Whitelotus (or others who agree with him),
Does the following make sense to you? …
Practicality is relative to the individual.
Morals that are practical are universally superior.
Morals relative to the individual are universally superior.
a non practical moral? the morals of the kamikaze or suicide bomber could be considered non practical and immoral to anyone else but the destructive force for the emporer or god… but of course you don’t want to pronounce them superior to another moral position…
turn the other cheek? doubtful…
-Imp
I think that nobody here agrees with whitelotus. Not even whitelotus agrees with whitelotus.
Morals are universal( thou shall not murder, steal, lie, cheat, and some form of the Golden rule) are universal morals. They come from the animal instincts of self preservation and preservation of the species. To preserve the human species man must live in society and these rules are necessary to the order of the society be it family, tribe, nation or species.
The question that of morals is who may be excepted from the rule. THEY are always excepted. WE are not. The Muslim fundamentalist or the kamikaze pilot except the infidel and the foreigner from the rule. Others might except the unborn or the convicted murder. THEY are wrong and WE can violate the rule against them.
Post of the month right there.
hate them? hardly… in fact I find them blind to their cause like any good herd animal… they are willing to die for their cause… just as I find any soldier blind with devoted bravery who is willing to die for their cause (that is the definition of bravery, the willingness to face death and blind because they could choose to live otherwise, but it is their choice- although there is always an ulterior motive behind their actions)… the cause doesn’t matter, the motive doesn’t matter… in the end, they are dust like everyone else…
"16 years old when I went to war,
To fight for a land fit for heroes,
God on my side,and a gun in my hand,
Counting my days down to zero,
And I marched and I fought and I bled
And I died & I never did get any older,
But I knew at the time, That a year in the line,
Is a long enough life for a soldier,
We all volunteered,
And we wrote down our names,
And we added two years to our ages,
Eager for life and ahead of the game,
Ready for history’s pages,
And we fought and we brawled
And we whored 'til we stood,
Ten thousand shoulder to shoulder,
A thirst for the Hun,
We were food for the gun,and that’s
What you are when you’re soldiers,
I heard my friend cry,
And he sank to his knees,coughing blood
As he screamed for his mother
And I tell by his, side,
And that’s how we died,
Clinging like kids to each other,
And I lay in the mud
And the guts and the blood,
And I wept as his body grew colder,
And I called for my mother
And she never came,
Though it wasn’t my fault
And I wasn’t to blame,
The day not half over
And ten thousand slain,and now
There’s nobody remembers our names
And that’s how it is for a soldier. " - Kilmister
and if you read my point closely, you will find that I never said that they weren’t practical in their eyes… but that under different eyes, their morality is suspect…
morality is for the herd…
which herd do you follow? that is the question…
-Imp
you missed the point again… it is practical for the emporer or the priest, not the practicioner… naive attack on morality? hardly… the poetry explains the uselessness of brave heroes in war… you have no idea of what I’ve “heard” or what I’ve read, but that avoids the question entirely, which herd do YOU follow…
-Imp
There are these two Nihilists in a bar, and they both begin to fight each other…
Nothing happens.
Thank you, and try the veal.
What I purposed might be called Darwinism, it could also be traced back to natural law theory and further back in philosophy before that. People have always lived in a society of some kind. To maintain order those societies had rules. These rules always extend to your group. These rules are basically the same in all societies. So the only question becomes who do the rules apply to.
Or as another poster has put it “which herd do you follow?â€
Yes, but useful to whom? They are not very useful to themselves. Or to say it another way, suicidal heroes are not useful to the replication of their own genes.
lol
-Imp
again, you missed the point… practical for whom? it isn’t practical for the soldier…
I have not misread Nietzsche and I only mention herd where it applies (and I have never claimed to be outside of a herd) … you make foolish assumptions that you have no way of verifying… heroes are useful to the leaders at the time, but ultimately they are meaningless…
and for the THIRD time, which herd do you follow?
-Imp
It seems to me that it is practical for the soldier. He is protecting his tribe, society, or nation (or herd if you will) from a competing one. Perhaps his gene pool.
you are confusing the meaning of practical… bringing them into practice makes them practiced not practical…
quote which book(s) and passages one finds this hatered for darwinistic non-morality… stepping “outside” for a different view? no… being able to see the different perspective makes the difference…
-Imp
Exactly. Such as Theory and Practice in political philosophy.
right… nice ad hominems…
-Imp
yawn
purrrr
meow
Yeah? And you’re old news.
I’m off
muriatic acid
The philosophy of whitelotus, abridged for easy reading.