You claim to not have a single quota of guiltness, morality, irationallity, etc by which everybody else identify as their feeling.
Not everybody else. And some identify it, yet reject it, or are at least skeptical of feelings and claims.
If that is true, than you shall have no feeling about shooting somebody close to you, whether that is your boyfriend, or father if it personally benefit you to do so.
Two points. First of all, it doesn’t necessarily mean I would have no feeling - simply that I had found it worth the costs and externalities. Thus I might not, ceterus paribus, want to shoot someone but - considering adding consideration of certain benefits - I would choose to anyway.
lols
I make myself laugh sometimes.
The dynamic good “rules out all standards”
I would hesitate to classify senses ethically (though they might have metaethical relevance), since I think morality is historically, ideologically and psychologically related to the social and biological notions of ‘duty’ and ‘taboo’. Even many ‘rationalists’ clearly evidence this sort of extra-motivational ‘value’ sense. But it’s strictly false, IE it is still they themselves who have this ‘sense’. There is no ‘cosmological point of view’. The Cosmos don’t care. About anything. Well, at least, only small parts of the Cosmos - like us - care. But what we care about is just that - what we actually know, think, feel and have opinions on - our ‘intendedness’ as Heidegger might call it.
I think all conceivable evidence basically points ot the fact that the Universe is more or less made out of marbles - force in extended space/time. And that’s it - if you’re not a marble, you’re not real.
The fact that you did hesitate or feel dismay and show some feelings and concerns for other that you have what people called morality, guiltness, rightheous, irrationality, etc. It doesn’t matter if you think it is the result of socibiological or the result of evolution or what you call it. It is here.
The fact that you did hesitate or feel dismay and show some feelings and concerns for other that you have what people called morality, guiltness, rightheous, irrationality, etc. It doesn’t matter if you think it is the result of socibiological or the result of evolution or what you call it. It is here.
It is not a concern for ‘righteousness’ at all, it is a concern for personal preferences. I need not ‘justify’ myself any way, what I aim at is my own affair and not subject to your negation (or anyone elses). It is a simple fact of my being.
To say that you don’t have any of that is lying.
Your undoubtededly ingenious psychological and anthropological skills enable you to say this.
Personal preferences, etc, whatever. It is all the same thing. The fact that morality is inheritently egoistic is beside the point.
Look, I don’t know if you’re just an automation that just randomly spit out broken philosophy to me, but I have faith that you exists and have the similiar biological and computational hardware as me. So I am assuming constructs that appears to be true across humans.
Well I wasn’t particularly discussing “senses” here.
Well, I don’t know what the cosmos thinks at all. My skull can’t literally wrap around it to make an such assertion. I do think though the cosmos is good in a dynamic way. Why good? I think the cosmos has a certain quality about it. But this is all on the meta-level, so, don’t ask me to intellectually explain reality. It’s too dynamic for my intellect.
but I have faith that you exists and have the similiar biological and computational hardware as me.
There are always mechanical differences, though - this is why some people are stupid, and some people are utter cowards. More specifically, I have been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome.
The State evolved like most institutions of Man: spontaneously. Unfortunately, it’s an institution that cannot be sustained for long durations, if history can be considered a roughly accurate record of the State’s unsustainable nature with each empire either become swallowed up by another, or pecked to death by smaller fiefdoms, which in turn start the cycle to empire again by pecking at each other until the biggest among them can take the territory by default.
Ultimately, that’s why the State is also probably the worse institution of Man as it leads to waste beyond acceptable limits from war and [economic] miscalculation.
As for this mini-debate about amorality, here’s the problem with amorality: it’s action without time. And it’s the same problem of absolute or static morality: it’s thought without time. When you suspend consequence, and the ‘network’ of human beings around you, then all the amoralism, and even absolute moralism, in the world implodes in on itself as it cannot even handle the normal range of cases of human interactions. Or more simply put, they can’t be used to calculate the best individual action(s).
As for this mini-debate about amorality, here’s the problem with amorality: it’s action without time. And it’s the same problem of absolute or static morality: it’s thought without time. When you suspend consequence, and the ‘network’ of human beings around you, then all the amoralism, and even absolute moralism, in the world implodes in on itself as it cannot even handle the normal range of cases of human interactions. Or more simply put, they can’t be used to calculate the best individual action(s).
A self-defeating argument, for if it were true 1) morality, being non-rational, would not put us one inch closer to answering such questions and solving such alleged problems and 2) this has nothing to do with the fact that morality is literal nonsense. If anything, it demonstrates that morality is a completely unacceptable answer to practical issues.
But I maintain your entire notion is totally spurious - I act based on my own interest, and whether you can conceive of an ‘amoral society’ is of no consequence; for I myself will not be crimped by mental chains and self-enslavement; and my interest will not be constrained by your interest. To quote Max Stirner:
Do I write out of love to men? No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and, even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought — I would nevertheless scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me. You will perhaps have only trouble, combat, and death from it, very few will draw joy from it.
Uh huh, so you won’t mind me looking for your dildo in the chest of drawers?
That’s because your post-structuralist nonsense cannot defeat the basic concept of identity. Trust me, if you can, then you can revolutionize the world of programming. As for Max Stirner, he was a moron, simple as that.
I do not love others, I love my feelings for others - if I did not have these feelings I would not love them. I find others useful, useful to sate whatever uses I may have for them. And if they are not useful in this sense then - they are useless. And I have no concern for them, nor any love.