[Arm-netbook] Totally derailed topic

[David Niklas]

On  Tue, 9 May 2017 20:14:36 -0400
John Luke Gibson <eaterjolly at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/9/17, Lyberta <lyberta at lyberta.net> wrote:
> > doark at mail.com:  
> >> I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own
> >> potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result
> >> of an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless
> >> existence.  
> >
> > When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever
> > believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for
> > truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had
> > time to investigate.
Investigation is a good idea. If I may what college? What were you
planning to major in?

> > And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is
> > relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So
> > if I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.
Think of a pendulum, now compare with what you just wrote.............
The solution to your problem is not to "believe" or not to
"believe" (belief is actually a REQUIREMENT of live since we could not
decide about anything that is uncertain with out it). If you walk up to a
person how do you tell whether or not they speak English well? Whether
they can use big words? Do you start with something extremely simple or
not?
Or, for another example, Luke did not know whether or not he would
succeed in completing the eoma68, or if it would be on time. He tries his
best, but he still does not know if that is good enough.

> > The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I
> > don't know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die.
> > In fact, I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition
> > can't escape it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the
> > cave?
This is one of the last things you'll learn in philosophy.

> > Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I
> > also don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in
> > the next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind
> > where I understand that I understand nothing.
Nonsense, we are in an action-reaction universe, observe the actions and
you aught to be able to determine the reactions.

> >> In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is
> >> eyeopening, insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world
> >> around you, as opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.  
> >
> > I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for
> > them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric
> > hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly
> > put it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.
> >
Ouch!
I had the identical experience, but I took the opportunity to read a
nasty book to record all it's mistakes, thus I not only learned about the
stupid things people write about but I am quite able to refute them.
I always thought that fiction aught to reflect reality, to bring out what
is.
Spoke to my mother about you, see suggested watching a TV program on
EWTN (not that I watch EWTN but maybe it would heklp...)

God the universe and everything
By Matt Fradd
On June  18 12:00 AM (EST?)


> 
> The mountains of religious thought pumped into this thread has it
> visibly oozing (I mean no offense). 
Ooh, it's coming to get you :)

> Firstly, the speaker in that video
> linked @zap I'm familiar with and is very unreliable when their claims
> are checked or researched. Secondly, Nietzsche explores that so-called
> "trap". The thing is that religion presents the concept of morality
> which fills the space created by ennui and lack of obstacles to
> self-preservation. Noam Chomsky popularized abit the thought that the
> consistent trend in nature is more intelligent species tend to go
> extinct after a shorter period than obviously less intelligent ones
> (i.e. beetles), this is due to genetic drift and inbred weaknesses due
> to a lack of obstacles to their survival. Ethics is an artificial
> obstacle we present ourselves in order to keep us strong (Nietzsche
> referred to the model used by Christianity as Slave Morality,
> suggesting that the ethics therein enslave the subscriber to the whims
> and desires of the less fortunate, and thusly purporting the existence
> of less fortunate as ENDEMICALLY NECESSARY because without less
> fortunate people then there would be point to the ethics of
> christianity and therefore there would be no obstacle to occupy
> ourselves with and therefore genetic drift would set in and we would
> die as a species. In other words, Nietzsche considered christianity so
> obsessed with compassion, that in a world without suffering it would
> utterly and completely fall apart.).
> 
So people like Lyberta are causing genetic impurity and aught to be?


> Nietzsche's life's work was dedicated to attempting to create a
> well-developed replacement to both religion and "Slave Morality".
> 
> I don't know if I support Nietzsche's alternative of "Master Morality"
Then what do you support?

> (where the obstacle is to become the best human possible, the
> so-called "ubermensch"), but I do say that "trap" is hardly a "trap"
> rather it's just a human need for an obstacle or conflict, and by
> rejecting religion all one is doing is rejecting the type of conflict
> which that religion endorses.
<snip>
How about inherent insufficiency?
Or you can just <--insert favourite word-->.


the very best,
David