What all men ought to do

[Fixed Cross]

I care about my family. Is that moral? Hell no. It is just fate. It is. There is no "I could not care instead." Specially not moral when you consider I let them hurt themselves or would burn millions alive just to get them out of a bad spot.

Of course. Still, consider that a family man does have a greater moral weight.

One doesn't care for ones family because that is the moral thing to do - rather, if one happens by fate to be loyal to ones family, morality is a weapon that can be wielded with some force.

Morality is tradition, and family is the force at its basis.

[Fixed Cross]

Morality is the instinct of the herd, thus the rod of the shepherd.
As the meme goes, the shepherd is in bed with the wolf, fate.

[Fixed Cross]

"Morality"

[Pedro I Rengel]

That's not morality. If morality cared it would be biased and so imoral. If it isn't objective it isn't morality.

You can come up with any excuses for the use of morality. Maybe the illusion of it has helped you deal with some situations where things you cared about were at risk.

But it weakens the sheep and the shepherd. And weakness detracts from your ability to further or even maintain or if we're honest ensure the survival of what you care about.

[Pedro I Rengel]

If your gonna use a rod, use the objective truth of strategy.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I like that this thread is what The Republic would have been if Thrasymachus would have been Socrate and Socrate Thrasymachus.

[Mr Reasonable]

Morality is the instinct of the herd, thus the rod of the shepherd.
As the meme goes, the shepherd is in bed with the wolf, fate.

So the shepherd isn't moral? Or is he but just in a different way?

[Fixed Cross]

"That's not morality. If morality cared it would be biased and so imoral. If it isn't objective it isn't morality."

I see it the opposite way. Morality is necessarily arbitrary and thus only good as a tool to handle large crowds. I literally have no inkling of what objective morality is except "were all gonna die anyway".

"You can come up with any excuses for the use of morality. Maybe the illusion of it has helped you deal with some situations where things you cared about were at risk."

No, because I've always been regarded as the immoral one. Morality never was a help to me, only a swarm of bloodsucking mosquitos too small to hate or fear but too many to ignore. Only in the sense that mosquito bloodthirst is objective morality is objective - it exists. But it ain't "good".

"But it weakens the sheep and the shepherd. And weakness detracts from your ability to further or even maintain or if we're honest ensure the survival of what you care about."

Morality is a bias that allows the shepherd to reap the sheep wool.

The Moral are invariably The Weak; those who don't endure the fact of their own bias without the hypocrisy of believing it to be objective.

[Fixed Cross]

Morality is the instinct of the herd, thus the rod of the shepherd.
As the meme goes, the shepherd is in bed with the wolf, fate.

So the shepherd isn't moral? Or is he but just in a different way?

As I see it the shepherds enterprise works with the sheep's helplessness and this arrangement is called morality. The Wolf is what allows for the different interest of sheep and shepherd to appear like one and the same. This in turn is what makes the Wolf crucial to the shepherd.

In Biblical terms, without Satan, Jesus would be out of a flock.

In modern terms, without the rod of the evil Jews, Islam would be too boring to survive. The flock would scatter and the shepherd would be out of means to secure the wool/oil.

[Fixed Cross]

Morality and bad taste are physiologically the same.

Atrophied taste, taste of a creature that cant hunt down its food, that has to eat what a stronger being decides is good for it, has to turn bad, become something to which life is a problem.

Mass religion is the hallucination conjured to distract such life from itself, to keep it from seeking an end, to keep the wool coming.

[Fixed Cross]

Organized crime gave the first forms of morality.
"We hyenas ought to have what that lion has"

[Pedro I Rengel]

You say morality never helped you, but then you say it helps you reap wool.

I agree, morality is the illusion of objectivity. Not that objectivity doesn't exist as reality, for example in strategy.

And also it is not true that morality only chains the weak and tasteless. If it were, why should I bother with it? Morality is at its funniest and most affecting precicely in the strong.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I have nothing against morality. It was fated. It contributed to my own making. But I don't see a necessity for it to be fated in the future. Rather it is fated that I should show it for the disease it is. I rejoice at morality! Its downfall does not negate its existence or its place in fate.

[Fixed Cross]

You say morality never helped you, but then you say it helps you reap wool.

Whoa there, not me it didn't.
I certainly never benefitted in any way from morality. I am not the shepherd type, I am all wolf and black sheep.
No, morality has always been the one and only weapon people could muster against me. It is a stupendously irritating phenomenon.

I agree, morality is the illusion of objectivity. Not that objectivity doesn't exist as reality, for example in strategy.

Yes, strategy has more to do with gravity than with morality, it observes necessities, "laws of nature". Things falling in their place.

And also it is not true that morality only chains the weak and tasteless. If it were, why should I bother with it? Morality is at its funniest and most affecting precicely in the strong.

You're investigating it, you're not actually throwing turds of morality around.
But yes, it does have entertainment value if you're above it.

I have nothing against morality. It was fated. It contributed to my own making. But I don't see a necessity for it to be fated in the future. Rather it is fated that I should show it for the disease it is. I rejoice at morality! Its downfall does not negate its existence or its place in fate.

Morality did contribute to my making too, but purely by showing me the weakness of mankind.
I grew up in a place where morality was ultra pervasive, and it was absolutely the opposite of caring for actual beings. Morality as I saw it in people was only ever a crutch for the egoistic who are too sick to not be too ashamed of their egoism to just live it, so that they could avoid actually being useful or generous or kind or strong.

As it appears to me, morality always commands to deprive the healthy of their pleasures so that the weak do not have to suffer from witnessing enjoyment.

Why strong people have amoral Gods.

[Pedro I Rengel]

It always seemed to me, when Nietzsche pointed out that the mission of the weak is to take down the strong, that there is no reason this shouldn't be remedied.

I associate it with his cry: where are the doctors of tomorrow?

Fuck it, I guess it's time to set the weak on the path to strength.

[Fixed Cross]

For me personally its imperative to simply shed the weak.
Whoever or what I can not shed will be forced to be strong.

I notice that this is an order of activity that is truly seismic, and the efforts all around are comparable to the workings of the collective roots of a great forest, so it is for the simple reason that the standard I have set to be able to self-value at the level of purity I require is already causing such vast change in the fabric of force, that I do not even have opportunity to regard the weak at all, other than just as that stuff that was left behind a while ago and certainly has not been missed. Strength is fun if one can ride it, but yeah its a horse that did throw me off hundreds of times, before I learned to control it truly. This controlling is the true strength, the strength to dominate my strength with a set of values Ive decided upon, this is Might.

[iambiguous]

Whether our own points here are intellectually sophisticated or intellectually shallow, it's not like any of us were actually capable [autonomously] of choosing to contribute anything other than we did.

Or, instead, am I missing something important here by way of, say, a "compatibilist" assessment?"

No, you're not missing anything.

Control and choice exist, and they are also fated.

So, what a relief that must be for those among us who are only capable of contributing intellectual shallow posts.

After all, for all practical purposes, there are no such things. Every contribution just is what it is. What it only ever could have been.

On the other hand, what does that tell us about the contributions of those convinced that their own efforts reflect an intellectually sophisticated point of view?

Not that any us here can actually demonstrate it one way or the other.

Unless of course they can.

Unless of course they have no choice?

[Pedro I Rengel]

"
After all, for all practical purposes, there are no such things. "

How so?

[iambiguous]

Does Joe bother to wonder about free will? I think free will itself is an academic non issue.

Joe wonders what he's gonna do about Mary's abortion given that she holds a conflicting good. You ask what ought he to do that he can understand, that isn't a barren intellectual contraption in other words?

Sure, that's one way to go about it. Just stop thinking about things like this altogether and go about the business of doing whatever it is that you are convinced you are choosing freely to do.

And if you are convinced [or have been told] that what you are doing is the right thing to do, don't bother asking yourself if perhaps it might be the wrong thing to do.

Just stomp such "philosophical" inquiries out of your life entirely. Tell yourself that you are in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do" and, if you are particularly lucky, you will have access to the political and economic power to actually enforce your own wholely "autonomous" agenda.

Or:

He ought to accept fate and understand that whatever he does will be the final thing that happens, and also everything that happens around what he does, as a reaction or in any way interacting. He has a body of knowledge of his own that he then must make full and honest use of. If he is rational.

You know, whatever that means in a wholly determined world where anything that anyone ever does is only that which they were ever going to do anyway.

Thus this body of knowledge that is his own was never, ever not going to be this body of knowledge that was his own; and whatever full and honest use he makes of it was only ever going to be what he made of it.

Now it's only a matter of science doing only whatever it ever could have done to demonstrate to us an optimal frame of mind that we could only ever have embodied.

Not excluding this exchange of course.

[iambiguous]

"

After all, for all practical purposes, there are no such things.

How so?

If we live in a wholly determined universe in which the human brain/mind is just more matter in sync with that which some insist are "immutable laws", then human philosophy itself is just embedded in whatever started the space/time dominoes toppling over onto each other going back to what some argue started all of this -- the Big Bang.

In other words, some claim, everything there is bursting into existence out of nothing at all.

Human interactions are simply what all of that has [so far] evolved into given the mechanical nature of the immutable laws of material interaction.

Unless of course there is an extant God.

Or, in an alleged "multiverse", there are parallel universes with "laws" completely at odds with our own universe.

It all comes down to "mind". Is human consciousness a special kind of matter? Has it just evolved mechanically to produce the illusion of "free will" in us, or is there a facet that we are not as of yet able to grasp such that it can be [will be] demonstrated that the words I am typing right now are only as a result of my choosing them autonomously?

Who among us can really say for sure?

And I am certainly willing to concede that my own understanding of all this "here and now" is not correct.

How about you?

[Pedro I Rengel]

"
Human interactions are simply what all of that has [so far] evolved into given the mechanical nature of the immutable laws of material interaction."

You're gonna have to explain this to me. Where does the mechanical come in?

[Ecmandu]

Freedom requires restraints.

If I love smoking cigarettes, I need reasonably healthy lungs, a mouth, hands, etc...

It is this way for everything.

In the same way, the situation with freedom is that it evolves in the individual over time, it is compatabalistic. Since you skipped my last post on the topic, or my abortion proof, which you also skipped, it's very clear that you're not seeking proof that shows morality is objective, or that freewill exists, and you always use the red herring of "everything is horrible if god doesn't exist". You've been sneakily trolling god on these boards for years now, and hopefully people are starting to catch on..

[iambiguous]

Human interactions are simply what all of that has [so far] evolved into given the mechanical nature of the immutable laws of material interaction.

You're gonna have to explain this to me. Where does the mechanical come in?

It comes down to whether or not it can be demonstrated that human thought itself either is or is not wholly in sync with the immutable laws of matter.

After all, what has prompted philosophical discussions down through the ages regarding "dualism"?

And out of this flows discussions regarding the human "soul" in sync with one or another "will of God".

Or is "mind" just more matter? "Stuff" from the Big Bang that somehow managed to evolve into matter able to become conscious of itself as matter able to speculate as to whether or not that speculation itself is within its own control autonomously.

I don't pretend to have figured it all out.

How about you?

[Pedro I Rengel]

What are the immutable laws of matter?

[Fixed Cross]

What are the immutable laws of matter?

And then it was silent.