Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Kowani]

You mention this a lot, but I can't see how destroying the self would be fulfilling or moral.

Isn't obliteration of the self considered one of the ultimate goals of Buddhism?

I’m not quite sure how that works, honestly.

What do you mean? This duty is... intrinsic, I guess, once you have multiple sapient beings around. If there were only one sapient, that would be different, but there are 7+ billion of them. Do... do you not see it? Oh, wait, you deny the very concept that things outside of the self have intrinsic value... well, darn, we’ve reached an impasse again. Son of a biscuit.

If you are going to claim that duties are intrinsic, we are going to have problems, because said intrinicality relies upon everyone agreeing that it is so. Furthermore, I could say that we have an intrinsic duty to kill our fellow man, and if the only argument is one of intrinsicality, then we are logically equivalent.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

NOTICE: Original post unsatisfactory. Re-doing it.

[Conserative Morality]

Our society is built around individualism and profit. "Love" in a popular context is just another consumable.

Edgy like a college commie.

[Al Mumtahanah]

He's right about secular society.

[Kowani]

NOTICE: Original post unsatisfactory. Re-doing it.

And I had a rebuttal all ready, too...

He's right about secular society.

You say that as if Islamic society, even the idealized Qu’ranic one is any different.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

What do you mean? This duty is... intrinsic, I guess, once you have multiple sapient beings around. If there were only one sapient, that would be different, but there are 7+ billion of them. Do... do you not see it? Oh, wait, you deny the very concept that things outside of the self have intrinsic value... well, darn, we’ve reached an impasse again. Son of a biscuit.

If you are going to claim that duties are intrinsic, we are going to have problems, because said intrinicality relies upon everyone agreeing that it is so.

I don't quite get what you mean by the last bit, mate.

Furthermore, I could say that we have an intrinsic duty to kill our fellow man, and if the only argument is one of intrinsicality, then we are logically equivalent.

Murder treats sapient beings as mere ends, not as ends in themselves. Murder can't be adequately universalized. Are you familiar, at the very least, with the Golden Rule,which is perhaps best interpreted as saying: “Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation.” For an example, imagine yourself on the receiving end of the action in the exact place of the other person (which includes having the other person’s likes and dislikes). If you act in a given way toward another, and yet are unwilling to be treated that way in the same circumstances, then you violate the rule.

Or perhaps (even better) with the formulations of the Kantian "Categorical Imperative"? That is, of course:

> Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
> Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
> Thus the third practical principle follows as the ultimate condition of their harmony with practical reason: the idea of the will of every rational being as a universally legislating will.

Or perhaps Rawls's concept of the Original Position, or the Mohist concept of Jian'ai? Or the Jewish and Christian concepts of Chesed and Agape, respectively?

Our society is built around individualism and profit. "Love" in a popular context is just another consumable.

Edgy like a college commie.

Can confirm.

Source: am internet acquaintances with a college commie. They've once declared my opinion invalid since I'm a "rich cishet white male". I try to turn the other cheek, but they're somewhat nasty towards me.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

NOTICE: Original post unsatisfactory. Re-doing it.

And I had a rebuttal all ready, too...

He's right about secular society.

You say that as if Islamic society, even the idealized Qu’ranic one is any different.

Ah. If I may, I'm going to be signing out soon, so may you please state the general gist of your original response?

[Kowani]

And I had a rebuttal all ready, too...


You say that as if Islamic society, even the idealized Qu’ranic one is any different.

Ah. If I may, I'm going to be signing out soon, so may you please state the general gist of your original response?

If you are going to claim that duties are intrinsic, we are going to have problems, because said intrinicality relies upon everyone agreeing that it is so.

I don't quite get what you mean by the last bit, mate.

The only things to actually have intrinsic properties are physical objects, and said properties must be material in and of themselves (stars are made of helium, trees “breathe in” carbon dioxide, water is part oxygen, etc.) An intrinsic, nonmaterial property is only intrinsic so long as everyone agrees that it is.

Furthermore, I could say that we have an intrinsic duty to kill our fellow man, and if the only argument is one of intrinsicality, then we are logically equivalent.

Murder treats sapient beings as mere ends, not as ends in themselves. Murder can't be adequately universalized. Are you familiar, at the very least, with the Golden Rule, or perhaps (even better) with the formulations of the Categorical Imperative? That is, of course:

I am. It remains illogical.

> Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.[/quote] Why? This is both impractical and illogical, in that a reason is nonexistent.

> Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.

Once more, why?

> Thus the third practical principle follows as the ultimate condition of their harmony with practical reason: the idea of the will of every rational being as a universally legislating will.

What?

[Al Mumtahanah]

NOTICE: Original post unsatisfactory. Re-doing it.

And I had a rebuttal all ready, too...

He's right about secular society.

You say that as if Islamic society, even the idealized Qu’ranic one is any different.

Islamic society is very famialist and prohibits usury and financial speculation.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Ah. If I may, I'm going to be signing out soon, so may you please state the general gist of your original response?

I don't quite get what you mean by the last bit, mate.

The only things to actually have intrinsic properties are physical objects, and said properties must be material in and of themselves (stars are made of helium, trees “breathe in” carbon dioxide, water is part oxygen, etc.) An intrinsic, nonmaterial property is only intrinsic so long as everyone agrees that it is.

Murder treats sapient beings as mere ends, not as ends in themselves. Murder can't be adequately universalized. Are you familiar, at the very least, with the Golden Rule, or perhaps (even better) with the formulations of the Categorical Imperative? That is, of course:

I am. It remains illogical.

> Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

Why? This is both impractical and illogical, in that a reason is nonexistent.

> Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.

Once more, why?

> Thus the third practical principle follows as the ultimate condition of their harmony with practical reason: the idea of the will of every rational being as a universally legislating will.

What?[/quote]

This is my (most likely) last post before signing out, so keep that in mind my dude, so you deny the existence of non-physical intrinsic properties to things unless universally agreed upon? Ah, so we've found where we diverge. The precise point, perhaps, even! Would this be a eureka moment, by any chance? Perhaps some sleep will provide new insights?

EDIT: Gosh darn it why does the heccing formatting keep breaking?!

[Kowani]

And I had a rebuttal all ready, too...


You say that as if Islamic society, even the idealized Qu’ranic one is any different.

Islamic society is very famialist and prohibits usury and financial speculation.

We’ll ignore the terrible economics inherent in such a system for a moment, and point out that materialism has yet to lose, regardless of how famialistic a society is. Because people like living with running water, electricity, and clothes that they don’t have to make themselves. They like not dying of smallpox, and they like their kids not dying of it even less. They like having food available year round, and not being dependent on a good harvest. Any society, eventually has to work to provide things to enough people to avoid collapse. Islamic society may not be the hypercapitalistic, shallow materialism of the West. (Shallow materialism here differentiates from philosophical materialism, in which the only thing that exists is the material [and possibly ideas]) However, it would inherently be materialistic, because its adherents are made of material, and need material to survive. Moreover, the existence of Hell is also materialism, although of a different sort, and avoiding Hell seems to be a recurring motivator.

[Kowani]

This is my (most likely) last post before signing out, so keep that in mind my dude, so you deny the existence of non-physical intrinsic properties to things unless universally agreed upon? Ah, so we've found where we diverge. The precise point, perhaps, even! Would this be a eureka moment, by any chance? Perhaps some sleep will provide new insights?

EDIT: Gosh darn it why does the heccing formatting keep breaking?!

Regardless of whether everyone agrees on them or not, they do not exist. But we all act as if they do.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Islamic society is very famialist and prohibits usury and financial speculation.

We’ll ignore the terrible economics inherent in such a system for a moment, and point out that materialism has yet to lose, regardless of how famialistic a society is. Because people like living with running water, electricity, and clothes that they don’t have to make themselves. They like not dying of smallpox, and they like their kids not dying of it even less. They like having food available year round, and not being dependent on a good harvest. Any society, eventually has to work to provide things to enough people to avoid collapse. Islamic society may not be the hypercapitalistic, shallow materialism of the West. (Shallow materialism here differentiates from philosophical materialism, in which the only thing that exists is the material [and possibly ideas]) However, it would inherently be materialistic, because its adherents are made of material, and need material to survive. Moreover, the existence of Hell is also materialism, although of a different sort, and avoiding Hell seems to be a recurring motivator.

Wow running water is individualism

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

This is my (most likely) last post before signing out, so keep that in mind my dude, so you deny the existence of non-physical intrinsic properties to things unless universally agreed upon? Ah, so we've found where we diverge. The precise point, perhaps, even! Would this be a eureka moment, by any chance? Perhaps some sleep will provide new insights?

EDIT: Gosh darn it why does the heccing formatting keep breaking?!

Regardless of whether everyone agrees on them or not, they do not exist. But we all act as if they do.

Ah. Well, good... 0030 hours. I need to get to bed.

[Kowani]

We’ll ignore the terrible economics inherent in such a system for a moment, and point out that materialism has yet to lose, regardless of how famialistic a society is. Because people like living with running water, electricity, and clothes that they don’t have to make themselves. They like not dying of smallpox, and they like their kids not dying of it even less. They like having food available year round, and not being dependent on a good harvest. Any society, eventually has to work to provide things to enough people to avoid collapse. Islamic society may not be the hypercapitalistic, shallow materialism of the West. (Shallow materialism here differentiates from philosophical materialism, in which the only thing that exists is the material [and possibly ideas]) However, it would inherently be materialistic, because its adherents are made of material, and need material to survive. Moreover, the existence of Hell is also materialism, although of a different sort, and avoiding Hell seems to be a recurring motivator.

Wow running water is individualism

I said materialism.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Wow running water is individualism

I said materialism.

A change in goalposts

[Kowani]

I said materialism.

A change in goalposts

Point of order: No. sM said that society was based around individualism and profit. I allege that any society must be based around profit, and elaborated upon the why.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

NOTICE: Original post unsatisfactory. Re-doing it.

And I had a rebuttal all ready, too...

He's right about secular society.

You say that as if Islamic society, even the idealized Qu’ranic one is any different.

An Islamic society is completely different from the modern west, just completely different in a much worse way.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

A lark is a bird, no?

It also means a joke.

Our society is built around individualism and profit. "Love" in a popular context is just another consumable.

Romantic love is quite individualistic in a way, At least,cin comparison to other motivators.

[Greater Adamsia]

So, debating things with someone who has a fundamentally different worldview based onto a totally different perception of the world, would you consider more often than not to be a fruitless effort?

Most of the time, yes. We've been arguing off and on for... Jiminy H. Christmas, months by now. We keep rehashing the same points at each other, we keep going over the same shit every time. And after all of these iterations I've learned that Kowani will find my worldview "illogical" no matter what since we can't even agree on what postulates to accept. And I will likewise find his worldview "illogical" for the same reasons. And since we aren't convincing each other and we don't have a shared set of postulates from which to derive stuff, things, and whatever, it's pointless to keep doing this, y'know?

Kowani, if you're reading this, hopefully we can settle for a state of peaceable... disagreement, maybe?

EDIT: In short, I will always be a follower of altruistic collectivism, maintaining that people should behave altruistically and put the needs of the group ahead of individual desires. Kowani will, to my knowledge, always be a follower of egoistic individualism, maintaining that people should behave egoistically and that society exists for the sake of its individual members. Our worldviews are both "logical", but derived from utterly separate and mutually-exclusive postulates, and if there's one thing that I've learned it's that most of the time debating first principles is... well, pardon my slang, but absolutely wack. Thus the only sensible thing to do is to agree to disagree and try to find common ground in some way, shape, or form, so that conflict may be avoided. Ah, but I'm rambling at this point. I get that way sometimes, late in the evening.

So... yeah. Hopefully Kowani and I can peacefully disagree and finally end our months of "metaphysical wankery", which is a great term, I admit.

[Cappuccina]

And I had a rebuttal all ready, too...


You say that as if Islamic society, even the idealized Qu’ranic one is any different.

An Islamic society is completely different from the modern west, just completely different in a much worse way.

In a much better way. Western amorality should be avoided like the plague.

[Duhon]

An Islamic society is completely different from the modern west, just completely different in a much worse way.

In a much better way. Western amorality should be avoided like the plague.

To be replaced by religious amoralities. As in "anything that is objectively harmless yet outside religious strictures must be hounded to death".

[Cappuccina]

In a much better way. Western amorality should be avoided like the plague.

To be replaced by religious amoralities. As in "anything that is objectively harmless yet outside religious strictures must be hounded to death".

What "objective" harmlessness are we referencing?

[Nakena]

In a much better way. Western amorality should be avoided like the plague.

Its lack of morality which allows for new things to grow within, is still better than other moralities which may been dictated potentially by a dubious deities whose intention is to keep mankind at a certain level of development and in a certain state thereof. Not helping it.

What is even more unfortunate that people who should know better, have lot of potential and have all the possibilities decide to support them.

[Cappuccina]

In a much better way. Western amorality should be avoided like the plague.

Its lack of morality which allows for new things to grow within, is still better than other moralities which may been dictated potentially by a dubious deities whose intention is to keep mankind at a certain level of development and in a certain state thereof. Not helping it.

What is even more unfortunate that people who should know better, have lot of potential and have all the possibilities decide to support them.

Western "morality" will kill humanity, IMHO. It has a tendency towards nihilist and hedonistic life that will rob mankind of a direction, a fulfilling raison d'etre that man craves.

While I agree that momentary lapses of faith can grow one's soul, that is only after a reconciliation in our relationship with God (swt) that such ventures can have any profound meaning. The West has lost any interest in such a return, and thus any insight is wasted on frivolity and worldly pursuits.