Anarchist Discussion Forums

by **Guest** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:44 pm

Guest wrote:Even though I've read the entire "The Ego and His Own", to this day I still don't quite understand the opening paragraph. It looks to me like it contains a typo:

What is not supposed to be my concern! First and foremost, the Good Cause, then God's cause, the cause of mankind, of truth, of freedom, of humanity, of justice; further, the cause of my people, my prince, my fatherland; finally, even the cause of Mind, and a thousand other causes. Only my cause is never to be my concern. "Shame on the egoist who thinks only of himself!"

If you remove the "not" from the first sentence, the whole paragraph makes perfect sense to me. Stirner is sarcastically saying

There you have it. I think that the "NOT" is supposed to be there. He is saying "WOW! It seems like I am being told that everything should be my concern....is there anything that is not?"

http://www.Truthmedia.8k.com for the most radical and Truth-based philosophy website on the planet!

by **hawkins21** » Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:19 am

Likewise, I think we’ll just end up having circular arguments but I will say this: If what you say is true then Christian doctrine can be placed on the same scale as rational inquiry. This I will say is absurd because I know that you Afran and guest (both of them) do not believer that the injunctions and the tenets of Christianity to be correct. All because one gives more credence to certain concepts than others does not mean that they are not equally valid. Truth and fallacy can be found in concepts. Even if there were not objective truth in the world there would be right and wrong answers still, no matter how valuable one would make certain concepts. Let’s take your position: I can, if I wanted to because there is not objective truth, say that I am the second coming of Christ. I can say that I am the reincarnated version of the Buddha or I can say that the earth is the center of the universe. All because my views can be placed on an equal scale of every other notion that exist does not make my views correct. They should not even be tolerated and if I was to say such things you guys would be the first one’s to try to prove me wrong (I would hope so). This is why I say there has to be truth (rather objective or subjective or both). Equality does not constitute as truth. I never said that concepts have no importance, I am just saying that there are right and wrong answers to just about every question brought up by mankind (philosophical, mathematical, scientific, anthropological, etc) and this is the reason why I say credence should be given to certain concepts than others, which is what you guys are doing with me right now. If that is not the case then you guys would say my views are equally valuable to striner, which is obviously not the case.

I’ve read little of him (I usually do not have time to read or I’ll read books that I find have more importance). But I cannot say that I am an expert nor will I say that I can give you a summery of what I read (its been like a year or so). Intriguing guy and I do understand what he is trying to say (after going over the post a couple of times). I do not agree with him though about not having to worry about truth, humanity, etc. And I do understand what he is saying (why should he be concerned with those things? Because society tells him so and if he is concerned about himself before these things then he is viewed as a bad person, someone who does not follow convention and is a deviant member of society). It is obvious that we should be concerned with ourselves first and foremost but since we are, as I stated before, interconnected with one another our thoughts and actions affect other people (doubt this think about how depression and misery can cause one to potentially harm others. If you still doubt this up: The Internet Killer. It was about a 15 or 16 yr old who shot his dad in the back of the head with a 12 gage shotgun because he was depressed. The reason why he was depressed is because he was not allowed to go on the internet and because his gf broke up with him. This comes to show how our state of mind is key to our actions and worldview. So as brilliant as Striner is it does not mean I have to agree with him. The same goes for Nietzsche. I love Nietzsche but at the same time I don’t have to agree with everything he says. The same goes for Plato, Aristotle, etc.

Now where do my notions of truth come from. This is obviously a question that can be traced back to Nietzsche’s’ Beyond Good and Evil. I remember reading the section where he said that everything that we know, claim to know and say is all intuitive and speculative and pretty much subjective. So I understand why it would seem that there is no objective truth in the world and in a sense he is right. But not everything is subjective. Empirical data is totally objective and there have been many things that have been found to be truthful (like the earth not being the center of the universe). Most of the date I receive is empirical but I also know that empiricism cannot answer everything such as “what experiences did you have in your mind while you were in prayer” or “what are you thinking as of right now”. Empirically I cannot fully understand one’s experience of the world (the best that can be done is what the other person says but the fact that everyone lies it cannot be take with credence). But when I read books about anything (weather its Nietzsche, Plato, a textbook, etc) I try to see if it metaphysically true and try to be as objective as possible but ultimately it will be how I perceive it but if everyone else has unarbirtrarly stated the same thing and are objective then I know I am on the right page. It is sort of like a paradox when you think about it. I hope that answers your question.

by **Wheelsinyourhead** » Wed Dec 01, 2010 8:54 am

You speak of not giving certain views credence over others, but that is entirely the point I am making. Egoism for me (and I understand that this is just my interpretation, not a TRUTH) is based on the fundamental idea that if there is no objective truth, than ALL views are equal, whether they are rational, irrational or blatantly absurd. We all just apply value judgments in accordance with our own personal view of reality.

I'd go on, but frankly, I'm bored of counter asserting your assertions. So lets move on.

Another question then, and something which will hopefully get us away from this entanglement. Where do your ideas of truth come from? Have you read Stirner? What conclusions did you reach?

by **hawkins21** » Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:26 pm

Ok I get what you are saying

I do not deny that many factors are involved in the way one thinks and the way that one acts. I do believe that there are right and wrong answer(s) to the questions of well-being and as for this example I believe that there is more than one answer to this question. It was to show that some people can be right or righter or wrong and wronger to certain questions regarding well-being. We can both say that Person A is completely wrong in their account of how two people should maximize their well-being in accordance to reason. And like you I can understand why someone would pick option A and Option B but that does not mean that they are correct (maybe in another circumstance they would be correct but in the scenario I gave I would have to say no, in the most un- arbitrary way as possible). It is good to get different opinions since one can always learn something new from someone else but in terms of morality, I think there are right and wrong answers to certain moral questions. In layman’s terms what I am saying is that we can respect and understand what someone says and thinks but we do not have to tolerate what they say or do (more so their actions than their thoughts). The reason why I say we do not have to tolerate what others say is because when one is trying to map reality with their thoughts or beliefs then there is a potential danger their , especially if they are unreasonable and incoherent. (think of how the inhabitants of Christianity do this). And this is what I am saying when it comes to person A and somewhat about Person B. Once again I am not coming from an arbitrary position.

Now this is where thing are going to get interesting and I anticipated you mentioning coercion and the nature of authority. First things first, your sort of playing a zero-sum game but I’ll bite. Ok, I never implied that they can never serve in their own interest. This is the mistake that everyone has made about my responses. I never refuted the fact that we need to only be concerned with ourselves. I get the point everyone, including guest was trying to make but I believe that we should be concerned about these things, not because of some higher authority but because we are human beings who are interconnected. What I am trying to say is that we must recognize and choose to be concerned about freedom, justice, truth, humanity, etc because it is the right thing to do but nonetheless it is a choice of our own without the influence of authority. Now that I cleared things up lets begin. Now if Jill and what’s-his-name (lets say John) are dependent upon each other, which seems likely in this case (unless they are on different ends of the world, then option C would be the best route to go given their circumstance. Now there are times where option B may be the best route to go but honestly I think that would lead to more coercion than option C would given that we are by nature social animals and when we are around people, communicating with them we feel a lot better. But in no circumstance outside of self-defense would option A be good. It is not coercive to tell Person B that given this circumstance (dependence upon one another) that complete self indulgence and self interest is the best route to go when dependent upon one another but there may be other situations where it may be vital to one’s well-being, which is why I mentioned reciprocity. Secondly it seems like you are getting the wrong impression of well-being. For example if it is in Jill interest to smash John head with a rock or to steal his ipod in order to maximize her well-being this is not what I am talking about given that it is not reasonable.

I understand your concern with the second example regarding the teacher and I have a response to that as well. The first being that some authoritative relationships will be unavoidable and can be justified in this case the teacher/student relationship (as long as it is not oppressive. I’m coming from an anarchist perspective). If you doubt this then, at least in anarchism or any society at that we would need to do away with parental/child relationships. Secondly if a teacher is teaching the class that 2+2= 5 then that is really bad but in an anarchist society one would be obligated to tell the truth since that would be deemed oppressive. There is really no difference between math and philosophy except for the discourse involved and the perspectives that they are coming from. Philosophical issues are on a different scale than mathematical issues but that does not mean that no truths can be found taking a philosophical perspective as well. That is essentially the nature of philosophy.

Your last paragraph is interesting but maybe we are coming from different models. When I am talking about truths I do not believe that there is ONE right answer. Since human experience is vast and there are infinite number of circumstances it would be impossible to say we have to act this way or that way in this circumstance. But given every circumstance there are correct ways to act and incorrect ways to act. For example if I am in a situation where a guy has a gun to my head asking me for money there are many ways for one to act. An example of a good way would be to try to talk him out of it. Another one would be to recognize that I live for something outside of money and give him my money (this is assuming he does not plan to kill me if I obey his command) and many more ways. A bad thing to do would be to provoke him, insult him, talk about his mother or father, call him ugly, etc….or lets take another example. Lets say that my gf is upset at me and is just screaming at the top of her lungs. A bad thing to do would be to yell back or provoke her. So once again I am not implying that there is ONE correct way that we should live but that there are nonetheless right actions and wrong actions..if that make sense. So your right your views, my views, just about everyone views are vital but that does not mean that some should be given more credence than others (if you doubt this just look at how many people think I am wrong about the things I say)

by **Wheelsinyourhead** » Sun Nov 21, 2010 2:38 pm

Thanks for the quick response, plenty to think about.

I do get the impression though that we are working on entirely different models, so our hopes of reaching an accord is slim at best

I do understand your examples quite well, but I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions. For me, there isn't a right answer to that question. "Maximizing well being" for me is a subjective perspective that depends on the psychology and desires of the individuals involved. While your example is based around the objective correctness of Person C's answer, I personally can understand why a person would choose A or B. Not because I agree with them or think they are 'correct' myself, but because I appreciate the basic subjectivity in how people think.

Think of it this way, if Person B believes that interests are best served individually, how would coercing him or her into Person C's way of doing things maximize Person B's well being? This sort of coercion is the nature of authority.

This is also the issue in the second example. In this instance, the teacher is the authority. While this may seem reasonable in part in that context (to some!) it does not translate well into other aspects of human existence. A teacher informing a pupil that 2 + 2 = 5 is an incorrect answer in a classroom is an entirely different proposition to philosophical life, desire, ethics, etc.

One of the reasons for that in philosophical life there is no 'teacher', and no proven right answer, unless you are a theist or believe in objective truth outside of you. Since I don't believe in such an influence, I consider my opinions equally valid and invalid to every other opinion. Including yours

by **hawkins21** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:15 pm

Wheelsinyourhead: I am sure my views irk many people and perhaps I maybe wrong in what I say. I am very open to that. But back to you question, it is actually pretty simple.

I’ll give you two examples:

1. Lets say that there are only two people in the world (we will say Jill and Joey who happen to both be 21) and we have to give accounts of how these two can maximize their well-being (in accordance to reason) and with their best effort decrease their suffering.

So we ask three people: Person A, Person B and Person C.

Person A states: They should smash each others heads with rocks

Person B states: They should be two individuals who are only concerned for themselves and very rarely help one another

Person C states: They should try helping one another, be reciprocal when it comes to goods and try their best to have the most healthy relationship that they possibly can . If they have children they should take turns raising them while the other does the labor…….

Since the question was about maximizing well-being (with accordance to reason) Person A response was wrong. Person B was better than person A’s but not quite correct, but is on the right path. Person C, in talking about well-being account would be the correct answer. More so correct than person A and B, whereas person B’s account was more so correct than Person A.

Does that make sense.

Another example would be in a classroom. A teacher ask a question to the class and a couple of students reply. One students answer is outright wrong and the teacher points that out. The second students answer gets the reply of “not exactly what I was looking for but you are on the right path. And finally the third student response is the correct one.

Good questions everyone.

by **hawkins21** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:01 pm

Aranfan:

Very valid points and I was not speaking in the arbitrary sense. Once again I sort of harbor the same views as you and have indeed raised the same questions so what you and Guest are saying is not really new to me. The answers to your questions are fairly easy though.

Lets start with what changes are good and what changes are bad: Let me give you two examples.

Example A: Lets that there is a community of individuals that live somewhere in Canada. The norm of this community is “that any first born child that is a girl must get their throats once they reach puberty”. If the girl is the second child she is safe but if she is the first born that means that demons consumer her. So you asked what is progress. Progress in this sense would be to maximize the well-being of all individuals within this community. Well-being is important because it involves consciousness(brain), which involves one experiencing pleasure and pain, happiness and joy, etc. You mentioned what would be a good choice and what would be a bad choice towards this progress. The good choice would be to stop doing such things and recognize that the young girls did not choose to be born, that they should not be punished for something that they did not do, and that they are free to experience life as well because it is there natural right as a human being(this is not implying god). A bad choice would be if the community started killing all girls in general once they had their first period or just killed any first born child. Reason will be a good dictator as well. The community should come together and come up with a consensus in accordance to what is reasonable, just, moral, etc. So with the case of the U.S. it would be the masses because it would not be as arbitrary as the government.

If this account seems too unrealistic take two realistic ones. In Africa it was thought that twins were demons and were consumed by evil spirits. So they were killed. In Africa(as far as I know) this does not occur anymore. So I suppose people realized that it was an unjust thing to do. So that in itself is a good conscious decision. Now here is a bad way from trying to bring about progress, i.e. improving one’s condition( one of the reason why slaughter twins stopped was because Christian missionaries came and arbitrarily imposed Christianity onto the indigenous tribes in Africa. Although it did stop such things it was forcefully done and many Africans were killed.

In Sparta if a child was born deformed they would be left in the wilderness to die or they would have been burnt alive (Plato wanted to practice this as well). This came about because it was thought that the deformed would not be progressive to society (which make sense because they were an oligarchy).. To their standards it was in their best interest to do such things but at the same time why should I hold my tongue and say such practices were not moral at all? Yes I can consider the time period and the reasons but this does not mean that their actions were right. The child did not wise to be deformed, why should they get punished and if I was to deem such actions as immoral why should it be labeled as arbitrary?

Once again I understand the points that you are trying to make and everyone are individuals but once again since we are social beings(that can choose not to be social) our actions, thoughts, etc affects other people. So despite the fact that you want to say that there is no humanity, no society, no culture, etc the fact that your are surrounded by other people, despite your individuality makes you interconnected to them. I am an individual who has the capacity to do what I want. You mentioned the working class. If they wanted you to die that is a individual decision made by every individual in that class. The fact that they all agreed to kill you is still a conscious decision made by them. But since they are doing this together they are one. Just like ants. There are individual ants but when they get back to the colony they are in a sense family, they are one. The same with humans. You are your own person. But when you add your mom, dad, brother, sister, grandparents, cousins, etc you guys are a unit, you guys are family connected together by blood(or legal marriage)..

by **hawkins21** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 5:32 pm

I'll respond to guest first and then in another post respond to the others. At least I can finally say that I am invigorated to have a mature conversation. Moving on.

Although I do like your response I believe that you may have misconstrued what we perhaps may have said. Guest was stating that we cannot find truth through objectivity, which is I believe half true. This is what I mean. For example, if you were to meditate and I was to ask you what your experiences through meditation were there is no possible way for me as an objective observer to know your true experiences, for me to be able to comprehend your experiences or for me to really know what you experienced at all. The best I can do is go off of what you said and make an analysis off of that. My analysis may have some truth to it while at the same time not. There are truths to be told about the experiences that you had meditating. But this does not mean that I will fully understand meditation or that I will even find all the answers I want. The same goes for love. Love is an subjective experience towards another object(in the none arbitrary sense). I cannot say that a person who is romantically in love with two people is actually experiencing love and not lust. There are answers/truths to any claims that are made about love, despite the subjectivity involved. All because one may never find the answers to the questions that are seeked does not mean that there are no answers to be found that would eventually deem something to be true or false. There may also be multiple answers and not just one. There may be no answers but the nature of questions have an answer, despite the ignorance of humans. There are answers to any question that is asked, it is a matter of finding it and how we get there, along with other factors that I have not mentioned or dont know about.

Now you mentioned that there is a difference between the birds flying during jfk assassination and mlk jr's assassination leading to a universal sense of sorrow. Now before I continue since it seems that no one understood what I was driving at allow me to explain. The purpose of those questions was to show that there are answers to those questions despite the fact that we may never know the answer or even find the answer. I do not see how anyone could deny that there are not answers to those questions. Secondly I was not being literal when I mentioned a universal sense of sorrow. What was referring to was the riots that were going on after MLK was assassinated and just about everyone who followed MLK was in a state of sorrow. So in a sense, the majority of the U.S. was experience sorrow and then the riots broke out. Were there people who were happy that MLK was shot, hell yeah. George Lincoln Roswell was one of them and I’m sure there were other neo-nazi’s as well that were happy but the questions I asked, despite the difference and complexity of the two were to prove that there are answers to such questions despite the ignorance of any individual. So if you are using the word “Universal” in its lateral sense then I would have to agree with you in saying that such a claim was not true but that in itself is an answer to the question and statement that was asked. But you also had to look at the context that it was used in and realized what I was saying but then again that may have been the failure on my part. Hopefully this makes much more sense. There are steps to finding truth but it does not necessarily have to be as complex as you are making it and therefore not fully impossible. For example if the Sun was to turn into the red giant due to its core expanding after a long fought battle between gravity and the gases that consume the star is there a very high possibility that the Earth would be destroyed during this expansion and increase in size? Or take this one for example, For the bigger stars in the Universe, once they start to produce Iron is there any chance of survival? Such questions have steps to it, such questions may take 200 years to answer but such questions have answers that may eventually lead to truth…By the way the answers to first question is yes the second no. Doubt this do your research. Now if one was to ask what is dark matter, what does it look like, where is it at, or what are the origins of consciousness? there are answers to such questions despite the fact that we do not know them right now and may never know the answer(s). You asked are all truths important, I would say yes(if it has to do with metaphysics especially) but despite my answer(lets assume I said no) this would not take away from the fact that there maybe truths. But he is where I will sound like I am contradicting myself. Since the world is forever changing it is hard to survey it from an objective standpoint and what we may have thought was true or may have believed to be true may indeed be false in 50 yrs. I know its sounds like a contradiction but I think it is more of a paradox(which is not the same thing as contradiction) So to basically sum things up I never mentioned that there is only one answer or that we will find all the answers, that would be absurd. And since we are playing a language game define real or reality for me?

Before I answer you next question about free(or freedom) how is it that I implicated that everyone else is not free? I went over it like three times and still did not notice it. I started off by saying “ANY” individual. If you are referring to animals I would have to say, from an existentialist perspective that other living organisms are not free being that most of them have biological drives that in a sense cause them to act a certain way. Can we know this with 100% confidence. Absolutely not but at the same time lets not play dumb here. Human beings has a very high capacity of cognition and rationality that most, if not all animals have (which may explain why humans are the only species that kill there own [if you exclude chimps but there is usually a biological purpose to what they are doing and not a choice of their own].

As far as me trying to define the word “free” I was not trying to define it at all. It was actually a statement that I was making, not a definition. But to be free and to be aware of it is actually a conscious decision that is made after much introspection. (which explains why many slaves escaped while others did not, it was a conscious choice that was made, an awareness that one realized that they are indeed a free individual who is able to establish their own values). If this does not fly with you think about hierarchies. To accept and be controlled by hierarchies is a conscious decision made by an individual, it is not a social decision. It may be a social construct but it is purely an individual choice.

As far as my statement about Guest mentioning that the human condition is miserable and I forgot what the other word I mentioned, that maybe correct. I do recognize the way things are but I also mentioned how things ought to be. This means that I have to recognize the way things are. Things are the way they are but that does not mean that things have to stay the way things are. I think there may have been some confusion on this but I do recognize the way things are, despite how forlorn they are, or how happy people may be. The world is forever changing as I stated before so I know for sure things will not remain the way they are.

I also want to state that I am not saying that one should not be concerned for themselves. I’m saying that one cannot be concerned for themselves as if their thoughts, actions, intentions, etc do not impact other people. I care for my well-being more than I would for anyone else but I also realize how impact my decisions and actions and thoughts could be towards other people. This is what I’m trying to say.

Now on to this topic of progress. This is not to sound sarcastic anything but are you guys kidding me? To answer the question let me sum it up but I’m sure this would be questioned as well. How about any current condition in the human condition? In case the human condition needs to be defined it has to deal with any experience human beings experience or go through (intellectual, environmental, educational, work, politics, government, social, cultural, racial, economic, war, media/information, reformation, and the list goes on and on). Our current experiences, despite where one is at can be improved. This is not saying that utopia will come about this but the fact that we have protest, budget cuts, rallies and many more things that I cannot think of right now is evidence that progress needs to be made and by progress I mean improving the well-being of conscious creatures and decrease suffering(as much as possible and to the limits of humans)..will there be bad things happening of course but if one less person is killed than last year that’s a step in the right direction.

As far as science answering truths I did not completely ignore it. I am aware of how science works and that any theory that is mentioned now may be changed or irrelevant in 10 yrs. But at the same time science is not wrong all the time. We know a lot more about human beings, animals, the apparatus of consciousness, the universe etc because of science. Do I expect to science to answer the question of “what is the best political regime that will bring about well-being?” I would have to say no[ with the exception of if well-being is measured at the state of the brain] but other than that I think the question is philosophical one more so than a scientific one. Do I expect science to answer questions as to how many children should I have in order to be finically stable? Do I expect science to answer the question of how I ought to love? Of course not. But the questions that science do ask and have answers to them rather or not they answers are found.

I understand that many factors plays into our choices. Like me deciding to go eat or to go upstairs and lay down. There are many events that have lead to the decision that I have but that does not take away from the fact that I have the liberty and capacity to make any decision that I want. For example, I can decide not to go to class on Monday. There will be many factors that play a role(I may be sick, lazy, etc) but despite these feelings I will always have the freedom to choose what I want to do.

by **Wheelsinyourhead** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:28 pm

I always interpreted that paragraph in Ego & His Own as a sort of exasperation. "What is NOT supposed to be my concern!"

For example the question you asked on this post. My perception of it was completely different than yours and Bob's perception is perhaps different than both of ours. But this does not make us equally correct or equally wrong. There is an answer to the question that you asked and the fact that I am free to put in my own interpretation due to my perception of how i saw the question does not make me correct at all. The same goes for you and anyone else who responded to it. But some people would be more correct than others and others will be more incorrect than others

This bit of Hawkins21's argument does irk me a bit. How do you determine what is 'more correct'? Surely if we don't know the 'truth' then all answers are indeed equally incorrect or correct (since we have no 'truth' to compare to). It reminds me somewhat of the old X-files thing "the truth is out there".

I disagree with the idea that there is truth out there. I understand that humanity doesn't have models for a lot of what goes on yet, but that for me doesn't imply that once we do we will understand The Truth, and certainly not for something as subjective as a book, and especially not for a book as relativistic as The Ego & His Own!

But then I suppose assuming the truth IS out there is another relativistic perspective

This has been a fascinating discussion.

by **Aranfan** » Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:41 am

I, for one, don't stab people because I don't like stabbing people. Seeing happy children makes me happy, so I endeavor to make they happy, purely for my own satisfaction.

What is progress? Good change? Who shall decide which changes are good and which are bad? Why should I accept their authority to tell me that they know better than I do what is good for me?

There is no humanity, only unique individuals. To place the welfare of the abstraction of the species, of which I am but imperfect approximations, above my own welfare is an oppression. It says that I should not, must not, place my own well being above the well being of the species, as represented by others, that if my particular goods and desires conflict with that of the species then I should and must sacrifice mine for theirs. To place the interests of "all" above the interests of "each", leaves "each" with nothing, and everything to "all". Yet this is precisely backwards. The common good is common because many different particular individuals share it. To those who do not share it, it is not a good at all. If it is claimed to be in the interests of the working class that I should die, it does not follow that it is in my interests to die even though I am a worker.

by **Guest** » Sun Nov 14, 2010 2:30 pm

I couldn't help following your ("hawkins" vs "guest") dialogue, and now, I myself would like to comment, question, clarify and analyze one or two things. So here we go:

Guest wrote: ... and there is no seeking "the truth"

Of course there is a seeking of "the truth". However, that doesn't mean that you'll find it.

Guest wrote: ... The concepts of "truth", "freedom", "humanity" and "justice" are fictions.

This is very interesting because the difference between the common definition of "ideal" ("satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable") and "fiction" ("a belief or statement that is false, but that is often held to be true because it is expedient to do so") is- as you can see- very subtle. The only difference I could see though-but that's my personal perspective- is that ideals are things you strive to achieve. So I cannot agree with you. Yet.

A question to Guest: You talk about women and democrats as slaves. Do you mean that anyone who is subordinate to an authority is a slave or that anyone who is by nature subordinate to an authority is a slave?

You (both of you) talk a lot about truth. Wouldn't you agree though, that there is a difference between "the truth" of birds flying in the sky the day JFK was killed and "the truth" that when MLK Jr. was shot there was a universal sorrow? Just as "guest" said, the expression "universal" is extremely powerful, and in many ways impossible to use other than to express your own opinion on how important something is. To say that there is a "universal sorrow" would not be, correct or "true".
The truth of birds flying in the sky is concrete (as long as you determine that the material world is real), while a feeling is very abstract. It's hard to find a "one truth" in a feeling, since it's so hard even to say what a feeling is and why it's there at all. I guess to find a truth, you must discover all the reasons that lead to it. And that is, according to me, impossible.
Are all truths important at all? Can you find a truth in valuing that (the importance of a truth) as well?

Hawkins wrote: ... what is free about any individual is the "WILL". This is the first thing that allows us to be free. The capacity to think. The capacity to be rational. The capacity to choose the life we want to live. The capacity to transform ourselves. The capacity to realize how profound our moment to moment experiences can be, the capacity to change all future experiences and outcomes. All this is possible because of the WILL, the eternal consiousness that lies within us.

This is not a bad thought at all. But this would imply that all other living beings on this earth are not free? How is that possible? Would you agree to reformulate and summarize what you just said to "freedom is to be able to do all that we by nature have been given the opportunities to do"?

I'd also like to make you notice that this definition of the expression "free"

To be free is to make a conscious effort to be free

is not really a definition of it at all.

Guest wrote: There is no humanity -- only individuals. The concept of humanity is a religion -- it's Christianity without Jesus Christ, similar to humanism. It is just a scam to make you feel like you are indebted to those around you (and those no longer living and yet to live) when in fact there is no rational reason for you to care about anyone but yourself (or anything that does not increase your pleasure, so having a significant other can be justified only if doing so does not limit your power).

Helping people gives you both pleasure and power, right? I think you realize that most people we refer to as powerful are that partly because of all the people that support him/her. However, there's a difference between having strength and having power. Today, possibly because of democracy (the "majority model" system) these two rarely meet. If you don't understand my point, please ask.

Hawkins wrote: No one will follow your philosophy because they realize that the human condition is not about suffering and being miserable.

What "guest" is talking about is not about suffering and being miserable. What he says might not be how you would want things to be like, but some things are actually inevitably true. This is not sad, quite the opposite. You have to realize some things that simply are, before you start thinking of how to develop and improve it ---> acceptance before action. Don't let your actions be driven by feelings, at least not feelings that you haven't analyzed as far as possible first.

Hawkins wrote: it is people like you who are impediments to progress since you are not concerned with the right things but yourself.

This is funny, 'cause it actually fits in with the original topic!

Guest wrote: ... THIS IN NO WAY OBLIGATES ANYONE TO HELP OTHERS!

But some do. So you either have to make them ask themselves why the do that, or just accepting it and keep on striving for gaining power and see what good will come out of all of it.

Guest wrote: Plato, yeah, MAYBE IF I WAS STILL A CHILD WHO LIKED TO READ FLOWERY BOOKS WITH REAL SUBSTANCE.

Didn't you say that children are too young to be concerned with nonsense? Actually.. Since you seem to be against many things in our modern society and many of your opinions seem to be in accordance with the ones you had in ancient greece, maybe it would be interesting for you to read up on this (again)?

Guest wrote: Yeah, WHAT PROGRESS? Have you and a group of assholes now decided upon the "progress" of "HUMANITY"? If so, I am HONORED to be an impediment to your bullshit!

This is correct, Hawkins, you must give your definition of progress to avoid misunderstandings.

Guest wrote: Only if he actually has a brain. Thinking on your own just doesn't cut it, dude.

I think he meant "just thinking, doesn't cut it", not to think together with someone else...

Hawkins wrote: These are all scientific as well so you cannot blame transcendentalism for this one. Also the point to my last post was to prove two things,one that you already mentioned and another that you had no idea about: the first being that we cannot know the answers to every question and the second being that despite our ignorance on certain things, there are answers to those questions, even the one's we will never know.

So you ignore the idea of scientific answers only being models, and not definite answers? And maybe there aren't any answer to those questions we'll never find the answers too? How do you know that there are answers for them if you haven't found them?

Hawkins wrote: The essence of existentialism is the fact that we are capable of creating our own lives, developing our own values, we are FREE to do whatever we want

Here the expression "free" must once again be questioned. We can do whatever we want, but are we really "free" to do everything we can do? This comes back later:

Hawkins wrote: Right now I'm on the computer wasting my time with another individual. I could have chosen to go eat, hang out with friends, etc.The fact that I have the freedom to choose what I want to do constitutes as freedom.

You can indeed do what you want to do out of the things you are allowed to do (and those things have been decided by several authorities). If you do not understand, please ask.

by **hawkins21** » Mon Nov 08, 2010 4:25 pm

Exactly!!!!! I already proved my point without even trying. The funny thing is is that your trying to embarrass me. You mentioned for your own benefit and for those who read this post they are going to watch you tear me a new one. The funny thing is no one has agreed with you, tried tearing me a new one or even applauded you for your efforts. Quite frankly they do not really care what you (and even perhaps me as well) have to say. And if you were not putting on a facade then why are you trying so hard to fit the profile of an immoralist or an egoist? You feel the need to prove this(that I find very funny and interesting). I wasn't going to waste my time at first but then I realized that I'd tear you a new one..My responses will be in the same format as yours and I'll cut out all irrelevant material since most of it is pretty much forlorn and worthless. Lets proceed shall we

Guest wrote:Dude, I answer people in whatever way I want. If that means I want to call you a fuckface while I attempt to pull your head out of your ass, then so be it. I am not posing. There is no "facade." I'm not "trying" to be cool -- I am ALWAYS cool regardless of what others think of me. I am being myself, and how the hell could I be anything else? (You will have trouble answering that question because, as a Christian -- oh, sorry, humanist? -- you believe in free will.)

this has nothing to do with anything....So I'll cut out all my bullshit

However, for the benefit of all the internet readers who stumble upon this page and for myself -- because I take great pleasure in showing people how I utterly DOMINATE weaklings like you with just my words! -- I will tear not only you a "new" new one (because I already gave you a "new one" in my last post) but also all of the miserable abortions who are directly related to you. On with your execution:

I'll be awaiting my execution, so far though it has yet to come and how screwed up you logic is I doubt if it will come from you..

hawkins21 wrote:I've read Nietzsche, I love Nietzsche and I know a lot about Nietzsche.

Except anything about his philosophy.

yes of course, how could I not know anything about Nietzsche. I ordered and bought his books only to not read them. Hey at least Walter Kaufman's family is making money off of my purchases..How horrible of me.....Oh man I guess my independent study of Nietzsche was just a waste of my time, wow I can't believe how I got that A...Wow Nietzsche notion of Aesthetics being the only means of value in this world, I cannot believe that I did not understand that. Man Nietzsche notion of Eternal Recurrence has not made me reevaluate my thoughts and decisions. I take it as if I happen to come back to live my life I will just be miserable. Oh how Nihilistic am I...There is no value in the world due to false christian doctrine. Wow I take that that since I am not an egoist like you I will be forever doomed by this conception of slave morality? I will resist change therefore being an impediment to my own progress, I cannot believe that I ever did let this happen. I guess I can always blame democracy and Christabel for promoting this notion of slave morality. I should always remember that man is not our ideal....thank you Nietzsche for allowing me to not know anything about you. I owe you one pal.....darn me......do you want me to stop now or keep on going? I think I'll stop, I proved my point..oh by the way you are nowhere near the Ubermensch...just thought I'd let you know..shall we proceed.

hawkins21 wrote:Anyhow you have no idea of how I am or what I do, so you shouldn't judge anything you do not know.

Weak defense mechanism. "Even though I've spewed paragraphs and paragraphs of vomit for you and everyone else to digest, you shouldn't 'judge' any of it because you don't know me personally." Yeah, way to attempt to protect yourself because you knew I'd come back for your ass. Look dude, after reading all of your shit, I know EXACTLY how you are, and all the astute readers of this page can see it too. We all see you for what you are -- a weak, confused, and illiterate little shit who can't take his education from his superior LIKE A MAN. Your words are on this page for everyone to read, along with my rebuttals -- either continue wallowing in your stupidity in front of everyone or just give up. It's hopeless, dude. I'm so far above you that I can barely see you.

haha you have no idea of who I am..For all you know I could be playing devils advocate. For all you know I could be an evil genius having fun with you. For all you know you could be talking to a serial killer who also happens to have friends who are hackers and will soon find you based off the computer that you logged in on....you said it yourself, objectivity as truth does not exist. what happened to that. If that is true then there is no way that you can figure out who I am, no matter how hard you've tried....I take it as that does not apply at this moment? This situation is an exception to that rule? oh well I thought you'd give a better response than that...oh by the way I'm still jerking you around. I'm actually enjoying this, you actually think you are doing something by ATTEMPTING to make me look bad, hilarious

hawkins21 wrote:All because someone decides to be creative and take a different and original position on a certain topic, this does not qualify them as a dumbass.

I'd hate to learn your definition of "creative." Probably someone who uses something other than toilet paper to wipe his ass.

Seriously, taking a "different" and "original" position on a topic is something "creative"? How about taking an INTELLIGENT position?

This I do agree with you, I actually do not remember saying that and it obviously has nothing to do with the topic so good job. About time.

hawkins21 wrote:I tend to focus on the secular humanistic, moral and conscious aspects of these topics

Which is, again, proof that you think like a Christian (more on this later). And what the fuck, "conscious aspects"? What are there, "comatose aspects" that you avoid talking about?

Buddhist care about humanity as well does that mean I think like a Buddhist? (if you doubt this try looking up the joke with the Buddhist, atheist, and christian, it might make you cry knowing that Christians or secularist are not the only ones who cares about humanity).. Gosh, this is too easy....

hawkins21 wrote:The guy who is in contemplation alone is far more better than the guy who follows the customs of society.

Only if he actually has a brain. Thinking on your own just doesn't cut it, dude.

having a brain does not mean anything and proves nothing. What if the guy is an egoist who is concerned only for himself, does that cut it? oh wait is your second sentence implying that one needs humanity? wow, there is still hope for you, time to turn things up a notch now!!!!

hawkins21 wrote:2. I am no christian (thank Zeus) and it is people like you who are impediments to progress since you are not concerned with the right things but yourself.

What PROGRESS, moron? What RIGHT THINGS? The PROGRESS of your precious HUMANITY or your precious RIGHTS FOR ALL? I am only concerned with my PROGRESS -- i.e., my natural, INEVITABLE progression, the one thing that is closest to me -- and cannot see ANYTHING else as being right. What is good for me IS the only right thing! Why is it so hard for you to see this?

I see it all right and your progress is dependent on someone else. (think about that for a moment and if you if you still fail to realize this on your next response I'll hold your hand and explain it to you but I'm sure a so called intelligent person like yourself is will figure it out).

hawkins21 wrote:This may be bad news for you but your not the only one on this planet so your thoughts matter, your actions matter, the intentions that your formulate towards other people matter. Believe it or not but we are all interconnected(no this is not a christian concept). I can prove this economically, politically, biologically, scientifically if you want me to. I have no problem with that. Its ok though I understand, Nietzsche tends to make people act stupid at first then they realize this is not what he meant.

This may be bad news for you, but this concept of "interconnectedness" has been known for THOUSANDS of years (read Heraclitus). Even a quick glance at modern physics will make it obvious to anyone in denial. But of course, though you, the weak subhuman, understand this concept, you STILL manage to take it and draw all of these SLAVISH conclusions from it! I, a man far mightier than you, say that yes, indeed, we are all connected, BUT THIS IN NO WAY OBLIGATES ANYONE TO HELP OTHERS! Because INDEED, YES, my thoughts, actions, intentions matter -- BUT THEY MATTER ONLY TO ME and MY RIGHT, MY PLEASURE, MY POWER, and fuck those who stand in my way!

your telling me something that I already know so your point is? Also this notion of interconnectedness proceeds Heraclitus. And yes this does make you obligated to other people. The fact that our actions have consequences (good or bad) indeed makes us obligated towards others. And your thoughts should matter to you (I would hope so) otherwise you would not be living your life. But remember what I said only ACTIONS can bring consequences(thoughts can as well but since one is capable of separating one's thoughts from their actions makes thoughts somewhat irrelevant).

By claiming that objective truth exists, you are saying that "somewhere" there exists this gold standard by which everything must abide. It's like the silly "laws of nature" concept, whereby people believe that laws -- i.e., MAN-MADE FICTIONS -- must certainly exist in nature, and that every day in science we come closer to discovering "THE TRUTH" about how nature functions. Except that no matter how many new models physics generates, they are still just that -- MODELS -- and can never irrefutably show how the world works. In order to explain everything about this world, one must STEP OUTSIDE OF IT and look in, which is clearly a contradiction -- for smart people like me, that is, but not for religious people like you, who believe that there exists "something beyond" this realm or whatever retarded shit you hallucinate while you are on drugs.

Whew, I'm glad we are over the boring stuff now, time to turn it up just one more notch.Funny response and now mark your ammo. I'll bring things closer to home since you have a hard time understanding my point (which my 12 yr old nephew understood without my explanation). If you've meditated you'd understand that there is something beyond the vicissitudes of human experience(you'd understand that life is more than just searching for happiness and sorry joy and wonder, pleasure and pain). For me whats beyond is not some distant Utopian land but consciousness, the one element that is aware of itself and this is capable of being known from a third person perspective but only smart people like me will understand that. I'm not going to waste my time proving if I'm religious or not, you are certainly free to think what you want. Also there are metaphysical truths to the world. Science, philosophy, history, physics, etc are not going to find every single answer to every single metaphysical question but answers have been found and some will never be found due to human limitations....but this does not take away from the fact that there are TRUTHS.....Despite how many times the Dahli Lama meditates or the top scientific keeps formulating theories or the greatest philosopher in history philosophize, Pandora's Box will never be opened but this should not be the bases of trying to understand what we can and search for new answers. Only religious people or some nut head will come to conclusions about metaphysics and admit that there is no other alternative, something I oppose greatly of. so to be honest we are much closer on this than one realizes. the difference is is that your the nut head and I am not.

Similarly, for "absolute truth" to exist, you need to point to something transcendental, something that can't be explained within this world -- like all fictions, really. And you know what "transcendental concepts" are, right? -- yeah, they are NONSENSE. For example, all religious babble is transcendental -- because it points to "something beyond" -- and is thus impossible for us to talk about because it's something "outside" of this world (whatever that means -- it's not even something we can discuss!). So "absolute truth" -- something "beyond," something "intangible," something we can never point to, something that we can't even FUCKING TALK ABOUT because it's so nonsensical -- is only something that religious people believe in (for obvious reasons -- if you believe in a god or science or whatever the fuck religious people worship, you probably throw "truth" and "universals" and whatever other Platonic democratic fixed moral systems in there just for shits). Just read some fucking Wittgenstein and be done with it already.

Dude I love Wittgenstein's notion of devotion and timelessness(oh wait I'm supposed to play the dumb ass role, whoops!)...It would have been better if you would have quoted what I said but I think I know what you are talking about. Ok I'll bring the questions closer to home. Is there answer to this: Given the right manipulation is it possible for every cell on the human body to be a potential human being? Or try this one. Is Edwards Bernays concept of Manufactured Consent based upon an understanding of how the human mind/consciousness/psychology, neurobiology, psycho-physiology, etc? or since they brain of a fly consist of about 100,000 neurons (approx) are we, as humans causing more suffering to a fly than we are to a two day old human embryo? (if you respond you'll understand my point on my next response)..there are answers to these questions thus constituting as truth. These are all scientific as well so you cannot blame transcendentalism for this one. Also the point to my last post was to prove two things,one that you already mentioned and another that you had no idea about: the first being that we cannot know the answers to every question and the second being that despite our ignorance on certain things, there are answers to those questions, even the one's we will never know.

Next, moving on from this transcendental babble, absolute truth breaks down in another manner. We agree that the world contains many "people" and thus many perspectives since each person, whether dead, alive now, or yet to be born, had/has/will have a COMPLETELY UNIQUE perspective that, from their end, appears completely valid. For example, take someone who is colorblind and sees green as brown. I mean, you can explain the color green to them all you want, but who are you to say that they are "wrong" for saying that it's brown? How do YOU even know that your perception of colors is correct? What if there exists a small set of people who actually perceive colors in finer shade than everyone else (hint: they do exist) and thus what you call "green" is actually light green, lighter green, turquoise, dark green, darker green, etc., but you cannot tell the difference? And what about all other creatures who see the colors in a different (wrong? correct?) way? Seriously, WHAT IS THE TRUTH OF THIS CONUNDRUM? But that's the problem -- there is no truth here. Nothing is "green", and even people who agree that something is "green" are just mapping a term from language onto something that they see in the real world, which naturally ALWAYS involves a loss of information. Try telling someone that you are sad and see how they react -- the feelings that they invoke in their brain when they hear "sad" are FAR DIFFERENT than what you or anyone else invokes.

Very good, concise, straight to the point and wrong(not completely). First off it has already been proven why people are colored blind(blame the rods, cones and genes for not producing the right Trichromacy)...Also weak argument. If the general population is sees brown (w/o being diagnosed with color blindness) and a few people see green (due to color blindness) then there is no way that the color blind persons perception of the object (in terms of light stimuli) is correct, especially when it is reduced to science. Now it is true that everyone's perception of the world is different and this is more on a conscious level, this is to suggest that some people are right and righter and some people are wrong and wronger about there subjective perceptions and this seems to be something you fail to see. For example the question you asked on this post. My perception of it was completely different than yours and Bob's perception is perhaps different than both of ours. But this does not make us equally correct or equally wrong. There is an answer to the question that you asked and the fact that I am free to put in my own interpretation due to my perception of how i saw the question does not make me correct at all. The same goes for you and anyone else who responded to it. But some people would be more correct than others and others will be more incorrect than others. This is exactly what moral relativism advocates as well and I find it completely forlorn and justifiable for unjust actions.... So as far as the color blind individual who sees the world as Grey instead of yellow does not make him correct at all, he just sees the world from a different perspective. Animals hear things that we do not hear but that does not mean that any of us are wrong when it comes to metaphysics, its just a different understanding of the world.

So, to summarize, since "absolute truth" crap can't exist, if we want to construct a "weaker" version of it, for every possible opinion, we would have to get ALL INDIVIDUALS to agree! -- then maybe we can call it truth! And what a stupid task that would be! So instead of thinking in these binary false/true terms, you must think in terms of less correct/more correct (which translates to less powerful/more powerful -- see Nietzsche). So for example, someone with poor vision might report to you that they see "a person" down at the end of the street, but another person with better vision will say that they see a short, bald man with glasses wearing a red shirt and blue jeans, and someone with even better vision will also add that he is wearing Nike shoes, etc. This is the only way to talk about "truth": in terms of degree. Read some of Heraclitus' fragments or just bother to read Nietzsche (actually read him this time, not Wikipedia) where he says the same shit.

I already mentioned this before I even read it so nice try you ALMOST beat me to the idea....

And I mean, look at your fucking bullshit:

hawkins21 wrote:Your logic is completely off. For example, Is it true that they day that JFK got assassinated that birds were flying in the sky? Is it true that the day he got shot that the sun was out? Is it true that JFK had a last thought before he took his last breath? Is it true that people were having the greatest day of their lives the moment JFK was shot?

I wasn't alive then, so as far as I'm concerned, none of it really happened! And try asking all of the people who also weren't alive or who lived in parts of the world where they weren't forcefed boring news from the West. All you are giving me are "strong opinions" for what happened, but even what you say can be picked apart. For example, the one about the sun "being out." I mean, fuck, at ANY TIME OF DAY the sun is "fucking out" somewhere in the world, so what exactly do you mean by being "out"?

But this does not take away from the fact that there are answers to these questions and that's my point. The questions were not meant to be answered and the fact that they cannot be answered does not take away from the truth of the claims(whatever they may be). That's the point I wanted to make. It would not have mattered if you were born then or not. But there are answers to these questions despite our ignorance...and also to jerk you around since since I already had anticipated the answer you were going to give. Instead of admitting that you had no clue you still provided and excuse as to why you could not answer these questions and then tried to insult me. The funny thing is, is that if you would have read what I had wrote in the first place you would have realized that I mentioned that there are answers to these questions.

hawkins21 wrote:I suggest you take a intro to philosophy course and read up on Plato again.

Plato, yeah, MAYBE IF I WAS STILL A CHILD WHO LIKED TO READ FLOWERY BOOKS WITH NO REAL SUBSTANCE. Or I guess that doesn't make sense to you because you haven't read Nietzsche and thus have no clue that he is an ANTI-PLATONIST and would have nothing to do with Plato or his contemptible ideas -- and contemptible they are for throwing philosophy off course for 2500 fucking years!

If you know anything about Nietzsche you would have realized that he admired the Greeks and read much about them, especially Plato.........you really have no Idea how influential Plato is on philosophy and the world in general, despite the fact that most of what they say now can be refuted.

hawkins21 wrote:and I suppose that you do not know much about him based off your statement. If you did then you would not say that freedom does not exist. To say that is to say we have no free-will. what is free about any individual is the "WILL".

YEAH, and I WOULD SAY THAT YOU HAVEN'T EVEN FUCKING READ THE MAN -- if you did, you wouldn't even DARE mention this bullshit about freedom and having "free will" and all this other CHRISTIAN BULLSHIT.

That is funny because Sartre, who was highly influenced by Nietzsche, would say the exact same thing..The essence of existentialism is the fact that we are capable of creating our own lives, developing our own values, we are FREE to do whatever we want.....I take it as Sartre is wrong as well.

YEAH, TO "CHOOSE" THE ONLY LIFE THAT YOU CAN LIVE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OTHER CHOICES.

your other responses were lame but this one caught my eye, what do you mean by this? (just to make sure we are on the same page since you failed to support what you had to same)

hawkins21 wrote:The capacity to realize how profound our moment to moment experiences can be.

DITTO.

this is funny as well, Nietzsche's eternal recurrence advocates paying attention to one's moment to moment experience...

hawkins21 wrote:the capacity to change all future experiences and outcomes.

LOL, YEAH, MY ASS. So we have the ability to change ALL future experiences? So you and I and everyone else has the power to "change the future"? Great thinking there, buddy! You never were great with philosophy, were you?

and yes we can. Our actions now will effect all future outcomes. If we actually pay attention to the flow of experience we can. But despite how rational one is we can change the outcomes of our future experiences. this is so simple that I will not wast my time providing an example. As far as I know I've gotten A's and 1 B(stupid world religions course) in all my philosophy courses and all my professors still remembers me and would recommend me to go to the top schools. But I was never great nor do I have to prove this any further).

hawkins21 wrote:All this is possible because of the WILL, the eternal consciousness that lies within us.

Yeah, because even though I will someday be dead, a "consciousness" will lie "eternally within me." Can you at least FOR ONCE lay off the fucking drugs?

That is not what I am saying....I'm not talking about Braham, nirvana, the dao, etc . Since consciousness is composed of experience and awareness it would have to be limitless otherwise we'd all be dumb. You'd know this if you've meditated....

hawkins21 wrote:You mentioned slave, democrats, women, etc. A women has no control over her gender but this is not a good basis to suggest that she is not free. All because their society locks them up in chains does not mean they are not free.

Or perhaps they aren't free because, REGARDLESS of what society does to them, they CONTINUE to be weak and show no signs of gaining ANY POWER on their own. Look at the so-called "women's rights" (LOL) groups around the world. All of the "power" that they have gained was CEDED to them by the MEN IN POWER, and even with all of this "GREAT, USEFUL, FREE HELP," women still have done NOTHING with it. I'm still waiting for a woman to write something worthwhile in philosophy (HINT: I am NOT holding my breath).

I wont waste my time with this.. I'll allow someone else to tear you a new one.

hawkins21 wrote:Free will blah blah we are free blah blah black people etc.

GREAT, I'll explain this to you too, since you seem to enjoy taking Nietzsche's ideas and interpreting them IN THE EXACT OPPOSITE manner than what he intended!

So when you are born -- actually, while you develop -- you inherit characteristics and traits and fuck knows what else from your parents. Now imagine how you act in response to every stimulus, including the "first" one -- you take all of the information in your mind, all of your opinions, your biases, your inherited traits, etc., and from these you "decide" how to act -- but there IS ONLY one decision! Think of any action you have ever taken in your life. Take yourself back to the time when you took it, and freeze that frame. Inspect your mind, your past, all of the decisions that you made leading up to that moment, and you will see a clear "line" from the beginning of your life up until that moment -- in other words, given everything that came before that moment, there indeed IS ONLY ONE WAY YOU WILL ACT. This is true for EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD -- not just living creatures! -- but as I have stated above about physics, we will never be able to determine the "underlying" model to it all, or else we would be able to predict what people are going to do -- which is ridiculous because, after being shown your "personal roadmap," you could just do the opposite!

There is not only one decision...there may be one correct decision to be made in a specific circumstance but there is not only one decision....I could have chosen not to act in the way that I did...are you sure you've read Nietzsche because what you say sounds very deterministic? Lets tear down this wall...Every possible situation that I was in and every decision that I made could have always been different. Right now I'm on the computer wasting my time with another individual. I could have chosen to go eat, hang out with friends, etc.The fact that I have the freedom to choose what I want to do constitutes as freedom. Can people decide to be robots? absolutely. There are multiple choices we could make in every moment in our lives...we can only choose one but that does not mean that there is only one. What is interesting though is a friend of mines said the exact same thing but instead he came to the conclusion that we are free and you are nowhere near a philosopher otherwise a great mind like you would not be on this post. And of course things are more convoluted then just, hey I'm free....

BUT OF COURSE, since we can't find a model, people like you thus conclude that OH OF COURSE, WE MUST HAVE FREE WILL THEN, when in fact THINGS ARE MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT, but of course it takes a REAL MAN -- a PHILOSOPHER -- to explain all of this shit.

But just ask those fucking scientists and they will probably tell you some other nonsense.

hawkins21 wrote:3. Humanity: Once again your are one forlorn individual and it is people like you that will be impediments to progress.

Yeah, WHAT PROGRESS? Have you and a group of assholes now decided upon the "progress" of "HUMANITY"? If so, I am HONORED to be an impediment to your bullshit!

hawkins21 wrote:Answer me this though, how can you not be concerned with other individuals? If you really are not concerned about other individuals, if you really believe that people are not concerned about you or have an impact on you then why don't you run every red light that there is? Why do you stop at every stop sign? Why do you slow down when you see a police. Why do you not rob every store? Why are you even bothering to have a conversation on this forum? Better yet how are you not connected with other individuals?

THINK, HAWKINS, THINK! It's not that hard! (for me, at least!) So why don't I run red lights/stop signs all the time or "slow down when [I] see a police" (LOL) or rob every store? Simply because, in my OWN INTERESTS, that is, in my course of THINKING ABOUT MYSELF AT ALL TIMES, I realize that driving through these intersections isn't worth the risk of me getting side-slammed by another car and causing me injury or death, and I will only rob a store at the right opportunity. I mean SHIT HAWKINS. Aren't you supposed to be an "ANARCHIST"? One of the naive and very poor arguments against anarchism is that EVERYONE will start committing crimes at EVERY opportunity, which is the same claim you're making against me just because I said I am an egoist! Jesus Christ, man!

no it is because it is not you in your interest to go to jail due to not wanting to harm your fellow man....if you were truly an immoralist then you would not be concerned about anybody and anything, regardless of the consequences..it is not really your own interest that matters, it is the fact that you know that your actions, thoughts and intentions matters and affects everyone else....so once again, put down the facade.

And I'm having a conversation on this forum because I AM ENJOYING MYSELF. Tearing you down is GREAT EXERCISE.

hawkins21 wrote:Blah blah blah some shit about ARGON blah blah

Since we're all connected, why don't you stop being a hypocrite and help EVERYONE in the world, including cannibals in South America and Africa, all murderers and rapists, and suicide bombers? Not that I have anything against these people -- they're an essential part of this world like everyone else -- but considering how NON-NIETZSCHEAN your moral system is, I'm sure that you find these types of people objectionable. So I laugh at your stupid logic and the logic of all humanists, for that matter.

As a matter of fact I do......need details?

hawkins21 wrote:Justice: I will let history answer this one for me. You are defiantly on my list of the top ten ignorant individuals that I have ever had a conversation with. History will answer this question for me. But I will say this-------that is not justice.

And you are "DEFIANTLY" on the TOP OF MY LIST of people WHOSE SKULLS I WANT TO SMASH. Dude, "justice" in the United States (and basically all western countries) is exactly how I described it (AND HOW NIETZSCHE DESCRIBES IT TO THOSE WHO PAY ATTENTION): someone weak is "wronged" (i.e., they had no RIGHT at the time because they lacked MIGHT -- see Stirner) by someone with MIGHT -- i.e., RIGHT -- and thus turns to the STATE to "RIGHT THE WRONG" (LOL) when in FACT NO "WRONG" WAS COMMITTED HERE -- there is actually nothing MORE UNJUST than this! READ SOME FUCKING NIETZSCHE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

hawkins21 wrote:Democracy is not even a good system...Do not use Democracy to justify your claim

WHEN THE FUCK DID I SAY ANYTHING ABOUT DEMOCRACY? HAVE ANY OTHER BULLSHIT YOU WANT TO PUT INTO MY MOUTH? You know, it's SHIT LIKE THIS that reminds me why I can't hold conversations with ILLITERATES. I keep pointing out all of these stupid retardations and poor reading comprehension on your part, and ALL OF YOUR DUMB ARGUMENTS JUST FALL APART, IN FRONT OF EVERYONE READING THESE POSTS.

I suggest reading it over and look for your self, you mentioned it...

hawkins21 wrote:I look for ways to maximize the well-being of conscious creatures since I realize that we are all interconnected to one another.

LOL, YEAH, so you maximize the well-being of bacteria, viruses, flies, maggots, rats, mice, cats, dogs, elephants, rapists, murderers, and best of all, even me! Thank you! I am very appreciative of all of your HARD WORK!

wow I did not know bacteria an viruses are conscious...lol....and there is no hard work to be done here...I'm waiting for you to actually start formulating arguments...otherwise I'm going to keep playing around with with you...

hawkins21 wrote:You are not an immoralist because you would not be on this computer right now(you'd be in jail).

Again with the bullshit. Yeah, because an immoralist is too stupid to figure out how to work around the system!

actually they are...they always get caught.

hawkins21 wrote:You are not creative and will not make progress. No one will follow your philosophy because they realize that the human condition is not about suffering and being miserable.

I'm plenty creative, thanks. And yeah, haha, maybe not any of your RETARDED progress -- because, again, I am not RETARDED -- but I make plenty of progress for myself every day, simply by being alive! Again, more shit that you will never understand.

uh no your not..all you are doing is taking other people's philosophy and using it to support your own conclusions..that is not creative.

So while you are wasting your time concerning yourself with "the human condition" or whatever retarded shit, I am LOLLING at you and all of your stupid kind and living a GREAT LIFE. So yeah -- you wanna wallow in shit, fine, but please keep the flies to yourself!

my life is grand thank you, also when you decided to be serious and actually formulate your own arguements then I'll decide to be serious...nice try thou....i'm ready for round three when you are...this is fun...

by **Gad** » Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:14 pm

If you leave 'not' in the first sentence it is written as an expression of exasperation, which is elaborated upon by a list in the subsequent sentence. Each of the listed is purported to reference the object of concern of different philosophical doctrines ranging from the political to the metaphysical which in each case neglect the one to whom they are nevertheless addressed. The final sentence is Stirner imputing to 19c civil society and those who espouse such doctrines the response he imagines they might give to one who has the presumption to make himself the primary concern before all else.

Had you grown bored or was it that they had tired of you on Libcom & Anarchist Blackcat?

by **The Barking Snail** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:07 pm

Someone's hit rewind on Good Will Hunting one too many times.

by **Guest** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:12 am

Dude, I answer people in whatever way I want. If that means I want to call you a fuckface while I attempt to pull your head out of your ass, then so be it. I am not posing. There is no "facade." I'm not "trying" to be cool -- I am ALWAYS cool regardless of what others think of me. I am being myself, and how the hell could I be anything else? (You will have trouble answering that question because, as a Christian -- oh, sorry, humanist? -- you believe in free will.)

And I mean, look at this bullshit:

hawkins21 wrote:haha I am so going to enjoy jerking you around. This is going to be fun. You have to resort to name calling just so you can feel better about yourself.

hawkins21 wrote:but I'll leave it alone for now since you seem to have issues.

hawkins21 wrote:It is people like you who give Nietzsche a bad name.

hawkins21 wrote:it is people like you who are impediments to progress since you are not concerned with the right things but yourself.

hawkins21 wrote:Its ok though I understand, Nietzsche tends to make people act stupid at first then they realize this is not what he meant.

hawkins21 wrote:Truth: This one actually made me laugh. I cannot believe I am wasting my time with this one but I'll play around with you first before I decide to be serious.

hawkins21 wrote:I suppose that you do not know much about him based off your statement.

hawkins21 wrote:but a serious one since you are really ignorant on the issue

hawkins21 wrote:Once again your are one forlorn individual and it is people like you that will be impediments to progress.

hawkins21 wrote:You are defiantly (edit: I can't even believe I'm wasting my time talking to some fuck who can't even spell) on my list of the top ten ignorant individuals that I have ever had a conversation with.

hawkins21 wrote:If your read some of Nietzsche you will understand that he would not even want to hold a conversation with you.

hawkins21 wrote:If he were alive would have saw how you misconstrued his philosophy he would die from laughter.

hawkins21 wrote:Secondly you give a bad name to philosophy.

hawkins21 wrote:But once you get back to reality you will realize that people do not care about people like you. You are not creative and will not make progress. No one will follow your philosophy because they realize that the human condition is not about suffering and being miserable.

hawkins21 wrote:I suspect your next response will have nothing but cuss words since you feel to need to show how "immoral" and "egotistical" you are. Trust me it is not going to work. Secondly no one cares. Third it does not make you 30% cooler.

You whine on and on (with your terrible grammar and spelling, to note -- and you expect me or any random internet user to trust your skills with philosophy when you can't even communicate effectively in English?! Seriously, I don't even NEED to address any of your points because they are thoughts of an illiterate!) about how all I do is insult to make my point and to make myself appear cooler (along with many other complete fabrications of my writing, which doesn't surprise me since it's perfectly logical for ANYONE to assume that if you can't even fucking WRITE in English, you probably can't READ it either), but in the process you dump all of the above shit about me. In other words, you do exactly what you're claiming that I did -- you know, the thing I barely did. It's surprising given that all I've done so far (prior to this post) is say that something you said was a load of crap, call you a "little shit", and say that you sounded like a woman or a Christian. I spent the rest of my previous post trying to cure you of your ignorance, but considering all the signals you've given me, it's completely hopeless for you.

You were born an Untermensch and you will die an Untermensch.

However, for the benefit of all the internet readers who stumble upon this page and for myself -- because I take great pleasure in showing people how I utterly DOMINATE weaklings like you with just my words! -- I will tear not only you a "new" new one (because I already gave you a "new one" in my last post) but also all of the miserable abortions who are directly related to you. On with your execution:

hawkins21 wrote:I've read Nietzsche, I love Nietzsche and I know a lot about Nietzsche.

Except anything about his philosophy.

hawkins21 wrote:Anyhow you have no idea of how I am or what I do, so you shouldn't judge anything you do not know.

Weak defense mechanism. "Even though I've spewed paragraphs and paragraphs of vomit for you and everyone else to digest, you shouldn't 'judge' any of it because you don't know me personally." Yeah, way to attempt to protect yourself because you knew I'd come back for your ass. Look dude, after reading all of your shit, I know EXACTLY how you are, and all the astute readers of this page can see it too. We all see you for what you are -- a weak, confused, and illiterate little shit who can't take his education from his superior LIKE A MAN. Your words are on this page for everyone to read, along with my rebuttals -- either continue wallowing in your stupidity in front of everyone or just give up. It's hopeless, dude. I'm so far above you that I can barely see you.

hawkins21 wrote:All because someone decides to be creative and take a different and original position on a certain topic, this does not qualify them as a dumbass.

I'd hate to learn your definition of "creative." Probably someone who uses something other than toilet paper to wipe his ass.

Seriously, taking a "different" and "original" position on a topic is something "creative"? How about taking an INTELLIGENT position?

hawkins21 wrote:I tend to focus on the secular humanistic, moral and conscious aspects of these topics

Which is, again, proof that you think like a Christian (more on this later). And what the fuck, "conscious aspects"? What are there, "comatose aspects" that you avoid talking about?

hawkins21 wrote:The guy who is in contemplation alone is far more better than the guy who follows the customs of society.

Only if he actually has a brain. Thinking on your own just doesn't cut it, dude.

hawkins21 wrote:If I really wanted to I go make three post about why everything you said is completely forlorn but I'll leave it alone for now since you seem to have issues. It is people like you who give Nietzsche a bad name.

My ONLY issue right now is you, buddy. Your writing gives me aneurysms. And in order to clear my hands of your shit and my blood vessels of your snot, I'm here to show you just how big of an issue I have with you.

And about Nietzsche and bad names -- just read the rest of my post. You obviously haven't a clue what the man wrote.

hawkins21 wrote:2. I am no christian (thank Zeus) and it is people like you who are impediments to progress since you are not concerned with the right things but yourself.

What PROGRESS, moron? What RIGHT THINGS? The PROGRESS of your precious HUMANITY or your precious RIGHTS FOR ALL? I am only concerned with my PROGRESS -- i.e., my natural, INEVITABLE progression, the one thing that is closest to me -- and cannot see ANYTHING else as being right. What is good for me IS the only right thing! Why is it so hard for you to see this?

hawkins21 wrote:This may be bad news for you but your not the only one on this planet so your thoughts matter, your actions matter, the intentions that your formulate towards other people matter. Believe it or not but we are all interconnected(no this is not a christian concept). I can prove this economically, politically, biologically, scientifically if you want me to. I have no problem with that. Its ok though I understand, Nietzsche tends to make people act stupid at first then they realize this is not what he meant.

This may be bad news for you, but this concept of "interconnectedness" has been known for THOUSANDS of years (read Heraclitus). Even a quick glance at modern physics will make it obvious to anyone in denial. But of course, though you, the weak subhuman, understand this concept, you STILL manage to take it and draw all of these SLAVISH conclusions from it! I, a man far mightier than you, say that yes, indeed, we are all connected, BUT THIS IN NO WAY OBLIGATES ANYONE TO HELP OTHERS! Because INDEED, YES, my thoughts, actions, intentions matter -- BUT THEY MATTER ONLY TO ME and MY RIGHT, MY PLEASURE, MY POWER, and fuck those who stand in my way!

hawkins21 wrote:3. Truth: This one actually made me laugh. I cannot believe I am wasting my time with this one but I'll play around with you first before I decide to be serious. You are right that there are multiple perspectives. You are right that people are subjective. Truth as a form of objectivity does exist.

And your cocky yet retarded response made me laugh even harder. Look kid, I'll try to go slow with this one since it's important, though considering that you claim to have read Nietzsche and never understood EVEN HIM -- the MASTER PHILOSOPHER -- when he explained this to you, my explanation will go right over your head.

By claiming that objective truth exists, you are saying that "somewhere" there exists this gold standard by which everything must abide. It's like the silly "laws of nature" concept, whereby people believe that laws -- i.e., MAN-MADE FICTIONS -- must certainly exist in nature, and that every day in science we come closer to discovering "THE TRUTH" about how nature functions. Except that no matter how many new models physics generates, they are still just that -- MODELS -- and can never irrefutably show how the world works. In order to explain everything about this world, one must STEP OUTSIDE OF IT and look in, which is clearly a contradiction -- for smart people like me, that is, but not for religious people like you, who believe that there exists "something beyond" this realm or whatever retarded shit you hallucinate while you are on drugs.

Similarly, for "absolute truth" to exist, you need to point to something transcendental, something that can't be explained within this world -- like all fictions, really. And you know what "transcendental concepts" are, right? -- yeah, they are NONSENSE. For example, all religious babble is transcendental -- because it points to "something beyond" -- and is thus impossible for us to talk about because it's something "outside" of this world (whatever that means -- it's not even something we can discuss!). So "absolute truth" -- something "beyond," something "intangible," something we can never point to, something that we can't even FUCKING TALK ABOUT because it's so nonsensical -- is only something that religious people believe in (for obvious reasons -- if you believe in a god or science or whatever the fuck religious people worship, you probably throw "truth" and "universals" and whatever other Platonic democratic fixed moral systems in there just for shits). Just read some fucking Wittgenstein and be done with it already.

Next, moving on from this transcendental babble, absolute truth breaks down in another manner. We agree that the world contains many "people" and thus many perspectives since each person, whether dead, alive now, or yet to be born, had/has/will have a COMPLETELY UNIQUE perspective that, from their end, appears completely valid. For example, take someone who is colorblind and sees green as brown. I mean, you can explain the color green to them all you want, but who are you to say that they are "wrong" for saying that it's brown? How do YOU even know that your perception of colors is correct? What if there exists a small set of people who actually perceive colors in finer shade than everyone else (hint: they do exist) and thus what you call "green" is actually light green, lighter green, turquoise, dark green, darker green, etc., but you cannot tell the difference? And what about all other creatures who see the colors in a different (wrong? correct?) way? Seriously, WHAT IS THE TRUTH OF THIS CONUNDRUM? But that's the problem -- there is no truth here. Nothing is "green", and even people who agree that something is "green" are just mapping a term from language onto something that they see in the real world, which naturally ALWAYS involves a loss of information. Try telling someone that you are sad and see how they react -- the feelings that they invoke in their brain when they hear "sad" are FAR DIFFERENT than what you or anyone else invokes.

So, to summarize, since "absolute truth" crap can't exist, if we want to construct a "weaker" version of it, for every possible opinion, we would have to get ALL INDIVIDUALS to agree! -- then maybe we can call it truth! And what a stupid task that would be! So instead of thinking in these binary false/true terms, you must think in terms of less correct/more correct (which translates to less powerful/more powerful -- see Nietzsche). So for example, someone with poor vision might report to you that they see "a person" down at the end of the street, but another person with better vision will say that they see a short, bald man with glasses wearing a red shirt and blue jeans, and someone with even better vision will also add that he is wearing Nike shoes, etc. This is the only way to talk about "truth": in terms of degree. Read some of Heraclitus' fragments or just bother to read Nietzsche (actually read him this time, not Wikipedia) where he says the same shit.

And I mean, look at your fucking bullshit:

hawkins21 wrote:Your logic is completely off. For example, Is it true that they day that JFK got assassinated that birds were flying in the sky? Is it true that the day he got shot that the sun was out? Is it true that JFK had a last thought before he took his last breath? Is it true that people were having the greatest day of their lives the moment JFK was shot?

I wasn't alive then, so as far as I'm concerned, none of it really happened! And try asking all of the people who also weren't alive or who lived in parts of the world where they weren't forcefed boring news from the West. All you are giving me are "strong opinions" for what happened, but even what you say can be picked apart. For example, the one about the sun "being out." I mean, fuck, at ANY TIME OF DAY the sun is "fucking out" somewhere in the world, so what exactly do you mean by being "out"?

And then you throw this gay shit at me:

hawkins21 wrote:Is it true that when MLK Jr was shot that there was a universal sense of sorrow?

LOL. Because I can't think of anything more fitting to say to this slavishness except LOL. This is the kind of shit I would expect from A WOMAN -- and I thought my opinion of you couldn't get any lower.

But I will add some addenda: first of all, MLK was a hack (and had to plagiarize in order to obtain his doctorate) and unliked by many people, so NO FUCKING SHIT, there wasn't a "universal sense of sorrow." What about the MILLIONS (BILLIONS?) of people alive at the time who had never even heard of him? -- let alone all of those who did know him but were not FUCKING BABIES and thus DID NOT GIVE A SHIT when he was killed! "Universal sense of sorrow" my ass -- there will never be a universal ANYTHING as long as Hyperboreans like me exist. But of course, as long as women, cripples, and other nihilists like you exist, the free spirits like me will continue to sweat our existence as we share living space with all of you lower life forms. But despite all of the bullshit, it still is really entertaining.

hawkins21 wrote:Is it ture that I am even thinking right now?

LOL, APPARENTLY NOT, because you can't fucking spell or think or philosophize or even do anything requiring SOME intelligence except type -- POORLY, AT THAT -- complete nonsense with your keyboard.

And then your philosophy recommendations blow ass:

hawkins21 wrote:I suggest you take a intro to philosophy course and read up on Plato again.

Plato, yeah, MAYBE IF I WAS STILL A CHILD WHO LIKED TO READ FLOWERY BOOKS WITH NO REAL SUBSTANCE. Or I guess that doesn't make sense to you because you haven't read Nietzsche and thus have no clue that he is an ANTI-PLATONIST and would have nothing to do with Plato or his contemptible ideas -- and contemptible they are for throwing philosophy off course for 2500 fucking years!

hawkins21 wrote:Freedom: I will take this one seriously since I am really intrigued by existentialism. If you knew anything about Nietzsche you would realize that he is an existentialist

STUPID! So since you can't UNDERSTAND a philosopher, to help your SIMPLE brain understand his COMPLICATED ideas, you just throw him into some RETARDED category and call it a day. The whole "existentialism" bullshit came after Nietzsche -- a bunch of cowardly faggots who completely misunderstood Nietzsche and created boring, irrelevant "philosophy" as a result. What an INSULT to Nietzsche for you to categorize him with these fucks! And you say that I give him a bad name?!

hawkins21 wrote:and I suppose that you do not know much about him based off your statement. If you did then you would not say that freedom does not exist. To say that is to say we have no free-will. what is free about any individual is the "WILL".

YEAH, and I WOULD SAY THAT YOU HAVEN'T EVEN FUCKING READ THE MAN -- if you did, you wouldn't even DARE mention this bullshit about freedom and having "free will" and all this other CHRISTIAN BULLSHIT.

hawkins21 wrote:This is the first thing that allows us to be free. The capacity to think.

YEAH, THE CAPACITY TO THINK THE THOUGHTS PRE-PROGRAMMED FOR YOU.

hawkins21 wrote:The capacity to be rational.

YEAH, USING THE RATIONALITY THAT YOU WERE BORN WITH.

hawkins21 wrote:The capacity to choose the life we want to live.

YEAH, TO "CHOOSE" THE ONLY LIFE THAT YOU CAN LIVE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OTHER CHOICES.

hawkins21 wrote:The capacity to transform ourselves.

AS IF THIS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH FREE WILL AND IS NOT A DRUG-INDUCED HALLUCINATORY STATEMENT.

hawkins21 wrote:The capacity to realize how profound our moment to moment experiences can be.

DITTO.

hawkins21 wrote:the capacity to change all future experiences and outcomes.

LOL, YEAH, MY ASS. So we have the ability to change ALL future experiences? So you and I and everyone else has the power to "change the future"? Great thinking there, buddy! You never were great with philosophy, were you?

hawkins21 wrote:All this is possible because of the WILL, the eternal consciousness that lies within us.

Yeah, because even though I will someday be dead, a "consciousness" will lie "eternally within me." Can you at least FOR ONCE lay off the fucking drugs?

hawkins21 wrote:You mentioned slave, democrats, women, etc. A women has no control over her gender but this is not a good basis to suggest that she is not free. All because their society locks them up in chains does not mean they are not free.

Or perhaps they aren't free because, REGARDLESS of what society does to them, they CONTINUE to be weak and show no signs of gaining ANY POWER on their own. Look at the so-called "women's rights" (LOL) groups around the world. All of the "power" that they have gained was CEDED to them by the MEN IN POWER, and even with all of this "GREAT, USEFUL, FREE HELP," women still have done NOTHING with it. I'm still waiting for a woman to write something worthwhile in philosophy (HINT: I am NOT holding my breath).

hawkins21 wrote:Free will blah blah we are free blah blah black people etc.

GREAT, I'll explain this to you too, since you seem to enjoy taking Nietzsche's ideas and interpreting them IN THE EXACT OPPOSITE manner than what he intended!

So when you are born -- actually, while you develop -- you inherit characteristics and traits and fuck knows what else from your parents. Now imagine how you act in response to every stimulus, including the "first" one -- you take all of the information in your mind, all of your opinions, your biases, your inherited traits, etc., and from these you "decide" how to act -- but there IS ONLY one decision! Think of any action you have ever taken in your life. Take yourself back to the time when you took it, and freeze that frame. Inspect your mind, your past, all of the decisions that you made leading up to that moment, and you will see a clear "line" from the beginning of your life up until that moment -- in other words, given everything that came before that moment, there indeed IS ONLY ONE WAY YOU WILL ACT. This is true for EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD -- not just living creatures! -- but as I have stated above about physics, we will never be able to determine the "underlying" model to it all, or else we would be able to predict what people are going to do -- which is ridiculous because, after being shown your "personal roadmap," you could just do the opposite!

BUT OF COURSE, since we can't find a model, people like you thus conclude that OH OF COURSE, WE MUST HAVE FREE WILL THEN, when in fact THINGS ARE MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT, but of course it takes a REAL MAN -- a PHILOSOPHER -- to explain all of this shit.

But just ask those fucking scientists and they will probably tell you some other nonsense.

hawkins21 wrote:3. Humanity: Once again your are one forlorn individual and it is people like you that will be impediments to progress.

Yeah, WHAT PROGRESS? Have you and a group of assholes now decided upon the "progress" of "HUMANITY"? If so, I am HONORED to be an impediment to your bullshit!

hawkins21 wrote:Answer me this though, how can you not be concerned with other individuals? If you really are not concerned about other individuals, if you really believe that people are not concerned about you or have an impact on you then why don't you run every red light that there is? Why do you stop at every stop sign? Why do you slow down when you see a police. Why do you not rob every store? Why are you even bothering to have a conversation on this forum? Better yet how are you not connected with other individuals?

THINK, HAWKINS, THINK! It's not that hard! (for me, at least!) So why don't I run red lights/stop signs all the time or "slow down when [I] see a police" (LOL) or rob every store? Simply because, in my OWN INTERESTS, that is, in my course of THINKING ABOUT MYSELF AT ALL TIMES, I realize that driving through these intersections isn't worth the risk of me getting side-slammed by another car and causing me injury or death, and I will only rob a store at the right opportunity. I mean SHIT HAWKINS. Aren't you supposed to be an "ANARCHIST"? One of the naive and very poor arguments against anarchism is that EVERYONE will start committing crimes at EVERY opportunity, which is the same claim you're making against me just because I said I am an egoist! Jesus Christ, man!

And I'm having a conversation on this forum because I AM ENJOYING MYSELF. Tearing you down is GREAT EXERCISE.

hawkins21 wrote:Blah blah blah some shit about ARGON blah blah

Since we're all connected, why don't you stop being a hypocrite and help EVERYONE in the world, including cannibals in South America and Africa, all murderers and rapists, and suicide bombers? Not that I have anything against these people -- they're an essential part of this world like everyone else -- but considering how NON-NIETZSCHEAN your moral system is, I'm sure that you find these types of people objectionable. So I laugh at your stupid logic and the logic of all humanists, for that matter.

hawkins21 wrote:Justice: I will let history answer this one for me. You are defiantly on my list of the top ten ignorant individuals that I have ever had a conversation with. History will answer this question for me. But I will say this-------that is not justice.

And you are "DEFIANTLY" on the TOP OF MY LIST of people WHOSE SKULLS I WANT TO SMASH. Dude, "justice" in the United States (and basically all western countries) is exactly how I described it (AND HOW NIETZSCHE DESCRIBES IT TO THOSE WHO PAY ATTENTION): someone weak is "wronged" (i.e., they had no RIGHT at the time because they lacked MIGHT -- see Stirner) by someone with MIGHT -- i.e., RIGHT -- and thus turns to the STATE to "RIGHT THE WRONG" (LOL) when in FACT NO "WRONG" WAS COMMITTED HERE -- there is actually nothing MORE UNJUST than this! READ SOME FUCKING NIETZSCHE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

hawkins21 wrote:Democracy is not even a good system...Do not use Democracy to justify your claim

WHEN THE FUCK DID I SAY ANYTHING ABOUT DEMOCRACY? HAVE ANY OTHER BULLSHIT YOU WANT TO PUT INTO MY MOUTH? You know, it's SHIT LIKE THIS that reminds me why I can't hold conversations with ILLITERATES. I keep pointing out all of these stupid retardations and poor reading comprehension on your part, and ALL OF YOUR DUMB ARGUMENTS JUST FALL APART, IN FRONT OF EVERYONE READING THESE POSTS.

So if nothing else, thanks for making my job a lot easier!

hawkins21 wrote:I look for ways to maximize the well-being of conscious creatures since I realize that we are all interconnected to one another.

LOL, YEAH, so you maximize the well-being of bacteria, viruses, flies, maggots, rats, mice, cats, dogs, elephants, rapists, murderers, and best of all, even me! Thank you! I am very appreciative of all of your HARD WORK!

hawkins21 wrote:You are not an immoralist because you would not be on this computer right now(you'd be in jail).

Again with the bullshit. Yeah, because an immoralist is too stupid to figure out how to work around the system!

hawkins21 wrote:Nietzsche was not an immoralist

YEAH, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T SAY THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN HIS WRITINGS. So when the fuck ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE UP THE FACADE OF KNOWING PHILOSOPHY?

hawkins21 wrote:You are not creative and will not make progress. No one will follow your philosophy because they realize that the human condition is not about suffering and being miserable.

I'm plenty creative, thanks. And yeah, haha, maybe not any of your RETARDED progress -- because, again, I am not RETARDED -- but I make plenty of progress for myself every day, simply by being alive! Again, more shit that you will never understand.

AND THANKS FOR MORE BULLSHIT, BECAUSE OF COURSE THIS WHOLE TIME I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT BEING MISERABLE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT NIETZSCHE AND I ARE SOME OF THE MOST OPTIMISTIC PEOPLE WHO HAVE EVER LIVED. Dude, YOU ARE BEYOND HOPELESS.

So while you are wasting your time concerning yourself with "the human condition" or whatever retarded shit, I am LOLLING at you and all of your stupid kind and living a GREAT LIFE. So yeah -- you wanna wallow in shit, fine, but please keep the flies to yourself!

Anarchist Discussion Forums

'The Ego and His Own' opening paragraph

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: 'The Ego and His Own' opening paragraph

Re: 'The Ego and His Own' opening paragraph

Re: 'The Ego and His Own' opening paragraph

Re: 'The Ego and His Own' opening paragraph

Re: 'The Ego and His Own' opening paragraph

Re: 'The Ego and His Own' opening paragraph

Re: 'The Ego and His Own' opening paragraph

Re: 'The Ego and His Own' opening paragraph

Re: 'The Ego and His Own' opening paragraph

Re: 'The Ego and His Own' opening paragraph

Re: 'The Ego and His Own' opening paragraph

Re: 'The Ego and His Own' opening paragraph

Re: 'The Ego and His Own' opening paragraph

Re: 'The Ego and His Own' opening paragraph

Re: 'The Ego and His Own' opening paragraph

Re: 'The Ego and His Own' opening paragraph