General philosophy

There is no such thing as evil. There is only you and the enemy. Evil is a term we created to justify conflict. To say something is evil is just saying that you feel it must be stopped and saying that you yourself is evil is saying that you want conflict am I wrong

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572968/Pictured-Horrific-moment-bottlenose-dolphins-attack-kill-two-porpoises-FUN-cat-mouse-game.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>things exist
>you exists
>the concept of exists exists
>enemies exist

oh user, you poor poor fool, get the fuck out.

>There is no such thing as evil. There is only you and the enemy

Okay, now apply this to more than one person. Apply it to a community. Apply it to people as a concept

Now you have evil

You call me a fool but you give no actual proof that I am one I merely state that this type of thinking is not how it seems so average morons like yourself that cannot see the other side of an argument may just be able to imagine that someone does something by their belief and it is not evil it is human nature you fucktard

>Is qualia metaphysical
>What is causation
>Am I wholly present at every moment in time or do I have temporal parts
>Is spacetime substantival or relational
>Are teleological notions in biology a byproduct of Darwinian language or can a naturalistic account be devised
>Is probability objective or subjective
>How do things persist through time
>Do abstract objects exist
>Is nature nonlocal

fuck that gay ethics spiritual shit. these are the real questions that keep me up at night

Wrong. You presume the concept of "enemy" to exist with no definition or explanation esp. when you just said Evil isn't real. The fuck?

>saying that you yourself is evil is saying that you want conflict am I wrong.
You play too many video games. It's impossible for normal people to do heinous shit without claiming it was JUSTIFIED for society, God, etc. Hitler and ISIS would never say "Yes, We are evil men" They believed what they did was Right, Just and Good.

you're a fool because your argument is stupid, not because it's so deep that "morons like myself" can't contemplate it.

it's unoriginal, uninspired, unenlightening, and it doesn't serve any purpose. it's a nonissue. get the fuck out, you fool. you asked if you're wrong, you don't even have the luxury of having created anything that could be considered wrong or right due to its lack of substance.

I used to think like this until I read Calicles argument in the Gorgias and socrates utterly fucking stupid defense that falls apart unless you to believe in a "soul"...

What does this have to do with any of the problems mentioned

cont'd
In essense Hitler and ISIS have goals. Goals that could be achieved without bloodshed if everyone cooperated with their ideology but since JUSTICE [fuck you plato] takes presedence over all; however your ideology tells you to define JUSTICE ofc.

conflict is just a byproduct of JUSTICE

My philosophy is that philosophy isn't a worthwhile pursuit. I've done a great deal of study to come to this conclusion.

It's supported by the fact that I'm FUCKING BROKE BECAUSE I LEARNED PHILOSOPHY INSTEAD OF A MARKETABLE SKILL.

FUCK.

That wasn't the crux of Socrates's argument, and the Platonic Dialogues aren't meant to be answers to all moral questions. They're dialogues

It's right there in the name

You havent read Gorgias have you...

This was calcles' point. If you are an adult male studying philosophy you should be beaten.

I agree with him.

Plato's defense of philosophy only works if you believe in the platonic concept of a soul.

Your right about the last part they thought what they did was good and did not believe they were evil so you disproved your own argument

Since when does philosophy have to be an issue it is a free realm of thinking that is outside the box weather it be big or small

it's not thinking outside of the box, son. you haven't even ever seen the walls of the box.

The way this guy writes, it's obvious this is a 12-year-old

An enemy is someone who you pit yourself against or hate think of it this way animals have enemies be it another species or a competing member of the same species but what animals do not have is evil animals only have hate do you understand ?

This is OP and you sir I like

fuck sake user, shut the hell up.

Only a shimada can control the dragons.

pls rember that wen u feel scare or frigten
never forget ttimes wen u feeled happy

wen day is dark alway rember happy day

For fucks sake sir you shut the hell up because you are nothing more than an animal

...

from one animal to another, you're embarrassing yourself.

OP here. I don't think you understand a proper definition of animal.

underage b& saged&reported

Since this is a thread about philosophy then I'll pose a question if you are born deaf what language would you think in

Mandarin.

Seriously tho

people aren't born thinking in a specific language. most deaf people don't learn to read, and body language plays a huge part in their development, hence sign language, but they still have to learn it.

I mean, it does completely make sense. From every time in which someone has declared a force or set of beings to be evil, they themselves may have been declared evil by said force of evil people. In the end, everything is via perspective, those who are considered evil is just the perspective of one side during a conflict. This is why ISIS exists and pretty much every single other war/conflict/violent occurrence/etc. All of those people who are considered "evil" by us are actually just fighting for a goal, one that we do not like. I'm more than sure that such organizations or groups therefore would said organizations which have labeled a group as evil to be evil themselves, in other words, perspective.

>OP responding to his own posts

Actually that one was not me

I don't think so pal

Op here glad to know there's at least one other person in here who gets it

The guy calling you an animal is right. Your writing is intelligible and your basic idea, from what I can tell, is still wrong.

If me and my sister are competing for the bathroom before school, does that make us enemies?
No.
Why?
Because I said so. That's it. Even if were competing for the last food on earth before starvation, were still not enemies unless WE DEFINE EACH OTHER AS SUCH.

By your definition EVERYTHING THAT ISN'T ME is my enemy which makes the concept of enemy meaningless.

The concept of enemy REQUIRES an IDEOLOGY to make people "enemies". Ideologies define your enemies for you. No ideology. No Enemies.


Go read Nietzsche or Stirner or just stop being high or tired or whatever the fuck you are doing right now...

Okay, real OP here.
That guy you referred to from the previous post was not me, however, just so you know, your books are nice to bring up ideas but nature is the finest author.

When you think about it everything that does not work to benefit you is your enemy, whether it be small or big, even if your dumbass doesn't see it. The fact you call me wrong without showing any actual proof is only showing that you are a critiquing asshole, an enemy is a primal thing whether you like it or not. Throwing in the names of better known philosophers does not impress me, it just shows me you hide behind another's idea.

>Also, I hope your sister slaughters you for that last scrap of food, maybe she's smart enough to know survival of the fittest unlike you.

benefits me how? define your terms.

Hitler was evil and he was our enemy.
Stalin was evil but he was our ally.

Explain this, smartass.

Benefit as in help you achieve a goal, to help you reach something which you are trying to obtain.

While a certain thing may not be hurting you while you try to obtain your goal, if it does not help you then I would most assuredly consider it to be an obstacle or a hindrance if it comes within your path while you try to obtain your goal.

Anything which stands in your way or which you encounter while trying to reach a benefit, goal, or objective is to be considered an enemy if it is not helping you obtain said achievement. Taking risks and not identifying something as an enemy during such an act could possibly unexpectedly derail you, therefore becoming an enemy to you.

Politics are not ethics sir

In our eyes they both needed to be stopped but Stalin agreed to help us stop Hitler that was a political move plus do you not recall the Cold war right after WW2?

>So if you believe that our government was working off pure hearted ethics then you are dumber than I originally thought

You can't separate morality from politics. Our war with Hitler was a moral one and we sided with evil to defeat evil.

>YOU CANNOT SEPARATE MORALITY FROM POLITICS

>LADIES AND GENTLEMEN GIVE IT UP FOR THE DUMBEST MAN ON Veeky Forums!!!!

I am sorry sir but you must be confused on what era this is.

Do me a favor go commit a crime that would be morally correct but not legally then go plead morals to the judge tell me how that works

>Our war with Hitler was a moral one

Germany declared war on us because of Japan. It had nothing to do with morals it was purely political.

Nice greenmaymay and childish retort but you haven't proven it wrong. Stalin was evil but he was our ally, not an enemy. So evil is not simply something you call your enemy.

Are you saying Stalin and Hitler weren't evil? How edgy can you be?
>Do me a favor go commit a crime that would be morally correct
Like what? Do ask of others when you yourself have no clue.
Our war with Hitler was a war against evil. We declared war with Japan because Japan was evil and attacked us. But we allied with the evil Stalin because we were facing a common evil enemy.

*Don't ask

You're all kinds of wrong

>Stalin was our ally for a brief period but have you never heard of the COLD WAR Stalin was then our enemy and once he was our enemy people claimed him evil no one cared about what he did until he became our enemy.

>I am not saying that Hitler and Stalin were saints but by their beliefs they were doing right if you cannot understand perspective then you shouldn't be on a damn philosophy thread

>We went to war because there was political pressure on our government by our goddam people

Morals may have been what the government was originally based on but guess what it changed because it didn't work with power comes corruption or do you not get this ?

One more thing if you want an example of a crime with morals if you steal a little goddamn food to feed your starving family and you get arrested morals do not mean shit in court of law do you understand that ?

...

>evil

That's mighty spooky user

calm down nerd

>Stalin was our ally for a brief period
So what, that's all that's needed to demolish your argument. Stalin was evil yet he was our ally. You lose.
>by their beliefs they were doing right
So what? They were evil. We don't need to empathize with them, they should be punished.

Tell me, the Holocaust was not evil? Answer honestly and don't puss around.

Yeah you are very wrong.

Evil can be summed up as causing harm for the sake of causing harm. Something which only humans are capable of.

>Something which only humans are capable of.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572968/Pictured-Horrific-moment-bottlenose-dolphins-attack-kill-two-porpoises-FUN-cat-mouse-game.html

Locke and Leibniz both define evil and good as that which causes displeasure and pleasure respectively. Hobbes defines it similarly.

Where your definitions come from, from the perspective of your topic "General philosophy", is completely unknown to me.