Lol. What other being is capable of doing so? — Sapientia

I thought you'd ask this. No other being even attempts to. Even men hasn't attempted to for a large share of his history. Again - I simply don't think it is good. It goes against our biology, it goes against who we are, and is therefore MOST LIKELY to be harmful. I think there's better ways to deal with the desire for changing your sex than actually acting on it.

Now there's a surprise. Well, maybe you should actually meet some of these people. I assure you, there are plenty of them who are indeed living a better life, but carry on believing otherwise if it makes you feel better. — Sapientia

Not according to statistical research published. No doubt there are some people, just not the majority of them.

And for the millionth time, it merely seems crazy from your little, narrow perspective — Sapientia

It's unnatural. No other living being but man has and acts on this desire.

Well, you shouldn't be trying to do so in those cases where it'll prevent them from living a better life, because you'll be doing more harm than good. — Sapientia

I don't think it will prevent them for living a better life. Quite a lot of research shows that people who do successful change sex do have serious psychological issues and continue to suffer. So I think not changing sex, not giving in to an unnatural desire, is the first step to a cure.

Or, to be more precise, out of those people who don't outright reject it, a smaller, but still significant and relatively large number of people accept it; and, as we seem to be progressing towards a more open-minded and accepting society with regards to sexual identity and transgender-related issues, this group may well grow in number. — Sapientia

I hope not. I'm certainly trying to convince people to accept nature as it is instead of try to fulfil crazy and unnatural desires. But we'll see :)

Ok, if you're going to be pendantic, then they accept it. — Sapientia

Moving the goal posts :)

Does the fact they don't outright reject it mean that they accept it? Of course not.

Or, you're feigning ignorance because it throws a spanner into the works. — Sapientia

I was honest, but if that interpretation pleases you lol :D - go for it!

, A destructive response is the probably the worst metaphor I can imagine for a creative self-caused act, because everything about the two is antithetical — csalisbury

Creation is also destructive in-so-far as Being shows its primacy and triumph over non-Being. It appears you do not think that creation is destructive in this sense. So if you do not see it this way, then yes, the metaphor doesn't work for you.

Also, bringing in reaction and self-caused - nothing to do with it at all. In fact, I never talked about self-caused or sui-generis creation...

I don't think these more open minded people agree to such a usage.

You don't have to be a linguist, either. Just as I don't need to be a scientist to know why we don't simply float off into space. — Sapientia

Yes - you have studied this, probably in school, why you don't float into space. I haven't studied how words evolve through time, and I have literarily spent no time thinking about this. I have studied the historical origin of some words, but that's all.

Sorry, the transexual community isn't large.

Well, obviously, a word gets coined, or used in a new context, and this usage gains popularity, until, in some cases, at some point, it eventually becomes common usage. You don't need to do extensive research to gain that knowledge. It happened with the words "gay" and "queer" and many, many others. — Sapientia

I am not a linguist and would not like to pretend I am one. I really am sorry, but I just don't have knowledge to converse about this. Nor do I think I can just know by thinking about it 10mins for the first time in my life.

Why have you chosen to remain a part of Western society with our Western values and justice system which you seem to deplore? — Sapientia

I guess also because I have faith that the West can recover to its former glory. I would really like to see Aristotelian morality and Aristotelian values coming back.

And they have a right to call you ignorant and behind with the times, and such. — Sapientia

So if I decide that "red" means "gay sex", then I have the right to call people who disagree with my usage ignorant and behind the times? :s

If they do, then the rest of us have a right to say that they are speaking nonsense.

How do you think language evolves and gains new or additional meaning? — Sapientia

I don't know to be honest. But I will not assume that this is how. The reason is likely very complex, and I have spent no time studying this, so I cannot claim knowledge. Sorry.

Transsexuals and other more open-minded people don't use the word exclusively in that narrow and simplistic way in which you obviously approve. — Sapientia

That's the common usage, and meaning is use. They can't redefine words as they please. They have to speak the same language as all the rest of us do.

I feel otherwise, and have also given reasons as to why. — Sapientia

I have seen no reason as to why, except that you think it is immoral (cruel, inhuman, etc.). But that to begin with is what you should have justified. I have just shown how justice demands so punishing the serial killer. Are you against justice? You could say that the enactment of justice should not degrade the one who enacts it. That would indeed be a smart thing to say. But you haven't. BC stated it, and I said it's a fair point. In fact, that is THE ONLY fair point that was levelled against me in this thread, and at least BC had the dignity to admit that he could find no other reason. So maybe we should discuss that - even when csalisbury asked me whether I believe a rapist should be raped, I answer "No - because that is disgusting and would degrade the punisher". But obviously I don't think torture is in the same class as rape. Maybe that would be a more useful avenue for you to argue than this "it's immoral, it's cruel" or "serial killers are not inhuman" avenue.

Exactly, that's why it is a foolish thing to think. Not only do you know very little about my personal life, it is statically likely that I would have been sick at some point in my life. — Sapientia

Yes - that is why I specified "seriously sick", not just "sick".

I have found those personal experiences to be positive or negative, that sort of anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much, and is outweighed by stronger evidence. — Sapientia

Ok, I am curious as to why you think anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much, or is outweighed by stronger evidence. Afterall, this is not physics where statistical evidence trumps everything. This is something that deals with people - where anecdotal evidence may very well be the most accurate way to grasp findings which include data that simply cannot be analysed statistically. So for these reasons I don't think statistical evidence, and professional reports which are written for bureaucratic reasons can identify these problems.

Yeah, you did, but don't worry, you don't have to admit it. I might have better luck trying to get blood out of a stone. — Sapientia

How is it a conclusion when I specifically said "I THINK". That implies I could be wrong, and my statement isn't final... Don't make things up.

Show me some undeclared special interest or something which undermines the credibility of the research group. — Sapientia

The bias is that unless UK is shown to be higher in medical care than Bulgaria for example, then British people would be outraged and would push for immediate action to remedy the health care system. There is no money to do this, which is exactly why the NHS is also having trouble recently. You have very few doctors as well, compared to what you would need.

How then do you expect this to happen? Divine intervention? A miracle? — Sapientia

People can get into power in an undemocratic state as well. Just that the routes to power will be different.

Human rights need to be universal, so it can't be down to individual states. — Sapientia

That's why the concept of God, and a higher moral authority, higher than all humans exists.

But that isn't an argument against the UN, or any similar body, in principle; — Sapientia

Yes it is. The UN cannot have any legitimacy on its human rights if it can't enforce and guarantee protection of those rights.

What has the US or any other individual nation state done to that effect? Nothing. — Sapientia

Yes, and that is the problem. Only nation states can prevent this.

Yawn. That's a lie. I've addressed your so-called argument and have responded in kind. My reply is no less thoughtful than the few simplistic assertions which, when grouped together, you call an argument. But, unlike you, I'll not readily repeat myself at the drop of a hat, because I try to avoid going round in circles and repeating myself ad nauseam. — Sapientia

This is nonsense.

It's preposterous to equate stoning to death with adultery. They're not even close to being on the same level. That equation is disproved by your own principle of proportionate punishment. It's obvious to everyone but yourself that your views on sexual morality are biased, extreme and out of proportion. — Sapientia

This part wasn't about adultery, so why are you bringing this up. I haven't said the punishment for adultery should be stoning, only that a law would not be immoral if it set the punishment of adultery to be stoning. This was about serial killers.

Adultery is evidently a matter which concerns the parties involved: at the very least, the husband, the wife, and the adulterer. — Sapientia

Right. So what means does the victim in the adultery have of protecting themselves, or of having justice done in their case? What means is there available? None??

It is you who needs to justify state intervention in to the private affairs and sex lives of individuals. — Sapientia

Intervention solely to protect one party from being wronged and harmed. That's why the state always intervenes - to protect and guarantee the rights of one party.

It's obviously state oppression when the state intervenes into the private sex lives of individuals in order to severely punish by extreme, inhumane, arcane, and, in actuality, widely banned methods, for nothing other than consensual sex outside of marriage - which isn't a crime in most developed secular societies. Individual freedoms and rights would be oppressed by the state. Therefore, it's state oppression. These rights are written into law, and can be found if you care enough to look them up. — Sapientia

Many countries condemn adultery by their laws, just so you know. But regardless of that. The state does not intervene in the private sex lives of individuals except when something WRONG and HARMFUL is done. If people are harmed, the state should protect them. Especially by such a universal harm as adultery. Otherwise, these people simply have NO WAY to protect themselves. This just isn't right. You either give them a right to protect themselves in some way - or otherwise the state must intervene. We can't obviously say give people the right to punish their partner. That is just uncontrolled not to mention that one party will not be able to enforce the punishment on the other. So the state must intervene. As for severe punishment - I don't understand what you're talking about. I'm thinking about financial sanctions mainly + public (by the state) condemnation of the wrong-doer.

There you go again, putting words into my mouth, and reading to much into my acknowledgment of the fact that serial killers are human too. — Sapientia

You said it, don't be ashamed.

So, then, why don't you just move to one of those backwards nations where they do dish out that kind of "justice"? — Sapientia

Because killing serial killers in a just manner isn't the only thing that matters. I don't agree with those backward nations stoning women for adultery, or cutting hands off for theft, etc. I think these punishments, while lawful, are too harsh for the offence. Apart from this, I do not share in their religion, or values, and I care too much about our Western history and ideals, which have existed long before progressivism, and will exist long after. Our lands have produced the greatest geniuses who have ever lived, of the like of Plato, Aristotle, etc. Magnificent people. So I cannot abandon these people.

Why have you chosen to remain a part of Western society with our Western values which you seem to deplore? — Sapientia

I don't deplore Western values. I deplore modern "Western" (should really read progressive) values (and again, not all of them, just some of them). I don't deplore Plato's, Socrates', Aristotle's, Hume's, Aquinas', Spinoza's, Schopenhauer's, etc. values. I love Burke, Locke and the rest of our classical conservative thinkers. I value freedom of speech, and a life that allows personal liberties so long as those do not hurt or harm other people. I value community, and respecting other people, granting them reasonable privacy, and creating a society where people do not harm each other, and those who are wronged have means of protecting themselves through the state. I deplore the loss of those Western values. That I do. So, like Socrates in Ancient Athens, paradoxically, it is I who is the one who is truly loyal to Western values, and who dearly loves those values - and history is there to support me.

The link you provided is some revisionistic, liberal mockery of science. Gender simply is the sex you're born with, end of story. That's how the word is used.

A destructive response is a renactment of a creative uncaused act. — csalisbury

Creation is destructive of non-Being on a metaphorical level. That's what primacy or triumph of Being over non-Being means.

In one sense, apropos of being and creation, you assert that being (and good) has 'primacy' because we can only have a sense of non-being (or of evil) through comparison to being (or good.) — csalisbury

No, I use that argument to assert the ontological primacy of Being (and Good).

I can't see how a retributive response is a good metaphor for sui-generis creation. Can you explain how your metaphor works and why it's a good metaphor? — csalisbury

Okay I see your misunderstanding. As I showed before, Being can only have the structure of good. Furthermore, I will make the position stronger - Being not only can only have the structure of good, but it actually has it; not a particular being, but Being itself. If you grant this, then the moment of creation shows the primacy of Being and Good. Likewise, the destruction of the serial killer by society in a just manner illustrates the primacy of Good (of which Justice is a part) - and it illustrates it particularly well, because as we have agreed before, the serial killer comes very close to someone denuded of Being (and hence denuded of Good); to non-Being(and likewise to the opposite of Good).

It may be 'just a metaphor' but, as a metaphor, it suggests a view of being and good antithetical to the one you profess to propose. — csalisbury

No more than me saying the sun is a golden ball does violence to it by suggesting you can play soccer with the sun...

The point of all this is that you have this assertion of the primacy of good, but all you seem to talk about is retribution and retributive metaphors. There's a disconnect here. — csalisbury

Is justice a good? Does justice give to the serial killer what he deserves? Is what the serial killer deserves exactly what he sowed? If so is retribution in this case Just? If so, then it follows that retribution is good in this case.

Yes, I'm "for real". You're merely using one assertion to support another. I dismiss your assertion that it's what they deserve. — Sapientia

Good, then I also dismiss everything you've ever said, with the same handwave you dismiss what I say. Let's see where we get with that :D

Failure to respond to arguments - you know that you are wrong Sapientia, you just don't want to admit it, and you would hold onto your liberalist fantasies regardless of whether they were shown to be absurd - I know you would, because this is an emotional matter for you. You WANT things to be this way. At least admit it. Admit that even if you were shown to be wrong, you would still believe it.

You're wrong. I don't know why you'd jump to that conclusion. Not very clever. You know very little about my personal life. — Sapientia

I didn't say I know anything about your personal life. All I said was that I think you haven't been sick, because it would mean you haven't been in touch with the NHS, and so you don't know how the NHS actually is (except from published "research"). So NO - I didn't jump to a conclusion. It's not a conclusion, it was a reasonable assumption, which if it is false, then I was wrong but not unreasonable in making it. The assumption was based on my knowledge that the NHS is bad, combined with your statement that it is good.

Not according to some research which actually puts the NHS at the top of the list. I'm not aware of any research which puts Bulgaria way above the UK. I find that claim more than a little dubious. — Sapientia

Right because this research is not biased :D Imagine if they put Bulgaria above UK - your own citizens would go crazy, revolution time! Research like this quite often does not correspond to the reality as told by people who interact with the system.

I'm sorry, but this is just dumb and unfit for modernity. If the law says "Jump of a cliff" would you jump of a cliff? Simon says "think for yourself". Rights and obligations are entirely separate from the law, and may or may not coincide with the law. There is such a thing as an unjust law, and citizens are not obligated to act in accordance with such laws. Yes, the UN sanctions human rights, and member states of the UN must accord with these human rights. — Sapientia

Right, an organisation which CANNOT enforce these on its member states determines what human rights are... what nonsense. A state can determine the laws because it has the means to enforce them. Being able to enforce them is what gives them legitimacy. The UN can't - and thus, when it comes to this subject, the UN really has no legitimacy. That's why things like Guantanamo happened, and will keep on happening until we take charge of our own states and politicians and stop expecting some fake global government body to do it.

If the law orders me to "jump off [two f's] a cliff" that would, under my "severely lacking" moral criteria be immoral, as it orders me to do something that will hurt me with no possibility to avoid it. That classifies as an immoral law in my system. Please at list think of better examples.

Yes, the UN sanctions human rights, and member states of the UN must accord with these human rights. — Sapientia

Yes, or else what? They do what they did to the US for Guantanamo, ie nothing?

No, don't understate it. It's not just a harsher punishment, it's unjust and abhorrent, like I said, and if you can't see that then you ought to look deeper within yourself and examine your conscience. — Sapientia

It's your opinion it is unjust and abhorrent. Fact of the matter is that justice simply is giving to each what they deserve. And so, justice is giving to the serial killer what he deserves. What does he deserve? He deserves to reap what he sowed. I've already laid out the argument before, and you have not responded to it in any thoughtful manner except repeat to me how it is abhorrent and yadda yadda yadda.

then you ought to look deeper within yourself and examine your conscience. — Sapientia

Yes, I did do this, and then I saw the suffering that the many families of the victims have felt, and the misery and betrayal they must feel towards society, and I realised that such pain is unacceptable, and as a state I must take the most severe action against it. I can't ignore the suffering of these people, and not give them the assuarance that at least, if something like this happens to them, justice will exist.

There are certain acts which citizens deserve the right to privacy, and to be free from state oppression, and that is one of them. — Sapientia

Justify this please. Also justify why the assumption that otherwise it would be state oppression?

This is called liberalism, and it contrasts with totalitarianism. — Sapientia

No it doesn't contrast with totalitarianism. It contrasts with conservatism, and with the way people have lived for the vast majority of history since we have been organised in societies. Liberalism is the fool's dream that man can be self-determined - and thus all means that prevent self-determination, such as gender (people are born of a certain gender) are evil and must be eliminated. That's why we allow and facilitate transexualism and the like. It's also the fool's dream that man's happiness requires that he become a self-sufficient island, instead of merely another link in the chain which we call society. That's why our communities are disintegrating - that's why alienation is a modern problem. You don't want to admit it, but we do have a serious problem with adultery for example. Look at your own country - it's disgusting.

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/130/590x/secondary/graph-378884.jpg

This is absolutely insane! A moral evil is allowed to exist in society, and we do nothing except sit with arms crossed while people are hurt, families are destroyed, etc. You claim you are moral - no, my dear friend, you are not moral. You are just selfish. It's all about "me me me, do as I want [of course in return for this you get to do as you want as well]". That's what you (and by this I mean people like you, not you in particular, so don't take this personally) do - you don't care about morality. All you care is that you are left free to do as you please, without regard for others. If you had any regard for people, you would be worried about the vast increase in adultery in Western societies over the last 50 years. You would be really worried, and you would be working on a solution. Fine, you don't like my proposed solution (legal sanctions for adultery), then what solution do you propose?? If you care about the people who are hurt, you must provide a solution. What is the solution? You offer no solution, to a glaringly obvious problem. Instead, you keep it under the carpet, so that it becomes culturally acceptable, and the people who are oppressed by it are marginalised. Because who knows, maybe one day you will commit adultery too, and you wanna get away from it easily. That, Sapientia, is the truth.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. But yes, the serial killer is not inhuman — Sapientia

Ahhh! There we go, finally the immorality shows itself! Fine, if you care for such brutes like the serial killer, I don't see how you can claim to be moral.

Yes there is: that's your motivation for desiring there to be such a law! Like csalisbury said, torture stems from psychological - not social - needs. — Sapientia

It's a social need based on the psychological needs of people in society - people are human and they have a morality, despite what you may think. People don't have to take all sorts of shit and suffer at the hands of a maniac and not even be granted the justice they deserve.

Creation is itself a metaphor for the primacy of Being - what have I been saying all along? It's an allegorical way to show the primacy of Being.

Now I know you will yada yada me and say "Oh yeah, but wait a minute, because Creation implies a moment before creation, and so a moment when Being had not yet triumphed over non-Being, etc. etc." - misses the point of a metaphor. That's a literalist interpretation - technological, not poetic.

It doesn't follow. A metaphor does not have to make sense literarily. It shows the primacy of Being by showing how Being triumphs over non-Being. The fact that you demand a metaphor to make literal sense, that is your problem, not mine.

Heroes, the ones people really look up to, are generally superhuman in some respect. They have superpowers, are aliens, son's of gods, or gods themselves. Holy men, great geniuses, scientists, warriors, philosophers. They inspire misanthropy far more than agape. They arrest heroism far more than inspire it. They teach us that only a special kind of elite class can be heroic, and we have to be vain, delusional, childish or foolish to think we can be like them. They make normal people appear less valuable, powerful, competent, and likeable by contrast. They steal away our power to act righteously, and to assert ourselves when it matters most by elevating such attributes into the level of the superhuman. They make us want their prestige, the affection and respect they receive, their superpowers and levels of excellence, which ironically makes their goodness, and heroism more appealing, when it is less significant or impressive coming from a superhuman, risking less, and facing inferior opposition, with all but narrative certainty of success. — Wosret

The hero dares you: be great! Alexander the Great dares you - be great as I was great. So yes - the hero absolutely mocks you, because he knows that inside you lies something more powerful than you think - and to accede to that, you must have the folly to drop your weakness, and take the leap!

While certainly I agree he said this sentiment, and I agree with him very much so on this point, there a many quotes just from his shorter works on the motivations of boredom including but not limited to these: — schopenhauer1

Yes - but these are made in the context of his larger philosophy. Also:

How do you think the will-to-live is carried out? Survival (goals/tasks/discomfort that is imposed by the constraints of the world) and its opposite end which is boredom (which brings us to more goals/tasks that are self-imposed). — schopenhauer1

The quotes you have given do not illustrate that S. considered boredom to be a motivating factor. On the contrary, boredom is what is always eliminated because of the will-to-live. Because of the pull of the will-to-live one does not support boredom.

No, I meant by that, not agreeing with every premise, hence not agreeing with the conclusion. In other words, while internally consistent or valid of its own logical structure, it is not sound. — schopenhauer1

Ok.

No, rather, the humble person is not trying to convince people of his/her accolades at all. The humble person would not think about it like that, but simply do what is right without thoughts of the glory this would bring to their name. Those who place the person on a pedestal and calling others inferior instead of simply following in that person's example, would be making a folly that does not seem to jive with what is usually seen as virtuous. — schopenhauer1

It may be necessary to convince people of his accolades but only if this helps spread the message.

Not really- the one "virtue" Schopenhauer values as ethical is that which extinguishes the individual ego. — schopenhauer1

Courage, for example, also extinguishes the individual ego, in-so-far as one is ready to sacrifice his own self for something. Nevertheless, this is not a full extinguishing of the will-to-live, which in some form is still affirmed. From this higher vantage point ONLY does Schopenhauer not think of courage alone and by itself as a virtue.

If you want to call this virtue as the Stoics/Aristotle and the link practiced them, be my guest, but that is to conflate two very different systems. — schopenhauer1

No it isn't. Schopenhauer never denied the truth of the Stoics/Aristotle. He just went beyond it. That is NOT denying their truth. It is rather subsuming it under a higher Truth - and from the vantage point of the higher Truth it becomes "false". But from the vantage point of the average individual, virtue ethics still retains its truthfulness.

Virtue theories, at the end of the day, through the goal of being "this or that" kind of character, are creating a certain society, or ideal for people to follow in society, and thus more social engineering than anything else. — schopenhauer1

I think rather virtue is necessary in order to step onto what S. identified as asceticism and denial of the will to live.

Yeah, but what I'm saying is, if you're right, and being has primacy over non-being, then the torture of a serial killer doesn't make any sense at all as a 're-enactment of creation'. The serial killer's evil acts are what solicit retribution. To attribute this kind of retributive triumph to 'creation' is to imagine creation as a response to an evil which it overcomes. If this is what creation is like, than evil would necessarily precede (or, at the very least, be coeval with) good, which you have clearly stated is not the case. — csalisbury

It's an allegorical or metaphorical re-enactment - not a literal one. Metaphorical it illustrates the primacy of Being over non-Being. Of course literarily this can't be illustrated, because it would mean to give at least equal primacy to non-Being which is impossible.

My thought on character is not "supported by Schopenhauer" but my views on boredom, survival, and life's general tendency to never be fully satisfied align with Schopenhauer. — schopenhauer1

No, S. did not think boredom was a motivating force. He thought the existence of boredom is proof that existence in this world is worthless. He identified boredom with the direct awareness of the world's worthlessness.

Making a consistent argument is not making a sound argument. Stumping an opponent isn't even a sound argument, just a good rhetorician- ask Socrates. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, did I say otherwise in the bit which you quoted?

It's not irrational to have discernment and not follow every conclusion? — schopenhauer1

While granting the premises? That's impossible. You must disagree with at least one premise.

All it takes is being conspicuously boastful about it and make people know that your efforts or this and that virtuous act. — schopenhauer1

About which virtuous act have I made people aware? :D

Meanwhile, the humble person just does a good act, and doesn't need the recognition, praise, or even label as being "virtuous". — schopenhauer1

Yes, exactly, so the humble person is the one trying to convince the others of the goodness of virtue :)

I don't view Socrates/Plato/Aristotle's virtues proper as the same as the Schopenhauer's conception of "virtue" — schopenhauer1

They are almost the same. The difference is that Schopenhauer claims that virtue is not the end - unlike Aristotle for example. Instead, the end is what is beyond virtue - denial of the will-to-live.

. Virtue proper is very much "of this world"- the type of thing Schopenhauer was against — schopenhauer1

He was against it ONLY from the vantage point of the denial of the will to live. Not from the vantage point of the average person, a vantage point from which virtue is very important.

This world is the world of Maya and suffering, thus one is compelled to be free of its fetters through world-renounciation, not mere character building. — schopenhauer1

Exactly, a step beyond mere virtue.

Despite Schop's use of virtue- it is rather different than Stoic/Aristotlean/Platonic visions of virtue. — schopenhauer1

Nope. For Schopenhauer, prudence was still a virtue, so was courage, so was temperance, so was justice, so were ALL the other virtues of Aristotle/Plato.

On the basis of my experience and what others experience. — schopenhauer1

-_- yes, what "others" experience after you eliminate those whose experiences are not valid right?

and if they are not surviving or anxious about this or that little uncomfortable feeling- then they are motivated by boredom. — schopenhauer1

No - boredom does not motivate. What motivates is the will-to-live, according to Schopenhauer.

I do agree very much that people need much more practical medical literacy, and they should start building up this skill early on. — Bitter Crank

Yep - this would, according to me, need to be part and parcel of the education we offer children in our schools. But it would imply introducing the idea of discipline into people's lives. Children will need to be taught that they need to be disciplined and responsible - and we need to create an environment where doctors can be more easily approached, and be more willing to discuss, rather than decide all by themselves for people.

Really? Abominations? Not wanting to explain my whole philosophy in a particular post is an abomination now? — schopenhauer1

Yes you did want to, that's why you gave me Schopenhauer's system no? You directed me towards it, I didn't just randomly choose it, did I?

Then I disagree with Schopenhauer. — schopenhauer1

Then please don't tell me that your thought is explained or supported by Schopenhauer, because I have read Schopenhauer, and I know it isn't.

I don't subscribe slavishily to Schopenhauer, but respect much of his core views. — schopenhauer1

The belief in virtue and nobility IS a core part of Schopenhauer's philosophy. According to S. virtue comes prior to the denial of the will and is motivated by the same sentiments that motivated the denial of the will when fully expanded on. Some people reach up to virtue and never go beyond to the denial of the will. In fact, S. spends quite a few chapters discussing virtue in the last book of his WWR Volume I.

It was also used to prove that human nature is argued about, and there is no way the matter is settled due to strong conviction that one is more reasonable and has thus found the answer. — schopenhauer1

No, not settled due to strong conviction, settled by argument instead.

Yes, they are system-builders and much of what they say follows from previous statements, but I don't care- I like some things, and don't like others in their systems. — schopenhauer1

Good, thanks for at least admitting that you are irrational, and you will freely discard parts of systems, regardless of the demands of reasons to agree to what follows from some of the statements...

This is a trolling statement. Is this the fruits of being virtuous? Snide remarks on what you deem as your internet interlocutors? — schopenhauer1

It's not a snide remark - it's there to show that if you want to argue against virtue ethics, then you need a lot more than snide and arrogant pretences and (false) appeals to other philosophers. You need to actually expound a coherent system, and actually provide justification and arguments, not mere assertions. And by the way, most disagreement in philosophical history has generally been over metaphysics and epistemology, NOT over ethics. Most philosophers have expounded radically similar ethical theories.

I don't know- because it borders on narcissism and narcissism turns me off? — schopenhauer1

No it doesn't. For one, narcism is defined as excessive love of self. More than one's self deserves in other words. If one is superior, it follows that his self deserves more love - does it not? So if you think one is superior, then you can't accuse them of narcissism. On the other hand, how is saying "I am virtuous" for example, love of self? Love of self is, when we don't have enough food to fully fill both of us, me taking that food and eating it all myself. That is narcissism. When one says "I am virtuous and therefore I deserve more bread than you do", that is narcissism. But when one states "I am virtuous" - there is no narcissism in that, just a statement. Not to mention that I didn't even say that I am fully virtuous, and I have said, in one of the other threads, that I have been wrong many times.

It's arrogant, and whatever virtue is- it seems to me humility is a large part of it. — schopenhauer1

Hopefully you don't mean false humility. Because Schopenhauer, whose name you bear, had this to say about false humility and modesty:

"For what is modesty, if not false humility which someone with merits and advantages uses to beg the pardon of those who have none? Someone who does not claim to merit because he has none is being honest, not modest"

Very different people whose texts that are attributed to them conveyed different types of ethics — schopenhauer1

Wrong. For example - Buddhism, just as Christianity, condemns sexual immorality and even has a specific rule against it for lay people:

"He avoids unlawful sexual intercourse, abstains from it. He has no intercourse with girls who are still under the protection of father or mother, brother, sister, or relative; nor with married women, nor female convicts; nor lastly with betrothed girls."

Also, I expected someone who has read WWR Volume I to be aware of the many similarities between Buddhism and Christianity for example, which despite the distances between the regions where the two religions formed and flourished, nevertheless exist, and Schopenhauer takes great pains to point them out continuously through the book.

Who are you to know what the real person felt? — schopenhauer1

And who are you to question the evidence that exists? On what basis are you questioning it? On the basis of your feelings?

Even if they literally said they don't get bored, and this was verified as a true statement, I would not believe them. — schopenhauer1

Yes, but then you are being irrational. You have no reason to disbelieve them, except your self-supported fantasies.

This does not refute my sentiments and does not bolster the idea that virtue exists. — schopenhauer1

No of course it doesn't refute your SENTIMENTS. How could it? Words don't refute feelings. That you feel this way is a given fact. You don't feel like trusting these sources. But again, that is a feeling, and not a reason. So I acknowledge your feeling, but have to say once again that this has no bearing on the rational discourse we are, both I am assuming, trying to carry here.

The point about the "good" (sub specie aeternitatis) of the serial killer is that the state expresses an infinite meaning, in the coherency of substance, of infinite (ethically) evil. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I disagree. Sub specie aeternitatis there is no evil - only good. The fall into time (the fall from Paradise) is the beginning of evil.

Oh, and nothing exists sub specie aeternitatis, as is it is beyond time (finite states, existing states). There on no conditions of the world prior to the prior to time. The world has no "fall into time." Existing states have always been of time. That's what they are distinct from sub specie aeternitatis. — TheWillowOfDarkness

What's your argument for these statements?

No, it's not. It's the demand of those who have not leant to deal with the pain of immorality, who think they are entitled to world in which there is no instance of immorality — TheWillowOfDarkness

No it's simply the demand of someone who has identified that immorality is NOT right, and hence must be remedied.

who think they can somehow cage freedom such that immorality becomes impossible — TheWillowOfDarkness

No - as I have stated, if freedom is removed, then moral excellence becomes impossible. Hence freedom must be maintained - it's a supreme value, because it's a condition for the possibility of the other values.

who think they can get a perfect world by committing a genocide (I mean this both metaphorically and literally) of anyone who commits immoral behaviour. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No this is again false. The punishment of the serial killer does justice, it doesn't ensure that no immoral behaviour will ever happen again. That's not it's purpose.

One where someone believes with all there heart in a perfection which is never there and who cannot see perfection when it occurs- they are always "trying for perfection" rather than doing perfection in an imperfect world. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Except the perfection is there. We are always pulled towards perfection, sometimes we reach, sometimes we fall short - but what matters is that one CARES about reaching, and one is INTERESTED about reaching. What is happening in the modern world is that they don't give a shit about it anymore. You have the adultery committing husband, the murderer, etc. who do not CARE that they are falling short - so many young people in the Western world do not care - they just care about "fun" - as if fun ever had anything to do with perfection, morality, nobility or all the sentiments that represent the soul of men. This moral apathy is the problem.

Indeed. But you don't fully believe that. All the time you treat justice as if it is compensation to the victims, as if it is enacted to allow them to make sense of what's happened, about returning "honour" to the victim or giving a justification ( e.g. "Ah, now the killing of our daughters make sense. It was all for the torture of their killer ") for the presence of evil. You should know better than that. Evil never has a justification. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Evil never has a justification - the purpose of justice is not to provide evil with a justification. It's simply to give evil the rewards that it deserves.

No, you're alternative is to use torture, which you further assert constitutes justice. But as usual, it seems necessary to remind you that merely asserting that something is the case doesn't make it the case, and that your personal thoughts and feelings on the issue are not enough to support the sort of unqualified claims that you're prone to make.

To be continued, because I'm on a brief lunch break. — Sapientia

Are you for real? I assert it constitutes justice? No. I argued it constitutes justice. Justice is giving to each what they deserve (read Plato's Republic). The serial killer deserves "inhumanity" and "cruelty". Thus justice is giving the serial killer what he deserves.

Instead of torturing psychopaths, we could just send them to the NHS to be treated for tonsillitis or hemorrhoids--that'd fix em right proper.

All doctors (practically speaking) are stuck in a bureaucratic morass. How long you have to see a patient, what can be done for a patient, what can be prescribed to a patient, etc. is determined by insurance companies, state medicaid programs, medicare, the hospital's resources, [or their national equivalents] and (for a few) their great wealth.

I can't say that all patients get excellent care. Some get too much (too much / too many medications, inappropriately prescribed antibiotics, too many investigative procedures, etc.) and some get too little.

Doctors generally chose medicine because it was (sometimes still is) highly remunerative, it's interesting, some even do it because it helps people. Generalists are eventually swamped with too much information to absorb and utilize, and specialties tend to operate in silos. A brain surgeon might not notice that the patients leg was chopped off at the knee (a rhetorical point).

And in the long run, for most people, what determines health and longevity are things like adequate diet, public health operations (inoculations, clean air, clean water, etc), safe work places and highway safety, not smoking, not drinking excessively, and so on. The average longevity of white women in the US has taken a recent dip because of a big surge in opioid drug use among working class women resulting in fatal overdoses. White men are dying earlier too lately, not for lack of medical care but for the collapse of their former raison d'être (regular work, adequate wages, standing in the community, drugs, alcohol, etc etc) Neither decline (about a year in the aggregate) owes anything to inadequate medical care. (It owes a lot to an inadequate society.) — Bitter Crank

Actually BC, what is known in the medical field as iatrogenesis is one of the leading causes of death in developed countries. We have replaced the priest with the doctor, and the doctor is a much worse healer than the priest in many instances, especially when the patient has as little medical knowledge as people in the Western world have. People can't read their own blood tests - this is unacceptable. Doctors have become some sort of Gods that we have to place our faith in - nobody questions the doctor because they are not capable - they don't have the knowledge to question them. And doctors make a huge number of mistakes, because our systems are flawed - we don't value excellence nowadays, and we reward all sorts of losers. People are not given the skills required to take care of their health - this should be taught, and tested with seriousness in all institutions of learning, just like mathematics is taught. It should be necessary to pass these classes to advance in one's study. Only strong, real leadership can fix the problems of the Western world in healthcare, as everywhere else. We have to be willing to reward real knowledge and skill, and punish laziness, inefficiency and the like. Doctors must be held accountable for their actions - right now, this is impossible. Doctors have formed a thick layer of bureaucracy to protect themselves, and nothing motivates them, no fear, to do a good job. That's why the jobs have become filled by such weak and ineffective people. It's a real shame.

This in fact is one other decadence of the Western world, a manifestation of the same attitude which has caused the moral decline I so often talk about. This progressive attitude has allowed the doctor to become immune to any and all accountability - just like in many places the adulterer has also become immune to accountability - this isn't right. We have to get our societies back in shape, and our people motivated to be excellent.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK225187/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4340604/

I'm honestly not up to give a complete picture of my worldview right now correct, but providing Schop's view is a good stand in for now. — schopenhauer1

LOL! Yes - you certainly chose the perfect example :p ... (by the way, you should've chosen Hegel, I know far far less Hegel than Schopenhauer, who I've studied extensively especially for the last two years!) Since Schopenhauer is one of the philosophers I admire most, I cannot let his genius be used as support for the highest abominations of thought. All quotes from WWR Vol I

"I take up again the thread of our discussion of the ethical significance of conduct, to show how, from the same source from which all goodness, affection, VIRTUE, and NOBILITY OF CHARACTER spring, there ultimately also arises what I call denial of the will-to-live" page 377

"We feel on seeing any very unfortunate person a certain kind of esteem akin to that which virtue and nobility of character force from us[...] We cannot help but regard every suffering, both those felt by ourselves and those felt by others, as at least a possible advance towards virtue and holiness" page 396

"Thus we see that genuine virtue and saintliness of disposition have their first origin not in deliberate free choice (works), but in knowledge (faith)" page 406

It's certainly no good to get one's views of Schopenhauer from wikipedia.

You don't have to state it.. you exude it in your posts.. Mind you that you "think" you are superior, not that you are. — schopenhauer1

Okay so don't run away from the question I have asked. You still haven't answered it. What irritates you about me thinking that I am superior?

But just like virtue, it stands on nothing of substance. It's a non-concept made real by custom. — schopenhauer1

Schopenhauer disagreed ;)

Because what you say is so far removed from what I have experienced, and what other people have shared as what is part of their human experience, it is suspect. — schopenhauer1

Maybe from what you've experienced. Certainly not from what others have experienced. Buddha, Jesus, Socrates, etc.

Virtue, however is kind of bullshit. — schopenhauer1

Again, Schopenhauer did not agree with this nonsense :)

What I think virtue actually is (besides a way to boast), is a certain society's recipe as to how to live successfully in that society. — schopenhauer1

Virtue has often times, even as Schopenhauer argues, been associated with that which leads towards the denial of the will-to-live and hence to something that is NOT necessarily socially useful.

As you're appealing to anecdotal evidence I thought I'd butt in to say that several of my friends and family in the UK have been seriously ill, including very serious malignant cancers. They were all treated extremely well by the NHS, with the latest technologies and techniques, and by some of the best doctors in the field, and they got better. — jamalrob

Maybe in terms of cancer treatment they may be effective, that I do not know. But what I do know is that their waiting queues are huge, many of their GPs don't know how to do a simple task such as read an ECG (even I can read and measure an ECG - and I'm not a medical professional - people I know now prefer to send me their ECGs online to read them instead of go to the NHS GP who assigns them to see a cardiologist, who they can see in a few months time - that's if they're lucky and they see the cardiologist and NOT a nurse), hospitals are disorganised and the right hand does not know what the left does - a doctor's personal secretary does not know what the department secretaries know for example, doctors treat patients as words on a computer screen, and instead of listening to the patient, they prefer to dwell on the records that exist in their computer, doctors order tests on the patients as they see fit, without discussing whether a test is necessary or not with patients (and most of the time it actually isn't), doctors have little or no intuitive judgement, and blindly follow procedures, etc.

It's single-handedly one of the worst healthcare systems I have ever seen or heard about. It's a total disaster, it may as well be worse than ObamaCare. I pray for all those who must be at the mercy of NHS, and I wish them the best of luck, because they will really need it.

The NHS may have one of the best technologies in the world, but it's of no use when you don't have sufficient doctors, when your doctors do not think - but rather are bureaucrats following procedures, etc.

Well, that just goes to show that if you measure something with a skewed tool, then you'll get skewed results - which may well turn out to be unsatisfactory to some, as in this case. — Sapientia

Surprisingly, this is also what I want to say to you :)

And if you're implying that your proposed "solution" is somehow an exception to these kind of problems, or is superior, then I think you're mistaken. — Sapientia

No, I'm implying my proposed solution does justice.

If you don't think of it as being a way to deal with being the victim of a crime, yet you criticise victim support, then what's your alternative? — Sapientia

My alternative is to do justice, and to show the victims that those who hurt them will be punished as they deserve to be punished, and thus reassure them that the mechanisms of society exist to protect them.

Here in the UK, for example, we have civil rights, the NHS, the minimum wage, universal sufferage, and we no longer have conscription, corporal punishment, and the death penalty. — Sapientia

Right... you have the NHS LOL! :D Have you ever been seriously sick and had to be taken care of by... the NHS? I think you haven't... then you would certainly not be wearing the NHS with pride. Go book yourself in a public hospital in, for ex., Bulgaria, and you will see it's a hundread times more efficient than NHS.

A family friend recently almost died actually in the UK because of the NHS. And other people I know have also had terrible experiences with it.

the law despite its abhorrent nature — Sapientia

There is nothing abhorrent about the law, if it is against something that the citizen can avoid. If the law is against eating - that is abhorrent, because it's not something a citizen can avoid. If the law is against adultery for example, nothing abhorrent, because it is something the citizen can avoid.

Human rights violations should be taken far more seriously and not be subjected to the same standard as other laws. — Sapientia

What determines "human rights"? The UN? Pff. No, the laws determine what your rights and obligations are.

no, it's not that simple, because the law might be unjust, the crime might be trivial, and the punishment might also be unjust. — Sapientia

It's not a question of unjust. The law IS just, it may however be too cruel for the crime in question. But not unjust.

It would be unwise to do that, but if the crime was, say, adultery, and the punishment was stoning, then that law is unjust and abhorrent — Sapientia

Why is it unjust and abhorrent? I see absolutely nothing unjust with it. Adultery is something that can be avoided. Adultery is something that harms people. Therefore it deserves to be punished. Stoning may be too harsh of a punishment, agreed. But it does not follow that the law is unjust. It is just, because it punishes what should be punished. It may be cruel, because the punishment is too harsh for the offence, but that's all.

I did not claim that it was, according to the Bible, humans that drowned almost everyone. I was referring just to the act itself. The point was that the moral of the story implies that it was an act of justice. — Sapientia

It WAS an act of Justice. Those people, according to God, who was the supreme authority, and the supreme law, deserved that punishment. Who are you to say otherwise? Have you made thyself in some sort of God capable to judge everything according to standards of your choosing?

And you're wrong: there is indeed genocide in the Bible, regardless of your sensibilities; just as there has been, for that matter, genocide in war. (It's classed as a war crime, for your information). — Sapientia

Nope - war is war, and justice is justice as I will show regarding the examples BC has provided later. "War crimes" - there are no such things. It's a post-fact rationalisation for the winner to justify punishing the loser - "war crimes". NONSENSE! No crimes are possible in war, when the law is suspended. Cruelty is possible. So a group of soldiers should not go in a village and rape and murder all the women there. Not because this is a war crime, but because this is cruel and immoral, and it is inflicting unnecessary suffering. If they did so, I see no grounds to punish them by law - I do see grounds to disconsider them, and look down upon their immorality, chastise it, and even punish it - but such would not be justified by law - it would just be an action I take on behalf of a justice that is greater than the justice that can be provided by the law.

But some views, as well as some of the people who espouse them, deserve little-to-no respect. I feel under no obligation, for example, to treat an ardent racist or homophobe as respectfully as I would any other person. But this is a digression. — Sapientia

No arguments or values that are rationally supported deserve little to no respect. If someone comes here defending racism, you must show them that this is rationally unsupported. You can't disconsider them, because they may have a rationally valid argument. And if you disconsider them, then don't be surprised that the Saudis disconsider you when you go to their country for holding values that are opposite to theirs :) People need to respect each other, and stop with stupid prejudiced judgements.

And I think otherwise. I think that that's the easy option, and involves a lack of restraint, and a caving in to savage-like emotions and vice. I think that we ought to be better than that and take a more virtuous path. — Sapientia

I think that the serial killer is "inhuman", "cruel" and "degrading" and thus fully deserves a punishment which includes "cruelty", "inhumanity", and "degradation". It's the results of the seed that he sowed. — Agustino

Thanks for admitting you think the serial killer is NOT inhuman, cruel and degrading. This makes sense now that you wouldn't want an inhuman, cruel, and degrading punishment for him. Also, there is no "lack of restraint" or caving in to savage-like emotions. The punishment is done by law, not under the control of an emotional reaction.

We are restless Will that strives for things. By necessity, time passes and strive for things.. yadayada.. oh hell with it.. Here is a good start so I don't have to give a whole damn treatise: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/38427/38427-pdf.pdf

But wait.. that's not all so is this: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39064/39064-h/39064-h.html

But wait...there's this: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4705/4705-h/4705-h.htm

And on and on.. Yep, people can reason many ways to explain human nature. There are many variations of this theme. — schopenhauer1

No - many of these are in large agreement with each other by the way. And even if they can put forward many theories, it doesn't mean they are all correct, neither does it mean that we cannot discover which approximates the truth better, neither does it mean that we shouldn't try. This is a weak and lazy attempt schopenhauer1 ... one expects better from a philosopher, these sound more like the words of philistines, with no personal analysis of the matter at all.

I always imagined people who had "good character" (even though that really doesn't exist in my mind) never really talked about it much because they were living it. That is why I am suspect.. The whole Virtue crew (Epictetus bunch and others), seemed a bit too conspicuous with their talk and show.. Always seemed a bit overstated. — schopenhauer1

Fine, I see that you have a problem with many of the wise people from the past as well.

don't feel bad as much as irritated that you think that you are superior.. — schopenhauer1

Why are you irritated that I think I am superior? Do you really fear that I am superior? A person who knows the truth, would not have such fears now, would they? But it seems you are uncertain - maybe maybe - I am superior, and that is worrying you. Again - it's a problem you have manufactured and have read into me. I never claimed to be superior. I never even thought about it. You are thinking about it in that manner.

It more irritates me in the fact that you think this reification makes some people better or more superior than others. — schopenhauer1

Virtue does make people more noble - this does not mean that it makes them superior. Before God (morally) we are all equal.

If you don't get bored ever, and you have never done something because you would be bored otherwise, then you are the first human to do so. — schopenhauer1

Well okay, I am the first human to do so. Do I get a prize? Seriously, what's the point of having a discussion if we can't even trust what we say we have experienced? If we're going to doubt each other's experiences, and claim "no you haven't" when someone claims something, without even offering a different interpretation of the experience in question, there's really no point in having a discussion is there? I'm willing to listen to you and take what you say into consideration, but I feel you are not willing to do the same when it comes to me - because you have separated yourself from me, by putting me in the superior category in your mind, and obviously keeping yourself in the inferior category. When I read Epictetus, I don't mind being inferior to him - because I know that I too, given sufficient effort and time, will become like him. I am happy to see, in fact, that a human being could become like that. It means that I too can become so! So my mind never rushes to categorise inferior/superior. That simply doesn't matter to me. Epictetus, and many others, are images which motivate me.

Your conceit is now that there is a "nature of man" to be understood. That is a lump of clay anyone can interpret is anything.. Rhetoric can justify its reason for your interpretation for it, but the premises are going to be mighty shaky. — schopenhauer1

Prove it. What shall you use? Reason? Or will you use un-reason? If you use reason, then we're playing the same game. So prove it to me. Prove it to me that this "nature of man" can be anything.

Just by asserting virtue in the picture is a sort of boasting. I see virtue theory as boasting. You mine as well be a metaphorical Conan the Barbarian flaunting his strength and pounding his chest in the "strength of his character" (whatever that means..). We are living in a communal world. No one is an island. Your virtue is a signal to others.. a boastful symbol of your awesome strength. You can fool yourself all you want otherwise. — schopenhauer1

Yes, well said, YOU see it as boasting, you are interpreting it that way, and I see that it is annoying you. You have a problem with me being virtuous. Why? Let's interrogate this. What about it makes you feel bad? When I see someone like Socrates for example - I feel all but admiration for them, and I wish to emulate them, because their virtue is greater than mine. I don't react like "OMG what an ass this person is boasting of his strength of character, etc.". I look at him, and say "I wanna be like that too!"

You talked about the morality of most people, and how they are not virtuous (assuming like you, or at least your philosophical heroes in the pantheon of Reason who are the truly good people). No, not indirectly boastful or self-righteous — schopenhauer1

Yes, does this annoy you? Why?

Really? Sit in a room and do nothing for hours on end, with little stimulation except your own thoughts. Some monks can do it, but they are actually doing something- usually mental exercises. Anyways, you will get bored and be "motivated" to do something to not be bored. Seems to me boredom motivates more than anything else. Many people would rather do mindless chores and upkeep on their possessions than be bored. — schopenhauer1

I've done this already. I can be quite content sitting for long times doing nothing too. I never get bored. But, suppose I were to lock myself in such a room for a very long period of time - I figure I would begin to lose my sanity, not that I will be bored and look to do something. I will simply lose my humanity, by not relating with other people.

You are not the sole arbiter of what is and isn't just. — Sapientia

Ok, agreed.

If people like you were in charge, the world would be a worse place. — Sapientia

I don't think so.

It's not just my alleged misunderstanding. Your allegation applies to every single one of the 159 national governments who became party to the UN Convention Against Torture, and every single subsequent government who has not sought to renege on that commitment. — Sapientia

Yes, say this to the government of the US regarding Guantanamo.

How is it just? The clue is in the full name, which includes the words "cruel", "inhuman" and "degrading". Like it or not, we live in a civilised society. We don't crucify people or burn them at the stake - no matter how great the "sin". — Sapientia

We don't. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss what the law is, or that we should disrespect each other for having divergences on what the law should be. I think that the serial killer is "inhuman", "cruel" and "degrading" and thus fully deserves a punishment which includes "cruelty", "inhumanity", and "degradation". It's the results of the seed that he sowed.