Having a penis leads to a lot suffering at the hands of women

Sure

You don't need a fixed foundation if you are a pragmatist. You use moral systems as vehicles. I don't have any problem replacing one principle with another. It doesn't any make one principle less valid compared to others, it's more about what's appropriate for a specific time and place.

Does the moral self include our past, present, intentions, ideals, accidents, will etc. There are so many variables that it is next to impossible to define moral self.

For me, justified means being practical/pragmatic for my cause whatever it maybe.

I have a mystical inclination like him and l have always had a problem with philosophers messing things up for no good reason. However, l wish l was as smart as him.

Reading Wittgenstein is a pain in the ass, no two ways about that. It is what it is.

A lot of people on this forum have a tendency to philosophize, they do philosophy in a scientific manner, Wittgenstein hated this kind of philosophy. He would definitely shoot himself if he accidentally browsed thephilosophyforum.com

Terrorist are a subgroup of political activists, they want to bring a political/economic/social change. Political activists turn to violence if they don't see any other alternative.

Realpolitik justifies an action as long as it is the most beneficial in a pragmatic sense, morality doesn't play any role in realpolitik. Terrorism is obviously the only tool in the hands of terrorist besides negotiations, which they are often denied.

Realpolitik allows us to transcend moral considerations, it is a form of moral justification in the sense that we suspend moral judgment.

I don't see what you mean by a moral self ?

You don't need any justification. Why limit yourself with reason. Transcend reason. Be a force of nature

It's safe to say no one understood Wittgenstein as he would have liked to be understood. The early Wittgenstein was aware of the contradictory nature of his work. Ramsey convinced him to return back to work. You should read philosophical investigation alongside tractatus and compare both of them. Take your time. His later work is more of a method of doing philosophy and less about philosophizing.

To understand Wittgenstein, you need to be like him to a certain extend.

Further, the idea that someone else's act can justify some act of mine, such that it may be said that he caused my act, is against the whole understanding of any goal of humanity. Understandable, of course, but not justifed. Either that or you can justify anything. And the world is full of people who would do that, even here.

Revenge has served as basis for a lot of punishments in our legal jurisdiction ( death penalty ). Bodily harms is compensated with financial payments and prison sentence ( It's a form of revenge ). I think it is perfectly justifiable morally to return a slap for a slap. Infact, I would make sure l slap twice so my opponent doesn't even think of retaliation.

Wittgenstein would have killed himself, trust me

Athiest have been good to me and religious people too, l have also seen a fair amount of assholes from both sides likewise.

Let's stop debating generalizing atheists and religious people.

We can always tell an asshole apart from a good person despite our philosophical disagreements on morality

Being religious means living a religious life, inserting philosophy in religion leads to confusion. The main job of philosophy is clearing confusion caused by misuse of language. Religious language makes sense if you are religious yourself. Otherwise, it sounds ridiculous.

In the main, the FBI is a functionary in the juridical-policing apparatus of the American oppressor-state ...

Ofc, they work for their own interests but this doesn't mean their study on terrorism is wrong. They can think from the perspective of a terrorist cause they are the terrorist themselves in the first place. USA and terrorist organizations have quite a lot in common.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Had anti-Nazi resistance movements ever started wantonly murdering German civilians it would have been publicized and pushed the country more towards Hitler. What, you think by portraying yourself -- the enemy -- as monsters you're going to scare the stronger force? No, you've enabled their most brutal elements.

You need to think like a terrorist. You don't use terrorism in your own territory to convince the government, the only reason to use terrorism in this case is if the terrain supports you and the government is foreign imposed ( unaware of local terrain and populace ).

Usually, you use terrorism in a foreign territory to force a change of policy towards you, completely different things. It's not limited to this though, if your terrorism is successful, you can cause socio-economic collapse in enemy country. Obviously, it's difficult for Al Qaeda ( or then Taliban ) to target America to this extent, however, they have succeeded in convincing American public to NOT INTERFERE IN THEIR OWN REGIONAL AFFAIRS. The current political talking point is against interference from bothsides. Afghan Taliban have won on both fronts, political and military.

Strawman-ish. For the oppressed terrorism is not a matter of "the ends justifies the means" but instead, as Marx (or Engles?) points out, they have nothing to lose except their chains.

I won't say he is wrong, FBI has described terrorist mindsets in similar terms. They will do anything to achieve their objectives in contradiction to even Islam itself. I haven't studied Marxist inspired terrorism in detail though.

However, there's a contradiction that's not so hard to sniff out. The ends justify the means implies that the bad is permissible for the good but then good means bad is impermissible. Thus, to endorse the position that the ends justify the means is self-contradictory: bad is impermissible ( :down: ) and the bad is permissible ( :up: ).

I see this has taken quite a bit of a philosophical turn. I would argue it is not contradictory. Ends justify the means works in a different way. We suspend our judgment on the means as long as the end is a greater good compared to the means.

Why do we suspend judgment ?

Well , it is a form of utilitarianism. The actual problem is, how do we weigh different deeds. Everyone has a different standard or taste.

Why? What's the reasoning behind this?

For conventional warfare : defeating combatants is seen as getting close to a military victory
For asymmetric warfare : terrorizing and killing civilians forces them to select a gov with different policies after a certain time. Infact, killing civilians is essential.

So people are numbers to be added and subtracted and as brave resistance fighters you're there to do the math correctly and balance the equation.

No, it's just another way of saying, you can't mess with us without expecting something in return.

A 'realpolitik' rule of thumb: The sisyphusean terrorism by the (weaker) oppressed is justified by the terrorism of the (stronger) oppressor.

Right on the mark

Personally, I am against war and violence in general. But the question remains, what do you when the "enemy" gives you no other option?

Depends on the enemy. I think it's impossible to defeat terrorism ( a tool ). You can weaken terrorist groups from time to time but time and again, they will regain power in a different place and time.

Terror groups are used as proxies by various nations against each other. Iran supports Shia terrorists and Saudi Arabia counters it by funding sunni militants , Pakistan supports Afghan Taliban, India supports Pakistan Taliban and BLM. I can mention more examples but the main point is, terrorism is a useful tool. Most countries these days cannot risk a full blown conventional war ( eg , Pakistan and India ) , so they end up using militants against each other. The key factor is creating instability in enemy country and seeing it self destruct in a civil war, then you interfere to install a puppet regime.

The best option for a powerful country like US or Russia would be to fund the local Governments when appropriate, collect intelligence to make sure they are not fucking around, never deploy your own soldiers and most importantly mind your own business ( Don't force your cultural values on a people )

Interesting observation, l think its difficult to terrorize unless you take up arms. Cyber attacks is an option though. Terrorism is usually defined as "using terror and violence against civilians for political motives ".

However non violent organizations have been designated as terrorist in some countries. Take hizb ut tahrir, they want to establish a global caliphate through peaceful means. They were banned for a weird reason, their followers tended to becoming more radicalized later on after being pacifist for a while, hizb ut tahrir was functioning as a coverup for other terrorist organizations. This group is banned in Muslim countries and yet it operates freely in non Muslim countries.

I think applying moral concepts in war like situations makes the whole thing look absurd.

Don't kill innocent people doesn't function as a moral truth anymore. Soldiers on the opposing sides are essentially killing people who they don't even know personally.

Morality is changed to " Get to him before he gets to you " and " ends justify the means" as you have mentioned.

It doesn't take a lot to radicalize a person, once he starts seeing you as his enemy, he is in a different mindset. We should treat terrorism as nothing but an extension of conventional warfare.

The best solution to combat terrorism is not getting involved in conventional warfare in the first place. The war on terror produced more terror because it is a byproduct of war itself

You are right , it is

Looks, money and status

But in case you don't know, Instagram thots have turned down world class footballers ( David luiz ). He has status and money but not the looks. On the other hand, anyone with decent looks can easily get status and money through it. This isn't limited to relations. Good looking people get more opportunities which in return allows them to acquire useful skills. It's a self perpetuating cycle

I am not quite sure how my discussion on the thread has become about love affairs. I have so few, and most of my friends, male or female, are single. I think that may have been more the point which I am making. Relationships, and even friendships can be complicated. So much can be about superficial aspects of existence, or common ground. However, I do have a few of friendships which go back to teenage years, or before, so these are most likely based on deeper connections

This isn't philosophical but in order to be in control of any social relation, you need to keep the PIMP HAND STRONG

Your friends probably agree with me, you can ask them to verify it. It's a common sight these days

This kind of thinking might be related to a pervasive cultural trend to treat all kinds of relations as commerical relations, could it not? In which case it wouldn't actually be evidence of anything more profound than the zeitgeist.

It has always been this way. In the past, the commercial aspect involved politics and tribal relations and the women did not possess a lot of control.

It isn't a worldwide, it is basic biology, we want to produce the best offspring possible. These days, women are in control of the dating market and they want the best looking guy out there to be their bf/husband. I don't see how you can change this.

The video shows looks>>>>>personality

People always tell you that personality is the most important factor when it comes to attraction and dating. This isn't true in any way or form. It's useless to approach girls unless you have seen some indicator of interest. Every sexual encounter in all the species is initiated by the feminine gender ( sex ).

Personality ( intelligence, character, ideals etc ) matter later on once you pass a certain threshold of good looks. ( this varies between girls ).

Are you being serious?

I wish l was trolling or lying. The appreciation you get for being attractive is on a whole new level compared to the appreciation you get from being intelligent, hardworking etc. For instance, when l lost weight. People started treating me a lot ( a lot ) better. Beautiful people are living life on tutorial mode. I wish we were better than animals and more compassionate, but we are not. It's a sad reality

I know a number of people from school and college who married, and a lot of the relationships didn't survive long. I think that this is part of the problem of finding connections beyond the immediate. Relating to others is extremely complex, because it involves so much projection. We project so much onto others, and others do this to each one of us.We could ask to what extent is a person really in love with another, or with the image of another? The imagined other may be so different from the actual person.

Love is usually idealized. I have observed this first hand and l think most people can relate. We love what we don't possess in the present moment. It seems love is more about about the journey towards possessing what you love than actually possessing it. It's easy to love when you are separated.

For this reason alone, I can always tell when someone is playing hard to get. For girls, a desperate guy isn't ideal It's simple economics. Your value is determined by the number of people interested in dating you. The sexual market value of a 3/10 female is higher than a 7/10 male.

Don't fall in love though, if you love someone more in comparison to their love towards you, it will be a one sided relationship and you will be begging for attention. You will be the one who is "down" and other party will be the one in control , the "up" side.

I don't see how photography will improve my perspective. I am sure l don't look as good as Delon. It's not like you won't be able to tell apart the average joe from Brad Pitt in Troy. In the grand scheme of things, beautiful people exist.

keep in mind, some of the phenom we're discussing is existential for Christian's, not necessarily dogmatic, moral, or even metaphysical, etc.. (The Book of Ecclesiastes).

I think existential problems include them all. Kierkegaard's last stage ( religious ) includes the ethical and the aesthetic. But its better if we talk in terms of existential philosophy.

However, the world we find ourselves in is partly physical. There's no escape. Yet the real joys come from a limbic system that seems, and is, mostly metaphysical.

I agree, we cannot reduce joy to some physical interactions in our brain at the moment. Some scientist and philosophers have suggested a new framework for neurology. An objective scientific inquiry of consciousness is actually not possible. In order to achieve progress in this field, we would need to redefine the scientific method a bit. The main problem they encounter is as follows : The person providing the data is also the source of data, this interference and inseparable state causes huge discrepancies in data.

However, I think that it is also important to look behind appearances, because surface and deeper levels of knowing others may uncover more than is apparent on a superficial level.

I agree with you on this point but it's pointless. Developed countries tend to have a fast paced life. Everything is immediate. Take marriage for example, people don't want to be married anymore. They have short term relationships and move on to another one easily. If you look at the statistics on dating, hypergamy and polygamy has increased quite a lot. One night stands and having multiple partners is becoming the norm ( esp in Scandinavian countries ). Our society is moving in the opposite direction to the one you have suggested. It's too late now. At this point, we have to embrace it unwillingly.

I'm not talking about pictures taken with cameras.
Look at people: a beautiful person only seems beautiful when looking at them from about 5 to 2 meters, in dispersed light. Go further, and their features become too indistinguishable to matter, go closer and you see all the ugly details of their skin (or makeup).

I don't think this is the case, I have been with truly beautiful people and they look beautiful in every setting. They tend to have a lot of collagen in their skin which makes it smooth and youthful, their pores are not visible to the naked eye.

Btw, I can't say my understanding of what Wittgenstein meant is correct but you need to understand his philosophy of language to get this point. Body can include voice and other things which are observable. Intelligence, feelings, ideas cannot be observed, you can only infer. I think he was describing the human soul keeping in his mind the picture theory of language.

I think truth is experienced subjectively like Kierkegaard pointed it out but we can objectify it in a book. For Christians, they have a bible and it contains all sorts of metaphysical, moral truths . However, we cannot arrive at them by following a crowd. In my view, everyone is essentially looking for the same thing, but they arrive and travel differently in life. It's hard to put your fingers on it.

He was abandoned as a child so he did have some mental problems but I didn't say, imagine you were Delon. In general, being beautiful is so important that if you study the Abrahamic faiths, you will realize one fact. All the Prophets God sent were beautiful and handsome. Even if you don't believe in a God , you can sense the importance cultures give to good looks.

Btw, I am living a similar life and it isn't that bad. I like being alone with myself.

Depends on the distance from which one looks at a face, and under what lighting conditions. In broad daylight, up close, nobody looks beautiful.

The lens distortion caused by distance and lens curvature, lighting, background etc affect a picture. In reality, we see people with our eyes ( duh ) and they see pretty much the same person irrespective of background

Wittgenstein isn't talking about a picture in the literal sense. He wants to say we can refer to a person by what they look like in everyday language. What distinguishes us from other is our appearance

He experienced more dopamine rush in a single year than we will experience in a lifetime. We will all be old oneday (hopefully ) and ugly people will look uglier.

Ugly people get treated like this every single day. He isn't a creep or a loser. Let's suppose he is average in everything except looks. Unfortunately they didn't let him off easily

It's not about being successful but ruining it. You could be an accomplished scientist but if you are ugly, people see an ugly person before seeing a scientist. It's unavoidable. Imagine covering gold with poop, you would be disgusted.

I am a bit crude but it is what it is.

Cmon, Wittgenstein was good looking and way more important than Sartre. And he accurately stated some where , "the human body is the best picture of the human soul". Wittgenstein's philosophy was like wittgenstein himself. Schopenhauer on the other hand....... ( he didn't hate women for no reason )

No , all there is to life is looking beautiful, the rest will take care of itself.

It's not politically correct to highlight the importance of appearance. Lookism is a real phenomenon and we have a lot of empirical evidence in our favor. Looks go beyond attracting the opposite sex. The impact of Good looks includes every aspect of your social life. Ranging from friendships, occupation, social status and relationships. It overrides every other factor in our social life.

People love telling each other that beauty is subjective etc but this isn't true in the way they see it. A beautiful face usually tends to be harmonious, average of the community, fits in well with the golden ratio mask, symmetrical. I don't want to go into the details but l can easily explain why a certain eye is attractive and why the other one isn't. The little variation in attractive people account for our taste but this doesn't make beauty a meaningless word to throw around.

Western civilization according to Spengler aims at the infinite. It's characteristic nature is "will to power". It wasn't until the early 20 the century, philosophers realized that it will all come to an end. Our fields of knowledge will be exhausted and our arts will simply be a recombination of historical art forms. Western civilization will die in the next 200 years and a Cesarean form of government will take control over it. Just as the Islamic Civilization died after the siege of Baghdad, the Gothic civilization will also die.

The destruction of traditions , low birth rate, all time high depression, poor economy, immigration, racial tensions, late capitalism are all symptoms of a collapse