Do you realize the irony of what you did here? Isn't this statement an appeal to emotion, popularity, and begging the question? — Philosophim

Nope, at least not in a fallacious way. For it to be an appeal to emotion fallacy, it would have to manipulate emotions to persuade you're right. Where as the thought experiment present the dilemma between two moral rules. I'm not making an appeal to persuade of correctness. Im showing the moral dilemma which shows my correctness: the damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, not persuading with a fallacious appeal.

Apply above to the rest.

No, a five word sentence you invented for some imaginary objective moralist, which has no evidence for being objective, is collapsing because you designed it to. — Philosophim

No, in fact you're one of the people who tried using this bogus appeal towards me in your stupid is-ought fallacy post. "Good is" thus "Good ought to be." Tautology and Is-Ought at that... that you forgot and said I made it up... well, just goes to show how piss poor your memory is. Are you imaginary?

So if I desire to murder a child is that good? — Philosophim

Just as "Count" Timothy tried to, either earlier today, or yesterday, and there have been more times between that with other people...

And Im tired of seeing that bs being posted as if it's some end all be all to objective morality. Cause it aint.

Greeks had Virtue which was free from moralic acid. Ares was a champion of war and cruelty, and he was cherished all the same as the rest of the Gods (many of which were cruel, jealous, and unjust). They all had their place. The greek were a deterministic society, time is a circle... all things hitherto and heretofore have happened and will happen over and over again, so there is no wrong choice in the gateway of this moment...

You should probably try to brush up rather than just sound like a whiner...

The inuit, and Hindi aren't rigid dogmatic systems of morality that detail good and evil, and niether is Buddhism (which came after Judaism)...

Just throwing names of old societies doesn't do shit in terms of discussing morality which dictates good and evil.

That's what we call a swing and a miss. If you said something that is actually contrary to what I said, then you'd have a point. But you've failed in that.

Don't make me wrong either. Especially in light of the fact that your theory contradicts blatant evidence, such as that previously offered. — javra

Nothing you've said contradicts me.

What can that even mean? Let me guess, it means that in Greek antiquity, if they'd so want, they'd stomp on their own babies heads for the fun of it without any moral compulsion. Thereby being "premoral". — javra

Bruh doesn't know the Greek antiquity were famous for leaving babies on the hillside...

Because Buddhist, Hindus and all others, the Inuit included, don't experience any of these ... not being themselves of a Judeo-Christian morality.

Yea. No. I disagree. — javra

That's fine if you don't agree, doesn't make you right. It's common knowledge that Greek antiquity were premoral. As were many other. It's why Zarathustra created the concept of Light and Darkness. Because he noticed people internalize war differently.

The moral wrong here is that someone set up the contraption.
— Banno

That’s where I would have gone with the experiment. — Fire Ologist

You and Banno are just not thinking creatively enough. The contraption could have been set up for a completely different purpose. Say it allows one side to inherit the other. It just so happens that two people place something unknown to the other in each side. Someone places their child in hopes of them inheriting a boon or favor of some kind. Where as someone places a rabid pet, hoping the pet inherits a cure. The self destruct a fail-safe when things get out of hand.

Moral principals.
And objective “good.”
Sound like things a thought experiment won’t be able to dispel, especially one that relies on some notion of good in order for it to make any sense. — Fire Ologist

Don't even know wtf you're trying to say here other than "it can't work because notion of "good" ... which has already been addressed in other posts. The "doing good" is assumed by the objective moralists stance that reducing pain and suffering is good. Thus THEY come to the crossroads of "damned if I do, damned if I don't," because one way they kill, breaking theor morality, the other way they neglect reduction of pain and suffering... pretty simple.

Because it's only the psychopath that does not experience this, right? — javra

No, moralizing, the bad conscience, ressentiment, and responsibility are trade marks of the Judeo-Christian morality:

Aristotle draws an example of acting from the sphere of private life, in the relationship between the benefactor and his recipient. With that candid absence of moralizing that is the mark of Greek, though not of Roman, antiquity, he states first as a matter of fact that the benefactor always loves those he has helped more than he is loved by them. — Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition

Even the Titans do not yet know the incredible Semitic
and Christian inventions, bad conscience, fault and responsibility. — Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy

The tale of Prometheus is an original possession of the entire Aryan family of races, and documentary evidence of their capacity for the profoundly tragic; indeed, it is not improbable that this myth has the same characteristic significance for the Aryan race that the myth of the fall of man has for the Semitic, and that there is a relationship between the two myths like that of brother and sister. The presupposition of the Promethean myth is the transcendent value which a naïve humanity attach to fire as the true palladium of every ascending culture: that man, however, should dispose at will of this fire, and should not receive it only as a gift from heaven, as the igniting lightning or the warming solar flame, appeared to the contemplative primordial men as crime and robbery of the divine nature. And thus the first philosophical problem at once causes a painful, irreconcilable antagonism between man and God, and puts as it were a mass of rock at the gate of every culture. The best and highest that men can acquire they obtain by a crime, and must now in their turn take upon themselves its consequences, namely the whole flood of sufferings and sorrows with which the offended celestials must visit the nobly aspiring race of man: a bitter reflection, which, by the dignity it confers on crime, contrasts strangely with the Semitic myth of the fall of man, in which curiosity, beguilement, seducibility, wantonness,—in short, a whole series of pre-eminently feminine passions,—were regarded as the origin of evil. What distinguishes the Aryan representation is the sublime view of active sin as the properly Promethean virtue, which suggests at the same time the ethical basis of pessimistic tragedy as the justification of human evil—of human guilt as well as of the suffering incurred thereby. The misery in the essence of things—which[Pg 79] the contemplative Aryan is not disposed to explain away—the antagonism in the heart of the world, manifests itself to him as a medley of different worlds, for instance, a Divine and a human world, each of which is in the right individually, but as a separate existence alongside of another has to suffer for its individuation. — Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy

“The weak” are those who have a conscious and who via its quiet affirmations experience shame and guilt for wrongdoings.

“The strong”, in turn, must then be those devoid of a conscious and who thereby experience no shame or guilt for any wrongdoing whatsoever (maybe not even recognizing that the concept of wrongdoing can apply to them). — javra

Nope it actually reads that the weak internalize negatively and gain a bad conscience, which the strong internalize positively and don't have a bad conscience.

It's been a while since my reading of him, granted, but this is not the Nietzsche I know of, limited as my knowledge of him is, who I’m guessing would have for example likely kicked Hitler in the groin where he to have been around – as painfully as possible, if not worse – and who can be quoted as admiring the Jewish community at large. — javra

Duh... A letter Nietzsche wrote to his sister:

You have committed one of the greatest stupidities — for yourself and for me! Your association with an anti-Semitic chief expresses a foreignness to my whole way of life which fills me again and again with ire or melancholy… It is a matter of honor with me to be absolutely clean and unequivocal in relation to Anti-Semitism, namely, opposed to it, as I am in my writings.

— Nietzsche, Letter to His Sister, Christmas, 1887

The fact that the Jews, if they wanted (or if they were forced, as the anti-Semites seem to want), could already be dominant, or indeed could literally have control over present-day Europe — https://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/philosophy/nietzsche-s-hatred-of-jew-hatred

...

The Jews, however, are beyond all doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race at present living in Europe, they know how to succeed even under the worst conditions (in fact better than under favorable ones), by means of virtues of some sort, which one would like nowadays to label as vices — Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Hence... (whoops editing cause I forgot to post the hence)

This is the pathology that Nietzsche details to the Jew, before assigning to them a mission to revamp European communities. Which is what Zionism aimed to accomplish pre 1948. — DifferentiatingEgg

Would you like more to show you how much of a friend he was to the marilginalized Jew? A point which I've been arguing Nietzsche is a fan of Jews this whole time?

Noone needs this Holub to detail Nietzsche's appreciation of Jews if they're a discerning reader of Nietzsche. It's common knowledge that Jews appreciate and appropriate Nietzsche's philosophy and psychology precisely for this reason: because he found the Jew to be an incredibly potent people capable of the greatest of feats of power.

I wonder how often you say this in the mirror... :chin:

The language makes it clear that Egg is looking for a fight rather that a discussion. I'm not that interested, but I'll outline an approach that might help others. — Banno

Boring. If you can prove it wrong, do so. The only one looking for a fight is you, hence why you came here to do just that, silly. Notice I made this post dedicated to exposing the bunk argument "It's always wrong to kill." And to list out other bunk arguments for objective morality... if you have arguments for objective morality, post em.

The apparent suggestion is that there is no good or evil becasue one can set up a situation in which there is no good outcome. That's not an argument which supports that conclusion. — Banno

"no good outcome" begs the question.

Kicking puppies for fun is about the character of the one doing the kicking. As is setting up intractable thought experiments. Anyone can kick a pup, and perhaps find it pleasing; cruelty is part of being human. Another part of being human is growing; of realising that one is part of a community, of developing the ability to consider the long-term consequences of one's actions, of moving from self-interest to nuanced considerations of fairness, reciprocity, and social responsibility. — Banno

Already overcame this accusation in earlier replies. *Yawn*

PM me if you want further discusion. I don't think this thread worth further response. — Banno

Russell fanboi showing his ressentiment. But of course you're just "joking" as Russell was right? :lol:

Moral judgments, like preferring to prevent suffering, can be deeply felt and socially reinforced without appealing to objective moral truths. — Tom Storm

:fire:

The relativist can still say that pushing the button is "good" within their framework of values, even if those values are not grounded in an absolute, external moral reality. Or something like that. — Tom Storm

Absolutely, I mean ffs, I'm not looking to kill anyone or advocate the killing of others. I'm looking to kill a bad argument that's often used as a trump card here...

I'm not here to discuss the merits of whether or not it is ever acceptable to kill babies. — T Clark

Neither am I, Im here to trash the fallacy of using that as a defense towards objective morality that many seem to love employing here.

Here's what Wikipedia says about the pathetic fallacy. — T Clark

Not sure why it even matters to my argument as I didn't even use/discuss it, but thanks for that?

For instance, appealing to pity when asking for help. — T Clark

Sure sure there are times when the fallacy fallacy occurs with every fallacy, no?

As I see it, it is a fundamental human value that we protect the vulnerable members of our community, especially our children and more especially babies. — T Clark

I don't necessarily disagree, though if the vulnerable don't eventually work towards making themselves less vulnerable with aid, then let them be vulnerable, it's obvious they wish it. And many hate reaching out for assistance, cause then they lose a certain autonomy.

Any objective moralist — Fire Ologist

...is obviously forgetting objective morality doesn't exist.

My question is, for all moral relativists, why do you bother? — Fire Ologist

As I clarified for Clark, the post is about overcoming a stupid argument that objective moralists love throwing out on TPF. Not about what people do and don't do with their babies... that's just some strawman of this thought experiment.

If there is no moral objectivity whatsoever, how can you say pushing the button to prevent the baby from suffering is “actually doing some good”? — Fire Ologist

Because those are the presuppositions of the objective moralists who claim there is no reason to ever end an infant's life. The dilemma arises for the objective moralist such that "Killing is objectively evil" w/ "reduction of pain and suffering is objectively good." Thus when presented with the only option to kill in order to reduce pain and suffering... there is a disconnect.

Basically objective moralists throw in the noun "baby" for dramatic effect on "killing is always evil."

It's a rhetorical device used to appeal to several fallacies, but we can remove "baby" all together to really get at what they're implying.

This attempt to make sense of all senseless and useless suffering can (as we already have seen) occur in two ways. Either guilt is attributed to “someone else,” or one looks for the blame in oneself.

It is one of the deepest and most certain principles of national psychology that the Jewish people are the first—and perhaps the only—nation that has only sought solely within themselves the blame for world events.

Jewish doctrine has, since ancient times, responded to the question “Why are we not loved?” with “Because we are guilty.” Many great Jewish thinkers have perceived the central core of Jewish teaching in this formula “Because we are guilty” and in the experience of Jewish communal attribution of guilt and communal responsibility.

It's important for the reader to realize that, as in the viddui, the key to the pathology of our national consciousness lies in this acknowledgment of guilt, emphasized in the mighty Judeo-Christian ethic.

There is only one emergency exit—to make sense of this suffering and make it bearable the Jew must believe that his fate has within it a particular purpose: “God disciplines those he loves.” Within this concept of suffering as punishment lies the beginning of understanding the concept of Jewish “self-hate.”

It is different among happy, victorious peoples. They have no reason for self-flagellating, self-tormenting analysis that endangers a healthy attitude toward life and naturalself-esteem. They answer “Why does misfortune happen to us?” with a forceful accusation against those who, in their opinion, caused the misfortune.

The Jewish situation is thereby doubly endangered. First, because the Jew repliesto the question “Why are we not loved?” with “Because we are guilty.” Second, because other nations answer the question “Why are the Jews not loved?” with “He says so himself—he is guilty." — Theodore Lessing, Jewish Self-Hate.

It is this internalization that causes within the weak, feelings of ressentiment, and bad conscience and being responsible for said shame and guilt. This is the pathology of Judaism—its own backbiting virtue.

But make no mistake, it is this very notion that makes Jews leaders in many fields, as they hold themselves accountable. Because the number one aspect of a strong leader is accountability.

The weak, however, outnumber the strong more than 1000 to 1.

This is the pathology that Nietzsche details to the Jew, before assigning to them a mission to revamp European communities. Which is what Zionism aimed to accomplish pre 1948.

I get it from Zionist philosophers, not a 7 man swiss committee making propositions on land, you'll notice none of the names I mentioned are even on that committee.

Heck people on that committee like Brinbaum even became anti-Zionists...

Bodenheimer joined the revisionist party of Zionism founded by Jabotinsky—

Jabotinsky's writings state, "we do not want to eject even one Arab from either the left or the right bank of the Jordan River. We want them to prosper both economically and culturally. We envision the regime of Jewish Palestine [Eretz Israel ha-Ivri, or the 'Jewish Land of Israel'] as follows: most of the population will be Jewish, but equal rights for all Arab citizens will not only be guaranteed, they will also be fulfilled."

Hrm, what is substance then?

The mind is a substance — MoK

So then the mind is physical?

It's always funny when a religious person tries to mask "Good and Evil" as "Good and Bad." Sorry, but under the "Good and Bad" system of Virtu, children were regularly killed off to prevent spending limited resources on what was considered a "bad" baby.

The "bad" tend come up with the cheapest tactics in arguments, including "killing a baby is Evil." Well, not always.

Suppose you come upon a screen that shows you a particular contraption... that contraption houses a rabid carnivorous beast on one side, an infant on another... between them is a impenetrable barrier. However, you see a count down begins as you become the observer of this contraption. 120 seconds is on the clock. 119 now... There is only 1 button, and that button blows up the entire contraption, baby and rabid beast.

Waiting out the countdown releases the barrier between beast and baby to which the beast would eviscerate the baby alive, a very painful and traumatic way of dying although it would be fast, the baby would experience unimaginable pain and suffering...

Or you can blow up the contraption, saving the baby from unimaginable pain and suffering. Killing it in an instant.

What do you do?

Got anything for me on ontological realism?

I mean, sure, but I'm not the most well versed in Bible study, but when a bunch of Jewish scholars find repose within Nietzsche's Genealogy, to overcome the source of bad conscience that was driving them to a schizophrenic existence, I'm going to assume there is accuracy there since Jews are always like "you're not a Jew so you wouldn't know..." Okay, well, these intellectual elite Jews would know then, and they advocate and appropriate Nietzsche Genealogy and Psychology and used it in the relaunching of Zionism in the 1890s (which was vastly different than the late 1940s Zionism).

Okay, so they want to appeal to authority. Let's see what the authority says... Oh, whats this? They approve and appropriate from his works? Now, does that mean all Jews agree? No. But he certainly was a massive influence on early Zionist/Zionism and Jewish psychoanalysts.

Early Zionism was to renounce any sort of biologism and nationalism, to build bridges between every nation of man and bring them together. Berdichevski, Brunner, Popper-Lynkeus, Lessing, Herzl, Buber, Chomsky, Zeitlin... the list goes on. Then all that was thrown to the wayside after the Nakba in 1948. Nationalism and self determinism for Jews became it's beck and call.

Could I be wrong for believing all these pre 1940s Zionist? Sure. But then they too would be wrong about their own history and culture and probably shouldn't be considered as intellectual elites.

It’s a genealogy my man, and the Bible outside the Gospels has little to do with Jesus. Besides the last time you quoted the Gospels against me, you kinda punched yourself in the face. As ithe quote stated, those who follow God's laws will be known as the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, whereas those who don't follow God's laws will be known as least in the kingdom of heaven... keyword IN the Kingdom of Heaven... cause Jesus represents God's undying grace and loves everyone, including towards those who would shove a spear through him.

The fuck do you think undying grace means?

sure 1-2 centuries before the OT was expressed as a table of categorical values.

Before the OT was written that we can be sure of. Since those are the values within the OT. Who gives a fuck about a specific date of when the transvaluation occurred. The fact is that it did occur, and it occurred over an era of time.

When was the exact day you were conceived by your father and mother fucking? If you don’t know then obviously it didn't happen is basically what you're saying... not a very well thought out question or critique.

I'm sure you can say it happened roughly 9 months beforehand... but that's not the exact time stamp... and who really gives a fuck about when your timestamp of conception actually was?

the Cartesian 'thinking thing' is still very much written into the way we think about mind-body relations, often without us being aware of it — Wayfarer

I mean, Nietzsche dispels that quite well enough with BGE 17. Furtherstill in Ecce Homo when detailing how he wrote Thus Spoke Zarathustra. "When" is to say, akin to one meditating and not identifying wtf they're hearing, but rather just hears it without consciousness without analysis... it becomes a sort of white noise, a sort of music and melody. That is when your inner thoughts really come to you, without thinking... one merely becomes the mouth piece of internal unconscious forces.

What is mental substance?

The object cannot directly perceive its content, the information — MoK

It doesn't—stiumulus happens at the extroceptors (external senesory organs). And moves internally...through physical substances. Perceptions ARE physical realities. There are irreducibly many mental ways of organizing physical perceptions though, which give perceptions a mentalistic air about them.

You always have something solid to say, even when I'm like wtf... no... a moment of ruminating and I'm like, wait wtf... yes... you ever teach before? If you don't mind, @ me in the shout box with some book recommendations?

You're not here to learn a damn thing so shoo. Tis the last I speak with you (here). — DifferentiatingEgg

Applies now that my cascade of thoughts is more or less done...

But Nietzsche levels lots of scorn at Plato, Aristotle, and Kant. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You mean Plato, Socrates and Kant. Aristotle used a double orbit to show two opposites are connected. Just as Heraclitus... N doesn't bash Aristotle, except rarely, more rare than he mocks Spinoza...who he claimed a sort of kinship with...

Which is one of Nietzsche's fundamentals (the plant that grows out of two opposites which are fundamentally of the same cause).

I find cruel irony in that though. First, that he who disparaged the crowd became the "philosopher of the masses," and second that he became the philosopher of the masses in this era — Count Timothy von Icarus

You should probably read Thus Spoke Zarathustra more closely then... that was exactly his intention. Not to preach to but to draw from the masses.

A light hath dawned upon me: I need companions—living ones; not dead companions and corpses, which I carry with me where I will.

But I need living companions, who will follow me because they want to follow themselves—and to the place where I will.

A light hath dawned upon me. Not to the people is Zarathustra to speak, but to companions! Zarathustra shall not be the herd’s herdsman and hound!

To allure many from the herd—for that purpose have I come. The people and the herd must be angry with me: a robber shall Zarathustra be called by the herdsmen.
— Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, Prologue

When I think: I have cascading series of thoughts, they don't all come out at once... unless you want me to just submit multiple posts in a row. I can do that, if you prefer.

First you whine about historical scholarship and his psychoanalysis... well there are an abundance of those in such professions who appreciate Nietzsche's works. You trying to say his notions are shit when there are many Jewish scholars, which is only a subset of all those who detail his Genealogy as accurate shows your agenda...

You're not here to learn a damn thing so shoo. Tis the last I speak with you (here).

Nietzsche was not a religious scholar and never seriously studied the traditions he was commenting on. A lot of his "history" is just made up speculation to suit his points. I would advise against swallowing it uncritically. From the standpoint of history, it is more on the level of creative fiction. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's pretty simple to examine history though. And plenty of historical scholars like Hannah Arendt even detail the history quite well. Further still, we can see the intellecual Jews highly appreciated Nietzsche's Genealogy. It helped them in overcoming the neurosis which was plaguing their kind... (Nietzsche and Zion pg 10-12 Jacob Golomb).

Your little spat there means nothing compared to these scholars who have actually impacted the world while you loaf around here trying to say small things in defending a life denying dogma.

Who exactly were slaves here? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Jews in this case.

It was the Jews who, in opposition to the aristocratic equation (good = aristocratic = beautiful = happy = loved by the gods), dared with a terrifying logic to suggest the contrary equation, and indeed to maintain with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of weakness) this contrary equation, namely, "the wretched are alone the good; the poor, the weak, the lowly, are alone the good; the suffering, the needy, the sick, the loathsome, are the only ones who are pious, the only ones who are blessed, for them alone is salvation—but you, on the other hand, you aristocrats, you men of power, you are to all eternity the evil, the horrible, the covetous, the insatiate, the godless; eternally also shall you be the unblessed, the cursed, the damned!" — Nietzsche, Genealogy 7

I get that you don’t really study this stuff much, but I do, so carry on with the obtuse bs you're attempting in order to obfuscate, but you're just ignorant on the matter really:

Nietzsche not only supplied the European Jews with the conceptual means to understand their self-hatred and to regard anti-Semitism as a manifestation of inferior mentalities....

The Jewish psychoanalysts (and Herzl as well, as we shall see) were especially attracted by Nietzsche's genealogical methods of unmasking. Nietzsche proclaimed these as a way of freeing oneself from religious, metaphysical, and social ideologies that had previously provided ready-made and inauthentic identities, and thereby attaining a solid sense of selfhood and individual identity. The death of the divine Father-the Jewish God-and the decline of the authority of the human father were responsible for bringing the sons to the schizophrenic state they were now in. — Jacob Golomb, Nietzsche and Zion

And in The Antichrist 24 Nietzsche spells it out quite clearly the origins of Christianity and antisemitism are unoriginal copies of Judaism:

the Christian church, put beside the “people of God,” shows a complete lack of any claim to originality. Precisely for this reason the Jews are the most fateful people in the history of the world: their influence has so falsified the reasoning of mankind in this matter that today the Christian can cherish anti-Semitism without realizing that it is no more than the final consequence of Judaism.

Further still, we know Philo Judeas, a Helenic Jew was responsible for creating the Christian Logos in CE 22-24 with his work "Die Vita Contemplativa" by Hellenizing the Old Testament with Plato's teachings... which would be 8-6 years before Christ began teaching at 30 CE.

So, I'll go with the academics on this one while being wary of you, a Christian, who is really just defending his beliefs against their ugly truths...

And Nietzsche was the first real philosopher to even consider the historical account, of philosophy, through history, philology and etymology... that he didn't write history books doesn't mean he wasn't a discerning scholar of history... pretty weak reasoning there if I may say.

Well, you specifically were, which caused you to reify what I was saying towards that particular end. Something one muat be careful of when reading.

A pretty digestible book that could benefit your understanding here is a book by Hannah Arendt "The Human Condition." Im that book she spella out how constellations of thought have changed over centuries. You can just search for a pdf of it to read at your leisure. Not all religions were for the weak, but Judaeo-Christian morality emphasizes this.

The first two Essays in Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals is a much quicker read, but I'll tell you that many people aren't neaely as discerning as they ought to be while reading Nietzsche. If you read Genealogy of Morals, read the preface too. And make doubly certain of doing your due diligence. One must follow Nietzsche carefully to understand his meanings in depth.

Apologies for disappearing, I fell asleep. Welcome aboard.

PS: religion is about faith, not knowing.

PSS: most here wont engage with such a limited OP. They find them too lacking and probably too common. That's okay though, we all start somewhere, and you seem eager enough to learn and discuss things. Though you'll find a few here who aren't so adjusted to baring, banning and ignoring.

An okay place to gather some knowledge, but the community as a whole is severely lacking. There are posting gurus who live here in these hinterlands of thought. They're fragile nihilists in disguise as philosophers. Except this whole community has little to no impact on the world, let alone on philosophical thought.

Better off reading philosophers of impact rather than the ramblings of the relatively powerless madmen here.

You pretty much heard what you wanted to hear. I told you that the formula of Jesus was:

1. His own values.

2. To love his fate.

3. To build bridges where others would give up.

I suggest you learn to read more discerningly for these forums, friend.

What I did was sanitized it of religion and made it secular.

If you need a label you can label me an atheist.

The Bible is mostly a language game that transfigured the values of ancient cultures. The invetor of the concept of "Light and Darkness" Zarathustra, had noticed there was often a certain internal damage done to a person who experiences war. A few Judaeo-Christian values were appropriated from Zarathustra's Zoroastrianism and other mythologies.

The Abrahamic religions grew out of a necessity to justify the lives of slaves against those who treated them as property and trash to be disposed of. Think of it as a style of metaphysical capoeira that armed the masses against their masters.

Jesus' aim is that of God's grace, to usher the sheep to heaven as a good shepherd should for his flock. Jesus in the Gospels is vastly different than the Jesus in say Pauline doctrine. Jesus haa his own equation. And that's in truth what Christianity is all about.

Jesus, a Jew, was rejected from his society for transfiguring the Jewish values to be less resentful, there was no sin (the divorce between man and God) in the gospels, nothing came between Jesus and another, not even those who would kill him. He lived his life to the glad tidings... and the reality of heaven is more like following Jesus' equation, not the doctrine of the Disciples, which is mostly just an injection of Judaism back into Christianity. Not a new faith, but more so a new way of life.

If people were to act like Jesus, then they would feel themselves as if they were in a kingdom of Heaven... otherwise they're remaon under the resentful wrathful and angry laws of God...God cannot be omnipotent and be denied half of the nature of omnipotence.

So the moral of the story is live to the Glad Tidings of Jesus Christ to feel heavenly.

This would give us conclusions like "LLMs use language appropriately, so LLMs are language users," etc., and "LLMs are conscious so long as their behavior makes us refer to them as such. — Count Timothy von Icarus

LLMs upset Douglas Hofstadter as he states his whole theory behind GEB is wrong or LLMs are conscious...

I win — Banno

Not really, I settled this like a month ago... showing Quine uses set theory to inform on linguistics which I infered from studying ordinals and Quine's detailing you cant reference words or substitute them through different modalities because the total set of receptors aren't the same. And some how that confused you greatly... because you obviously never read Quine except for like a few pages.

Reference via different modalities is generally fallacy of equivocation. Plain and simple. Not sure how this got a month of discussion to not even figure that out yet.

I edited the prior, but will get back to you Sir.

But Hilbert's Hotel can accommodate infinitly many new guests. Making the infinite finite means it's defined identity is actually finite, not infinite. Thus your example here is poor imo.

I'll address a few points later, I'm going back to sleep for the time being though, also cause I need to ruminate some more on the topic cause I normally don't consider this topic much.

I'll consider myself next if I dont shape up. Apologies for that.

Probably because — BC

Actually, I don't generally think much of the state cause I do what I want regardless of the law because I'm generally not a malicious person. I can be cruel at times, like today, I knew it would eat at me for the rest of my life not relaying my father's last conversation with me to his step mother. She was crushed, and even though I felt a little at odds telling an old woman who I once cared about, as to how she played a huge role in destroying my fathers dreams and his family, it had to be done. I'll probably end up contacting her again here in a few days to let her know that I forgive her, but I'm going to let a B ruminate on just how ignorant and insulting her actions truly are to my father and my family in general. That aside...

I'm talking shit about the state simply because I understand what States do, as I worked for the state for quite some time. At first it was just a cool gig, that was less corporate bullshit, more of my speed in aggressiveness and activity. But you begin to see and realize things like you're really just a paid gangster. Im mostly building upon ideas to understand them better and get more experience discussing certain aspects.

Well, see, there's your problem you think people can own land, and empty land at that. What stops someone from settling empty land? The state.