[Arm-netbook] Totally derailed topic
John Luke Gibson
eaterjolly at gmail.com
Tue May 30 04:08:37 BST 2017
On 5/29/17, David Niklas <doark at mail.com> wrote:
>> The mountains of religious thought pumped into this thread has it
>> visibly oozing (I mean no offense).
> Ooh, it's coming to get you :)
Yes it is xD Spaghetti is gonna come to me in my dreams now and slap
me (I'm very much kidding!)
>> 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?
Of course not! It's a common misconception that Nietzsche was a Nazi,
since the Nazi's borrowed from the fellow's philosophy.
My understanding is the Nietzsche believed that Christianity
intentionally promoted social systems and governing which inevitably
would cause a significant minority to be suffering. The fellow
endeavored to demonstrate by way of thought experiments how the
Christian churches would in most cases fall apart if their weren't
enough people to feel compassionate or sorrowful for. This is why
Christians frequently are brought up to believe that it's not the
governments place to help the suffering, and rather that should be the
obligation of the pious.
>> 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?
I don't support any particular moral code or another, I believe there
needs to be a much greater diversity of moral codes than we currently
have, well-founded and sound even in the face of rigorous criticism.
My own morals are formed quite synthetically, and formulated based
around the idea that the universal ethic is a simple mandate for the
maximal longterm diversity of conflict. To sum it up, I think of it
like this: if a person dies, think of all of the conflicts both with
themselves and others that they could have engaged in if they hadn't.
Now if that person was a martyr for a cause you have something you can
weigh, how much conflict would they have participated in versus how
much conflict would their death inspire. One can also weigh
destructive conflict negatively against one item or another, as I
would probably refer to conflict which isn't destructive as
>> (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.
> How about inherent insufficiency?
> Or you can just <--insert favourite word-->.
Ultimately you will have conflict, if not with other humans then with
the self or with physics :P
More information about the arm-netbook