No. You are a reductionist if you reduce values to degree of need/suffering (aka pain). ---That’s also hedonism. You are tirading against a projection of yourself.
No turd....pain is not value. Value is what resists entropy - what is more timeless.
We do not even say suffering is an end, like you do about pleasure. Suffering is no end, and neither is pleasure ...both are interpretations, how the brain interprets variation of need. And need is no end. need is the sensation of entropy upon an organism, a self-organizing entity - a life-form. You, are a moron. a desperate, naive, romantic, decadent piece of shit.
Suffering/Pleasure are two extremes of what the organism experiences as need, which is its interaction with a dynamic world, as ordering/becoming experiencing the Flux. The Flux, being the world, which does not give a shit about your pleasures and pains.
Pleasure, douche-bag, is your ideal... The concept you used to fill in the absence of the absolute.
Others put there the concepts of God, Humanity, Power etc....and make them their end. The absence lends itself to any ideal. And that you made pleasure your end, rather than God, for example, is what exposes you as an individual. It reveals your psychology.
Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wrote:
You write like some cracked-out bag-lady shrieking at the voices in your head. Scream, wave your arms, and act like you think a Master does... You haven't been "let in" because you trampled whatever respect I had for you.
I'm sure the loss is big. She lost an opportunity to find pleasure in you. But, you have your princess of hedonism, who is cynical about your objective morality but will never tell you - she is maximizing her own pleasures.
Maximizing: not postponing the given for the hypothetical. Only in the mind of a naive imbecile would maximizing mean holding off for the best...not knowing if it will come, or if it is the best you can do.
Bentham wrote:
A proximate pleasure is preferable to a remote pleasure. A certain pleasure is preferable to an uncertain pleasure.
You've read him, no? You should be fucking big ugly chicks, because they are the easiest, but you, being a romantic idealist, have convinced yourself that you deserve better, and that this 'better" will be worth it.
Now run along and tell the world you "utterly destroyed and dominated Lyssa" to preserve that image you are cultivating.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
And this Hypocrite Coward accuses others of Reductionism for pointing out how Hedonism is a Decadence that prostitutes values and skews reality.
No. You are a reductionist if you reduce values to degree of need/suffering (aka pain). ---That’s also hedonism. You are tirading against a projection of yourself.
Lyssa wrote:
"In other words, you cannot prove Entropy is not the norm of the universe, and Order doesn't cost.
In other words, life is not rooted in suffering because I want it or want to define it that way, but because that is a scientific fact.
Absolutism, you dumb duck, is positing Life SHOULD only be pleasurable [contra reality], which is different from the master-value that says Life IS rooted in suffering because it costs to maintain order which is what reality is. Unless you can prove Entropy is not the norm and Order doesn't cost,,, I will say, I am not the one reducing things to suffering... and therefore defining values in degrees of it. This is plain bottoms-up thinking.*
Because you are a hedonist, you believe everybody else like you, infers reality according to whatever picture pleases them. That is you reduced to your ignorance."
*Bottom-up Thinking:
Satyr wrote:
"Bottom-Up - begins with sensual stimuli, the apparent, the perceived, finds patterns in it and with this extrapolates larger rules and predicts future occurrences.
Top-Down - begins with a conclusion, the invisible, the unperceived, and then tries to incorporate the perceived within its premises....or tries to justify the projected with the perceived . If and when it fails it does not discard the presumed, it simply dismisses the perceived as illusions or as too complex or too inconclusive to be taken into consideration, postponing judgment indefinitely."
vs.
Mo's Just-Because Secular Humanism wrote:
"look at flesh and blood (what we all have in common); this is biological/physiological data. What is good for one human being (at the deepest level) is good for any other human being, because we are the same kind of organism and the same principles and information gained applies. We ought not to get caught up at a superficial level--the level of culture--when 'good' and 'bad' go far deeper than that."
This Hypocrite Ignorant Coward continues to argue Hedonism and Master-value is the Same
Never once did I say that.
Its true, never Once did you say that, but atleast Twice;
Liar wrote:
"One person can say that life is suffering/pain, and that pleasure is just the reduction in degree of suffering/pain. Another person can say that life is health/pleasure, and that pain is just the reduction in degree of health/pleasure. The difference is just an emotional/psychological one, not a conceptual one."
"Your “master value” is just code for “hellenic asceticism” ---which, Epicurus as an example, is hedonism."
Hypocrite wrote:
Are you just thinking of the labels (ignorant, hypocrite, coward) that would hurt yourself most , and then passing them off to me? They don't apply to me.
Indeed, if I were being dishonest and arguing simply to save face, those would be the words that would hurt myself, and that would hurt anybody with integrity.
That it doesn't to you is only proof of how well it applies to you.
Hypocrite wrote:
Lyssa wrote:
Mo wrote:
1. You said that a hedonist accounts for only short-term pleasure (5 mins, where 5 years away is irrelevant). Now apparently you recognize that hedonists go to the dentist.
"a hedonist would value his health in order to be able to enjoy the pleasurable life, and that reduction to sensationalism makes the hedonist a decadent to the master."
What you said has no relevance to the criticism. My point is that a hedonist is not short-sighted to the next 5 minutes of his life. What you responded with has nothing to do with anything I’ve said.
Lyssa wrote:
"a hedonist would value his health in order to be able to enjoy the pleasurable life, and that reduction to sensationalism makes the hedonist a decadent to the master."
Epicurus wrote:
"I am thrilled with pleasure in the body, when I live on bread and water, and I spit upon luxurious pleasures not for their own sake, but because of the inconveniences that follow them."
Hypocrite wrote:
And the same thing happens for every one of those points. What is wrong with you?
Mo wrote:
"I'm a master psychologizer, like Nietzsche."
Didn't you call me an egoist? Why aren't you content with your answer as to what is wrong with me? Does your conscience not give you rest in such a fraudulent dismissal of me?
Can you back up your own words that you are a Master Psychologizer and present a clear diagnosis of what is wrong with me?
And what is wrong with Satyr? Or is Satyr already explained away as a dumb f---, and fighting wind-mills, ignorant idiot, etc.?
Can you also perform a self-diagnosis on why you pretend not to understand, why you evade, why you lie? Because you have.
If you cant stand up to your own words you are a Master Psychologizer, that would add to your Lie Count. And my Kill Count.
Liar wrote:
And btw, tell me, is Epicurus a hedonist and an ascetic at the same time?
Is this your way of confessing your ignorance, that you have no clue of either hedonism or what epicurus said?
Lyssa wrote:
"The Master's asceticism is about cultivating 'indifference' which does not mean living carelessly, but a steadfastness of undisturbed inner order manifesting as calm - it is being indifferent to fate to be able to love and affirm life for what it IS!
Hedonistic asceticism whether it is epicurean, delighting in 'discrimination' and 'reasoning' that shuts off life with the dictum the beautiful life in the pleasant garden is the only good, is the only highest life, or the Xt. asceticism that has to kill the body to be able to "enjoy life" are both caricatures of life, are both nihilisms, are both decadent, are both inferior to the master
Epicurus wrote:
"The beginning and the root of all good is the pleasure of the stomach; even wisdom and culture must be referred to this."
Even Epicurus has to acknowledge even the highest culture is rooted in NEED, in satiation of hunger, lack.
But what does Epicurus do? He concludes,
Epicurus wrote:
"Thanks be to blessed Nature because she has made what is necessary easy to supply[b], and [b]what is not easy unnecessary."
Life reduced to satiating the stomach the easiest way, and everything else as unnecessary pain; life reduced to the sensation of pleasure alone as the only good... If this is the same as Master-value as you have been claiming, then you continue to remain a Cowardly Hypocrite.
- - -
Ignorant wrote:
You write like some cracked-out bag-lady shrieking at the voices in your head. Scream, wave your arms, and act like you think a Master does...
Really? Its always "hysteria when you are near" [Def Leppard]...
In other news, I was showing you what your hedonism is.
Bright red colours, Big sized words - the sensation of it is what registers in your brain, and not the content, when it is you who had said to me,
"Being barbaric, direct, and blunt are good things."
You are moved by sensation of pain to psychojacket me as shrieking lady, voices in my head, this, that...
If you weren't a decadent hedonist, you'd notice "ignorant, coward, fraud, hypocrite, pea-Nut, PEA-cock, liar" are all cold, calm value-assertions backed up with susbstance and not redundant, empty name-callings. All it takes is a bright colour and an increased font to expose how your evaluations are a product of your hedonism.
You are a Decadent, and way below me.
Pathetic Decadent wrote:
you trampled whatever respect I had for you.
Yea? Maybe you are just scared to let me in. You know I would f--- your brains out.
That's what good people do. They crush your false ego, show you your flaws, and they benefit you...
You should have told me you couldn't handle my directness and bluntness. I would have spared you.
You should have not accused Satyr of needing attention when he challenged and invited you to present your point, not accused him of strawmen or fighting with windmills or being a dumb f---, when you should have come back after really growing some. But nevermind all that... You are a respect-giver? Joke. The way you are dishonest and tell lies to yourself, tells me you don't even respect yourself, Decadent.
Invitations are esp. needed only by Vampires. I never denied being a Monster, even more monstrous than Satyr who is a gentleman, just not a Vampire... isn't that film more apt between you and that vampire phoneutria that called me a baboon but itself with an intelligence lower than a baboon it couldn't differentiate between realistic paintings (techniques of art as good as real) and realism paintings (depictions of holohoax, and such political incorrectness that would have one jailed today)?
You'll agree, its a truism. You'd display common sense to yourself if you gave it to It.
Me. Atleast I was not a coward who spoke things about others behind their back, like you did with that under-baboon about my rabidity and what not.
Atleast I was not that hypocrite who asked me if I was worthy of trust for sharing his pic., AS IFFF, it wasn't HE who freely shared his pics. all over ILP and even started the pic. thread, and now pretending so coy, as though, I was going to expose something that wasn't already. I never tried to exploit you, and I rathered to trust you, your words, your sensations, your image of yourself... atleast I wasn't so pretentious.
Atleast I was not that fraud who called into question my philosophical integrity, my objectivity as regards Satyr and this topic, when he couldn't display a critical thread or any open-minded discussion with his own mentor but he'd rather tell someone else to go f--- their sister.
Atleast I was not that liar who claimed to accept my monstrosity and then play the "what's wrong with you?" drama when he couldn't take honest appraisals...
Atleast I have still let you keep your hat on even though you trampled on whatever it is I saw in you...
Mo wrote:
You haven't been "let in"
Then I'll be standing out your door till you return my poor hanky. And then be done with me Mo.
I think that quote can be filed along with shit-Stain saying his I.Q. has been officially measured in the 160 range, and was a member of MENSA, Imbecile also claiming the latter, Saint claiming he's explained everything, Maj claiming she "almost" was MENSA, and Purple Dragon/Aeon claiming that what he is working on, at the moment, will change human history for the next thousand years.
That, alone, is all that needs to be said.
Have you ever, EVER, read anything, by this retard, that would come close to justifying this claim? EVER?! In the ChatBox he defended the benefits of race mixing. We're talking about a moron on a whole...nuther....lebel.
Funny...they come on together and leave together...for some deep, secret pow-wows. It's becoming a bit sad. All they have now is this "pleasure is an end", thing. It defines their shared intellectual level. Naive romantic idealism and cynical aloofness coming together in shared hedonism. One feeding the others needs.
Last year when I made that claim, Satyr, I felt as though I had something to prove to you, or Echo, or somebody else in these social circles. I now feel differently. I have nothing to prove to you. And any great wisdom or knowledge I acquire, I no longer owe you anything. You are not necessarily my ally, my friend, nor my enemy. I put you on neutral ground, or, lower.
I wonder if you can offer me anymore challenges........probably not.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Last year when I made that claim, Satyr, I felt as though I had something to prove to you, or Echo, or somebody else in these social circles. I now feel differently. I have nothing to prove to you. And any great wisdom or knowledge I acquire, I no longer owe you anything. You are not necessarily my ally, my friend, nor my enemy. I put you on neutral ground, or, lower.
I wonder if you can offer me anymore challenges........probably not.
Exactly!!! And that group also includes psychologies with something to prove, compensating for mediocre minds with extravagant claims.
If you cannot show it, just state it....and if you repeat it often enough you might convince someone. I know why, you did it...but that you could claim, without being embarrassed, that you are building a philosophy that will change mankind for the next one-thousand years, is the same as stating that you are as great psychologizer as Nietzsche, or that your I.Q. is 160. It's what weakling do to impress: they puff out their chests walk around as if their muscles are too big for them to walk properly, and they claim that they can lift weights in excess of what their frame reveals. It's so funny it's pathetic.
It's a contradiction of actions with words, that are so inflated that they are full of hot air; a hyperbolic bubble just begging to be burst.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
A [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I found on the way to my daily stroll in the park.
My favorite parts:
Quote :
A definition solely in terms of consequences might seem too broad, because it includes absurd theories such as the theory that an act is morally right if it increases the number of goats in Texas. Of course, such theories are implausible. Still, it is not implausible to call them consequentialist, since they do look only at consequences. The implausibility of one version of consequentialism does not make consequentialism implausible in general, since other versions of consequentialism still might be plausible.
Quote :
Preference utilitarianism is often criticized on the grounds that some preferences are misinformed, crazy, horrendous, or trivial. I might prefer to drink the liquid in a glass because I think that it is beer, though it really is strong acid. Or I might prefer to die merely because I am clinically depressed. Or I might prefer to torture children.
Quote :
Many consequentialists deny that all values can be reduced to any single ground, such as pleasure or desire satisfaction, so they instead adopt a pluralistic theory of value.
Quote :
Other consequentialists add the intrinsic values of friendship or love, freedom or ability, life, virtue, and so on.
Quote :
:suspect:some consequentialists hold that an act is right if and only if it maximizes some function of both happiness and capabilities
Quote :
:suspect:Or one could hold that an act is right if it maximizes respect for (or minimizes violations of) certain specified moral rights. Such theories are sometimes described as a utilitarianism of rights.
Quote :
consequentialists even hold that certain values are incommensurable or incomparable in that no comparison of their values is possible
Quote :
some consequentialists foreswear the aggregation of values.
Quote :
:suspect:Other consequentialists, however, incorporate a more robust commitment to equality.
Quote :
most consequentialists claim that overall utility is the criterion or standard of what is morally right or morally ought to be done.
Quote :
an indirect consequentialist holds that the moral qualities of something depend on the consequences of something else.
Quote :
:suspect:acceptance rule consequentialists then claim that an act is morally wrong if and only if it violates a rule whose acceptance has better consequences than the acceptance of any incompatible rule.
Quote :
:suspect:If the principle of utility is used as a criterion of the right rather than as a decision procedure, then classical utilitarianism does not require that anyone know the total consequences of anything before making a decision.
Quote :
most consequentialists do not mind giving up consequentialism as a direct decision procedure as long as consequences remain the criterion of rightness.
Quote :
the important point is that consequentialism and the other elements of classical utilitarianism are compatible with many different theories about which things are good or valuable.
Quote :
:suspect:If utilitarians want their theory to allow more moral knowledge, they can make a different kind of move by turning from actual consequences to expected or expectable consequences. Suppose that Alice finds a runaway teenager who asks for money to get home. Alice wants to help and reasonably believes that buying a bus ticket home for this runaway will help, so she buys a bus ticket and puts the runaway on the bus. Unfortunately, the bus is involved in a freak accident, and the runaway is killed. If actual consequences are what determine moral wrongness, then it was morally wrong for Alice to buy the bus ticket for this runaway.
Quote :
:suspect:Some utilitarians bite the bullet and say that Alice's act was morally wrong, but it was blameless wrongdoing, because her motives were good, and she was not responsible, given that she could not have foreseen that her act would cause harm. Since this theory makes actual consequences determine moral rightness, it can be called actual consequentialism.
Quote :
:suspect:Moderate deontologists, for example, often judge that it is morally wrong to kill one person to save five but not morally wrong to kill one person to save a million. They never specify the line between what is morally wrong and what is not morally wrong, and it is hard to imagine any non-arbitrary way for deontologists to justify a cutoff point.
Quote :
:suspect:Another problem for utilitarianism is that it seems to overlook justice and rights. One common illustration is called Transplant. Imagine that each of five patients in a hospital will die without an organ transplant. The patient in Room 1 needs a heart, the patient in Room 2 needs a liver, the patient in Room 3 needs a kidney, and so on. The person in Room 6 is in the hospital for routine tests. Luckily (for them, not for him!), his tissue is compatible with the other five patients, and a specialist is available to transplant his organs into the other five. This operation would save their lives, while killing the “donor”. There is no other way to save any of the other five patients.with the right details filled in, it looks as if cutting up the “donor” will maximize utility, since five lives have more utility than one life (assuming that the five lives do not contribute too much to overpopulation).
Quote :
:suspect:Most utilitarians lack such strong stomachs (or teeth), so they modify utilitarianism to bring it in line with common moral intuitions, including the intuition that doctors should not cut up innocent patients.
Quote :
:suspect:Yet another argument for a kind of consequentialism is contractarian. argues that all informed, rational people whose impartiality is ensured because they do not know their place in society would favor a kind of consequentialism.
Quote :
Even if none of these arguments proves consequentialism, there still might be no adequate reason to deny consequentialism. We might have no reason either to deny consequentialism or to assert it. Consequentialism could then remain a live option even if it is not proven.
Relativism's Rationalism....circuitous logic spewing out circular rationales to attain mental neutrality. Liberalism turning reason on its head. An Alice in Wonderland absurdity of logic.
Last year when I made that claim, Satyr, I felt as though I had something to prove to you, or Echo, or somebody else in these social circles. I now feel differently. I have nothing to prove to you.
No, social and mental retard of the 10th degree. Within the context, stating that would be in contradiction of actually feeling it within the spirit of the being. I would just Love to get a glimpse of the surroundings through out your life, or mabey not, it's just depressing.
So basically Aeon just said he feels less aware of his surroundings, and that it does not matter. The opium is starting to loose effect, but the addiction still there. Higher doses, higher illusions in craving. You leave soon, just like Mo, it was so funny because he always came back for this one last post even though it made abosultly no difference to anyone other than him. It's like a part of the mind was lacking in conviction, dissonance had to be resolved else the totality would start to self-destruct.
It's like these romantic pedophiles, where in they are so weak they just have to believe it.
A degree in fucking philisophy!!!!
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Knowledge/Omniscience = partial, incomplete, negation of Ignorance Of course to will more knowledge, to move towards the idea(l) of omniscience implies the presence of some knowledge - in the organism this knowledge need not be conscious, but part of an inherited, genetic code - genes being encoded experiences. The movement begins from lifelessness, unconsciousness, then becoming conscious of its ignorance (need), and willing/striving/moving towards the idea(l) of omniscience. Of course omniscience is impossible, both because the world is dynamic and ever-changing, and also because the attainment of this absolute state of knowing would entail the superfluity of thinking - it would be the end of it.
Power/Omnipotence = partial and incomplete negation of powerlessness
Strength = partial and incomplete negation of weakness
Awareness/Consciousness = partial and incomplete negation of unconsciousness
Order = partial and incomplete negation of chaos/randomness
Oneness/Singularity = partial and incomplete negation of fragmentation, multiplicity
One = partial and incomplete negation of nil Both 1/0 are the binary representation of the absolute - they are both symbols of nihilism as they both negate dynamic processes: One through its insinuation of the reduction/implosion of all possibilities into a singular probability, and the nil as a negation of probabilities altogether.
Pleasure/Satiation = partial and incomplete negation of suffering/pain Need being the existent, or the experience/consciousness of existence - a state of never being at rest. That which is lacking, and the organism becomes aware of as need, can be projected as the idea(l); the object/objective - and this Ideal is always a reaction and a contradiction of the real, in degree.
Beauty/Symmetry = partial and incomplete negation of asymmetry. Since the brain is a forager of order - it needs order to complete itself - the brain can only process a pattern - which is a degree of order already present. Therefore, all that exists and has some degree of order - exhibits a pattern - is, to some degree, beautiful to the organism.
Independence = partial and incomplete negation of dependence/contingency
Freedom/Liberty = partial and incomplete negation of determinism/nature/past The attainment of an effect with no cause - absolute self-referential solipsism. God willing his own willing.
God = partial and incomplete negation of godlessness - here god represents a multiplicity of traits (power, love, consciousness)
The "positive" is a negation of the "negative" in the dualistic paradigm. Man projects an idea(l), which contradicts the real, as a "towards".
The idea(l) can take on any form, as the end result, the desired, the ambiguous destination....but the "towards" cannot be inverted. You cannot say all is gnosis and ignorance is a measure of it, positing ignorance as a towards. You cannot say all is pleasure and suffering is a measure of it, positing suffering/pain as the towards.
The starting proposition whether it be characterized as existent, brain, will, self, need is always in the negative striving towards what is, to it, a positive. Of course the 'negative' is not complete either....it is a towards which requires no will, no effort, no striving towards...it just IS.
The yin/yang. To strive towards the idea(l), towards the absolute which is lacking, towards completion/perfection, there must be some order present.
The absolute and total negation of the negative is also nihilistic, for it implies an end to movement/activity....an end to the towards. God would represent a negation of existence, if not for the Devil.
Furthermore the movement towards increases the demand for energies. For example as we approach the absolute Being, God, ORDER, One, we require increasingly more energies to self-maintain and to then move forwards towards the end - the completion would require infinite energies, and so the absolute can never be attained. Stress increases exponentially as one increases in degree of order - more demands upon the ordering to self-maintain what order it has attained, against the ongoing, ceaseless, relentless attrition of Time/Change/Flux.
Time being a human standard for measuring change, and change being a human perception of Flux. Need is how this flux is sensed without the requirement of large brains and more sophisticated forms of consciousness.
The organism is not a being in need, it IS need, as it is an ordering/becoming contrary to the ubiquitous unbecoming, disordering/chaos.
I am not a being that just happened to have this or that experience. I AM my experiences...whether another considers them traumatic or cathartic or soothing or whatever, in relation to its own experiences or to some ideal. I am not an organism that sees, hears, acts...I AM seeing, hearing, thinking, acting. I AM the activity; not a static Being that exhibits some dynamic qualities. I am never at rest...I am in a constant state of egrigorsi, dynamism, energy expenditure, (inter)activity. I am never without need. My needs may be easily met, turning my consciousness away from them, but they are never ended. I AM need. My existence, as a Becoming, never being, a towards the idea(l), a self-maintaining self-organizing, never absolutely so, is a constant (inter)activity requiring continuous expenditure of energies.
I can say that in comparison to an earlier state, or to a future possible state, I am comfortable, but I can never say that my needs are ever absolutely satiated.... There is no state of rest, inertia, absolute. My state of comfort is related to the amount of energies I need and the amount of energies at my disposal.
No, social and mental retard of the 10th degree. Within the context, stating that would be in contradiction of actually feeling it within the spirit of the being. I would just Love to get a glimpse of the surroundings through out your life, or mabey not, it's just depressing.
So basically Aeon just said he feels less aware of his surroundings, and that it does not matter. The opium is starting to loose effect, but the addiction still there. Higher doses, higher illusions in craving. You leave soon, just like Mo, it was so funny because he always came back for this one last post even though it made abosultly no difference to anyone other than him. It's like a part of the mind was lacking in conviction, dissonance had to be resolved else the totality would start to self-destruct.
TWBB I judge that you are a moron and waste of my time.
Create intellectual threads and responses if you ever wish to impress me. I see you as a manimal. You lack reasonability. You don't belong on this forum. Go participate in Erik's fist fighting, warrior, brawling threads. That is more along your level.
No, social and mental retard of the 10th degree. Within the context, stating that would be in contradiction of actually feeling it within the spirit of the being. I would just Love to get a glimpse of the surroundings through out your life, or mabey not, it's just depressing.
So basically Aeon just said he feels less aware of his surroundings, and that it does not matter. The opium is starting to loose effect, but the addiction still there. Higher doses, higher illusions in craving. You leave soon, just like Mo, it was so funny because he always came back for this one last post even though it made abosultly no difference to anyone other than him. It's like a part of the mind was lacking in conviction, dissonance had to be resolved else the totality would start to self-destruct.
TWBB I judge that you are a moron and waste of my time.
Create intellectual threads and responses if you ever wish to impress me. I see you as a manimal. You lack reasonability. You don't belong on this forum. Go participate in Erik's fist fighting, warrior, brawling threads. That is more along your level.
You should participate, too; The warrior always gets the princess.
Just because I don't chase pussies, like a child, doesn't mean I don't want to fuck them.
The goal is to get pussies to chase dick. Some of you boys are too young to understand this lesson.
You do chase pussay, Aeon. You do it here all the time, but indirectly - using feminine tactics, e.g., reverse psychology, feigning that you abhor Lyssa and Phon when, in reality, you desire them.
I remember some girl did this to me before. She was a colossal bitch to me for no apparent reason every time I saw her. One day she came up to me and asked me why I didn't like her. I said because you are mean to me. She replied, " That's my way of showing that I like you ".
I only like Echo, but, will not pursue her or take risks for her. I don't know what Lyssa, Phonee, or allemotion look like. And I don't care. I don't want to bother myself with stupid pieces of shit and mental feces.
I only want to surround myself with powerful thinkers, minds, and brains. I don't care whether a powerful brain is male or female, white or black. Over the previous years, I pursued Echo. Now that chapter has ended. I don't really care what is ahead of me. I expect nothing, now.
If you boys only knew how truly rare intelligence is.........and to what lengths retards will go to emulate intelligence, attempt to copy it, even though they cannot. A lower intelligence can only copy and mimic higher intelligence, without actually deconstructing its core, essence, identity, and integrity.
Thoughts, ideas, inspiration, only travel downward, not upward. That is how hierarchy is created and maintained, through the mind.
Self knowing, self consciousness, self understanding are all prerequisites for intelligence.
I only like Echo, but, will not pursue her or take risks for her. I don't know what Lyssa, Phonee, or allemotion look like. And I don't care. I don't want to bother myself with stupid pieces of shit and mental feces.
I only want to surround myself with powerful thinkers, minds, and brains. I don't care whether a powerful brain is male or female, white or black. Over the previous years, I pursued Echo. Now that chapter has ended. I don't really care what is ahead of me. I expect nothing, now.
If you boys only knew how truly rare intelligence is.........and to what lengths retards will go to emulate intelligence, attempt to copy it, even though they cannot. A lower intelligence can only copy and mimic higher intelligence, without actually deconstructing its core, essence, identity, and integrity.
Thoughts, ideas, inspiration, only travel downward, not upward. That is how hierarchy is created and maintained, through the mind.
Self knowing, self consciousness, self understanding are all prerequisites for intelligence.
Intelligence is a form of power.
Why do you even bother here then? Apart from Satyr and a few others, most here are mediocre minds, including myself. I'm no genius, nor even of an intelligence that would cause people to ponder. I enjoy learning interesting and novel things, but I don't delude myself into thinking that I will become some quasi-divine mind one day if I keep reading intellectual books, or anything of that nature.
With all due respect, most of your posts here are inanities directed at Lyssa, Reasonvemotion, and Phon. Where are your great works? Would not truly powerful minds find all that sort of behavior infantile and ridiculous?
I have several years worth of philosophy posts behind me. Those that know me, know my history well enough.
I am not in the business of impressing others to become popular. If a young petite blonde graces this forum with her presence then things will change in this regard. Until then, I will become laconic and hidden.
A [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I found on the way to my daily stroll in the park.
My favorite parts:
Quote :
A definition solely in terms of consequences might seem too broad, because it includes absurd theories such as the theory that an act is morally right if it increases the number of goats in Texas. Of course, such theories are implausible. Still, it is not implausible to call them consequentialist, since they do look only at consequences. The implausibility of one version of consequentialism does not make consequentialism implausible in general, since other versions of consequentialism still might be plausible.
Quote :
Preference utilitarianism is often criticized on the grounds that some preferences are misinformed, crazy, horrendous, or trivial. I might prefer to drink the liquid in a glass because I think that it is beer, though it really is strong acid. Or I might prefer to die merely because I am clinically depressed. Or I might prefer to torture children.
Quote :
Many consequentialists deny that all values can be reduced to any single ground, such as pleasure or desire satisfaction, so they instead adopt a pluralistic theory of value.
Quote :
Other consequentialists add the intrinsic values of friendship or love, freedom or ability, life, virtue, and so on.
Quote :
:suspect:some consequentialists hold that an act is right if and only if it maximizes some function of both happiness and capabilities
Quote :
:suspect:Or one could hold that an act is right if it maximizes respect for (or minimizes violations of) certain specified moral rights. Such theories are sometimes described as a utilitarianism of rights.
Quote :
consequentialists even hold that certain values are incommensurable or incomparable in that no comparison of their values is possible
Quote :
some consequentialists foreswear the aggregation of values.
Quote :
:suspect:Other consequentialists, however, incorporate a more robust commitment to equality.
Quote :
most consequentialists claim that overall utility is the criterion or standard of what is morally right or morally ought to be done.
Quote :
an indirect consequentialist holds that the moral qualities of something depend on the consequences of something else.
Quote :
:suspect:acceptance rule consequentialists then claim that an act is morally wrong if and only if it violates a rule whose acceptance has better consequences than the acceptance of any incompatible rule.
Quote :
:suspect:If the principle of utility is used as a criterion of the right rather than as a decision procedure, then classical utilitarianism does not require that anyone know the total consequences of anything before making a decision.
Quote :
most consequentialists do not mind giving up consequentialism as a direct decision procedure as long as consequences remain the criterion of rightness.
Quote :
the important point is that consequentialism and the other elements of classical utilitarianism are compatible with many different theories about which things are good or valuable.
Quote :
:suspect:If utilitarians want their theory to allow more moral knowledge, they can make a different kind of move by turning from actual consequences to expected or expectable consequences. Suppose that Alice finds a runaway teenager who asks for money to get home. Alice wants to help and reasonably believes that buying a bus ticket home for this runaway will help, so she buys a bus ticket and puts the runaway on the bus. Unfortunately, the bus is involved in a freak accident, and the runaway is killed. If actual consequences are what determine moral wrongness, then it was morally wrong for Alice to buy the bus ticket for this runaway.
Quote :
:suspect:Some utilitarians bite the bullet and say that Alice's act was morally wrong, but it was blameless wrongdoing, because her motives were good, and she was not responsible, given that she could not have foreseen that her act would cause harm. Since this theory makes actual consequences determine moral rightness, it can be called actual consequentialism.
Quote :
:suspect:Moderate deontologists, for example, often judge that it is morally wrong to kill one person to save five but not morally wrong to kill one person to save a million. They never specify the line between what is morally wrong and what is not morally wrong, and it is hard to imagine any non-arbitrary way for deontologists to justify a cutoff point.
Quote :
:suspect:Another problem for utilitarianism is that it seems to overlook justice and rights. One common illustration is called Transplant. Imagine that each of five patients in a hospital will die without an organ transplant. The patient in Room 1 needs a heart, the patient in Room 2 needs a liver, the patient in Room 3 needs a kidney, and so on. The person in Room 6 is in the hospital for routine tests. Luckily (for them, not for him!), his tissue is compatible with the other five patients, and a specialist is available to transplant his organs into the other five. This operation would save their lives, while killing the “donor”. There is no other way to save any of the other five patients.with the right details filled in, it looks as if cutting up the “donor” will maximize utility, since five lives have more utility than one life (assuming that the five lives do not contribute too much to overpopulation).
Quote :
:suspect:Most utilitarians lack such strong stomachs (or teeth), so they modify utilitarianism to bring it in line with common moral intuitions, including the intuition that doctors should not cut up innocent patients.
Quote :
:suspect:Yet another argument for a kind of consequentialism is contractarian. argues that all informed, rational people whose impartiality is ensured because they do not know their place in society would favor a kind of consequentialism.
Quote :
Even if none of these arguments proves consequentialism, there still might be no adequate reason to deny consequentialism. We might have no reason either to deny consequentialism or to assert it. Consequentialism could then remain a live option even if it is not proven.
Relativism's Rationalism....circuitous logic spewing out circular rationales to attain mental neutrality. Liberalism turning reason on its head. An Alice in Wonderland absurdity of logic.
Here is my favorite part:
Satyr wrote:
My conscience is only burdened by consequences, not morals.
Satyr wrote:
I live lightly to not have my enjoyment be interfered with...by manimals. If I was not burdened by consequences then they would.
A definition solely in terms of consequences might seem too broad, because it includes absurd theories such as the theory that an act is morally right if it increases the number of goats in Texas. Of course, such theories are implausible. Still, it is not implausible to call them consequentialist, since they do look only at consequences. The implausibility of one version of consequentialism does not make consequentialism implausible in general, since other versions of consequentialism still might be plausible.
most consequentialists do not mind giving up consequentialism as a direct decision procedure as long as consequences remain the criterion of rightness.
Even if none of these arguments proves consequentialism, there still might be no adequate reason to deny consequentialism. We might have no reason either to deny consequentialism or to assert it. Consequentialism could then remain a live option even if it is not proven.
fag