Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

I think he’s right. That’s what you’re doing in this thread. You’re telling other people how to live their lives. And you do so by using hyperbolic language.

“If you do no subscribe to my values, you do not even exist!”

You’re also highly reactive emotionally. But that does not stop you from accusing others, who are far less reactive, of being reactive.

Firstly, U, I am not trying to hide that I am a materialist. I’m also a Gemini, a registered Republican and right-handed, except for when I deal cards. I’m not trying to hide anything.

All manner of stuff “exists” in some way, at least according to the English language.

You destroy moral rules that you don’t like if you re doing moral philosophizing. As a philosopher you do that.

As for there being more, there is more in what I have already said than you seem to be discerning.

As for changing ideas - assuming you are a straight male (but it’s easy to make the required corrections) - your wife or girlfriend discovers what for all the world looks like a “love bite”. Which is more likely to fade first - the mark or her suspicions?

This is a perfect moment to introduce a basic tenant of Tectonic Philosophy: it is a very low and inaccurate standard of “existence” to claim, directly or indirectly, that only “dur, like, physical stuffs” exists. Something exists if it exists, it is real if it is real, the entire concept of existence/reality is tautological. And the word “truth” is simply another word for that. Truth simply means whatever exists, whatever is real, whatever is the case and includes the how/why of that being the case.

Truth is simply the concept of all concepts, as someone once said. Don’t read that through Wittgenstein by the way.

So what are physical objects? Stuff that resists with force when you encounter it, something made out of atoms with a nice outer edge full of negative elections which repel the negative electrons at the edge of your hand, for example. Because of this power of resistance and mass (substance), it takes some energy to encounter and move physical things. But this is just one standard, and there is no reason to suspect that “moving physical things by exerting force by pushing two different groupings of electron clouds together” has much to do with Ontology.

Obviously rules exist. So do languages. So do ideas. So do chairs. So do photons, and numbers, and emotions, and and and and. Keep going, whatever you like. If you can name it, then it exists, at least as an idea about which you can make an utterance. Just because you cannot define a rule or a language in terms of how you can define a physical object as a bunch of atoms or whatever, does not mean that things like rules and objects do not exist; nor is it very helpful mudding the waters with introduction of undefined additional terms like “literally exists”. Things which exist, exist. That is all. This is not complicated.

An absolute lie on your part. I never did that.

So you are a liar, nice to know. I will delete the rest of your reply here and not bother reading anything from you in the future.

The forum must be deceiving us.

Low compared to what? Let’s say you have a TV. Displayed on the screen is a list of rules for the safe handling of a TV. You’re with a couple of friends and you pick up the TV, without unplugging it. A you drop it on your instep. That would be a very difficult moment to claim that it does not exist. It hurts. Does it hurt more because that list of rules is on the screen? Clearly, when we say that the list of rules exists, we are saying something very different from saying that the television set does. If we turn the television off, does the list still exist? The television does.

Now, will the television always exist? Assuredly, it will not. Will the list exist, in whatever way, forever? If not on TV’s everywhere, than in the collective memory of the human race? Beyond that? What would destroy the list?

These are two different kinds of existence. It matters in philosophy and has, ever since there was philosophy. This “low standard” has been at the center of the debate since there has been a debate. If it is unworthy, what shall replace it? Realism? Moral realism? Metaphysics? Rationalism? Where should this debate be seated, if not here?

I think one of the problems with this kind of thread is its attempt
to isolate, separate morality from everything else… Morality isn’t
something that is separate from us and exists independent of our actions…
morality IS our actions… to say something is “good” or “evil” is to ask
from where or how do you understand “good” or “evil”… like “good” and
“evil” have some separate and independent existence…

Nietzsche attempt at a morality was simply an attempt to understand
morals without any recourse to god or religion… what does “moral”
mean when we don’t have recourse to a god?

there is no “objective” look at morality because morality is simply
an artificial attempt to understand our relationship with each other…

take sex for example… we have “morals” or rules for sex…
keep it private… no violence… not in front of the kids…
and yet, those roles are different for everyone…
some believe in public sex and some get into sexual violence
and some believe its natural to have sex in front of the kids…

which rules are the “proper” rules for sex? I can’t say and neither can you…
so which rules are proper for society at large? for the members of society?
which rules should we follow and which rules are “fake”? it seems to me that
we collectively decide on what rules to follow… for example, gay sex…
it was against the “rules” to have gay sex for centuries and today it is not against
the rules and how did we come to decide that gay sex wasn’t against the rules?

some sort of collective agreement that was really kinda of unspoken about…

can you point out where or when did gay sex actually became acceptable? I can’t…
and that is the point… “morals” “rules” “laws” are just shifting glimpses of
what we find to be acceptable or unacceptable in regards to our actions to each other…

and that is the point… that morals or rules or laws, shift and change with time
which means they are by nature, “fake” but what they really should be called is
not “fake” but temporary… impermanent…

Kropotkin

BTW, good to see you Faust… missed you…

Yeah, Peter. Philosophers like to believe that morality exists in a vacuum, or that it was born in one. Or, you know, in heaven. Or in pure reason. Or something that is not a function of human society. Morality cannot be, and in truth never has been, separated from politics, because it’s about power within the social sphere. Nietzsche’s greatest lesson here is that everything exists on a continuum, including what we know as “real”. That’s difficult to explain in a message board post. But causation, “realness”, moral good (if we must) and moral bad - it’s all best understood on a spectrum, as part of a continuum, “in motion”. That absolute right and wrong doesn’t make sense doesn’t mean that right and wrong never makes sense. Lying is probably as good an example as sex. There are lies and there are lies. We don’t regard them as all the same.

Even communists aren’t all bad.

Always a pleasure, old friend.

I meant eating ones own children. Anyone who does this will fail to have his lineage continued.
Is this not a basic form of morality?

Indeed most that try become simply outcasts or worse.

U/Faust - indeed thoughts are also things, and things that are very hard to destroy.
To attack a thought often makes it stronger.

Or: Jesus is dead and gone and may never have lived, but the idea of Jesus will probably survive as long as mankind does. It is indeed nearly impossible to kill an idea if people are emotionally invested in it.

(I know im not saying anything that is new to either of you)

My own view is that the psychological foundation of morality is the life-saving admonitions that mothers impart to their children, so yes. i would say not eating your children is in a way the most basic.

if they are not clever, yes.

Yeah, I just made that very point. Unreal things are far more durable than real things, which is why philosophers (and sometimes American presidents) prefer them.

Good. A fine thing to have established, the most basic of moralities.

And isn’t cleverness concerning morality a rarity among rarities?

Where we disagree is the un/reality of thoughts.
I say a thought is perfectly real. If it wasn’t, would it withstand what is real? I don’t think that argument can be made.

The idea of Jesus is real, a real idea.
Democracy, the Republic, Civil Rights, Freedom, all the same concept. Ideas as real things. America is an idea. “President” is an idea.

Sure…

A recommendation about how to act consistently with the fact that you exist: a way to live: a morality.

Morals: derived from the Latin moris meaning customs or one’s disposition - the equivalent to the Greek ethikos, which of course is where we get the terms ethics and ethos, meaning exactly the same thing. You are making an ethical point, you are speaking in moral terms about how morality is fake and doesn’t exist and this is a dipshit retard kind of thing to do.

Just pointing out the obvious, you tend to miss it.

Of course, I also know what it is that you’re trying and struggling to get across - the standard leftist stance of Moral Relativism as Serendipper was quick and correct to point out. There is no absolute Morality, we agree on this - I am sure you will be loathe to be told. You make your own morality - Existentialism already covered this, you don’t need to dress it up in all this VO nonsense, it’s simple stuff. “I’m am Existentialist with tendencies towards Deconstructionism” would have saved you your three posts in exchange for just a few words like you’re used to.

You and me both, bro! Nice and cosy.

I noticed you mentioned that term “Tectonics” that someone was trying to make into a philosophy before I left ILP last - I remember you. Can’t remember your name though, I’m sure you used to be alright - what happened?

K: they are real as long as we accept their “realness” once we no longer believe, they
go away… think of the Egyptians and their belief in Ra… who believe in Ra today?
that “real” concept no longer means anything…and once christanity goes away,
the idea of Jesus goes away also… times change the believes of our mind…
our said another way… we change our beliefs to match the current situation…

Kropotkin

What Im saying is that thoughts are real when they mobilize people in a constant way, which in turns sustains the existence of the idea

In the existential grammar, the idea self-values the people, the idea values the people in its terms; it gets to do that due to its superior will to power. The people value themselves in terms of that idea. They even die for it.

An idea can be carried like a Pharaoh on the back of slaves, it’s thinkers. Philosophy tries to not work this way. It tries to elude all fixed ideas, it injects the mind with a slight poison to draw it on to where it wants to go. Philosophy is the same as what some people experience as animal spirit guardians, it is the possibilities implicit in ones life taking shape against what the world speaks.

Jake - What does it mean to withstand what is real?

Again, since I am talking to someone with an understanding of perspectivism, I will talk differently than to someone with a more standard metaphysical lust. I think you suffer from metaphysical lust, but you’re maybe not terminal in your metaphysical affliction.

It’s a continuum. For what is perfect?

My dog is real. A pack (that I see in front of me) of dogs is an instantiation (and a good one) of a set of dogs, which, being a set, is less real than my dog. The set “dogs” is less real than the pack of dogs that I see. For when I say “the set ‘dogs’” I am not talking about any particular dogs at all. That’s just abstraction.

When I say that the set “dogs” is more real than my dog, I am fucked. But sure, it’s a “real” set.

The verb “to exist” has fucked more brains than any other. It requires an advanced analysis, evidently, or you stop making sense. It’s a skill that every philosopher should have, but few do. Metaphysical lust has poisoned their brains.

If you were to ask me what reality is, I would say, that which happens.
What is actually happening. I don’t care if it is an idea or a cloud or a cup of coffee being made.
If it is progressing in time as itself, it is real. Reality is what can be pointed out as it happens.

Its as complicated as you can make it, and U is right, reality is ultimately more basic than dichotomies can describe, so no matter how complicated it gets it will only get away from the truth, which is where things come together into some it. Truth is a woman because of its it-factor. It seduces everything to it. And all too often truth is merely apparent, and the deeper truth of rage is fed and it swallows truth in more truth. Truth is the pit in the Return of the Jedi. Ideas usually are riling up masses or drilling marines to disclose truths that have nothing to do with these ideas, in which ideas are swallowed and in which ideas come to annihilate each other. Bread and games, truth in flames.

As I see it there are there layers then; idea, effort, and truth. Ideas struggling inside a form under time; How an idea is tested for its reality, but also how man comes to meet himself.

Yes. But I’m not only saying that ideas or thoughts are real because they mobilize people or other ‘tangible things’, I’m also saying they are real because they exist.

What is real is what exists, however it exists is irrelevant ontologically speaking. The concepts of real, existence, and truth are all meaning the exact same thing, and they are tautological.

Things exist if they…exist. It’s just that simple.

U, do mathematical sets exist?

So, what is missing from your equation?

Hitler, the Nazi pigs, the Storm Troopers, the Islamic terrorist groups, the bullies of the world ~ they all overcame morality.
I am not saying that you are but you almost sound like one of them.

Can you give me an example of what You mean by overcoming morality? An everyday scenario?

Perhaps that is not such a negative when you actually think about it.

There are those mental processes but there is also the response of the human Heart ~ that “compelling force of feeling” which you seem almost to denigrate.
Of course, at some point, using those mental processes, in harmony with the Heart to act, is the so-called “true” instinct of morality which will hopefully continue to perpetuate and save humanity.

True morality can be the impetus to cause people to act for the sake of the innocent others, like those who fought Nazism and those who fight terrorism. (sorry for any redundancy here).

But of course, perhaps you were speaking of moralistic, judgmental people, people who would take away our own personal freedoms and liberties…

I posit that moral people are immoral by arrogantly presuming morality exists :smiley:

The problem with morality is self-righteousness and the trouble with integrity is judgmentality. There is no way out of that bind and even if you flatter yourself in being amoral as a way to beat the game, you’re still guilty of conceit.