[deleted]

Not read body. Actual post title suggests no true Scotsman gate keeping whinge. At very least implies low quality.

Agree above quote provides no actual reason for low quality assertion though.

Arguing moral values is arguing beliefs - you can't argue beliefs, you can only accept or not accept them. Moral values are only truth to those who believe in them. You can argue facts but not beliefs.

Or how about any emotion at a large enough scale or intensity of impact should be circulated or cycled amongst others so as to limit burden to the individual?

The less we burden the individual the greater our collective relief truly is.

Can anyone help me with a class project. I have to use social contract theory and link it to the death penalty and explain why it is right or wrong.

From going to an MMA/boxing gym for 10+ years and making all kinds of mistakes. This is what I have learnt about pity:

If you feel pity for the person you are facing across the ring/cage, you may end up making him win. You won't perform at your best. The end result of this pity is that you subconsciously end up making other people feel pity on you (because you lost the match, you lost money, you didn't perform at your fullest potential, you didn't make your coaches look good etc.).

Basically you END UP feeling pity on yourself and also make others feel pity on you.

Never feel pity for people who happen to be lower than you on the ladder. Never disrespect and put them down either (treat people like you want to be treated). Never subconsciously make yourself worse on purpose either (you are part of the universe and you matter). Always be at your best. Never let anyone make you feel "bad" for being at your best.

I wish I knew all of this when I was younger. I wasted most of my life feeling "pity" for people and then subconsciously making myself worse so that I don't have to "feel" pity.

I'm not well-read, so know nothing about Sarte. I'll have to look it up to understand that idea!

I think perceptions/experiences are literally all there "is," just a massive complex web of interacting perceptions. What we experience is simply how the experience of others appears from the outside. It's kind of like Bernardo Kastrup's analytical idealism, except I think that I think the instantiation of the individual mind precedes the bodily form (i.e. kind of like Eastern ideas on a soul reincarnating).

Far moreso the former, in that I believe the reality that we perceive on a day to day basis is to an extent generated by the collective unconsciousness of man, though I would also say that I lean towards Sarte's idea that human existence preceeds its essence.

[removed]

Is that nondualism more similar to a mind-only kind or more like a matter-only variety? In the former, I feel like meaning is ontologically fundamental in some sense while in the latter meaning doesn't exist, and is just a figment of illusory experience---meaning is just overlaid onto an otherwise meaningless fundamental reality.

That being said, even in a materialism-only view, one can say that meaning is still there in an information-theoretic sense. Reality has real objects and structure, and an organism is sensing that and representing it with patterns of neural activity. When said organism communicates with another organism, there is an ontologically real correspondence between their neural activity and the patterns in the communication with the actual real world they are sensing and communicating about. That is the meaning of their communication, it "means" the particular arrangement of material reality.

I am more of a mind-only type of nondualist though (at present).

"If anyone can refute me‚ show me I'm making a mistake or looking at things from the wrong perspective‚ I'll gladly change. It's the truth I'm after." Marcus Aurelius

I just discovered this quote for the first time this morning. It makes a lot of sense to me. I've lived all my life having a strong opinion, but at the same time, I take responsibility for my wrongs.

The question of the post,

Does the fact that Marcus Aurelius was a slave owner have an effect on the meanings of his teachers that do not reference the issues of slaver ? Such as this one.

I love how they're same same but different. I bet if they grew up with calisthenics their health may have been different. Working out does improve mental health.

It's so easy to forget technology has vastly changed how we're able to have access to information. I can't imagine how difficult and painstaking it is to translate someone's work into my own language without a computer doing it for me.

Emerson has always been close to my heart too. There truly is a connection between nature and trying to find some weird rationality of a higher being. Nietzsche said God was dead due to enlightenment. I don't think humans are enlighten enough and that's why some people have to "fill in gaps" to explain things they don't understand. It's not enough to have access to all of the world's information if you're not able to filter out and discern what's available.

I don't know how many people are on a path towards "enlightenment" when our attention spans are for sale and we can barely afford to live, our health care held over our heads with limited options for advancement in life based off where and to who we were fortunate enough to be born. I use the term "fortunate" loosely in my regard, nevertheless.

In a world where controversy brings in more revenue and it's just business savvy to treat people less than human it brings a corrosion on moral and mental health. It's systemic greed raised and nurtured from lesser civilizations, eras before our current time where "we've always done it this way" keeps the system rotten to its core.

This demented site upvotes and promotes the oppressors and silence and downvote what contrasts to your infantile worldviews.

> Someone says "this idea is incorrect" is reference to an idea that has been thoroughly debunked in any number of ways....

Can you link to even one thorough debunking of the specific ideas promoted in this piece?

> ... and you claim they're "screaming Nazi and running away." You blatantly mischaracterize what was said.

Sir, are you "having a laugh" with us today? The text of /u/amazin_raisin99's comment (as it appears on my screen) is this:

> > > As Salmieri notes in his response, throughout her piece Cleary takes it for granted that Rand’s views are wrong and expects that refuting them should be straightforward. Notably, she never offers any attempted refutations of Rand’s actual positions. > > If that doesn't sum up the entire intellectual/political discourse in current year then I don't know what does. People scream Nazi and run away from real discussion as fast as they can.

There is no mention at all of "screaming Nazi and running away". And then on top of it, you say "You blatantly mischaracterize what was said", when as far as I can tell, you are actually the one who has done that, which would make you not only wrong, but backwards.

Could you possibly shed some light on what is going on here today? Maybe I've somehow completely missed your point (and apologies if I have.....6 upvotes vs 1 is suggestive that I may have, but then it may also be suggestive of something else), but to me it is extremely confusing.

[removed]

> How come the only experts that defend Rand are associated with the Ayn Rand Institute or are experts in an unrelated field?

Can you explain how you went about determining that this proposition is actually true? Are you running an automated bot of some sort that crawls the internet looking for people defending Rand? If not, what methodology did you use?

And if you have no such methodology (and are therefore running on heuristics/faith perceived as facts), does it not seem a little ironic that you are criticizing the quality of other people's beliefs/cognitive abilities?

> An article defending Rand written by a director of the Ayn Rand Institute, posted on a site that explicitly endorses and pushes Rand's philosophy to the exclusion of others. > > Very low-quality post.

Out of curiosity: are you implying that there is a cause and effect relationship in play here? That because of "An article defending Rand written by a director of the Ayn Rand Institute...", therefore it logically and necessarily follows that "it is a very low-quality post"?

> Oh, Randians whining that they're not taken seriously? Shocking.

The author's prescience is fairly impressive:

>> Skye Cleary is a philosophy professor who opened a recent piece at Aeon with this remark: “Philosophers love to hate Ayn Rand. It’s trendy to scoff at any mention of her.” I know what she means. As a former philosophy professor who respects and agrees with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, I’ve had the experience of witnessing this scoffing on more than a few occasions.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

I am dying to know what that comment said.

What is a "real" philosopher?!

I think we see in Emerson the Nietzschean ideal of rejecting the institutions and dogma of your youth to consciously and carefully choose your own value system, and embracing something to give meaning. Nietzsche found meaning in art, but art is a dialogue with other ideas and does not preclude philosophies or religions or German identity that Nietzsche abhorred. When you tell people to consider and reconstruct all value and meaning then of course they will end up in completely different places. Some will embrace a different kind of religion or nature worship or whatever, some will create a system of post-rationalism that allows for rationally choosing the morality of the masses, some will be racists or embrace national identity to imbue their life and actions with meaning, even if they know it's something they chose and not fundamentally true. And all of those choices I think Nietzsche would argue against.

[removed]

i'd say i'm a nondualist

What is wrong with you?

[removed]