So you can’t get away with the things that you want because you lack the strength.
So you bitch and moan about “morals” that keep you from acting and posit that “Might is right” but only the kind of “might” you want to talk about. Other forms of “might” are cheating, inauthentic in some way.
To me, that is the weakest form of petty moralizing in existence.
It is petty moralists who lack the strength of letting people like myself act upon our instincts in which they create these contradictive so called infallible moral systems to protect themselves because of their weakness!
( Because without them they know they would be severely dominated! )
I despise the absurd in which authority has created this untouchable,unquestionable, and idiotic unsubstantiated sacred conception of existance.
I long for nature where one can act on impulse without restraint.
No.
It is your moral systems that has sapped the foundations of strength making it meaningless or futile to act upon.
If you have avoided Foucault up until know I think you two should meet.
Quick Question: A firm distrust in humanity would indicate you have no faith in humanity, yet you yearn for a more authenic (or ‘natural’) human status. Would this not indicate you chase after an ideal (which nihlism would reject and pessemism argue would be as bad as everything else) or that you don’t distrust humnanity at all but merely feel there is a difference of ideal?
I don’t necessarily agree with the motivations of bringing up this subject are (IE misanthropy, something I have long since moved away from), though it is an interesting question as to the origins of what makes a man “moral” in the sense that it’s all founded on intangible assumptions that are never questioned. I’m sure we all have our reasons to agree or disagree with misanthropy, but the most interesting point I think that Joker has here is that we don’t really know why we follow through with the assumptions the majority believes in.
Of course, there’s the logic that what makes a man “good” is if he treats others as he wishes to be treated, but that’s more of an assumption than logic as well, if you truly look at it.
Moralist: I obey laws set down and aggreed upon by many individuals. I dont have police with guns at my disposal but instead must adheir to these rules just like everyone else.
Other: what gives you the right?
Moralist: well its not so much my right as an agreement from the majority of our society.
Other:What gives them the right to command others?
Moralist: We ellected them, the majority of people wanted them to be the ones to lead us the alternitive is that we have no society, that means no trading or market system, no healthcare, no clothing or even friendships. That or we have a society is ruled by the strongest. Meaning that even more people would become impoverished and even fewer would see the fruits of their labours.
Other: Oh I see what you mean sorry guess I hadnt realy thought it through