Write whats on your mind

Just replace Jewish with Soumi and mine's the same. My will is strong, I will have my QT Finnish Perkele before the year is out.

The use of rational thought is not sufficient for either making moral judgments or constructing a system of moral laws. It is not obvious or apparent why a moral law which prioritizes the collective welfare over pure self-interest is any more rational or irrational than a moral system which prioritizes pure self-interest over that of the collective welfare. Any claims made which propose that one system of moral law should superesede the others is intrinsically predicated on a moral intuition which exists independent of rationality. Someone might claim, as a counter, that a certain moral law, set somewhere towards the collective pole, is evidently rational because surely it must be so for us to cooperate as a species - but it is NOT evidently rational, because to argue such is to do so with an already pre-defined notion of Good (which is the welfare of the species in this case). You have predefined this Good, not by any rational thought, but unknowingly you have invoked the use of your moral intuition, a judgement complex independent of reason which enables you to differentiate between Right and Wrong. This moral intuition is derived from society.

I'm not slowly turning myself into a mediocre simpleton, I've been a mediocre simpleton for 95% of my days so far and every decision I take increases that percentage. Work kills the little genius I might have in me. So does my relationship with my gf and my family. So does using the PC as much as I do. But even if I stopped doing all that and committed myself to absolute asceticism, the result would still be mediocrity. It would never be, in terms of writing, on par with the Greats. It's truly hopeless

it's friday and I desperately want to get drunk. The woman I loved throughout the summer months and with whom I shared so many blissful and intimate moments has returned to my city for celebrating new years among friends. We have already spoken over the phone, the first time since I last saw her many weeks ago and I will meet her tomorrow. I should probably stay sober as to not have the breath of a bum when I finally get to hold her in my arms again. Then again that moment might not even come and I shouln't get my hopes up. Maybe all the letters and poems we wrote to one another didn't mean a thing. Maybe I should end it all and not spoil my last memories of happiness. Maybe I should leave town tomorrow. I honestly don't know. Maybe just have couple of drinks, get her a present first thing tomorrow morning and see how things unfold from there. Maybe decide never wake up at all. Life has become so unbearably dull anyway. Here's hoping to a kiss come midnight new year's eve.

who defines what is and is not 'great', anonymous posters on a Finnish apron embroidery appreciation board? you probably write more meaningful prose or poetry than 95% of your home town. Besides, embrace the average, ride the crest of the bell curve and be content for just a few lone moments.

I'm not
That was..for the lack o-
Okay i take anti anxiety pills
I forgot they are called that

I've heard benzos although they don't make the dick limp still are really addictive

I was talking about SSRI

You fell into your own trap, but good try bud

Its so that poor people don't terrorize their middle class neighbors

It won't lol

>It would never be, in terms of writing, on par with the Greats. It's truly hopeless
if you were a great writer what would change? You would think of yourself cooler and others of you? You would be more proud (for days, weeks, months, years after publishing, and that would feel X amount of good intensity and wane Y amount over time?)? Other people could be like 'wow youre so cool, your writing made my life this much better, it saved me, it made me laugh and cry, and I read it 10 times", the people saying that is what you want?

Countrymen,

Behold the tomorrow and after-tomorrow. Behold man, the thinking substance, how he basks in His light, how he claims his future and lofty right to a future. Behold as man crosses into the next day, oh behold the commotion, gentlemen.

A crowd gathers at the base of a hill.

"We have come for the tomorrow and after-tomorrow." says one. "We have come to claim what is rightly ours." says another.

Zarathustra takes in this scene, considers the clouds, stretches, and sits down again. "Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done today to overcome him?"

"We have come here, today, to claim what is ours. We want what was promised."

Zarathustra smiles and considers the beggars at the foot of the hill. "Oh gentlemen, what lofty creatures you are. Look to your left, now your right. Take what is in front of you and you shall have what you have come for."

The beggars, confused, start to grow restless. "We have come for what is ours. Give it here and now. Our patience grows thin."

Zarathustra frowns. "Man is not yet ready for what is his. I have come too soon. Today belongs to the all too blind. I shall come back tomorrow to see the crowd again." And we walked up the hill and disappeared over its crest.

The crowd of men, in a restless frenzy now, rapes a daughter.

Oh countrymen, how can I be understood?

I committed last year to fix my posture, which is horrible due to how i sit when I read. Didn't make improvements, but I'm going to double-down this year.

My life is a lie. I will never escape it.

Benzos are for anxiety
SSRI are for depression
If you more anxious than depressed you should take benzos for a month or less so you actually experience how living without anxiety is, making your mindset change and then you can stop taking them

>I committed last year to fix my posture
>Didn't make improvements
kek

>but I'm going to double-down this year.
2 x 0 = 0

I got a job and it is the first time in my life I need to dress formal, and I look like shit. I especially dislike my clown shoes and I feel embarrassed to even leave my house dressed like this

But SSRIs cured my anxiety as well
And I've been to 3 psychiatrists and they all prescribe SSRIs despite my symptoms being that of Social anxiety

Do benzos lessen libido as well
And if they don't

How do you make your psychiatrist prescribe you benzos instead of the SSRIs they give without offending them

needs to stop wanking on the toilet

Tell them you don't want anti-depressants, go full paranoid about them, they will think you are delusional and give benzos both for your anxiety and for being delusional. They will try to give you SSRI the next session. But if they are working for you I would stick to SSRI. I really don't know which one is worse.

Maybe getting a job or something
I will probably not do it

Can you elaborate?

Here's the thing mate

Last time when the doc was writing my prescription
I told him cause of some side effects I'd prefer non SSRIs
He asked me what side effects and i couldn't say to him my dick goes lump when i take these (my dad goes along with me) and he shunned me after which i came home with stronger SSRIs

My only concern is even if they don't do fuck all for my anxiety, I'd rather have my libido

So, do you know any anti anxiety pill that has negligible effect on libido?

get shoes that fit you properly, same with your formal clothes. I get what you mean though, I hate formal attire.

NO MORE MASTURBATING OR WEED I CAN DO IT LORD PLEASE HELP ME

Why do you go there with your dad lmao
You could have told him you started feeling worse, numb, and that above all of that your dick died.
afaik benzos don't kill your dick
There is also another antidepresant called wellbutrin which is kind of like an amphetamin, they give it to people who want to stop smoking and to soyboys like you because it helps un-killing your dick while taking SSRI

talk with your psychiatrist about wellbutrin, it's often prescribed additionally to SSRIs to help with both libido and motivation, since SSRIs only bring your mood up but not your drive to do stuff

I assumed they wanted to say something like: you are using rational thought to attempt to say rational thought is insufficient

(but that may be a kneejerk misreading by them)

Is what you were saying pretty much: Hume: Is ought?

So you are trying to say: A person cannot call you irrational to believe there should be no moral system or collective welfare?

It's basically Hume's is/ought, yeah.

I'm frustrated with some of my STEM friends who think that morality is just rationally evident - that of course we shouldn't murder each other, shouldn't allow rape, or shouldn't allow theft because it improves the collective welfare, and improving the collective welfare is only rational. But that's only rational under the precondition that collective welfare is the Good to strive towards - but why should it be? Why isn't pure self-interest the Good we strive for? Rational thought alone can't define the Good without innate presuppositions about what Good is that most people don't even realize they have.

I'd really like further critiques if anyone wants to offer some.

I have a highly addictive personality.

No, what I write is lacking by my own judgement. Most of all I can't finish a coherent story without jumping to a new one

jesus fucking christ I hope I get into law school

I will never be satisfied

>that of course we shouldn't murder each other, shouldn't allow rape, or shouldn't allow theft because it improves the collective welfare
Do you have family you care about? Do you want them raped, and their home robbed, do you want to be raped and robbed?

French fluency. Better credit. Stock market fluency.

I'm not arguing against any sort of morality, just that moral law or moral judgements cannot be determined or decided by the use of reason alone.

I believe quite the opposite of what you think I do, that there is a universal moral law.

>just that moral law or moral judgements cannot be determined or decided by the use of reason alone.
what do you mean by that?

>I believe quite the opposite of what you think I do, that there is a universal moral law.
How is it known?

How is morality not rationally evident? Do I want to be raped and robbed? Do you? No? Ok lets make rape and robbery illegal.

"umm...hello.... over here.... yeah, hi,, I would very much like to be raped and robbed"

And that is where your point comes in?

Why do you want to be raped and robbed...should we trust you in forming our moral laws, are you using ration or reason, or something else, or nothing to come to this decision of yours?

"No...I just want to be contrarian for the sake of it...is there any reason or rationale to that, mister?...haha just kidding, I have a rape and robbery fetish... i swear its rational though... but actually its not, hehehe... how are you going to make your laws now? not so easy is it, not so rationally evident is it?? just kidding, im in a mental institution right now because I cannot care for myself and if I left alone I would just eat rocks and dust :P XDDDD"

>universal moral law

HAH! Into the thrash superstition goes

Autism, but I'll bite.

>what do you mean by that?

Any argument in favor of a moral principle, even one which might seem wildly self-evident such as 'murder is wrong' requires a presupposition of what Good is. You already believe in self-ownership, and that then is your presupposition from which your argument proceeds - and, of course it would then be obviously rational that if we value self-ownership, we should decree murder to be wrong.

>How is morality not rationally evident? Do I want to be raped and robbed? Do you? No? Ok lets make rape and robbery illegal.

Again, it is not self-evident as wild as it might seem, because even self-ownership is a presupposition that you believe in from having been raised in a society that derives its morals from a very long tradition. Why, instead, should it not be every man for himself? If you are strong and capable, you certainly stand to benefit more in such a society, would it not then also be rational?

So with two societies to choose from, both rationally justifiable, I imagine you personally would probably still prefer the first choice, but not because it is more rational, but because it agrees with your moral intuition (your presupposition).
>How is it known?

I don't know for certain, but it is what I believe based on a survey of virtually every civilization or culture or society that has ever arisen - they have all derived their morals, and furthermore their laws, from the same presuppositions: self-ownership and collective welfare of varying degrees, leading to the same basic principles and virtues: murder is wrong; rape is wrong; theft is wrong.

see above post, it is a belief with some degree of empirical foundation.

I lost a memory.
And because I lost that memory, I lost a friend. Im not sure what to do.
Memories are strange, after an event takes place everyone who experienced it takes away their own little piece. The only time you can ever get the full picture again is by putting them together again. If not they will wither away and rot until they might die completely, this is what happened to me. I dont remember what my old best friend looks like anymore. Im scared the times we had will be next. Ive lost touch with all the other puzzle pieces so Im now just left with mine, I have tried to preserve them best I can but its sand through the hands, I cant do much.

Now someone who I cared a lot about, one of the people I cared most about.... I cant remember. If you dont remember something did it even happen? thats what I think. Im losing a friendship and good times, some of the best in my life and shes just the biggest symptom, Im losing my whole group of friends. Losing them once already was hard enough but twice. Id write them down, which I have done already a bit, but its painful to think about and Im not exactly emotionally stable enough to do so just yet, Ive only just began getting my life together some 6 months ago.

A part of me feels free but only because Im losing who I am. I can be anybody I want to be but not who I used to be. And thats all I want. Im split into two people when it comes round to asking what I should do about this. 1 me says I should move on and be someone new, someone who I know I can be, but at the cost of completely losing touch with who I used to be and losing more memories until only the bare bones are left. 2 me says I have reached the magnum opus epoch of my life. And that the only way to preserve this is to die. You see when people die, we dont see them age, we forever picture them at their best or just before they die. You notice how on wikipedia once someone dies they change the picture not to a recent one but of one at their best and peak? If I chose to end this now I can be remembered as I was. I can die comforted by the memories I still have left.

Com Truise while stoned at the beach is a luxury that not even the kings of egypt could ever match.

During my vision quest on weed today I realized I need to start a blog. I will try to start it by the 1st.

My life’s devoid of any excitement.

>Any argument in favor of a moral principle, even one which might seem wildly self-evident such as 'murder is wrong' requires a presupposition of what Good is.

So are you pretty much getting at a lack of absolutes: sometimes murder is good, sometimes rape is good and ok?

And/or there is no such "Thing" as Good, you cant show me "the Good object from the Good Tree in the garden"... its an idea, and you are saying, it can only be, a man made invention.

You are saying that from God or otherwise, Moses did not find The Moral Law written into stone by the eternal spirit of all possible Good Realities.

You are saying all moral laws are an agreement to play pretend: as opposed to: Look at that waterfall, look at that rock, look at that baseball, look at that eternal moral law unwrit floating in the wind.

>Why, instead, should it not be every man for himself?
So you are saying, why should there no be 0 laws, pure anarchy? Maybe its not right to use the word rational here, or intelligent, but maybe most men after living in that world would say: ok, this sucks, constant warfare, looking over my shoulder, living like a primitive savage, is not as good as living more civilly.

The animal world is like that, to degrees, and humanity has been the escaping of that: people who would want to live in a lawless society should maybe be given a plot of land to do so, and observed: but what if they begin to do extremely immoral things: should there be intervention?

>So with two societies to choose from, both rationally justifiable, I imagine you personally would probably still prefer the first choice, but not because it is more rational, but because it agrees with your moral intuition (your presupposition).

Not so much to do with order, but the belief that there are more high potentials in a more civil society, that an eternity of hunting, hiding, going seek, war, savagery, is boring and old, tedious, (maybe in some ways rewarding, maybe when we die God will let you choose to be reincarnated as an animal to live lawlessly, instead of a higher being...dont get side tracked by this line just something silly to think about).

I believe the world is possible to be more enjoyable with laws.

I suppose you need to clarify what you meant by every man for themself: rape and murder is ok?

>So are you pretty much getting at a lack of absolutes: sometimes murder is good, sometimes rape is good and ok?

No, here I was simply saying that if you are going to argue that 'murder is wrong', it cannot be done from pure reason alone, and that you first need the presupposition of self-ownership.

>And/or there is no such "Thing" as Good, you cant show me "the Good object from the Good Tree in the garden"... its an idea, and you are saying, it can only be, a man made invention.

I'm not sure, I haven't really sorted that out yet in my head.

>You are saying that from God or otherwise, Moses did not find The Moral Law written into stone by the eternal spirit of all possible Good Realities.

I've been an atheist my whole life, but I am much more inclined to believe in a divine origin of moral law, instead of it being simply devised or constructed by the rational thoughts of Man.

>You are saying all moral laws are an agreement to play pretend: as opposed to: Look at that waterfall, look at that rock, look at that baseball, look at that eternal moral law unwrit floating in the wind.

No I don't think so either, but I can't claim to have bridged the is/ought chasm, though still I do believe in a universal moral law.

I think you might have misunderstood me to be some sort of moral nihilist, which I am certainly not. I am just trying to grapple with the idea, at least as it seems to me to be, that we aren't capable of constructing moral systems, and that they have an origin beyond that of human reason. If it isn't reason then it doesn't necessarily have to be of divine origin either, what if it's just some great transcendent force at work here, something like a zeitgeist maybe? I don't know, this has captivated me for a few days now, but I have little to no grounding in philosophy, let alone ethics, so I really don't know if I'm even being remotely coherent or if I'm just pseuding around.

but I don't know - I

Only read 8 books this year, but next year my goal is around 20, hopefully more. Also to clean up all the shit lying around my apartment; I don't want to live like a neet anymore.

Do any other anons ever feel like outsiders even when surrounded by people who love you? I have a great bunch of friends who I all love very much, but sometimes I realize that my hopes and dreams and wants are so fundamentally different than theirs that I'll never truly be one of them. I blame it on the fact that I drove myself out of reclusiveness and solitude and through great effort became a sociable person again. But not matter how far I go it always feels like I'll never be able to go far enough to make up for those years of depression and loneliness.

This isn't a >tfw to intelligent for society
post, I don't consider myself anything more than moderately intelligent and I really more than anything just want to be a normal human being.

Any advice Veeky Forums? It's new years so I'm willing to try pretty much anything.

Become a paramedic

I just want to reach my reading goals while understanding the books I'm reading. I'm looking at jobs for the summer and it's looking promising for the field I'd like to work in.

I don't think that's an uncommon feeling. I certainly feel like a bit of a misfit even though I don't find it hard to socialize with others and I have a lot of friends and acquaintances. Still, it's hard for me to truly relate to people because the things we value and invest our time in are completely different.

I don't think your past is something you can ever escape from, it has helped shape who you are and will always be a part of you. The feeling of being fraudulent or out of place will probably fade over time if you remain sociable but I don't think it will ever go away, at least it hasn't for me.

gonna respond in a bit

Thanks

So

Benzos probably don't kill dick
And if the doc still insists on giving SSRIs
Ask for wellbutrin

Thanks mate

I take Valium (a benzo) intermittently for particular events like giving a presentation or parties, and I've never experienced any loss of libido. SSRIs, however, will have a drastic effect on libido; when I was on them it would take me ages to jack off even if I hadn't nutted in like a week.

On another note, although I'm not your doctor, I'd advise against taking benzos regularly. Although they are the only pills I've tried that actually combat anxiety, I know a guy who was on it permanently and he became addicted within a few months of usage and spent over a year getting over the withdrawal symptoms.

>No, here I was simply saying that if you are going to argue that 'murder is wrong', it cannot be done from pure reason alone, and that you first need the presupposition of self-ownership.

Can the presupposition of self-ownership be reasoned? Can someone who believes in non self ownership, reason that belief?

Ok, so you are also saying there is no reason slavery should not exist? (besides the hints of my prior suggestions, that such types of things lead to strife and warefare, by people with opposing views) This is about size and strength of moral authority and enforcement: but size and strength of enforcement doesnt make right (or does might make right?)

You are right, morals, their existence and enforcement depend on the minds of the humans living at that time.

I dont know what you mean by they cant use ration, or reason, to determine that they would prefer to live in a particular moral state

Why do you need the presupposition of self ownership, why is that not self evidently the case?

Because slavery has existed? Slave owners are self owning though? (my followup would be about the slave owners relationship to their reasoning to the worth or value of their self ownership)
>I've been an atheist my whole life, but I am much more inclined to believe in a divine origin of moral law, instead of it being simply devised or constructed by the rational thoughts of Man.

Moral law is very simple, self evident (even though you dont think), founded in, treat others how you want to be treated (which I tried to make clear with my exggerated pycho post; unless you want to be treated badly)

Well you said this was started by your friends train of thought you disagree with. I dont even know what you are trying to say: what you say, cant reason, or cannot use rational thought, you are saying moral laws arent reasonable, rational? You are saying they arent absolute? Set in stone? There are fundamental morals like the 10 commandments (of which a few are even iffy), and then there are 100s of countries with 1000s of pages of law books. We can imagine some to be more universal, and some to be more particular (like its immoral to eat bacon, or drive a car on sabbath)

What am I to do with capitalism, as a sincere Christian? More and more it seems to me some horrible monster we've created, one that seems calculated to destroy the Kingdom of God. Profits don't matter. They've never mattered! Efficiency doesn't matter, either. Maximizing value doesn't matter. What matters is to do the will of Christ in the world, and this conflicts with the demands of the market so often that I can't help but see the market, the free market, as an enemy of Christ.

and use some specific examples. Of moral laws you have a problem with? Or are not reasoned, or rationaled? Collective welfare? You are saying its not unreasonable or irrational for members of the population tommorow to rape and murder a bunch of random people in the population: and as long as law makers and enforcement give thumbs up, that is reasonable and rational...or beyond reason and rational, it just doesnt matter, its acceptable... and the rest of the population can say "dont do that!", or try to stop them, and thats that?

im broke, single and a piece of shit

>Stop doing heroin

That about covers it I reckon.

This board is becoming pseud /r9k/

I just took a QT jewish GF from a /pol/tard roosh v faggot lollllllllllllllllllllllll

I was fucking her while she was going out with him. It's beautiful because I'm brown

hahaha

What ultimately killed Veeky Forums
>death of lurk more culture
>rampant discouragement of OC
>most content being shit recycled from Twitter
>Bonus: -let posting besides man-
If 2010-2014 was the cancer era, this is the zombie era.

We need better moderation. We need to shame and belittle people who come here begging for advice.

Suddenly, I'm eager to make plans, to put goals on myself, to achieve something. Not anything material. More like politically, more like having power and influence. Not material power and influence, but that personality that makes you a contending force. It's probably because I've been watching too much criminal series like Breaking Bad and Peaky Blinders, but I can still trace this feeling back to previous events. Like when that fucker parked on the spot we were waiting on. Like when I said "You know what? Fuck it". Now, the former is an ongoing situation which has not developed like I wanted. It involves a woman. And this situation is my primary objective -is it? I'm not sure, but I guess it is for now.
I think my first step is to take in account every variable and fully recognize my current situation. It's weird though, I've been reading about Buddhism this whole year to try to change my mindset a little bit but right now, the knowledge that I've gained is not of any help. Not even remotely. I want to take control of, to shape, to have power over, to rise above. I'm sure there is some equivalent of this on the buddhist thinking, but right now I need other stuff.
Do you know of anything that could help me? Some user a while ago recommended me to read the stoics. Is there any book oriented to have influence on other people? My only concern is to grow, to correct my flaws which have shaped me horrendously, to heal my wounds, to learn how to take more wounds without losing control. I do not intend to do wrong to other people, that is definitely one of the things I've never been able to do consciously (I have hurt people's feelings without realizing). Do I need to take some martial art or boxing class?
I suddenly want to.

The latter*

*ladder I mean

> I dont even know what you are trying to say: what you say, cant reason, or cannot use rational thought, you are saying moral laws arent reasonable, rational?

No, moral laws can certainly be rational or irrational, but it all depends on the presupposition from which you argue. Nobody who believes in self-ownership and some ounce of collective welfare is likely to think that 'every man for himself' is very rational.

Everything I'm trying to say (I guess I'm not doing a very good job) centers around the presupposition. Now you've brought up a very good point, can not the presupposition be reasoned? In the case of self-ownership, this is obviously natural law deduced by reason from human nature. So that's a roadblock I will have to overcome somehow. But what seems to me to be certain still, is that presuppositions aren't something to be chosen on a whim, or rather chosen at all by humans: instead, they are imparted upon you by society as you grow into adulthood.

Other than that, I think you're still confusing much of what I'm saying with some kind of moral nihilism: that I'm essentially trying to argue my way out of being constrained by morality and that by doing so all the evils like slavery, murder, etc are acceptable.

Moral law is certainly very simple, but I don't think it is self-evident without presuppositions.

>You are saying its not unreasonable or irrational for members of the population tommorow to rape and murder a bunch of random people in the population:

Not what I said, but it is only rational/irrational depending on the presupposition, but you don't get to choose the presupposition, you are born into it, but it isn't something that can be changed on short notice by the state either - the presupposition is imparted by society, which in turn derives it from a very lengthy history and tradition.

Second part is in response to this post.

>No, moral laws can certainly be rational or irrational, but it all depends on the presupposition from which you argue.
What is the meaning and what is the value of rationality? Part of what we are trying to get at is there objective rationality? You are saying objective rationality only exists in relation to presuppositions? And are there objectively incorrect presuppositions, are there objectively irrational or unreasonable presuppositions? Or anyone can make any presupposition "I want to live in a world where I can rape and murder" and then as long as conclusions rationally follow, it all checks out and is rational, and therefore valid?

>Nobody who believes in self-ownership and some ounce of collective welfare is likely to think that 'every man for himself' is very rational.

Why would someone not believe in self-ownership? I brought up the example of slave-owners. Slave owners believed in self ownership, just not for certain people.
>So that's a roadblock I will have to overcome somehow. But what seems to me to be certain still, is that presuppositions aren't something to be chosen on a whim, or rather chosen at all by humans: instead, they are imparted upon you by society as you grow into adulthood.

But thats not say a person cannot on a whim or not, create presuppositions, as you have done with your counter thoughts and analysis: you seem to believe there exist different valid presuppositions (or all presuppositions (in cases where there may be no objective right or wrong, that is the key) are valid). Give me some specific examples.

"pre·sup·po·si·tion
a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action."
Is it possible for presuppositions to be true, true according to what? I presuppose if you want to jump off that cliff without a parachute and want to live, you should not do it.

>Other than that, I think you're still confusing much of what I'm saying with some kind of moral nihilism: that I'm essentially trying to argue my way out of being constrained by morality and that by doing so all the evils like slavery, murder, etc are acceptable.

No, I am not equating what you are saying to you, only thinking of the ideas you are presenting, only trying to understand what you are saying...which is hard...it seems like the point you are trying to get at may be excruciatingly simple and easy, but you are dancing around it

>Moral law is certainly very simple, but I don't think it is self-evident without presuppositions.
Ok, I agree, would children who do bad things, or even adults who do immoral things be evidence of this? Did they fail to make presuppositions, understand them? Morality was not self evident to them? Or if they did understand, they just didnt care?

The presupposition is: I value my life.

Though that is not enough, as the above example shows, as one can value ones life and not others (to the point of being immoral towards them).

Ok, and lets say its not self evident, then what? Is that the entire basis of the argument, whether it is self evident or not, and what that means? We can go back almost to say something about tabula rasa, is even what you are approaching, that there are no embedded instinctual morals? Though that may not entirely be true for some. Some children seem to natural not want to harm things, and be gentle and careful, and some children put cats in the microwave.

(and there is a good example: is there anything wrong or immoral with putting a cat in the microwave? Or eating dog, or horse, or pig? Killing it humanely, or torturing it for a long time slowly before kill?
>Not what I said, but it is only rational/irrational depending on the presupposition, but you don't get to choose the presupposition, you are born into it, but it isn't something that can be changed on short notice by the state either - the presupposition is imparted by society, which in turn derives it from a very lengthy history and tradition.

I know its not what you said, I was providing an example since you hate to do that. But now you say 'but it is only rational/irrational...'.. so youre saying theres a chance. You are saying it could be rational to do what I said, as long as everyone said it is rational?

If everyone agrees that every once and a while a bunch of people can get together and kill a bunch of random people, that is rational, because they presupposed that is rational? Because they presupposed they want that to be the case? What you are trying to get at is the heart of moral relativism, the lack of strict objective forceful rule: which is why the army, police force, and court system 'had' to evolve to be so robust, because all people are not implanted with an unshakeable unbreakable motive to not be immoral, many people have to dedicate themselves to being that force against the possible 'agreed to' immorality of man.

People are born into it yes, in this state you need to be 17 to buy cigarettes in another state 18, in this state 16 age of consent, another state 18, this state you can turn right on red, that state it is immoral to do so, but after a certain time of consuming information, a person can begin to question just about everything, and develop their own comprehension of possibilities : and thats where develop own relationship to the nature of good and bad, and over much time individuals and groups of individuals have done that.

So an individual can say: I dont agree with these presuppositions. And look to live somewhere where people obey presuppositions and their rational conclusions they agree with. The interesting question is, in regards to ancap memes and such, and 3rd world shitholes: should people with certain moral presuppositions, intervene in a nation that lets say for instance has legal slavery.

Lets say a group of men presuppose that they should be able to rape: so they get a plot of land in some random 3rd world country, buy a bunch of land, build a bunch of homes and compounds, and then kidnap women from all over the world and bring back there: this would be rational right?

What you are trying to get at, is the term 'Rational' cannot be thrown around and used as "The Right Perfect Objective Truth", "Everything That Is Rational Agrees With Me Perfectly And I am Entirely Moral And So Is My Rationality Because It Is The One Objectively Timeless Correct Moral Presuppositions And Rationally Following Conduct Code"

"Nooo silly, rape is irrational", "not it I presuppose its rational!"

Am I at least getting on the right track? Be more clear, give more examples, try to say what you are actually getting at better.

Yeah, these threads are basically like the "What are some movies about _____" threads on /tv/. Just an excuse to post off-topic stuff.

>write whats on your mind.
People who come to Veeky Forums are People. They have thoughts, feelings, desires, wants for socialization.

All the other threads they cant really talk about themselves, or talk to each other about off thread topic stuff.

It is a shame so many people post dumb, embarrassing, troll-y, whiney, emo, pathetic, repetitive, tfw no gf, edge lord, autistic rant, boring pointless minutia,

but there is not always so much of that, and so when that is the case, for the most part, its a pretty good, worthy, fun, entertaining, educational, worthwhile, sociable, thread.

We understand your disappointment in having to dig through a pile of shit to not even find a speck of sand, but you do know there are many other threads right, though yes, completely sympathize if you wouldnt mind these threads if there were less 15 year olds, emos, edgelords, boring pointless worthless talk about it else where, tards

Veeky Forums needs to die
board culture is dead in every board, site wide culture is a joke
save yourself the trouble and migrate to other chans
japmoot ruined everything

I dont know what you expect,

I’m no longer excited for anything either. Is this what adulthood feels like? One phase of discomfort to another?

brappppp

unironically nietzsche

bamps

>If 2010-2014 was the cancer era
I never understood the hate for this time, /sp/ and Veeky Forums were great places to browse back then

chuckled

i want to fuck a trap
i wanted to do it this year but i didn't get round to it
i wonder if my wife would be into it as well

>What you are trying to get at, is the term 'Rational' cannot be thrown around and used as "The Right Perfect Objective Truth", "Everything That Is Rational Agrees With Me Perfectly And I am Entirely Moral And So Is My Rationality Because It Is The One Objectively Timeless Correct Moral Presuppositions And Rationally Following Conduct Code"

Great response, you've made a bunch of good points which I need to entertain further.

>What you are trying to get at, is the term 'Rational' cannot be thrown around and used as "The Right Perfect Objective Truth", "Everything That Is Rational Agrees With Me Perfectly And I am Entirely Moral And So Is My Rationality Because It Is The One Objectively Timeless Correct Moral Presuppositions And Rationally Following Conduct Code"

This is essentially what I was trying to say, yes.

Do you, or anyone else, have any reading recommendations for ethics/moral philosophy? I'll probably start with Plato and Aristotle though.

>Do you, or anyone else, have any reading recommendations for ethics/moral philosophy?
no I think I pretty much covered everything satan

butter or jelly on my toast...hmmmmmm

What is with his asymmetrical eyes and big (((Toucan Sam))) honker?

go back to the donald

it will, user. Stop overthinking it and just go to her and be with her. However, if you find yourself feeling like the narrator or Swann in Proust and you keep telling yourself to keep your distance because she's not reciprocating the love then i don't know what to tell you. Also if you're this sentimental then that's another problem, but now it's time to fix it. See her, let her see you, and let her see you being happy, and you two will be happy.

I guess it's when reddit started spilling in. Me? I unironically came here from KnowYourMeme in 2011.

I enjoyed spending some of my time on Veeky Forums this year. You guys usually have great taste and i discover new great works frequently thanks to all of you

You know what,
This is some really good insight
Because I have symptoms which require only intermittent care (anxious in select social situations) and since you need to be on a regular dose of SSRIs for them to work, i couldn't find a way out

I'm gonna tell doc that since i experience occasional anxiety, benzos would be better
And I don't need to worry about addiction since I won't take them too frequently

This might work
Thank mate

Look more into Kant.

Reason is nothing but a spider-web of relations built up on top of intuitions. Moral intuitions are just the form these intuitions take in the social sphere. You can't reason outside these intuitions when you're examining the world or morality.

I think I'll fuck a trap prostitute next year. There's a cute asian one nearby that I can afford.