'good' and 'evil'

nice try, I'm actually a slavic pagan

Explain. Is this some sort of material/immaterial thing?

I literally loled.

bickering about spooks is no way to act, my properties

nah, it's just the two opposing principles that work contrary to each other to shape the world as it is
if any of them triumphed over the other, the world would go down the line of destruction
perun and veles represent two opposing principles, but neither can be called "good" or "evil". they are both required for the world to run correctly.

You still haven't explained what these principles are.

also note that modern science confirms this ancient slavic pagan view, earth's surface and all processes are formed by interplay of sun's activity which fuels the climate circle and therefore erosion (perun) and tectonics and volcanism (veles).

darkness vs light. cold vs warm. underground vs sky. decay vs growth.

egoism was a mistake

Post your RARE Stirners

was the holocaust good or evil

depends on your perspective

it was chthonic

It wasn't.

this seems compatible with platonism so i'm okay with this

>perun and veles
dumb slavposter

>good or evil
no such thing, my property

Why not believing in good and evil is better than believing, then?

You realize that you just don't want to believe, wishful thinking, so you don't have to act like a mature man and accept your human responsibilities.

fresh out the oven

Mostly because good and evil boil down to "preferable vs. non-preferable" and serve primarily as a mechanism to reinforce and exalt that which we are or wish to be. There's no reason to believe that they're things of substance outside of our minds.

Find me an atom of either, and I'll spin on a dime.

>act like a mature man
>accept your human responsibilities.
Come on, my property try harder.

So, you're not saying good and evil don't exist, you're saying other people's moral concepts are wrong and you are right, that's it. You can't even express yourself.

No, I'm saying they're arbitrary creations of our minds. You apparently can't read.

They are arbitrary creations of YOUR mind. Even in the Bible it is well known that humans have free will and can actually choose between good and evil. Choosing evil is exactly what you are doing, choosing good is accepting reality, morality, God and your responsibilities towards your beliefs, and then you realize your preference is in accordance with the Holy Spirit, it's not only a opinion.

Evil is basically existential lie, mostly caused by lack of confession.

Morality is an engine made by God for humans to live, that's our home while rational and passional human beings and denying it is denying reality, therefore, the creator.

>The Bible

Maximum overkek.

The Bible is something infinitely bigger than you. You are showing you are nothing but a spoiled kid who hates your father's authority.
There's no secret behind your personality, you are like most young people, nothing special.

I'm probably older than you and the Bible is just a book. Hopefully you'll figure that out some day and you can live as a free man, responsible for yourself.

You know you can be a 60y.o. adolescent, don't you? It only makes things worse.
You can't even realize, for example, that the fact the Bible is "just a book" doesn't imply anything in reality. Everyone knows it is a book, even who wrote it.

You are not free or responsible in any sense of the word, you actually don't even know what freedom means. You are a slave who is trapped by your own sins. Sin is a deformation of your soul and mind, when you sin you can't see the world as it really is and you can't even have the power to live and act as a real, independent human being, you are only the slave of the world (this includes your verbal chains), the devil and the flesh. A very small and worthless one.

>bible

lel

Ok, then. This is just precious. I already told you, find me an atom of good and I'll spin on a dime. Until then, I'll regard your book as a piece of historically significant fiction, much, much smaller than I am. For I am to me, all that is, and all that will be.

>I can't accept the authority of something bigger than me that shows me how ugly I am
Fixed.

im pretty ugly yeah, just like that bible of yours LMAO

>an atom of good
Jesus Christ, you are really dumb. One of the faces of evil is exactly profound ignorance.

The Bible is simply valuable because it says the truth. If it was not true, or if you can't even understand what the truth is, of course you can burn it.
It's not you who recognizes the value of the Bible, but reality.

You're cute, but I sincerely hope you get to taste true autonomy and personal responsibility. It's great when you realize that you are all that is to you.

Goddamn, this is gold. Keep it coming.

You have been shitposting about the Bible all fucking day. Give it a rest, sacristan.

ah yes, reducing something to such vague terms that it will seem correct in any context.

>Even in the Bible
kek

>The Bible is something infinitely bigger than you.
Not sure how that is considering it's my property

>spoiled
>authority
>personality
>special
sure is spooky in here

>Letting your own property control you

>all this fear

This is actually right tho

Good and evil are irrelevant because what really matters are outcomes. To achieve outcomes of benefit there is a requirement for both "good" and "evil" intentions to exist. Eradicating all evil would at the same time irradicate all possibility of "good". 1 is meaningless without the concept of 0

>Good and evil are irrelevant because what really matters are outcomes.
Are the outcomes good?

i see you've been reading nietzsche dear OP
i was 16 once too

I suppose Beneficial=/=good, but I think is a broader term than beneficial used by moralists who assume the outcome of their intentions no proof but an argument. The nature of things is that often good intentions can cause bad outcomes and bad intentions can cause good outcomes à la yin and yang

Ah, tell us how you bridged that is-ought gap

There's a fucking philosopher in his opening post, you goddamn newfag.

>all this fear
I am scerd re u scard?

should be commies he's crushing

He crushes both

not him but he's clearly speaking of OP's reference to neitzsche's conception of zoroaster

He blows the absolute fuck out of ancaps too. Their entire system breaks down when property isn't something sacred. If anything, his work is more damaging to them.

Topkek
10/10 would buy

I don't think so since in the end the same logic applies whether property is highly valuable or not

meanwhile Marxism collapses when you can't hold "the people" up in front of you.

Not really. Marxism works just fine if you regard the works as acting together for their own individual interests in a basically egoistic fashion. It doesn't require a moral ought, and in fact Marxist communism eschews that focusing on the material dialectic conflict between boss and worker. Anarcho-capitalism completely breaks down if you don't consider property something sacred, since its entire premise is a moralistic proposition on that subject.

Can someone resume all Stirner theory? Seems interesting.

>so you don't have to act like a mature man and accept your human responsibilities.

Your head is full of wheels, man.

Basically morality is a spook. Also everything is your property and you're the creative nothing or something like that. Anyway read his book. It's quite short and fun

I'll do, thanks.

...

...

I speak portuguese. Good is "bem" and "benefício" is literally "good office". That means a benefice is only good because of the officer, which is God.

If the outcome is bad, the intention is essentialy evil. There are many reasons to support that, one of them is the ignorance of something that should be known, or maybe the "good intention" is only selfishness, to pose as the good guy.

No because it is wrong. Few philosophers who are taken seriously today are moral anti-realists.

It would be hard to sum up effectively, but the gist is that we're guided by a bunch of artificial abstractions which we attempt to serve as though they were things of substance. What he proposes is instead that these ideals be placed back into subservience to use as individuals, and serve their role as tools with which to assist us, rather than things to be served.

I recommend reading The Ego and Its Own. It's a bit dense and hard to follow at times, but I found it enjoyable.

Kek. Nietzsche is basically the Plato of modern philosophy, and he was anything but a moral realist.

>darkness vs light.
Small amount of photons vs high amount of photons. Light is by no means essential to life of most organisms. Plants can live perfectly fine without light. Abundance of light would affect many organisms negatively, too.
>cold vs warm.
Low energy vs high energy. Both can be destructive in extremes and at the same time give appropriate conditions for life of different organisms.
>underground vs sky.
Here you started pulling shit out your ass.
>decay vs growth.
There's no decay, circulation of matter in nature is continuous.
You can find more meaningless comparisons using dictionary of antonyms.

>Plants can live without light
What is photosynthesis for then?

>just said good and evil isn't a thing
>Are the outcomes good?
That said, depends on what you think is good, and moreover, what the original problem was.

well some plants don't even have a built in camera so