What all men ought to do

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

How so?

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:

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.

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?

"
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?

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…

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?

What are the immutable laws of matter?

And then it was silent.

Well, given what may well be a staggering gap between what science knows about existence “here and now”, and all that there still is to know about it, who is to say? Definitively, for example.

Why does something exist instead of nothing?
Why does this something exist instead of some other something?

There is the matter/energy nexus. There is time for it. There is space for it. There are stars that exploded way way way way back when producing all of the “stuff” embedded in all the renditions of “reality”.

But with respect to mathematics, science, and all of the mindless empirical interactions of this “stuff”, there seems to be a consensus “here and now” [in the scientific community] that it is all somehow intertwined in…

“The Laws of Nature: All interactions in the Universe are governed by four fundamental forces. On the large scale, the forces of Gravitation and Electromagetism rule, while the Strong and Weak Forces dominate the microscopic realm of the atomic nucleus.”

But: Where the fuck [and how the fuck] do we fit the human brain into that? And how the fuck is “the mind” the same or different from “the brain”?

Then back again to the philosophical antinomies embedded in assessments like these:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism
plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

So, somehow over billions of years this “star stuff” evolved into the human brain. But what “on earth” does that actually mean “for all practical purposes”?

Me, I am officially going on the record here: “I’m really not sure.”

And then this part: dasein. :wink:

So you don’t really know?

Maybe I should have worded it what are “the immutable laws of matter?”

Nope.

On the other hand, if I can know only what I was ever going to know, perhaps the laws of matter will reconfigure and then one day I will know.

Unless of course I die first.

Which doesn’t bring us any closer to understanding this whole castle in the sky:

"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?"

That’s the same fucking boat we’re all in.

What differentiates most of us here though is that we are motivated do come into places like ILP. Why? Because questions of this sort became important to us. For whatever reason. It’s all rooted existentially in dasein.

We wonder what the answers might possibly be. Or if the answers are even accessible to or assessable by the human mind.

I just focus on distinguishing between the either/or world and the is/ought world. Between what might be made demonstrably true for all rational men and women, and what may never be more than an existential contraption rooted subjectively in dasein.

As all of this may or may not be intertwined in what may or may not be a wholly determined universe going all the way back to figuring out why there is something and not nothing at all.

And why this something and not another.

Really, what is relevance of this particular exchange in a context that mind-boggling?

I just think that if you applied the same rigor to your question that you apply to your contenders, you wouldn’t be in a hole.

Again: What on earth does this mean?

My question revolves first and foremost around this: How ought one to live?

In other words, morally and politically in a particular context out in a particular world construed from a particular point of view.

You choose the conflicting behaviors and the context.

Note the rigor to which you both describe and assess the conflict given the philosophical parameters of your own moral narrative.

Then we’re back to an exchange of this sort: