You cannot admire will in general

[Michael_Joespeh]

You cannot admire will in general, because the essence of will is that it is particular. A brilliant anarchist like Mr. John Davidson felt an irritation against ordinary morality, and therefore he invokes will – will to anything. He only wants humanity to want something. But humanity does want something. It wants ordinary morality. He rebels against the law and tells us to will something or anything. But we have willed something. We have willed the law against which he rebels.

ehh?? ehhh? makes sense to me.

[Joker]

@Michael Joespeh

You cannot admire will in general, because the essence of will is that it is particular. A brilliant anarchist like Mr. John Davidson felt an irritation against ordinary morality, and therefore he invokes will – will to anything. He only wants humanity to want something. But humanity does want something. It wants ordinary morality. He rebels against the law and tells us to will something or anything. But we have willed something. We have willed the law against which he rebels.

ehh?? ehhh? makes sense to me.

Your mistake is believing that everybody desires strict conformity of morality in their individual will.

[Michael_Joespeh]

well, so far it seems to be true. Hmm, let me pull out THE HISTORY OF SOCIETY book… hmmm. yep. still seems to click.

[Michael_Joespeh]

secondly, who said anything abouts strict moral conformity

[Mach]

@Michael Joespeh

You cannot admire will in general, because the essence of will is that it is particular. A brilliant anarchist like Mr. John Davidson felt an irritation against ordinary morality, and therefore he invokes will – will to anything. He only wants humanity to want something. But humanity does want something. It wants ordinary morality. He rebels against the law and tells us to will something or anything. But we have willed something. We have willed the law against which he rebels.

ehh?? ehhh? makes sense to me.

Yes, apparently, based on this forum’s postings, everyone understands the contradictory ideas of anarchy except anarchists. It can be demonstrated as you have above, or in another thread detailing how it’s fallacy, or in another thread which clearly notes that anarchy is the end of society…but fails to continue the reasoning that in the absence of soceity, someone will grab power and establish one.

Which I suppose is fitting, else, they would know better than to claim they beleived anarchism is something desireable.

Anarchism seems to be a cousin of objectivism. Both have partially reasonable/ethical cores, and are outside the mainstream in that regards. However both end up demonstrating that idealistic societies are only desireable for an ideal populace. And that’s the problem isn’t it, most people are nowhere near either groups version of ideal.

-Mach

[Joker]

@Michael Joespeh

well, so far it seems to be true. Hmm, let me pull out THE HISTORY OF SOCIETY book… hmmm. yep. still seems to click.

Would that be the history book filled with religious fanatics guided in their genocides by the will of their constructed idealistic gods?

Sorry I am already well acquainted with those bedtime stories so don’t even bother bringing it up.

[Joker]

@Michael Joespeh

secondly, who said anything abouts strict moral conformity

In every thread you are very anti- nihilist and idealistic so it is merely a guess on my part.

Out of curiosity… Was I even close upon my guesses?

[Joker]

@Mach

@Michael Joespeh

You cannot admire will in general, because the essence of will is that it is particular. A brilliant anarchist like Mr. John Davidson felt an irritation against ordinary morality, and therefore he invokes will – will to anything. He only wants humanity to want something. But humanity does want something. It wants ordinary morality. He rebels against the law and tells us to will something or anything. But we have willed something. We have willed the law against which he rebels.

ehh?? ehhh? makes sense to me.

Yes, apparently, based on this forum’s postings, everyone understands the contradictory ideas of anarchy except anarchists. It can be demonstrated as you have above, or in another thread detailing how it’s fallacy, or in another thread which clearly notes that anarchy is the end of society…but fails to continue the reasoning that in the absence of soceity, someone will grab power and establish one.

Which I suppose is fitting, else, they would know better than to claim they beleived anarchism is something desireable.

Anarchism seems to be a cousin of objectivism. Both have partially reasonable/ethical cores, and are outside the mainstream in that regards. However both end up demonstrating that idealistic societies are only desireable for an ideal populace. And that’s the problem isn’t it, most people are nowhere near either groups version of ideal.

-Mach

What you fail to understand is anarchy proceeded all governments and societies historically therefore anything else beyond anarchism is blind romantic idealism.