Neitzsche is basically saying that definitions are imperfect. Obviously they are imperfect because we aren't fully capable of grasping things in their entirety. This doesn't mean we aren't capable of observation; it merely suggests that our observations are incomplete. This doesn't refute the claim that God is everything in existence including any potential.

Perhaps we should say about any definition ever that the term in question "could be" something, instead of saying that it "is" something, but when I say something "is" something it's by means of current understandings of the term in question, not by means of what is true, 100% perfect understanding in some sort of "divine" sense of it.

Of course we don't have a perfect definition, that is why I'm aiming at one in the first place, but we don't get to opt out of observation simply because we only comprehend reality in the state that we are currently in. If definition is pointless then there is no point to learning anything and our entire existence is a complete misinterpretation that serves no purpose at all.

Which part

Thank you John Doe. I was beginning to feel like I was the only person even considering this topic at all and it felt pretty lonely after a while... Ha

I suppose I can accept that the conversation is exhausting. It's still important to me, and I feel like the information is useful, however I suppose I can't just get my hopes up that anyone will be willing to discuss anything anytime.

Someone please say something about the theory. Has anyone even looked at it to consider why we might ought to try redifining? Or reducing? Or adding a new definition?

No... I just made a ridiculous name and everyone has dismissed the theory completely with no reference to it what so ever.

That's my point. We are trained by diction to refer to it as a particular popular concept, when in reality it contains aspects of that concept plus additional aspects, and these additional aspects further explain it's nature.

No one wants to touch on the subject of why God can't be all of existence. Everyone is too predisposed to the original definition of God.

re·de·fine
ˌrēdəˈfīn/Submit
verb
define again or differently.

Am I similar to a synapse firing in the "brain" of the essence of reality, or no?

Are we meant to observe reality and to become more intelligent in order to strengthen our ability to report the nature of reality back to it's existence and "Strengthen the brain of reality",or no?

Because redefining what I see as a current plague of social dogma on our species is important to further understand the difference between the current social dogmatic approach it'self and the nature of the "omnipresence" it references.

I disagree. If God is everything, and we are a piece of it, then our purpose is to perpetuate and observe it, just the same as it's own purpose.

We can change the word from "God" to "Reality" and reap the same responsibility.

At one point we could consider child baring a duty to the longevity of humanity. Just the same at some point we could consider not baring children a duty to the longevity of humanity.

I understand the value of pleasure that comes with baring a child, but at what point is it no longer justified as a free for all for everyone? Is it when we run out of water? That's already happening in places. When we run out of ozone? That's happening too. When we run out of property? That happened years ago.

Care to elaborate?

Let's not confuse free will with free lunch.

Yes. To exist. Same purpose as you.
And to observe. Same purpose as you.

God is everything.
You are a piece of it.

What is the most important perspective of "good" for the longevity of the human species?

Is it the individuals perspective, the societies perspective, the international perspective, the global perspective, or an unnamed perspective?

Bitter and hateful people might be full of so much love and positivity to offer the world, but if they never have the chance to understand that then they may have to live with their fear of others for the rest of their lives. They have extreme passion that can be utilized to help others and to help take care of the Earth if they have the chance to redirect their effort.
Or they may remain as they are as a choice regardless of interaction with others, and we may not be able to help them no matter what we do. We cannot control others, but we can try our best to inspire hope within them.

You have a duty to your fellow human beings, because it is up to all of us to continue our evolution. If you feel like you see a miscalculation in the equation of society and you have the courage to face adversary head on to balance the equation out in order to pursue peace, then by all means please do, but if you shout at someone, belittle them, or become violent with them, then have you really given your best effort? I don't think so.

You have to talk with them; not at them. They have already been talked at, it doesn't work, and that is part of why they are upset in the first place.

If we slander someone's integrity to prove a point we will only strengthen their perspective and the perspective of people who agree with the perspective we wish to change. You have simply made a martyr. Not only that, but we encourage others to slander people as well. We have the power to shift perspective if our approach warrants communication as opposed to separation. We all have the powers of influence and inspiration. Are we using ours to incite divides between humanity, or to build bridges?
Hate+Hate does not = Peace

Darn wrong thread. Hahaha

If we slander someone's integrity to prove a point we will only strengthen their perspective and the perspective of people who agree with the perspective we wish to change. You have simply made a martyr. Not only that, but we encourage others to slander people as well. We have the power to shift perspective if our approach warrants communication as opposed to separation. We all have the powers of influence and inspiration. Are we using ours to incite divides between humanity, or to build bridges?
Hate+Hate does not = Peace

I'm not saying I don't agree but let's get a little weird with that for a sec.

Does this mean ownership goes all the way back to the first person who realized what the Earth was?

It started with our ancient ancestors popping out their urchins and no-one objecting to that because, well, they wanted to have children too

And also Baden, one could argue that there was at one time an *obligation to humanity to populate the species.

I think about something sort of like this a lot. I feel like we have a responsibility to maintain a level of population that is conducive to survival. I don't have the optimal number, but I also feel like it is possible to exceed one that can produce harmful results. Especially in regards to resource management.

I'm wondering if overpopulation is inevitable, or if there are ways to balance the rates of increase in population with advances in waste management.

In other words, just because the theory seems like it would work, doesn't mean that it will once it's put into play.

I need to work on my objective and respectful approach toward you all. I keep accidentally typing things that I feel are informative, when in reality they can easily be construed as snide or rude. (For example: assuming that there is a joke when there is not)

I will try to aviod that type of situation henceforth.

I don't have to refute the argument itself to refute how it does not apply to the discussion here.

Just because a question can be questioned does not mean that the subject does not exist.

Are you suggesting that morals do not exist? If so, then why do we turn some of them into laws?

We dont have the proof to say that any moral is 100% universally unequivocally truly moral. That is why I included "perhaps universal" as part of the definition. Morals are relative to the person or persons observing them, and they change based on new perspectives and discoveries.

I understand the argument. What I don't understand is how it negates my original statements regarding society adopting principals in order to preserve it's existence. I'm not trying to imply that a popular moral is good or bad. I'm just saying that it exists.

I dont buy it. Something is good if it creates a desirable outcome.

I remember saying to myself when I was 15 that morality is more relative than objective, and I feel like I agree with my 15 year old self, but in my mind this doesn't rule out the *potential of objective morality.

Good for who? I think we have to pick what something is good for to determine the type of good we are talking about.
Is it good for the individual, society's evolution, the planet's evolution, or the universe's evolution?

Then we have to ask, what is more important?
And further, which is the most important?
From what I understand, morality is not completely objective. We agree as societies and individuals as to what we feel should be objective morally, but it changes.

This discussion is in another post, and I haven't posted in it because I am still piecing this concept together.

but can we compare the two and deduce which could be considered "more moral"?

I had similar thoughts as Tim. I have a hard time defining "good" in regards to what you have posted, I find it difficult to relate it to my statement, and the premise of the argument seems to me like it doesn't solve anything.

it might be good to define "moral" and "immoral."


I would like to try, Tim. And if we can pick this apart, please let's. I am interested in my definitions of these words and also happy to learn.

If something is moral, then it is in agreement amongst a society that there are particular ways to handle a given situation that will lend to a betterment for that society.

If something is immoral, then it is in agreement amongst a society that there are particular ways to handle a given situation that will lend to a deterioration for that society.

And there are of course different types of morals and immorals. Personal, societal, planetary, and perhaps universal.

:lol:

Capitalism is moral when the people involved in it utilize it with moral standards in mind.
Eg: I helped someone in order to acquire this ring.

Capitalism is immoral when the people involved in it abuse it with immoral standards in mind.
Eg: I stole this ring.

The ring is a symbol of bourgeois extravagance.


A ring is an investment in savings.

there is no way to morally assess capitalistic activity, therefore it is immoral.
I disagree. A Google search will refute this claim, as does our current conversation.
This statement does not prove that capitalism is immoral.

To my understanding capitalism has both moral and immoral implications based on how the individual utilizes it. Is it perfectly moral? No. Is it comparatively more moral than communism? I would argue yes. Something does not have to be 100% perfectly moral for it to not have implications of moral principles.

If you are offended I appologize Martin; I meant no offense. If you read up you will see that I missed a joke earlier. As you can see, my ability to decipher them is below average. This is why I made a frowning face; at my own problem, not at yours or your lack there of.

These questions struck my curiousity:
Is one responsible for the morality revolving an object prior to their purchase of the object?
If so, to what extent?
Is it to the extent that we are trusting the seller when they say that they have sourced the ring ethically? Are we morally obligated to do more research in regards to it's ethical sourcing? Or are you saying flat out that at no point in time is capitalism considered ethical at all?

the economic activity involved in buying the ring was in no way morally different to you keeping it.

Is this a joke? I'm not very good at joking. :(

It was a round yellowish ring with a glittery thing on it. It must be mine.


How many stones does it have?
What shape are the cuts of the stones?
What color are the stones?
Is it engraved?
Is the band thick, or thin?

Answering these questions as an outside observer is difficult, and I imagine that a small percentage of us could hardly do so.

I don't mean to be negative, or to chastise. None of us considered it. Even I didn't think it until just now. I only intend to be objective.

I still grade an A for what it's worth, because regardless it was a respectable thing to do and again once you make the effort any deciet after the fact is out of your hands. I think that his willingness to offer a reward is a positive testament to his honesty in a way.