This is why forum debates are pointless. Here’s some golden rule for you.
If i were you, I’d be so glad someone showed me how the golden rule is nonsense that I’d be like, “Nice!” instead of getting angry and cracking jokes. This betrays something sinister even beyond your mental illness. You would continue to insist even when you are clearly wrong. This could be dangerous… though not here at ILP where everyone is already mental and can get no worse.
Imagine Aristotle besting an opponent in a debate.
Here’s a tip. Be careful not to spend too much time writing huge posts about something that could turn out to be very wrong because it’ll be harder not to double down and hold on to it. When you realize you’ve wasted all that time, you may turn against the one who liberated you from your ignorance. I’ve seen it happen before. Folks fuckin hate being wrong.
If you were me, you would not want you (who would be me in the switch) to call the cops on you.
But if what i was and what i wanted to do was considered wrong by you, you’d be able to justify calling the cops while holding to the golden rule. You’d say, “If i were him, I’d want and need the cops called on me because what i did was wrong, and i needed the lesson, etc. Therefore, i have not violated the golden rule.”
The hidden premise is that each of the two knows what is ‘good’ first before they do whatever they do to the other during the switch. This golden rule can be very dangerous because it allows another person… nay, forces another person to think they know what the other should want and do.
If you were your mom, I mean, if she got in YOUR body, she would punch your face in the face repeatedly & switch back before she could feel it, and turn the switch off.
Of course. Now the Christian resorts to senseless violence. The cat lady inquisition.
Yeah, Team Christian lost some sirius points when you called the cops on me. I think a few angels even lost their wings because of that one. I know the devil cashed in on it… that’s for shizzle.
I have no quarrel with the old ways, but let us be clear: where the State can not prevent the violence of its citizens, it has no right to stop a citizen from preventing violence against himself. Ergo, no cops. Take a hike, detective. Hit the road, officer. Better still… go play in it.
Great outlaws don’t complain. They warn, they give reasons, so there is no misunderstanding. The time for lodging civil complaints has long been over by the time a man becomes an outlaw, missy.
Complain to who? There are no ears to hear. I just describe a typical day in the Prom’s shoes and let that smash philosophies and prove god is dead. I have provided a treasure trove of troof for philosophers. Use my wizdomz to better yourself. Believe me, you and all the others are wrong!
Let’s revisit this question and rephrase it. Passions of deficiency versus passions of plenitude. Do we reevaluate according to our impulses (do they drive our revaluations, or do we drive our impulses according to… something else?)? That is, do we call “deficient” passions that are actually convictions telling us to curb certain passions, and do we call “plenitude” passions that are actually impulses we want to justify/rationalize? Discuss amongst y’selves.
This reminds me about the conversation I had with a chinese man who asked me which Peking Duck I wanted, the succulent European beast with the sauces and herbs, or the scrawny duck that many people in Peking ate.
I like the suggestion to transform them into joys and delights, and I wonder how Nietzsche came to the conclusion that Christians demonize the passions rather than doing as that author was suggesting. Maybe he was responding to a certain brand or spirit of Christians, rather than Christianity, like Kierkegaard was (himself being Christian).
But I’m more interested in what Nietzsche himself actually said about the passions (or rather how you personally feel about what he said … not so much feel, but evaluate), rather than how he felt/evaluated certain Christians on the passions.
I don’t wanna read some book, I want your personal take/discussion (briefly summarize, if at all possible). I have 5000 books to read (exaggeration) before I buy or download another one. Even if YOU wrote it, I want you to quote or rephrase a relevant comment rather than making me read your whole book. No offense.
