Why is everything European âWhite Supremacyâ?
Why go along with that racism?
Why canât people have their culture without being called out on their race?
Thats really sad, man.
Uruzâ reference was directly to the good life I said you represent.
=D> thank you sir for telling me. that what you like and dont like. but why im supposed to give any piss for your liking and not liking ? who the damn are you ? are you Krishna ? OR his recognzied agent ? so that i take care for you and your deeds ?
Runes are life-affirming, despite the filthy shit the nazis did with them.
I consider it possible that the regime committed suicide because they were working with symbols too powerful for their puny souls.
Okay, thatâs your reasonable standard. But my reasonable standard [here and now] is that any particular individualâs reasonable standard is rooted existentially in the life that he or she lives.
In other words, other individuals profess reasonable standards that revolve around not eating meat; and there are other men who profess to liking men sexually, romantically. Rather than women.
So, is there a reasonable standard â the reasonable standard â that philosophers are able to ascribe to all rational and virtuous human beings?
Or, instead, are value judgments of this sort embedded and embodied more in âexistential contraptionsâ?
Is your âIâ here in sync with the man that you really are [or were always meant to be] or is it more the result of a particular sequence of experiences in a particular life out in a particular world that merely predisposed you to think and to feel and to behave as you do now?
That is satisfactory as far as it.goes, when You qualified the difference with âmoreâ.
But just as.the artist.is indifferentiable from his art , ( and yet not be confused, for art requires that subtlety) , that standard should-must measure into it.
The optics of a majority vision goes by. the â more â qualifier, here and now, the Kantian morality dictates a more.definitive definitive view.
Its not an absolute standard but a pretty universal one nonetheless.
Why is it universal? Because it presents a proper challenge and reward system.
I appreciate Mr Rs standards because they relate to values quite universal among people and are not easy to attain. Thats a good set of criteria.
And thus I also feel that someone who wishes to denounce these values as relevant must first prove to be able to attain them as a way of life.
Mr R, perhaps you could give a list of demands that need to be met to maintain your standards, from easy to hard.
You have to start somewhere if youâre making a stab at workable public ethics, and it seems to be a bad idea to start with oneself. But also I would not argue that my particular standards and ways of meeting them are very relevant to most people, where Im sure Mr Rs are. Which is why he prides himself on beng reasonable too - to me it would be unthinkable to pick such a name. My nature is very much conflict-seeking, even though Im good at resolving very deep problems - these solutions also require approaches that seem far from reasonable to most people.
Empirical standards of ethics is what Im after. That brings along with it a kind of materialism, but certainly no dialectic. It is only about positing vs that which is posited a priori, which doesnât respond. One simply carries salt, there is no truth to the process, only value.
Or, as Satyr might insist, a ânaturalâ standard.
True enough. Most people around the globe do eat meat and do engage in heterosexual relationships.
Is that then close enough to a âreasonable standardâ for all rational and virtuous men and women?
Sure, if this is what you have managed to think yourself into believing. And, really, why take it further than that? Even in a venue like this you can make this claim and be done with all those who are not in sync with eating meat or heterosexual relationships.
My point though is that in a No God world there does not appear to be an argument that can be made able to demonstrate that this standard is one that all rational men and women are obligated to embody. That, if others refuse to except this standard, then they are necessarily wrong.
Also, that the manner in which individuals come to embrace one rather than another political prejudice here, is rooted, as well, in the actual constellation of existential variables [out in a particular world] that have come [so far] to constitute their lived life.
On the other hand, how are conflicting narratives here to be interpreted from the perspective of âvalue ontologyâ?
Well, Iâve said it before albeit without a lot of elucidation, itâs basically just money, hos and clothes. I mean, money is basically what you have to have in order to exchange things in the world. The extent to which you can make exchanges of things at will is about as closely tied to your level of freedom as anything could ever be. So youâre gonna want to get some money. This can happen all sorts of ways. Maybe you inherit it, maybe you work hard for it and save it for a while. Maybe you make good investments, maybe you sort out a way to not need as much of it that you donât have to find as much of it. Youâre born, then some time passes, then you die. If time is money, which it isâŚthen the more of your own time you can purchase back from the economy, then the more of your own time in the world you actually get to spend doing what you want to do instead of doing what others want you to do. There is almost nothing that I can think of that is as valuable as that.
HosâŚthis is pretty self explanatory. I canât recall ever meeting that many people who donât love to get blowjobs, bang bitches, and generally spend time around pretty girls, (except gay dudes and in that case they can just substitute other gay dudes in for hos). I never understood why so many people see women as some kind of insolvable dilemma. Just have some humility, donât be a pussy, act accommodating to some extent. Donât bitch about having to hold a door open, laugh when you think theyâre telling a joke. Tell them they look nice when they look nice. Feed them good food. Go and do some things that they like to do like see an opera or hang out at a mall. Just act nice like you enjoy being around them and they will, generally be glad to spend time with you. Donât try and get into their pants at every turn. Donât get all needy and act butthurt or be possessive or expect them to conform to some role that you have in your mind for them. They are people. They like to be free. So let them be free and if you like bitches then just be nice, and youâll have bitches around more often than not. They will, invariably, over some period of time get horny and want to bang you. So then you bang them and then donât act all crazy and theyâll probably do it again. Sometimes more regularly, sometimes itâll be sporadicâŚwho knows? But if youâre nice to a lot of them then you can generally get laid often enough.
Clothes. This is just sort of a metaphor for things that you want. Like I want a car thatâs fun to drive fast on curvy roads. So get one. Other people have them. Youâre not an idiot. So itâs not impossible. So you can get one too. I like comfortable shoes, and to dress in such a way that I donât have to worry about changing clothes if I want to go from one place to another. So get some nice shirts and find a good dry cleaner. Maybe I like to play the guitar, so I want to get a couple of guitars that sound really nice. So get them. People want stuff, and not having stuff you want sucks and a lot of people bitch and moan about it. So just get the shit already no one is going to get it for you. Like those kids who say, âHow am I going to get a job without a car? And how can I get a car without a job?â Itâs not fucking rocket science. Other people can do it, so they can do it too. It feels good to do the things you want to do and to get the things you want to get. So itâs worth working on that if you want to feel like youâre having a good life.
As far as ethics goesâŚwho really owes anyone anything? If you havenât stolen something, and you havenât hurt anyone, and weâre all living under the same oppressive powers-that-beâŚthen I donât see anyone as having a firm duty to take care of anyone else. Especially since when you look closely, you can see that in the majority of cases when someone wants help, that the help they want could be had all on their own if they were to conduct themselves differently. Look, some people are paralyzed and some people have cancer, some people get hit by lightning and some people lose everything they have in a fire, or develop some terrible disease. Technically, itâs no oneâs duty to take care of those things for them, but I think that if it were within my power I would do soâŚbut itâs not.
Understanding that you canât change the world is an important part of having a peaceful and contented view of reality. Striving and stressing to try and stop all the wars, feed all the babies and save all the whales and make sure that no oneâs feelings are hurt is an exercise in futility. If youâre not living the way that youâd like to live, and if you suffer from some paradox that you canât get over, or youâre without healthcare or money or hos or clothesâŚand you want nothing more than to make the world a better placeâŚthen look at it this wayâŚyouâre in no position to help anyone. You need to help yourself. Maybe you try and save someone and you just fuck them up more, maybe you try and get them to see things your way and you just create more confusion that leads to more general idiocy and thereby more suffering in the world. Maybe you lead 1000000 horses to water only to see that not a damned one of them is willing to drink. So then youâve wasted your time and you havenât helped anyone. At best, thereâs a chance you might have created a net positive outcome.
BUT, if you focus on yourself then youâve got a way better shot at there being one less shitty person whoâs suffering in the world. You actually have really good odds at alleviating the suffering of one person. So do that instead. Make the world better one person at a time and you be the person. Get some healthcare, have an enjoyable life where you arenât in a constant state of need. Eat good food. Insert your penis into young fresh vaginas. See an opera or two. Go to the park. If other people see your example and follow it, then youâve done even more good. If they donât, or if they try and fail, then you at least set an example for them so you did something there in addition to making the world better for the one person who you actually have a chance of doing so for.
As I see it, life is ALL preparation. It is an ongoing process, an ongoing thing which continues changing and transforming itself.
I am not quite sure what you mean by the last line.
Enjoyment is how you measure goodness or value?
Are you saying that if there is no enjoyment or very little, there is no value to oneâs life?
Virtually all of my threads in the philosophy forum revolve around suggesting that âany particular individualâs reasonable standard is rooted existentially in the life that he or she lives.â
Out in the is/ought world.
Out in particular worlds construed from particular points of view where a distinction is made between those who argue that eating meat is moral and those who argue that eating meat is immoral.
You then provide us with Mr. Reasonableâs standard. Fixed Cross provides us with Jacobâs standard.
Iâm only probing the extent to which your standard or his standard is said to be the most reasonable standard of all.
How, using the tools of philosophy, can something like this be assessed in the most reasonably manner?
But then out in the world that we actually live in, different individuals engage in different preparations in order to enjoy the different things that they do.
And thatâs fine until the things that some do collide headlong into the things that otherâs do.
Call them, say, conflicting goods.
The distinction I make is between the preparations people are required to master in order to successfully do the things that they want to do and the preparations they are required to master in order to defend the things they do when others insist that they stop doing them.
Why some choose to eat meat while others do not is, in my view, embedded and embodied in an existential contraption. But if you do choose to eat meat you either are or are not proficient in preparing it.