This statement suggests two things: (1) that loyalty is secondary to whatever it is that makes something good; and (2) that loyalty in itself isn't good, but is only good in relation to the good. — Sapientia

Mmm. Loyalty to the good is reciprocal, I think.

In my readings, utilitarianism doesn't do a very good job of explaining how happiness and human welfare fully manifests itself in the world. If the state's ethical aim is to ensure some kind of "overall happiness in a society", then it's bound to fail every time because I would disagree that happiness is the foundation of moral conduct.

That's like me, although for me too care shows at the top. But your scores on care and fairness though .... pff your morality is like perfect :-O did you cheat?! >:O — Agustino

I am Christ returned. Just believe me, you may not understand, but it's the truth (Y)

shows that loyalty has a relatively low place in your moral scheme. — Agustino

It's probably what I "care" about most, though, haha.

We're not doing business together Heister... — Agustino

What're those scores relative to? I'm about as loyal to the good as I can be, dunno how I'm failing in that category. I wouldn't consider someone loyal if they put up with sluts and cheaters, :-|

It says I am a Left-Liberal :’( ... What should I do? — Agustino

"Some men have a private, all-male club and feminists take them to court, demanding that they open it up to women."

>:O >:O >:O

"Sarah's dog has four puppies. She can only find a home for two of them, so she kills the other two with a stone to the head."

:-O

~

Scores:

Care - 100% - Strongest Moral Foundation
Fairness - 97.2%
Loyalty - 47.2%
Authority - 61.1%
Purity - 75%
Liberty - 63.9%

Closest Morality - Left Liberal

Relative:

Care - 22.5%
Fairness - 21.8%
Loyalty - 10.6%
Authority - 13.7%
Purity - 16.8%
Liberty - 14.6%

Deception is still immoral, but maybe necessarily immoral per Heister Eggcart's usage of the term in such circumstances — Agustino

Dunno about that. I think the quality of his prose keeps a lot of people away.

Meister Eggfart,

Become a Schopenhauer fan, you know it's good for you.

Is it? — Question

I'm not sure.

Not sure one is claiming that the potential is true, either.

Isn't it worth distinguishing between believing something to be true, and believing in the potential for something to be true?

What do you mean? Belief in itself is a truth claim isn't it? To believe something is to think it true. — Agustino

One can believe something without claiming it to be the truth.

Belief doesn't require a truth claim.

Why do you think so? Have you read Tolstoy's Gospel in Brief? It was one of Wittgenstein's favorite books — Agustino

Your fascination with Tolstoy is...(N)

Why are you laughing it's true — Agustino

I'm laughing because, if I don't understand something, I do not believe it to be true.

Hmm, perhaps, yes.

Why my favorite Bolshevik paints store, of course!

fuck if I know what that is supposed to actually mean. — Agustino

>:O >:O >:O

Christianity falls apart without trinitarian theology.

delete - was off topic — Agustino

Too late, I already voyeur'd what you originally wrote. It got me uncontrollably hard, too, goddamn it.

Get a room you two. Preferably one where I can still watch.

Some Japanese funk, me like (Y)

You do realize that you can't control an erection, correct? >:O

What about Maggotsino and Shyster Eggfart? If you don't have a good understanding of Schopenhauer yourself how could you possibly tell whether others do or not? — John

Well, one of them is named after him, darth seems to bring him in a lot, so he's at least read him, and Thoro seems to have a hardon for him, so I dunno. If I'm wrong, then they can let me know >:O

I bet you that my Eckhart knowledge trumps yours! :D

Yes, I think you are partly correct. But then, not all idols, as Wayfarer adds, are material - there are also immaterial idols. So what is the commonality between the two? The commonality is clearly in how the person relates to the object, whether this is a physical or a mental object. So why does a person relate to an object such that the object becomes an idol? How does the person make the object into an idol? — Agustino

Because the truth can be elusive, and objects help to root what is uncertain or veiled in a more coherent and visible reality. In Christian theosophy, I'd consider transubstantiation to be at the pinnacle of this religious tendency.

It's also more comfortable for people to channel their belief into objects because, after all, we are, at least in part, objects too. As I've said before, it's easier to conceptualize love or some other ideal into an object, such as a golden calf, a Buddha, or even Jesus Christ. However, as you've probably noticed, there exists a grey area between what is worship and what is idolatry. I remember when I was younger, having taken a few airplane flights and feeling a bit overwhelmed every time, I wanted to get a small crucifix so that I could hold it. Why? Rather simply, I wanted something other than myself to help channel a presence of calm in those situations Yet, I wouldn't consider that desire to be particularly out of the ordinary. Even so, we'd agree that the Israelites praying to golden bull out in the desert is pure nonsense (Yahweh at least agrees with me). So, what's the difference between my thinking about holding a little crucifix in my grasp and someone who prays to a bull? Both of us have the intention of angling ourselves more toward God, but somehow there's a breakdown in perception between the two.

Are there so few people fluent in Schopenhauer on these boards? — Agustino

Thoronkill, Schopenpower1, darthbarrasputum to name a few, I think.

The next thing to investigate is how an object, an idea, a person, or anything else can become an idol - what about the relationship of the person with it causes the person to use it as an invisible mirror reflecting their own self back to themselves while hiding the process and making it seem that God is reflected back? What makes the Pharisee blind - spiritually - to his idolatry? And what makes the penitent tax collector worship in truth - authentically? — Agustino

Idols are easier to commit one's time and eyes to because they're manifested in material. Honesty, loyalty, love, contrition, and so on are all virtues that are beneath the surface. You can't walk into a statue of love like you can a golden cow.

Let's go back to the Kierkegaard quote with which this thread started. If I can bow down before a stone shaped idol, and still pray to the true God, that means that what makes something an idol depends on me - on my interiority - on my hidden inner life. Would you agree? — Agustino

If I take your meaning here, yes. Christ taught a change of heart. Jews were only getting the rituals, while they failed to live moral lives, which is why idolatry is a sensitive topic because a lot of Christians think it prudent to remove all symbols and such, which is going too far.

Likewise, someone can bow before the icon of the true God, and pray to an idol - because it's their interiority that makes the object an idol - they are making it an idol. How is this possible? How do they make it an idol? What about them makes it an idol? They pray in untruth ... What is untruth? — Agustino

This goes, again, with Christ's teaching of a turning over of the heart.

Ok. So if Love is greater than you, it is not completely contained by you - it always exceeds you. And in order to know it, and be closer to it - you have to reach out of the prison of your self. So man is created in the image of God - destined to reach out of their own self - to point towards God. — Agustino

Love is the governor of the world. I wouldn't say that it transcends the world like any concept of God.

Is all of it in you? — Agustino

No.

Or is your asceticism a way to reach out of yourself? — Agustino

For my love to be given, yes.

Is Love greater than you or equal to you? — Agustino

Greater, of course.

Clarify this - how does one find truth in themselves? — Agustino

Love is the truth and it is in me - but unless it can reflect itself in the world, it is dead O:)

Consider by analogy - when one watches pornography, it seems that the images that one sees point beyond themselves. Someone watching porn isn't ultimately watching themselves. But, do they control the images? Can they stop the images? Can they choose the images that they want? And in choosing them, are they ultimately thrown back upon themselves? How does this compare with your wife? Do you control your wife? Do you control what sounds she makes, when she smiles, when she's happy? In having sex with your wife, are you pointing out of yourself - encountering someone that is other than you - and therefore reaching out of your own self? — Agustino

wat

This is more unintelligible than the poetic drivel I just wrote above, >:O

Find truth in yourself and you've found truth in the rest of the world.

No, not at all. I'm trying to see where your thinking moves. Would you agree that if man is created in the image of God, then man's self always points beyond itself? — Agustino

Hmm. The tricky business here is that "pointing beyond the self" actually entails gazing further within oneself, but in an attempt to see God more fully, rather than our own nature, which is only represented just the same outside of our bodies in the world.

Are you testing me or something? >:O I'm prolly the only one here who will agree with you in this thread. Respect your allies more, pls

What is an image? And what is a non-image? — Agustino

If interpreted in the Jewish tradition, I'd agree with the earlier posters about what it means. But in the Christian sense, I think that it's a lesson in avoiding the mistake of making one's own flesh an idol, a graven image, that which is worshiped. Theologically speaking, we are created in the image of the God of Love, not in the image of our fallen and sinful selves.

Remember my mirrors example. You have one mirror and it can't see itself, experience itself. Add in another mirror that similarly cannot see itself, but then have each mirror reflect into each other. At this point you have a relationship which forms between two of the same but separate things that can only be once joined.

You shall not make for yourself an image — Agustino

How do you read this?

Yeah but such comes about as a result of the world. Experience is in the nature of the world and of the mind.