Morality and Aesthetics

I've been ruminating on an aesthetics of nobility.
We disavow Judeo-Christian morality ( good and evil ).
But this does not mean we are amoral, or savages;
we have a certain aesthetics that repels us from certain behaviors.
Example: we do not rape, nor steal; because those things are base and vulgar.
They are not objectively x or y; rather, our sense organs are arranged in strict
accordance with a certain aesthetic apprehension that organizes things into a hierarchal
valuation.

There are no objective values, but there are sense organs that are more refined and sophisticated ( I.e. superior ), which preclude specific valuations and behaviors.

Nightmare wrote:

I've been ruminating on an aesthetics of nobility.
We disavow Judeo-Christian morality ( good and evil ).
But this does not mean we are amoral, or savages;
we have a certain aesthetics that repels us from certain behaviors.
Example: we do not rape, nor steal; because those things are base and vulgar.
They are not objectively x or y; rather, our sense organs are arranged in strict
accordance with a certain aesthetic apprehension that organizes things into a hierarchal
valuation.

There are no objective values, but there are sense organs that are more refined and sophisticated ( I.e. superior ), which preclude specific valuations and behaviors.

Okay, suppose you believe that there is no God.

You look around the world and you ask yourself: In the absence of an omniscient/omnipotent point of view, how am I to know  -- necessarily know -- what is the "superior" thing to do?

Who decides the criteria here other than any one particular man or woman born and bred in any one particular historical, cultural and experiential context?

And suppose one comes to conclude that, in the absence of God, his own fulfillment and satisfaction is a reasonable manner in which to construe a moral font.

And so this individual rapes and steals or maims and murders simply because that is what he has come to rationalize as within his purview, within his domain.

And then I link that to this:

If folks here at KT have different opinions about [morality and aesthetics], then there are either 1] different and conflicting Ideals and Superior Judgments to be had in discussing it, or 2] one of them embodies the true Ideal/Superior Judgment and the others are wrong.

Right?

So, which is it?

I mean, are you suggesting that folks here can in fact embrace an understanding of [morality and aesthetics] that is at odds with Satyr's and still claim to encompass the Ideal/Superior Judgment?

Their very own Ideal/Superior Judgment?


Let's start there.

He still doesn't get it.

camus666 wrote:

You look around the world and you ask yourself: In the absence of an omniscient/omnipotent point of view, how am I to know -- necessarily know -- what is the "superior" thing to do?

Who decides the criteria here other than any one particular man or woman born and bred in any one particular historical, cultural and experiential context?

People don't decide what is superior or inferior, the objective world does.

Us people can recognize the objective world's judgment of superior and inferior, and use it to form ideals about future in relation to which some things would be judged superior and others inferior.

Arbiter of Change wrote:

He still doesn't get it.

camus666 wrote:

You look around the world and you ask yourself: In the absence of an omniscient/omnipotent point of view, how am I to know  -- necessarily know -- what is the "superior" thing to do?

Who decides the criteria here other than any one particular man or woman born and bred in any one particular historical, cultural and experiential context?

People don't decide what is superior or inferior, the objective world does.

Us people can recognize the objective world's judgment of superior and inferior, and use it to form ideals about future in relation to which some things would be judged superior and others inferior.

Again, is it even possible to get vaguer, more abstract than this?!

Of course it is each individual in each particular context who is making the choice to behave in one way rather than another.

The question then becomes why do different folks do different things in very similar contexts?

And if their behaviors come into conflict how, using the tools of philosophy, are we able to establish which subjective rendition of the objective world is the only rational [or the most rational] frame of mind.

In fact as soon as one brings abstractions like his down to earth, the sooner one begins to grasp just how convoluted the gap can be between words and worlds.

Thus just imagine Mary explaining to Carlin why she was not responsible for her unwanted pregnancy and why, in aborting it, she is not deserving of being called a murderer.

Or imagine him telling her, "us people can recognize the objective world's judgment of superior and inferior, and use it to form ideals about future in relation to which some things would be judged superior and others inferior."

Objectivists and their ivory towers!!

camus666 wrote:

Nightmare wrote:

I've been ruminating on an aesthetics of nobility.
We disavow Judeo-Christian morality ( good and evil ).
But this does not mean we are amoral, or savages;
we have a certain aesthetics that repels us from certain behaviors.
Example: we do not rape, nor steal; because those things are base and vulgar.
They are not objectively x or y; rather, our sense organs are arranged in strict
accordance with a certain aesthetic apprehension that organizes things into a hierarchal
valuation.

There are no objective values, but there are sense organs that are more refined and sophisticated ( I.e. superior ), which preclude specific valuations and behaviors.

Okay, suppose you believe that there is no God.

You look around the world and you ask yourself: In the absence of an omniscient/omnipotent point of view, how am I to know  -- necessarily know -- what is the "superior" thing to do?

Who decides the criteria here other than any one particular man or woman born and bred in any one particular historical, cultural and experiential context?

And suppose one comes to conclude that, in the absence of God, his own fulfillment and satisfaction is a reasonable manner in which to construe a moral font.

And so this individual rapes and steals or maims and murders simply because that is what he has come to rationalize as within his purview, within his domain.

And then I link that to this:

If folks here at KT have different opinions about [morality and aesthetics], then there are either 1] different and conflicting Ideals and Superior Judgments to be had in discussing it, or 2] one of them embodies the true Ideal/Superior Judgment and the others are wrong.

Right?

So, which is it?

I mean, are you suggesting that folks here can in fact embrace an understanding of [morality and aesthetics] that is at odds with Satyr's and still claim to encompass the Ideal/Superior Judgment?

Their very own Ideal/Superior Judgment?


Let's start there.

Why does there need to be some meta-narrative, in order to recognize a thing's superiority in relation to life?

We, us humans, can recognize these things without appealing to some absolute.

Like I said, there are no objective values, or better yet, absolute values.

Valuation is relative, not absolute.

Things are deemed *superior*, when they display more sophistication and complexity in the production of power.

Life is a valuing, a valuing of order.

Quote :

And suppose one comes to conclude that, in the absence of God, his own fulfillment and satisfaction is a reasonable manner in which to construe a moral font.

And so this individual rapes and steals or maims and murders simply because that is what he has come to rationalize as within his purview, within his domain.

Sure, to this person, such a life is good; but not necessarily superior.

This is hedonism and it's a base and simple way of life, akin to animals.

Not much sophistication, nor complexity required.

Notice the pattern of how more complex and refined souls have a mutual appreciation for certain types of music, art, ways of living, etc.

A nobel-prize winner is more likely to appreciate the symphonies of Beethoven, as opposed to the chimp clanking and ooking of Niki Minaj.

More sophisticated souls can recognize superior forms of order.

Nightmare wrote:

I've been ruminating on an aesthetics of nobility.
We disavow Judeo-Christian morality ( good and evil ).
But this does not mean we are amoral, or savages;
we have a certain aesthetics that repels us from certain behaviors.
Example: we do not rape, nor steal; because those things are base and vulgar.
They are not objectively x or y; rather, our sense organs are arranged in strict
accordance with a certain aesthetic apprehension that organizes things into a hierarchal
valuation.

There are no objective values, but there are sense organs that are more refined and sophisticated ( I.e. superior ), which preclude specific valuations and behaviors.

It is not simply sense organs. It is also intellect organs, the brain, that organizes heirarchies based on lorem ipsum. Ie. Lorem ipsum, it is usually wrong to steal, but sometimes one must steal to do good for the greater good. Lorem ipsum, moral hierarchies are constructed to lessen overall pain. It is not simply sense organs, like a plant moving itself towards sunlight. but intellectual heirarchies.

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

Nightmare wrote:

I've been ruminating on an aesthetics of nobility.
We disavow Judeo-Christian morality ( good and evil ).
But this does not mean we are amoral, or savages;
we have a certain aesthetics that repels us from certain behaviors.
Example: we do not rape, nor steal; because those things are base and vulgar.
They are not objectively x or y; rather, our sense organs are arranged in strict
accordance with a certain aesthetic apprehension that organizes things into a hierarchal
valuation.

There are no objective values, but there are sense organs that are more refined and sophisticated ( I.e. superior ), which preclude specific valuations and behaviors.

It is not simply sense organs. It is also intellect organs, the brain, that organizes heirarchies based on lorem ipsum. Ie. Lorem ipsum, it is usually wrong to steal, but sometimes one must steal to do good for the greater good. Lorem ipsum, moral hierarchies are constructed to lessen overall pain. It is not simply sense organs, like a plant moving itself towards sunlight. but intellectual heirarchies.

Yes, it's about motives too.

We don't do x and y because of some objective "immorality"; rather, we don't do x and y, because they are un-aesthetic ( to our refined sense organs ).

Nightmare wrote:

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

Nightmare wrote:

I've been ruminating on an aesthetics of nobility.
We disavow Judeo-Christian morality ( good and evil ).
But this does not mean we are amoral, or savages;
we have a certain aesthetics that repels us from certain behaviors.
Example: we do not rape, nor steal; because those things are base and vulgar.
They are not objectively x or y; rather, our sense organs are arranged in strict
accordance with a certain aesthetic apprehension that organizes things into a hierarchal
valuation.

There are no objective values, but there are sense organs that are more refined and sophisticated ( I.e. superior ), which preclude specific valuations and behaviors.

It is not simply sense organs. It is also intellect organs, the brain, that organizes heirarchies based on lorem ipsum. Ie. Lorem ipsum, it is usually wrong to steal, but sometimes one must steal to do good for the greater good. Lorem ipsum, moral hierarchies are constructed to lessen overall pain. It is not simply sense organs, like a plant moving itself towards sunlight. but intellectual heirarchies.

Yes, it's about motives too.

We don't do x and y because of some objective "immorality"; rather, we don't do x and y, because they are un-aesthetic ( to our refined sense organs ).

I told you in my other thread you have a very one-step mind. It's not simply "we don't do x" because of aesthetics, flinch reactions, etc. Plant moving into sunlight.
Some things, such as killing, raping old ladies, stealing from poor men, causes a sickness to our stomach. Plant moving away from darkness. Bad aesthetics.
But morality is more than that. Plunging shit from the toilet causes a sickness to our stomach, plant moving away from darkness, bad aesthetics, but we do it anyway, because of lorem ipsum. Endure a little sickness to prevent worse pain. You bear a little bad aesthetics or face the consequences. You plunge the fucking toilet. If an old lady was the last human on a planet infested with alien rabies, you rape her, because if you don't, there will be no sons to save the planet from alien rabies. If a poor man threatens to kill your family, you steal his guns. If there is tyranny, you kill the tyrant. This is morality, not flinch reactions, not mere base aesthetics, not mere basic plant moving from darkness.
Simple minds and simple times. Modern man deals in absolutes. Stealing is wrong. Killing is wrong. This fits his simple mind. This satisfies him. Laws are the opium for the masses.

The reality is, stealing is wrong sometimes, but sometimes needed. The reality is, killing is usually wrong, but sometimes needed. Noone likes to plunge the toilet, but it is the right thing to do. This is understandable to higher minds, higher culture. Simple minds, simple cultures speak in absolutes, absolute morality, to satisfy and cater to their simple minds. They say stealing is wrong at all times, lying is wrong at all times, killing is wrong at all times, the law is the law. Simple minds, simple culture, simple times. Law is the opium for the masses.

Arbiter of Change wrote:

People don't decide what is superior or inferior, the objective world does.

Us people can recognize the objective world's judgment of superior and inferior, and use it to form ideals about future in relation to which some things would be judged superior and others inferior.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Reason, is, in fact, the accurate appreciation of patterns, as they relate to superior/inferior.
The brain is an organ dedicated to evaluating (judging value), after it has differentiated (discriminated).

The sentence "reality decides" is a metaphorical way of saying that it is world as the sum of all (inter)actions, manifesting as a presence, an appearance, which determines superior from inferior, or fit from unfit, and this only outside human environments of sheltering and protection of weakness.
Man does not invent the world, he is awakened, slowly, to it.
It reveals itself to man.
Man does not create beauty, he does not decide what it is, he recognizes it as symmetry/order, and/or as reproductive fitness, health.

Man doesn't create taller/shorter, smaller/bigger, faster/slower, smarter/dumber, stronger/weaker, he recognizes them as juxtapositions of one to the other phenomena, or of one to self.
All value judgments are comparisons, in relation to an idea(l).

If I define intelligence as the recognition of patterns in the flux, and as the usage of imagination to project an idea(l) which successfully orients and motivates the organism, and another defines intelligence as superior juggling, or a larger penis, what determines who is more precise, is not the individuals themselves but the world where these judgments are applied...more so outside sheltering human systems where stupidity is protected from itself, and exploiting advantages is strictly regulated.

If I define beauty as symmetry, physical proportionality indicating superior, healthier genes, and as reproductive fitness, and another defines it as being fast, or being nice, then this does not affect the outcome, or lack of, in an offspring.
The one's subjectivity which is more in tune with the objective world is the one who will benefit, the other will face the consequences of his lack....unless the system intervenes to compensate for weakness with techniques/technologies.
It is this intervention which results in feminization and the infectiousness of the Nihilistic meme.
Like all human meddling on human processes pollution, or collateral byproducts of this human intervention, then necessitate further interventions...the process snowballing until it implodes.

camus666 wrote:

I mean, are you suggesting that folks here can in fact embrace an understanding of [morality and aesthetics] that is at odds with Satyr's and still claim to encompass the Ideal/Superior Judgment?

Their very own Ideal/Superior Judgment?


Let's start there.

Yes, let's get right on starting from your amorphous assumptions (prejudices): that way, no matter how we try to engage, you can mould it around your misunderstanding, thereby every time, circularly, announcing: "see! I told you so."

Let's start here: stop color coding your presuppositions.

Trixie wrote:

I told you in my other thread you have a very one-step mind. It's not simply "we don't do x" because of aesthetics, flinch reactions, etc. Plant moving into sunlight.
Some things, such as killing, raping old ladies, stealing from poor men, causes a sickness to our stomach. Plant moving away from darkness. Bad aesthetics.
But morality is more than that. Plunging shit from the toilet causes a sickness to our stomach, plant moving away from darkness, bad aesthetics, but we do it anyway, because of lorem ipsum. Endure a little sickness to prevent worse pain. You bear a little bad aesthetics or face the consequences. You plunge the fucking toilet. If an old lady was the last human on a planet infested with alien rabies, you rape her, because if you don't, there will be no sons to save the planet from alien rabies. If a poor man threatens to kill your family, you steal his guns. If there is tyranny, you kill the tyrant. This is morality, not flinch reactions, not mere base aesthetics, not mere basic plant moving from darkness.
Simple minds and simple times. Modern man deals in absolutes. Stealing is wrong. Killing is wrong. This fits his simple mind. This satisfies him. Laws are the opium for the masses.

The reality is, stealing is wrong sometimes, but sometimes needed. The reality is, killing is usually wrong, but sometimes needed. Noone likes to plunge the toilet, but it is the right thing to do. This is understandable to higher minds, higher culture. Simple minds, simple cultures speak in absolutes, absolute morality, to satisfy and cater to their simple minds. They say stealing is wrong at all times, lying is wrong at all times, killing is wrong at all times, the law is the law. Simple minds, simple culture, simple times. Law is the opium for the masses.

Yes,

A higher aesthetics doesn't mean one can't do x or y, like some flinch reaction.

Killing someone, stealing, etc can be in accord with a higher aesthetics, depending upon the motive and objective.

Avenging a loved one, who was murdered, is an example.

But in general, a refined and distinguished individual will abstain from behaving like the vulgar; it's part of his or her aesthetic of ascending to a higher mode of existence, distancing his or herself from the base masses.