/lit/ - Literature

Reinstigate

None of you are as smart as you claim.

>>16732227
>he can’t beat himself

>>15883143
>we’ve moved beyond a just-in-time system of sustainability

>>15739688
why should I be moral?

>>15719703
Why is anything moral?

I like how every nigga in this thread is talking about ideal women and how women don't live up to their exceptions when they haven't done shit and most likely have terrible personal flaws.

and uh nigga don't (you) me accusing me of being a woman. I'm just spitting facts here, big boy.

>>14963671
Morality is simply doing that which benefits you. Suppose that you could see and experience all possible lives that you could live, and discover which life is most preferable to you. The sum of experiences in that life is most preferable, and is therefore the most moral. This is the life that you should live, because you wouldn’t want to do otherwise. If this isn’t morality, then what is? And why should you be moral? Why should you settle for a lesser life?

As for being good to others, this is usually moral, since creating good relationships with others tends to good consequences for yourself. You shouldn’t even risk harming others, because the fear of punishment itself will be enough to worsen your experience of life. For those who say that we are good to others purely out of selflessness: why, then, are you good to them? And why not be good to other species just as equally? And why not sacrifice yourself for a pebble, if you are truly selfless? So we see that total selflessness is illogical. All actions are ultimately motivated by the self.

It follows that atheists can have a sense of morality, since they have an idea of what’s good for them. Everyone knows not to kill because this leads to bad consequences for yourself. However, an atheist isn’t far from believing that he can get away with murder or theft, because these actions aren’t inherently immoral, since it’s possible that they produce good results. So though atheists have a sense of morality, it is not a permanent, universal, morality, known to humans, as in theism. But both the theist and atheist depend on faith for their morality, since no one truly knows what is best for him in the end. In either case morality is subjective in that the best action depends on the subject (and the environment), but it is also objective in that the best action exists and is not decided by the subject’s rational opinion. If I think it’s good for me to murder, it doesn’t make it good.

Any intelligent person that carefully reads through this thread will conclude that to say that God is not benevolent or omnipotent is taking a leap of faith through your own reason, hoping and praying that God is evil or weak, so that his non-existence is more likely, so that your sins are less likely to be remembered.

>>14916347
Morality is simply doing that which benefits you. Suppose that you could see and experience all possible lives that you could live, and discover which life is most preferable to you. The sum of experiences in that life is most preferable, and is therefore the most moral. This is the life that you should live, because you wouldn’t want to do otherwise. If this isn’t morality, then what is? And why should you be moral? Why should you settle for a lesser life?

As for being good to others, this is usually moral, since creating good relationships with others tends to good consequences for yourself. You shouldn’t even risk harming others, because the fear of punishment itself will be enough to worsen your experience of life. For those who say that we are good to others purely out of selflessness: why, then, are you good to them? And why not be good to other species just as equally? And why not sacrifice yourself for a pebble, if you are truly selfless? So we see that total selflessness is illogical. All actions are ultimately motivated by the self.

It follows that atheists can have a sense of morality, since they have an idea of what’s good for them. Everyone knows not to kill because this leads to bad consequences for yourself. However, an atheist isn’t far from believing that he can get away with murder or theft, because these actions aren’t inherently immoral, since it’s possible that they produce good results. So though atheists have a sense of morality, it is not a permanent, universal, morality, known to humans, as in theism. But both the theist and atheist depend on faith for their morality, since no one truly knows what is best for him in the end.

The problem with a moral system such as Kant’s is that he forgets the importance of our non-rational nature, our subjective side that feels and experiences. His moral principles are empty because we have no real reason to do them. If consequences are irrelevant, and our feelings are irrelevant, then how do we determine what to do? We are not robots, so we cannot live on reason alone.

Why do you desire free will? What would you do if you had it? Would you not do the same as you are doing right now, simply trying to achieve preferable experiences in life? Can’t you do this without free will? Of course, the main ussr here is that, without total freedom of the will, it’s possible that you do what you know is bad for you, because your will does align with your understanding of the good. But think for a second, and imagine someone of extreme discipline, someone who seems to care for his well-being. Most of the time, he is able to do that which he believes is good for him. In those moments, it’s as if he has free will, even if all of his actions are actually predetermined. So freedom, in the practical sense, is nothing more than being able to do that which is good for you. In this world, discipline is freedom, and we can attain it. Believe in freedom, and you will have it.

>>14874791
You cannot confine good and evil to be totally dependent on subjective experience. What seems good to humans is good and what seems evil is evil. But this totally disregards God’s conception of good, which is more objective. A world in which humans only perceive good is therefore not necessarily objectively good.

God’s objective omnibenevolence/goodness/justice is not affected by our subjective views. God is good because God is Truth and is a glorious Creator. In the same way that I eat animals for my purpose, making it good for me, God does whatever he needs to do for his objective standard of good. Unfortunately this allows suffering to exist for us, but God is merciful, so he allows a way to salvation, which we can either accept or reject

God is objectively good, but also subjectively benevolent to humans. But God can also be subjectively malevolent. This has to be the case, since some people hate God, and some people go to hell.
Proverbs 8:17
>I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.
James 4:8
>Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
Deuteronomy 7:9
>9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.

The problem of evil is a subjective problem only, made worse when you’re an atheist.

>10But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

>>14850329
That’s better

An analysis of free will begins with simple objects being manipulated in simple ways. When a reasonable degree of orderliness appears, the arrangements can be made more complex.

>>14732928
Imagine being this mad over a post on a mongolian underwater basket weaving forum

Universals exist

>>14715879
>you can argue about anything depending on reference point and environmental perspective
>itself Stable Ground?
I’m the op in both people you’re replying to. What I’m saying is that by recognizing yourself as a mortal being with a temporary existence, you enslaved yourself to ideology. Thereby, the only way out is to simply be unaware of time, to live in the present but not be aware of it, neither the past nor the future either. Through this you return to being in its natural state, for being has no awareness. When you are awake but unaware, you maintain form with non-awareness (aka sleep and death). When one becomes “woke” to this finite being, he shatters the real being and inverts the process so as to be fooled into believing his “woke” being is true being while denying his non-being as the false form, even though wokeness is shackled to the chains of non-being. We live in hell, and the only way to enter heaven is to lose awareness of being in hell. Que sera, sera; what will be, will be.

To relate this back to No Stable Ground - once one recognizes the property of absurdity of ideology, he may either reject this finding out of philopsychia or he may enter fully into the kingdom of heaven and achieve everlasting peace with the material realm (aka hell). The material world is a conflict of Satan attempting to reconnect with God. This is achieved through resolution of conflict, as resolution is a property of eternal good, being what will happen will happen, thereby resolution of conflict is a manifestation of God.

>>14707796
Being is in between past and future; yet it is not the present, but a lack thereof. Being is to dispossess an awareness of time.