Humanity's Failure

I consider knowledge to be a civic prescriptive ought in a cosmos and reality that already is.

Going by David Hume who says you cannot prescribe a ought from an is I see the elaborate contradictions and assumptions of humanity that causes complete anguish on our part of living everyday with the understanding or expiriences that the only necessity of certainty is being, with all other forms of human trivialities to be nonessential apart from our primary implications.

As one philosopher has mentioned " Everything that exists is exactly the way it should be."

Could it be that our prescribing of a civic ought is infact a contradiction or a sentimental deviation with the natural order of things?

It would then be seen that humanity’s prescriptive forms of oughts are reduced to being mere parergonal forms.

What are other people’s thoughts on this?

I touched on this topic a little in my commentary on the Daodejing. The third and fifth passages especially.

I think that taking “is” as “should be” almost invariably leads to fascism. In part five, I addressed what I feel is that central problematik in Daoism and, by extension, related religiophilosophies.

I’ll read your link but exactly how does a natural primary existance that
‘is’ exactly lead to fascism?

Remember I am a nihilist and I don’t exactly have any influence of what is considered good or bad as my own perceptions lead to relativism.

I would also say that conflict is apart of life.

If is is, and if is is as it ought be then it follows that trying to change is is an ought not. That means that one should (ought, if you will) adapt to the present conditions. This denies any sort of progress that could occur.

While it is valid for the privileged to claim nihilism as their banner (indeed, it is expected) you’ll find such thoughts are much less beneficial to the downtrodden (at least from their perspective, from the perspective of the ruler, a nihilistic lower class would be ideal).

If we do not want to be slaves ourselves, it makes sense to call abolition and emancipation a good thing.

Like Thrasymachus amongst Plato I view justice to be the action of other people’s interest pretending to be a balance of power or the protection of others.

Justice is merely the elite structure’s pawn.

The irony of every revolution is that after each sequence there is still slaves.

I say the time is now to rid ourselves of concepts like revolutions where the slaves attack those would enslave or execute them.

What men call abolition and emancipation seems only to be a elaborate form of theatrics to fool the masses.

I am having a hard time understanding all that.

Can you help me understand all that?

Tomorrow I plan to reply in the fullest to the link you have provided.

The reason it would not be beneficial is the down trodden have been fooled to believe that they need others to help them in the place of theirselves.

Once the down trodden find the conviction to take the reigns of power in their own hands nothing is impossible.