Quote:
Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword
There is no defined right or wrong if there is no goal. What would be considered right or wrong in this situation
|
I wouldn't know because I actually have goals, however, that doesn't mean that someone without goals can't have morality.
Quote:
|
And what do you base your ethics on?
|
What is good for society based on known information. Typically of the social variety.
Quote:
|
No, it isn't. That is why I was criticizing the popular philosophies of this time aka. post-modernism where you are to sacrifice your life for your fellow man, where humans are viewed as the dust of the earth, and etc.
|
What if someone derives happiness from defeatism? What if veiwing others as more important than yourself gives you a sense of humbleness which makes you happy?
Quote:
|
One can feel happy following religion if he wants to, but the question is whether he is truly happy. I bold "he" because it comes down to the issue of identity.
|
But what is good to identify with? This seems like nothing more than opinion, and saying that everyone has the ability to identify with thatever they want and it doesn't matter is bordering on a nihilistic thought process. On the other hand saying there is an objectively good thing to identify with is outright opressive. This statement alone makes it sound like you're saying it is objectively bad to feel connected to religion or religious figures while saying it is subjectively acceptable. Which is it?
Quote:
|
Why? I mean, you saying it is depressing is not really refuting my point because I see no reasoning behind that statement.
|
It seems like a confusingly misinformed philosophy.
Quote:
|
No, I am not saying that at all. In fact, I find it to be quite the opposite. I realize that what really is, is the self. I realize that my life means something to myself. Your way of pursuing truth at the cost of the self is Nietzschian and we know what happened to him. He sacrificed his existence to the world. While you might say that he found some truth, I would say that he did not since he denied the first truth, the self.
|
THIS. You seem to be so anti-nihilism yet this is exactly what nihilism is. You're saying that objectivity revolves around subjectivity derived from self awareness, and that since nothing is more important than self that self is the best thing to edify. You, your opinions, and your goals are the basis of your world view, and anything that is against those things is obviously bad. For the nihilist it is about their subjective experience of a subjective world where they then formulate subjective opinions of what is happening. The only difference is that you have a large enough ego to call it objective.
Quote:
|
Morality is based on reason.
|
and then
Quote:
|
People will derive different moralities,
|
Uh-huh. I follow.
Quote:
|
but because there is an objective morality
|
What evidence is there of being an objective morality? If morality is derived from reason and reason changes from person to person than morality has to be subjective. Oh wait, you have proof? Let's check this out.
Quote:
|
We may not find it, but at least find the best you can find because it leads to more happiness.
|
But different people get happiness from different things. If someone gets happiness from immorality this would prove you completely wrong.
Quote:
|
When you say "what I gain from reality" you are concerned with your own interests first. That is selfishness.
|
I wouldn't say that I am 100% selfless.
Quote:
|
Then you go on to say that these selfish motives of yours are more important than anything you can get from your selfish goals (aka. selfish motives).
|
But I think I do view this the opposite way that you do. I view reality as important because it affects everyone. Not just me. If we were capable of existing in our own seperate realities outside of each other than I would probably have an entirely different world view.