Germany was mostly a Christian nation and Hitler used the Vatican bank to do some of his dirty deeds and also used priests, Jesuits if I recall, to help rid the Eastern countries of Jews in some of the concentration camps. The S.S. and soldiers also wore belts with, In God We Trust on them.
China. I can’t remember when Moe cracked down on Confucianism but it has never died. Right now they are allowing some Christianity, but are, intelligently, cracking down on Islam.
The U.S is touting itself as the most Christian country yet has the world record for jailing it’s people and abortion.
I will continue to try to kill Christianity and Islam. They are both garbage religions.
One would expect nothing less given that they have a genocidal god that they call good.
Regarding religions, you really have to just throw out the fluff and see them for what they are. Psycho-social programs with specific purposes.
Confucianism is a program for social stability. Inward facing. Christianity and Islam are battle programs meant to coercively unify the in-group, demonize the out-group, reduce fear of death, and to justify and legitimize pre-emptive strikes. Outward-facing. They co-evolve with already violence-prone animal-herder societies living under conditions of general hardship and perpetual conflict.
Comparisons between the two are largely aesthetic in my eyes at least, like saying pink hammers are better than blue hammers, when the real questions are a) how well do they drive nails, and b) do we really need a hammer at all right now…?
And it’s not that gods and religions are genocidal per-se, but that logically, wars between ethnicities are always genocidal when taken to their natural end-points.
The religions had some value in the past, but these days, with secularism being the direction we are going in, their usefulness as tribes is no longer required and the intelligent will see that they are in fact slowing down our social moral progress.
Homophobia ands misogyny being the worst offences.
I think there is an order of rank when it comes to religions. Man will permit man to get on his knees as he pleases. But those who force others to get on their knees - well… I better not speak my thoughts.
At the peak of the pyramid of human consciousness, humans are free to their own soul.
Most humans have no knowledge of their soul. And so they have no choice but to obey to a particular Chesedic sphere. It makes zero difference if there is a God-notion involved.
I think the process of value giving may be exclusive to humans because value is a concept and only we can think in such abstract terms at a profound level
I think it is not us always designing ourselves as value systems but finding the one that works for us and then morally improving from it as much as possible
To value something is to consider it worthy but that does not include anything which is essential
For value is only given to that which pleases one but which is not actually necessary for survival
For example philosophy may be valuable to you but you can live without it whereas without water you will die
Therefore what is essential is for the body and what is valuable is for the mind and these two do not coincide
And nature destroys everything it creates as all life eventually dies so it does not really value
The notion of value is one imposed upon it by humans from their own subjective perspective
Nature is not just life but death as well and everything else in between those two points on the spectrum of existence
It is neither moral or immoral / good or bad as those are human concepts / classifications that it has no need for at all
Nature just exists and nothing else - it is simply that what is - no more no less
Also contrary to what you say in the video everything does actually interact with everything else
There are no gaps in reality because all is one - only from human interpretation can it be divided
Your first brings two words to mind.
Inquisitions and Jihads, promoted by the mainstream religions who scream blue murder if anyone gets near their freedom of religion.
They now use lower and less lethal inquisitions and jihads against women and gays and their freedom of thought.
Animal experiments show that chimps, for instance, will cooperate nicely when they are both rewarded the same way but will stop when one is better rewarded than the other.
There are other experiments that show human children as great mimics, just like chimps, but that the chimp will take unnecessary steps in an experiment while the child does not.
In a sense, chimps are better innovators than humans.
What you mean is Socratic method. It’s a small part of the history of philosophy.
Thales, the first known philosopher, provided answers, as does Nietzsche, and there are thousands in between. So, I must say you are wrong in your assertion here.
However, philosophy’s answering questions does rely on asking the right questions, knowing how to ask questions. Which is how I arrived at VO; I asked a question into the nature of the assertions made any Nietzsche.
However for this to be possible, some understanding, and some wisdom must be held.
Value Ontology is only of those philosophies that explain things very thoroughly in such a way that will always help out in answering questions – in part because it allows to ask questions in intelligent ways.
If that were true how would you know? Cause that sure looks like an answer.
Further philosophy can answer all sorts of questions and has. A giant set of answers come around the implications of certain axioms. It can also help find out why something that seemed true turned out not to be the case. It can answer what assumptions were made or are being made that may or may not be true. Physics has been helped in understanding and even conceiving for testing a variety of things, some quite important.
Philosophy can help one decide what one’s own answers are in ethics or other values, given certain things one holds true.
Philosophy has helped people understand how the way people conceive of things - take for example language - can distort understanding of things like language. This includes all sorts of answers.
I should have said philosophy cannot provide objective answers since this was what I was referring to
One might find some truth within philosophy but that is a subjective truth only true to the individual
But truth which is by definition absolute is another matter entirely and one that I think is unattainable
Well, many philosophers and scientists think that absolute truth is not attainable or we can’t know if we have attained it. But that’s different from objective truth. As I said there are many objective truths that philosophy can arrive at. And if you somehow demostrate that absolute truth cannot be obtained by philosophy or objective truth cannot be obtained by philosophy, then you just contradicted what you said. Since these would be objective truths.
And then the things I mentioned in the previous post…
Still: What non-religious people in what set of circumstances in regard to what sets of behaviors that come into conflict over what particular moral prescriptions and/or proscriptions?
Though I certainly agree that to the extent any human community eschews moral and political objectivism [God or No God] there is a greater likelihood that interactions will revolve more democratically around the rule of law…revolving in turn around moderation, negotiation and compromise.
I only point out here that the arguments of those like Marx and Engels are an important consideration in regard to the role that political power plays. Political power is derived from economic power. And economic power is often decisive when laws are enacted.
In particular how this is manifested in the modern world through crony capitalism in the West and variations of state capitalism in nations like China and Russia.
I react here as I always do. By asking…
What authority do you believe acts to guide you in your moral judgments? How did you come to acquire this view given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein in precipitating the existential contraption “I”? How would you go about demonstrating in a particular context why your own value judgments are said to be either the optimal manner in which to choose one’s behaviors or are in fact the only rational manner?
I’m all for interesting times ahead… I despise complacency, conspicuous consumption, and over-indulgence… qualities that don’t harbour the furtherment of humankind.
I actually think that we are currently living WW3… a war of chems… in our food, and in our meds, and in our vax, which disable the fight in us, and so we either live passively, or acquire system overload and die.
