Ade,
To label another a hypocrite one need not be virtuous or moral; one need only be conscious and rational, because hypocrisy is simply the state of not practicing what one preaches, or of believing mutually exclusive ideas. As such, the word hypocrisy holds no value within (though I understand in lay speak it is implied that one is bad when hypocritical). You could however use that same argument with any of the plentiful value judgments Joker makes.
Joker, as you would probably expect of me, I agree with nothing you said.
Answer me, if you will on the following question. Do you think the following two statements true:
Folks I spent a large amount of time on this particular essay so if people are going to cry foul and criticize me atleast address my arguements that I have written out please.
Plainly speaking, what is your conclusion, or even your general attitude, about the morality? Would you perhaps say that morality is “bad” or “good”? I understand you constantly make reference to hypocrisy when speaking of the morality and as I said in my reply to Ade, hypocrisy is not a word that necessarily has any value judgment within it, though it often is used as if it does under certain contexts (such as when coupled with emotionally charged descriptions…). So I’m asking you, given the morality is hypocritical, do you then think it’s “good” or “bad”? Given that morality is a system that protects the “mediocre” man, do you then think this is “good” or “bad”?
In typical religious dogma there are two kinds of evils. There are natural evils, i.e. tornadoes, hurricanes, and pretty much anything that harms man, and then there is human evil. This anthropocentric (man and nature) distinction can only be made under a libertarian paradigm. If you are a determinist, then you do not operate within an anthropocentric paradigm. A determinist would realize that there is no real distinction (other than a pragmatic, or purely arbitrary one) between human and natural evil. One would realize that it’s all natural “evil,” and that man does not stand as an anomaly or anything within nature. There is no culpability within a determinist paradigm, so they would view even those who beat their own value systems into others with sticks as non-culpable. To a determinist human [the] morality is not much different than, say, deer morality.
You, Joker, still make that distinction. You still hold man culpable for what he does. You, my man, are as anthropocentric as “the” moralists. Ha! First you say that the moralists are wrong when they place man as the measure of all things, then you go ahead and make a case for why man is good or bad, or whatever in the way he behaves. You place moral judgment upon such a natural a thing as, say, the self-exploitation of mankind (I call it cannibalism because it’s esoteric that way). To a determinist you might as well be saying certain deer tendencies are good, or bad, or hypocrite or whatnot.
Though, if you plead neutrality in your “description” of the sapient’s behavior in relation to itself, or if you are merely doing what the people at the discovery channel do about lions or baboons, but for man, then you’ll have to forgive me for misunderstanding your work
The label “hypocrite” is used when someone acts in a manner contrary to how he speaks.
It implies the actor is dishonest.
Dishonesty IS a moral matter, I’m certain most people would agree. To say that this is irrelevant is only precluded by accepting the premise that morals are false, which is what Joker is trying to prove to begin with. That is why the statement “moralists are hypocrites” is nonsense.
You just shifted the problem down another word, but the moral matter was still there.
Attempting to do away with it using vague language will not work.
You originally said the quoted statement, to which I replied, “This is impossible to test,” and you fired back, “How so?”
Well, you said there exists NO progress other than…blah. By “no” you mean none-zero-zlich. This implies that if there are other beings or separate substances in existence, that they are without objectives.
This is a strange claim to make, that only humans are able to have a sense of “progress.”
I think what you meant was that the “human sense of ‘progress’ is arbitrary and fleeting,” but I’m not sure.
Of course, it makes no sense for a nihilist to say anything at all. If he truly believes that all existence is pointless, then he would see the futility in explaining himself to anyone. Of course, by acknowledging “existence” at all, he has agreed to the proposition of non-contradiction. He realizes that a thing cannot exist and “not-exist” at the same time.
Even by seeing this he realizes that some law of logic is in play, despite his greatest thrashing.
All things that move received their motion from something else. In order for there to be “first move” there has to be some thing that is “actuality incarnate” and has no potentiality. Thus it would have to exist outside of all temporal bounds and would be impossible to detect.
It would be impossible for humans to conceive or even detect something that has always been in perfect actuality (aka God), but the evidence lies in the fact that all things are in motion, and there’s no logical reason to assume this continues backwards in time ad infinitum. In fact, one has to construct some pretty odd scenarios in order to establish this premise, in which the validity of human perception is outright denied. The person who doesn’t believe in a Prime Mover MUST hold the stance that causes extend backward infinitely in time. Thus, he denies the power of his perceptions- assuming the finite time he experiences to be some illusion, yet he has no qualms about using this perception to denounce morals as a ‘social construct,’ so that he can do what he wishes without consideration.
Who’s jumping the gun, now?
Those who find this proposition too mind-blowing stick to nihilism or the ever-so-childish notion that anyone who holds a belief in a Prime Mover is a slow-minded twit.
But I’m not the one who has to assume that corporeal matter has existed for an infinite period of time, and science tells us we should go with the simplest possibility.
I have a sense of purpose. I don’t know where it came from, and no amount of scientific testing can quantify it. (They will always THINK they can). I assume that because I have a sense of purpose that I should run with it (Occam’s Razor), and see if any other things in the universe have purpose. This inquiry would eventually lead to the question, “Is there an ultimate purpose?”
Nihilism is invalid. If the question of the “ultimate purpose” came about from a chain of agreeing with very simple and acceptable premises, then the point of existence should AT LEAST be to figure out if there is a point to it (not specifically what the point is, necessarily), rather than preemptively declaring otherwise.
If there is a purpose to existence (to get back on topic), then the whole of morality is mostly justified, as the moral character in humans would exist for the sake of working together to discover this anomaly.
So, Joker, do you think that time, as humans experience it, extends backward infinitely? Do you think this is a “simpler” answer than assuming it’s finite? These are dangerous questions. Don’t get stuck.
I certainly hope you humor me more than Satyr does. He wouldn’t dare declare that one must deny the validity of his perception to think that he can somehow experience a “portion” of infinity. He would rather use poetics to sneer at the “weakness” of a fool who raises such a complaint. But he exists in time just as you and I, and he understands things no more clearly than anyone else, on the surface.
From these brief considerations we can at least determine which scenario is more likely given our perceptions,and from there we can determine the likelihood of morality’s truthfulness.
Of course, by having an interest in truth…never mind.
Philosophy tells us that, not science. Your prime mover is neither falsifiable nor verifiable. No one understands infinity, and nobody will. It’s outside our realm of understanding. It’s just a guess - an emotionally driven guess. The intellectually honest stance on this matter is ignorance…a simple I don’t know.
And what is so simple about a “prime mover,” who can do what matter, according to you, cannot, i.e. be infinite? What in your opinion is more complex than a “prime mover”?
No, it does not imply the actor is dishonest. It implies the actor is inconsistent or that his or her beliefs or actions do not cohere.
That is not right. As I said, to see that somebody is inconsistent, i.e. be hypocritical, in his beliefs or actions. Somebody need not be virtuous or moral. One also need not claim that the person was good or bad in seeing that the person was inconsistent in his or her beliefs or actions. One need only be conscious and reasonable.
For example, suppose you were to say that smoking is bad for you and then went ahead and lit a cigarette. I would not need to be virtuous or moral, whatever that entitles, to see that you are inconsistent in your beliefs. I need not claim that you are good or bad - although I could - to claim that you are a hypocrite. To see that you were inconsistent in the situation I posed I would not need to be on moral ground. I need only be conscious and reasonable, i.e. be able to see that your beliefs and your actions do not cohere.
If you believe that time is finite, then you believe in God, for it would have had to be started by something outside of the bounds of time. It would be necessary that this mover have certain qualities such as “being eternal” in order to exist outside of time.
Now, it is only a “guess” insofar as we seriously consider the possibility that the universe has existed for an infinite period of time. If you want to speak of “likelihoods”, then I think it’s quite clear which choice makes more sense to the human mind.
That would at the very least be dishonesty to oneself. Inconsistency between word and deed is what we MEAN when we say the word “dishonest!” Come on!
Listen, one can do his best to remove the moral language from any scenario, I see you doing it here, but that doesn’t mean it makes the situation any more intelligible.
I’m done with this thread. The nihilists and those who hate authority have to construct arguments that are outright contrary to perception (and take mere guesses) in order to do away with moral language. Because of the complexity of language, it will be possible for the battle to rage on forever. They will always find a way to contend that “hypocrisy isn’t dishonesty” and claim that they are grounded in “logic,” and they will find some point to attack in my response. The one who is left “feeling good” and “feeling like a winner” is the one who gets the last word in. That’s why this sort of argumentation is pathetic nowadays. We need to go back to arguments that start from basic premises, instead of ridiculous ones like “suppose there is no point to existence” or “all moral codes are false.” Those are pretty grand assumptions to begin with.
Everyone exists and everyone has a sense of obligation. Because we ALL have that sense, and there’s no apparent “evil genius” who is benefiting from us (as Satyr would like to think), then we should assume that moral qualities are useful and correct. Any inquiries into this will inevitably be inadequate.
Oh by the way, Occam’s Razor, “The simplest answer is usually the correct one,” is a scientific principle, dick.
Insofar as you were making that claim about my dishonest nature, YES, you would be “moral.”
I would say that morality is inconsistent and sporadic in it’s actions with it being somthing that cannot be trusted as it is operated by deceptions along with many illusions on living.
Is it good or bad? It is neither in my perception since as a nihilist I myself at times will utilize the same tactics of deceiving others.
When I call morality hypocritical what I really mean is to discuss its inconsistent or sporadic whims guided by religious hysteria or superstitions that I don’t believe in.
I would also call it inconsistent as it describes itself as a movement of uplifting “virtue” and “goodness” when in reality throughout history unto the present it really hasn’t lived up to its own hysterical promises.
My problem lies within the mediocre man since he assumes and believes that I should be apart of his shared hysteria even though I express my individual convictions to be outside of his systematic moral approach having nothing to do with his perceived perception on life.
My problems lies with the mediocre man making idiotic judgements on myself on whatever action that I take with his beliefs that I take no part in.
In short I have problems with his idealization of my actions.
I have problems with his idealization that his hysteria is somehow universal and that it somehow applies to everybody including my own person.
I have a problem with his moral hysterics as it claims to provide that there is “moral” phenomena amongst nature and the cosmos even though I myself have never seen such things to suggest so.
I see such events as random forces of nature that man just so happens to be in the way of.
Such events are tragic but they are inevitable of a chaotic cosmos that is in constant flux.
I’m not describing such a distinction on morality.
I’m describing it as deceptive and somthing that shouldn’t be trusted by the strong mind.
I’m describing it as a hysterical system since beyond its hysterics it has no natural foundation and no support.
Furthermore I am describing it as somthing that shouldn’t apply to non-moralists since to say that it must apply to everybody is alot like saying that all men must convert to religion including atheists.
If a non-moralist commits acts that are in direct opposition to moralists I would like to know why such a person “ought” to be punished.
No I call such a event absurd or insane for I would like to know “why” such men would believe themselves to be the center of the cosmos unlike all other living organisms and creatures.
In short I believe such belief is also inconsistent.
I would like to know where men of that fervent belief come to acquire their positions.
Several times I have stated that there is no moral relevance to classism,exploitation, and societal oppression.
On the contrary I do accept it as inevitable since people are predatorial in nature.
I merely criticize people’s so called perceived “right” or “public entitlement” to such actions and I also question why the oppressors believe there to be a moral duty to such actions in a vision of economical civic determinism that resembles religious duty.
I also criticize society’s perceived moral economical pragmatism and utilitarianism to utilize other beings as resources to be bought or sold.
I also criticize society’s attitude that the oppressed shouldn’t fight back individually in rebellion and their insistence of publically executing and imprisoning those who are called deviant with their hysterical inconsistent system known as morality.
In short if a moral society can murder and execute those that it deems “deviants” those same outcasts should be able to retaliate in return for if one denies another’s natural predatorial defence one confines themselves to absolutism which is just another version of religion.
The state denies peoples natural predatorial instinct of individual retaliation not to mention that it denies people’s natural instinct to be a predatorial animal.
I constantly try to be neutral in my discussions of morality but I would lie if I said that I didn’t constantly question the motives of moralists.
The justice system along with the moralist is alot like a religious zealot.
They say that should I do somthing contrary to their beliefs that I’m going to hell as punishment in the presence of their god. Upon when I do decide to commit a action contrary to their beliefs out comes the inquisition with intoxicating insanity along with public hangings and burning pyres.
In comparison morality and the justice system does the same thing resulting with public executions or the atmosphere of being eternally locked up in a cell which is the closest thing to hell on earth not to mention all of this is in the presence of the state that acts like a representing figurehead of god.
It does not matter if you agree with the hysteria of the religious zealot or with the political god like state since they will always find ways of decrying that men “ought” to be punished for their embraced “faith” even though the convicted in irony may not believe that their “perceived” reality exists at all.
If a small mammal has expirience of understanding a crafty deceptive camouflauged snake it will naturally avoid such scenarios of encounterment on the account of self preservation.
Everything is all about self preservation and survivalism. Everything is about the survival of the gene pool.
Would we truely be so idiotic to call the small mammal moral for its avoidance of such deceptive entrapments?
[b]Hypocrisy or inconsistency can indeed be a neutral non-moral attribution to others.
Example one:[/b]
A person says they despise all apple pies and everyone that consumes them.
When the same person partakes in the same condemned activity themselves they are being inconsistent hypocrites not because there is anything “good” or “wrong” in their actions but because they acted upon somthing that they condemned others for.
A inconsistent hypocrite isn’t “right” or “wrong” but is merely inconsistent.
Now upon that understanding with morality as a hypocritical inconsistent system that claims there is a “moral” phenomena amongst nature or a guiding “force” for their principles even though they refuse to provide evidence for their claims why should anybody listen to them at all?
The important question is:
Why should I literally adhere to a inconsistent sytem that declares itself as absolute?
Why “ought” I conform and submit to its inconsistency?
Another important question would also be:
If morality claims itself to be absolute yet always remains inconsistent what does that exactly say for morality?
Does not morality negate itself describing itself as being absolute but eternally remaining inconsistent?
To Quote Myself:
Combined with this:
I’m essentially saying there is no absolute “progression” in anything but I’m also saying that it does exists subjectively for the individual desires of people yet with that being said essentially “anything goes” for the topic of subjectivity which goes opposite of all that morality you hold dear.
[b]For sake of arguement let us look to our pal Webster:
[size=150]Hypocrite[/size]
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
— hypocrite adjective
To be duplicitous can be advantageous and a strategy.
The most pathetic kind of hypocrite, to my eyes, is the one that starts beleiving in the lies and pretense or that is a hypocrite to himself.
He cannot avoid failure, because of this, and being constantly surprised and dismayed by existence.
First you say that the moralists are wrong when they place man as the measure of all things, then you go ahead and make a case for why man is good or bad, or whatever in the way he behaves. You place moral judgment upon such a natural a thing as, say, the self-exploitation of mankind (I call it cannibalism because it’s esoteric that way). To a determinist you might as well be saying certain deer tendencies are good, or bad, or hypocrite or whatnot.
=D>