoning whether it is good reasoning or bad but then never let go of it such as to update it. It seems a loss either way.

Aren’t you in merry old England where possessions of knives are illegal?

I’ll survive longer than that.

The smart individuals wait giving plenty of time for the idiots to kill each other off.

Erm- yes and lets process a thousand years and then figure out Newton again. That would be charming.

Lev - maybe you can convince your professor or whoever you write this BULLSHIT for, but since you already apologized for your lies (or the rumors you read in the Daily Mirror) about a certain writer, I can see you’re not quite lost, but are just a little attention whore.

Ill put you on ignore, so I wont be responding to your future attempts to get noticed. You may want to find another audience for your study in prancing.

Is there one man or woman who has not lied, at one time or another, to benefit themselves.

Not to assume, james, but you do realize that when I said “Man” I meant the human species, not just men.

Perhaps because women are by their natures more intuitive than are men - at least perhaps.
Anyway, I think it is more or less an INDIVIDUAL thing, not a man vs. woman thing.

As in the case of YOUR laughing at Magnus Anderson’s gross remark in one of his posts. I can’t for the world of me understand why you would laugh at that - think it was funny or encourage that kind of language (except for maybe the adage of "Birds of a feather… but then I’m a woman and can’t hold onto any kind of reasoning #-o - but I’m still holding onto that one.

If you want to see how amoral human beings truly are you only need to observe how human beings treat other human beings via economic and social inequality.

How can human beings be a moral species the way it acts and behaves amongst it own?

Doesn’t make any sense no matter what the bullshit moralists say.

And the ones banging on about morality are the worst offenders in this matter, claiming that extreme wealth and extreme poverty are “fair”.

Precisely!

A world of hypocrites, liars, and damnable fools, right?

In such a world anger is more useful than despair.

Get even I say.

Yet assumed.

Assumed again.

No telling what you assumed about that one.

Go ahead. What have you in mind?

Not much I can say online. Laughs