The way I see it only a immoral species would need constructed morals in order to function.
Behind every farce of morality and every human being there is a primitive instinctual amoral animal that is waiting to be unlocked.
I only want to unlock this chained beast unto the world where all moral propositions that causes most human suffering is obliterated.
Gadfly? Yes! Stickler for clarity? Yes! Moralist? Nobody who has read anything I wrote can really accuse me of that! Wake up and smell the feces! The feces are not viable disagreements with your opinions. Then, if you have balls at all, do something! Even comments have universal reverberations!
Alright I’ll stay here at ILP and humor myself ( Or other people.) even though I think humanity is a doomed pathetic sad example of a species.
I still think that most modern philosophers are lieing bastards that would be more properly utilized if they were lined up in front of a firing squad.
For now on I am just going to be brutally honest in how I feel with all consequences being damned.
Take two prozacs and call me in the morning. You seem too close to calling Dr. Kavokian!
You can’t compare me to his greatness! 
Anyhow I’ll be back in a couple of days as I need to unwind a bit.
( Mental frustration with a good dose of disgust or contempt for all of humanity.)
Does it really matter that people are taking advantage of each other? Inequality is a fact of life. Equality is for the dead. And if philosophers are indeed contributing to those things you accuse them of, as opposed to liberal assholes who preach equality and utopias, then I’m personally, firstly excited, and secondly glad I picked my field of study to be philosophy because if your not giving, then your definitely taking.
Changing the world so that everyone likes what you like, or thinks what you think, in other words has the same values as you on the other hand, is the job of preachers, not philosophers.
No it really doesn’t. On the otherhand it does matter to me that a great deal of people sling around baseless forms of morality to shield them from all conflict in life while subjugating other people under them.
I believe that when a person is threaten physically,financially, or through any law that they should have the right to fight back by all means necessary.
My philosophy is about everyone living their life according to the standards they create for themselves without restraint of outside sources.
I am a amoralist anarchist.
In my dream of existance if a politician, judge or cop tries to threaten my freedom I can drop them off like a fly without hesitation in a predatory manner with all consequences of a unsubstantiated moral dogma being damned whether it be subjective to the pathetic objective beliefs of the religious.
Interpretate that if you will.
For example?
Noble of you, though I disagree when it comes to rights. You say one has the right to free themselves. I don’t think that is the case. One either has the power to free themselves or they don’t. I don’t believe one has a right to be free, just as one doesn’t have a right to enslave. It’s all a matter of power. The rest is idealism. What should and shouldn’t be is resolved on the battlefield, because after all might does make right. If you think people should live by their own standards, then you’ll have to force them into doing it.
An amoralist’s claim would be that what is is neither right nor wrong. You state that what is should be this or that. Anarchy, which even though lacking in rulers, is a type of moral system.
Out of curiosity, would it be illegal in an anarchy for people to elect a leader? In other words, is it legal for a free man to choose to be enslaved?
Well most anarchists would acknowledge the leadership of ideas or your ability to convince me of a course of action as oppossed to the arbitray imposition of authority.
Most anarchists would go for some form of direct delegate democracy (as opposed to “representation” by professional politicians) - where your views are represented by recallable delegates.
I don’t think questions of illegality or “enslavement” could arrise in a genuine anarchist society by definition (you might of course argue that such a scoiety was impossible - but thats a different arguement I guess!)
For anyone genuinely interested in anarcho-communism/left anarchism the anarchist FAQ is an excellent read.
I’m proud of being a philosophical bastard, of not accepting anything considered authoritative without putting it though all the critical analyses I can beg, borrow or steal. There are no authorities in philosophy; there are only takes on perennial questions. Take the philosophy that allows you to be who and what you are!
There’s a problem with all of that: then they aren’t anarchists. They are Utopian dissenters.
Anarchy is true freedom, because no rule/law/authority is accepted outside of the individual one.
Read Erich Fromm, democracy is just a different vehicle of servitude, which by definition alone, precludes anarchy.
Attempting to conjoin terms to make anarchy “pretty” or acceptable, makes it anything other than anarchy by default.
“The Sane Society”–Eric Fromm was one of my favorite books. I’ve heard, however, that his later writings negate his former ones. Is that so?
Yes, mostly they were conciliatory works because the academic community of his time gave him unending ire for being so precise and pragmatic as to call it as it is, thus, not affording others the intellectual illusions of comfort to which they were habituated.
“Escape from Freedom” and “Man for Himself” were undoubtedly his best works.
Thanks, mon ami.
You’re welcome sir.
In response to this thread, just allow me to say, whew, I am quite enthused that I am not a philosopher, which removes any necessity of my person being framed within bastarddom.
Subjective economics.
" You are not good enough for anything except for this lowly position were throwing upon you because we view you to be obsolete."
If one is given the choice in either being a slave their whole life to a decadent economical system or the choice of killing their oppressors I would go with murder.
[b]Economics is the power of forcing people in living contrary lives against their own standards of being.
You know this.[/b]
In my view of anarchism there is no governments or cities.
I am a anarcho primitivist.
I don’t care about anything. I just think morality, laws , regulations and economics should be rejected to achieve personal genuine freedom.
Because you would have killed everyone else on earth?
I don’t have to kill anybody for that to happen…
Modern humanity is doing a bang up job by itself in that field already without my help.
How are you going to get the industrialized countries, of whom the majority of their people are used to the idea of government, cities, rule, etc, to be independent? The human individual as separate from society was an invention to capitalism in the early 1900s, where everyone was told they were individuals so they would buy what they didn’t need. SOCIETY DEFINES THE INDIVIDUAL, it is why someone born in Mongolia has Mongolian values.
There are degrees of freedom, I’ll grant you that. What I do not cede is that one has the freedom to originate one’s self as one pleases, because as I stated above, what one pleases, in other words one’s values, are of the societies. But I don’t think this is about freedom. I believe this is about power. You have none, so you would like everyone else to be at the same level but mask it by glorifying primitive times, or anarchy or communism. You don’t hear your kind of argument from the Bill Gates or Steve Jobs of the world.
Off topic but I think somewhat relevant to here. Ever notice how every Marxist speaks of communism from the perspective of the leaders? I doubt they would speak of Marxism so highly if they were speaking of Marxism from the perspective of the fucked.
I don’t have to anything. All the major civilizations in motion presently are doing a perfect job in destroying the natural enviroment and what little bit of the human spirit that still exists untouched by pervasive constructions.
Being a anarchist or a malcontent these days is so easy as all one has to do is keep a watch with a firm resolve of patience.
A individual defines themselves. Your statement is a widely held deception I’ll give you that much.
One can only do what they please when they have executive priveleges.
You arguement is pitiful…
Your right. Currently I am dethroned deemed unnecessary in simple living but I assure you this is only a temporary arrangement.
I will have freedom here in a couple of years one way or another by all means necessary.
Feel free to let that statement be intrepretated any way you wish.
I have no idea what you are talking about.