Yet, whatever else the drug lord is, they aren't one of Nietzsche's "Last Men." Walter's story is partially the tale of a man transcending Last Manhood through crime. The point isn't so much the crime, as this transcending motion. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Harry could never get past seeing language as nothing but reference — Banno

You might ask yourself why his supporters saw him in that position.
— praxis

The majority did not, … — AmadeusD

but to the extend that they did it's because the saw themselves constantly attacked for having reasonable opinions and he spoke to that. — AmadeusD

In fact, a democrat did a dive into his videos and found that his only examples of personal name-calling were about himself. — AmadeusD

As it happens, as a subscriber to Vervaeke's mailing list, his most recent missive was about 'spiritual but not religious'. — Wayfarer

Your view of hte world seems to be derived from your personal wishes and not reality. — AmadeusD

This leads to a question: is it possible to believe that religions are all not wrong, without believing that they are all right? Or is the idea that they are neither wrong not right, but are merely helpful or unhelpful stories? Then we might ask how a religion could be helpful or unhelpful. — Janus

I think most religion is more about feeling connected to the possibility of an afterlife than about feeling connected to life. — Janus

He doesn't say that at all, from what I've read and heard, which is a quite a lot. In the Awakening from the Meaning Crisis, he gives space to religious figures such as Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Tillich, to name a few - from a critical perspective, to be sure, but certainly not from the perspective of religions being wrong. If you can find anything from him which says that, I'll revise my view. — Wayfarer

You can see Vervaeke kind of wrestling with religious questions - he's upfront about having been born into a fairly dysfunctional fundamentalist family and his rejection of that. But he dialogues with philosophers of religion and theologians - William Desmond, D C Schindler, many others. In his quest to articulate the meaning of 'wisdom' he does grapple with religious ideas, but from many different perspectives and traditions. — Wayfarer

Hmm. While I do not think Kirk ever did this - yes, that's right. So does Kamala, Seder, Maddow, Tiedrich, Reich etc.. etc.. — AmadeusD

make a claim in my DMs — AmadeusD

People are really stupid and (as it seems you are quite disposed to do) actually look for things to get upset about... — AmadeusD

A bigot like Kirk didn’t merely think trans are wrong or misguided as you mistakenly suggest; he consider them abominations. It's not just 'you are wrong,' but 'you should not exist.'
— praxis

You genuinely seem unable to stick to reality. So I shall pass on further engagement here. — AmadeusD

I'm glad you are enjoying it. When you finish shoot me an , I'd love to get your impressions. There's a lot to it. — Manuel

This is the disconnect. That I find it strange you are unable to see. — Outlander

You cannot present anything that could support your position.

…

I mainly watched his clips to find ways to understand how the in fuck people found it worthy their time to be so dishonest, hateful and frankly stupid as to call him things like ;'bigot', 'Nazi' etc... — AmadeusD

It was actually Nietzsche who argued this in "Geaneology of Morality", that "the good people"[virtuous] are just the powerful weak-willed masters/slaves imposing what is "good" on the basis of what is good for them. — ProtagoranSocratist

That is hateful, given it's not true. But that's...yknow. Your opinion man. — AmadeusD

My take on this---which I think is fairly consistent with Jamal as we've just had an exchange in the mod forum---is, as I said there:

"We allow proofreading in the guidelines. But we also more or less say if the proofreading moves too far into editing and then rewriting and therefore makes your text look AI generated, that's a risk you run. I would agree it's similar to grammarly in a way, but AI can sometimes take it too far. So, yes, it's not against the rules in itself, but I don't know why people can't just live with a bit of clunky writing. It will save us wondering about whether or not its AI gen'd and maintain their quirky indviduality." — Baden

I don't believe that one can make such a 'hard distinction' between scientific truths and moral truths. — boundless

Clear to whom? A great many philosophers reject the fact/values distinction. — Count Timothy von Icarus

There was a time when most people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and all celestial bodies revolved around the Earth. Yet we know that geocentrism is 'objectively false'. So, it would be not surprising that we might in a condition that we do not know what is truly good for us and nevertheless, in principle, we could know it. — boundless

In a 'virtue ethics' framework what is sought is what is truly good for a human being and the reasonable assumption that is made is that a human being might misunderstand 'what is truly good for him or her'. — boundless

Relative to the perspective of the individual.
— praxis

So when a child feeds their cat antifreeze because it looks like a fun drink. Cats love antifreeze too. Is it thus truly good for the cat to drink antifreeze because all the individuals in question think it is so? — Count Timothy von Icarus

The tiger enjoys a satisfying monkey hunt and meal—which is good.
— praxis

This is simply changing the subject to what is good for the tiger. Again, is it false that is "bad for the monkey to be eaten?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

Relative in what sense? — Count Timothy von Icarus

What exactly is: "All else equal, it is bad for a monkey to be eaten," relative to? Certainly not the tiger. To the extent that the tiger has beliefs, I don't imagine it thinks what it is doing is good for the monkey either. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Or for: "having access to proper water and sunlight are good for my plant," if this is relative, in what context is it false? — Count Timothy von Icarus

My personal orientation to good and bad is that it's subjective 100% of the time: when the tiger eats the monkey, it's good for the tiger, bad for the monkey. The tiger gets nourishment, the monkey feels unpleasant and dies. The tiger can't be "morally wrong" because it can't question its behavior. However, this subjectivity gets extremely complex when you have humans who believe in free will and compatibilism.
— ProtagoranSocratist

Right, but is it not a fact that "being eaten by a tiger is bad for monkeys?" It seems to me that this is obvious. What monkeys are tells us at least something of what is good for them.

Likewise, is it not a fact that it is—at least all else equal—better for human to be strong rather than weak, agile instead of clumsy, intelligent instead of dim witted, courageous instead of cowardly, knowledgeable rather than ignorant, prudent instead of rash, possessing fortitude instead of being weak of will, healthy instead of sick, etc.? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Let's say I'm doing a "solo non-assist run" as far as the life I live goes. :grin: — Outlander

I am not going to outline all the possible dangers of AI—people can educate themselves about that by undertaking a search in whatever search engine they use or YouTube or whatever. — Janus