You are powerless to not imitate others because everything you have is just an imitation of what you get from others. All our behavior is based on biology or interaction with other. There is nothing that defines you, because you don’t exist. Also none of those things define you either. They are just events that we have believe to have happened to “someone”, even though they are just independent events.
Your definitions still don’t prove the existence of authenticity. As I have said your desires aren’t your own. They are inherited from biology and the world around you. Nothing is your own and neither is your will. So by acting on them you are already being fake and not authentic.
Also what’s to say that authenticity is let acting against “your” desires and aspirations.
You also can’t answer the question I made earlier about morality.
Titanomachina,
You do not counter my arguments at all. You are just repeating the same points again and again.
So I think I can end the discussion with just one statement: you are wrong.
It’s you who failed to counter my arguments or prove the existence of authenticity. You keep stating the same points without countering mine.
You are wrong, and have proven how inept existentialism is.
You never did listen to that podcast I told you about did you?]
If you have something to say, you should be able to listen to his 12 minute explanation of morality, which includes plenty about “self”, and explain what is wrong with it.
It's you who failed to counter my arguments or prove the existence of authenticity. You keep stating the same points without countering mine. You are wrong, and have proven how inept existentialism is.I think you should talk to Mozart Link. You seem to be two peas in a pod. You're both trying to prove by annihilating yourselves that loss of faith has ruined you, with the implication that it will ruin others, as well. Is this some new evangelical technique suggested by a particular religion to rein in sinners and doubters? Go out in the world, mope and whine and look completely defeated to show the world how miserable it is to have lost faith? It sounds like something a preacher would come up with. And you two are perfect martyrs to the cause. You will be definitely be rewarded for your Academy Award performances. Lois
It's you who failed to counter my arguments or prove the existence of authenticity. You keep stating the same points without countering mine. You are wrong, and have proven how inept existentialism is.I think you should talk to Mozart Link. You seem to be two peas in a pod. You're both trying to prove by annihilating yourselves that loss of faith has ruined you, with the implication that it will ruin others, as well. Is this some new evangelical technique suggested by a particular religion to rein in sinners and doubters? Go out in the world, mope and whine and look completely defeated to show the world how miserable it is to have lost faith? It sounds like something a preacher would come up with. And you two are perfect martyrs to the cause. You will be definitely be rewarded for your Academy Award performances. Lois Wow, that is not even wrong.
You never did listen to that podcast I told you about did you?] If you have something to say, you should be able to listen to his 12 minute explanation of morality, which includes plenty about "self", and explain what is wrong with it.His explaination was a lot of opinions that never answered why one should prefer life to death, or why one should be moral. There are plenty of people at the top who lie, cheat, and steal and never get caught. Why not be like them? They play our morality against us. But in the end he never states why a person SHOULD do any of that.
You never did listen to that podcast I told you about did you?] If you have something to say, you should be able to listen to his 12 minute explanation of morality, which includes plenty about "self", and explain what is wrong with it.His explaination was a lot of opinions that never answered why one should prefer life to death, or why one should be moral. There are plenty of people at the top who lie, cheat, and steal and never get caught. Why not be like them? They play our morality against us. But in the end he never states why a person SHOULD do any of that. The people who lie depend on most of us being moral. If everyone was like that, we would destroy ourselves, or at least, we would travel in small bands with the few people we trust, constantly working to avoid danger. My life is quite a bit better than that, and if you can't see why I prefer that, I don't think anyone can help you.
You never did listen to that podcast I told you about did you?] If you have something to say, you should be able to listen to his 12 minute explanation of morality, which includes plenty about "self", and explain what is wrong with it.His explaination was a lot of opinions that never answered why one should prefer life to death, or why one should be moral. There are plenty of people at the top who lie, cheat, and steal and never get caught. Why not be like them? They play our morality against us. But in the end he never states why a person SHOULD do any of that. The people who lie depend on most of us being moral. If everyone was like that, we would destroy ourselves, or at least, we would travel in small bands with the few people we trust, constantly working to avoid danger. My life is quite a bit better than that, and if you can't see why I prefer that, I don't think anyone can help you. It still doesn't say why we shouldn't do that. Our morality only works when everyone else does it. As you can see it only takes a few manipulators to show how flawed the system is. Like I said, you still don't show why we should do any of that.
You never did listen to that podcast I told you about did you?] If you have something to say, you should be able to listen to his 12 minute explanation of morality, which includes plenty about "self", and explain what is wrong with it.His explaination was a lot of opinions that never answered why one should prefer life to death, or why one should be moral. There are plenty of people at the top who lie, cheat, and steal and never get caught. Why not be like them? They play our morality against us. But in the end he never states why a person SHOULD do any of that. The people who lie depend on most of us being moral. If everyone was like that, we would destroy ourselves, or at least, we would travel in small bands with the few people we trust, constantly working to avoid danger. My life is quite a bit better than that, and if you can't see why I prefer that, I don't think anyone can help you. It still doesn't say why we shouldn't do that. Our morality only works when everyone else does it. As you can see it only takes a few manipulators to show how flawed the system is. Like I said, you still don't show why we should do any of that. We do it as a matter of survival and as a result of applying common sense. Intelligent, caring people want a decent world for themselves and their loved ones. They know that an immoral world will result in chaos, pain and unnecessary loss for everyone. It takes some common sense to understand this, but you are unfortunately seriously lacking in that characteristic. You are convinced that the only way anyone can be moral is if a god commands it and threatens you with eternal damnation if you don't. If that's what it takes to make you moral, do the world a favor and stick with it, Titanomachine. You are sure you can't be moral without a sadistic god and an eternal threat hanging over your head. Many of the rest of us can, and do. Run back to your church and god. It's the only hope for people who can't figure out morality and the need for it on their own, and you have admitted you are incapable of it. Please stay religious. It's your only hope. You would be a sadistic murderer and torturer if you were to give it up. Don't take a chance, ever. It's much too dangerous.
Your argument is rather weak, using terms like common sense (which is vague and changes from place to place) and arguing about things that are immoral, but you can’t say what immoral is.
What is moral or immoral isn’t objective, it simply comes down to a say so. Killing used to be considered moral as well as other actions. We execute prisoners after all. The intelligent and decent people is the no true Scotsman fallacy as well.
Granted certain actions would lead to oblivion, but there is nothing saying that such actions are “wrong” and that we ought to persevere.
But common sense is a very poor argument in any field.
“Moral” people don’t question their morals, I guess there is some wisdom in that. If they did they would find them completely unjustified.
Your argument is rather weak, using terms like common sense (which is vague and changes from place to place) and arguing about things that are immoral, but you can't say what immoral is. What is moral or immoral isn't objective, it simply comes down to a say so. Killing used to be considered moral as well as other actions. We execute prisoners after all. The intelligent and decent people is the no true Scotsman fallacy as well. Granted certain actions would lead to oblivion, but there is nothing saying that such actions are "wrong" and that we ought to persevere. But common sense is a very poor argument in any field. "Moral" people don't question their morals, I guess there is some wisdom in that. If they did they would find them completely unjustified.You're the one who's miserable and complaining about it. Most of the rest of us have learned to live with the situations we find ourselves in, learn from them and and make the best of them. You refuse to do it. I have never been as miserable as you seem to be. What's wong with this picture? Who's worse off? Who's made the better argumemt in the long run? You, wallowing in misery, or those of us who have learned to live with our situations, are making the best of them, learning from them and finding life tolerable and often happy?
Your argument is rather weak, using terms like common sense (which is vague and changes from place to place) and arguing about things that are immoral, but you can't say what immoral is. What is moral or immoral isn't objective, it simply comes down to a say so. Killing used to be considered moral as well as other actions. We execute prisoners after all. The intelligent and decent people is the no true Scotsman fallacy as well. Granted certain actions would lead to oblivion, but there is nothing saying that such actions are "wrong" and that we ought to persevere. But common sense is a very poor argument in any field. "Moral" people don't question their morals, I guess there is some wisdom in that. If they did they would find them completely unjustified.You're the one who's miserable and complaining about it. Most of the rest of us have learned to live with the situations we find ourselves in, learn from them and and make the best of them. You refuse to do it. I have never been as miserable as you seem to be. What's wong with this picture? Who's worse off? Who's made the better argumemt in the long run? You, wallowing in misery, or those of us who have learned to live with our situations, are making the best of them, learning from them and finding life tolerable and often happy? You haven't made any convincing argument. Everything you have stated has been more personal opinion rather than any solid argument. You argue with "ought to" and "no true Scotsman" both of which are quite fallacious. In the end you can't justify it beyond simple reciprocity (which is very imperfect) or just by simple say so. Not to mention trying to throw common sense in an argument which is folly to begin with. So far you haven't given any reason why a person should be moral and not exploit others. As it stands the few who do in society seem to perform better than those who are moral.
Granted certain actions would lead to oblivion, but there is nothing saying that such actions are "wrong" and that we ought to persevere.You're not even trying. The is/ought problem is an interesting philosophical question and you're just flinging mud everyone telling us we don't get it. What "it" are we supposed to get? Ultimately, nothing has any meaning. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, we've been conscious for 200,000 of those years and will be lucky if we last another million. There's no "ought" in there. There's just now, and I'd rather care about people than not because I like it when people care about me. I build my moral theories from there. How can that be wrong?
Granted certain actions would lead to oblivion, but there is nothing saying that such actions are "wrong" and that we ought to persevere.You're not even trying. The is/ought problem is an interesting philosophical question and you're just flinging mud everyone telling us we don't get it. What "it" are we supposed to get? Ultimately, nothing has any meaning. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, we've been conscious for 200,000 of those years and will be lucky if we last another million. There's no "ought" in there. There's just now, and I'd rather care about people than not because I like it when people care about me. I build my moral theories from there. How can that be wrong? Because it doesn't say why we should care about people to begin with.
Because it doesn't say why we should care about people to begin with.What do you mean begin? I began with me, my feelings. I don't know how I got here (I mean ultimately, drove to work this morning, I know that) or why I think the way I do. No one can tell me what a thought actually is or why I like kittens and other people don't. That has nothing to do with right/wrong or what you ought to be doing in this moment.
Because it doesn't say why we should care about people to begin with.What do you mean begin? I began with me, my feelings. I don't know how I got here (I mean ultimately, drove to work this morning, I know that) or why I think the way I do. No one can tell me what a thought actually is or why I like kittens and other people don't. That has nothing to do with right/wrong or what you ought to be doing in this moment. That also fails to address the issue
Because it doesn't say why we should care about people to begin with.What do you mean begin? I began with me, my feelings. I don't know how I got here (I mean ultimately, drove to work this morning, I know that) or why I think the way I do. No one can tell me what a thought actually is or why I like kittens and other people don't. That has nothing to do with right/wrong or what you ought to be doing in this moment. That also fails to address the issue I'm completely agreeing with you. You have found an issue that is unaddressed. Congratulations. Maybe you should be a philosopher and try to address it. Or a neurologist. Or an astronaut that travels through a worm hole and finds a library of all thought that we created in the future and are sending messages back to ourselves in this space/time. You didn't answer my question about what you mean by "begin". Begin where or when?
Begin with, as in why bother in the first place? There is no obligation to do so.
Begin with, as in why bother in the first place? There is no obligation to do so.Then what are you asking for?