Any Philosophers?

[Cstriker 737]

Immanual Kant surely seems to be a favourite in my school, though I find his writings hard to follow and prefer Socrates myself.

 

Kant is hard to follow in that he writes like Stereo instructions. I love Kant...but man is he dry....omg so dry, took some work chew through him when I went to Gonzaga.

[Apologies.MC 50]

Kant is hard to follow in that he writes like Stereo instructions. I love Kant...but man is he dry....omg so dry, took some work chew through him when I went to Gonzaga.

He was quite the antisocial for someone so caught up in what he assumed to be the mechanisms of the human race as a whole. It's probably even enough to challenge his writings to some degree: How does a complete antisocial have enough interactive knowledge to assume the mechanics of humanity?

[Cstriker 737]

Though he was antisocial, he did run an entire university department and had student and collegue interaction quite often, it was when he locked himself away (often at that) to conduct his research and write we see just how inward thinking he was. The antisocial does show uniquelly though, similiar to Rene Descarte in that he approaches his process very analytically and mathematically.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2014 by Cstriker

[Milky Jade 138]

1. I do want to say that. The holocaust was absolutly subjective to the morality of a facist government and a tyrannical leader. 

 

2. The castration of children and gassing of women and babies are CERTAINLY NOT the work of a culture or person with absolute morality found in a personal God

 

3. Subjective morality being subjective to the a single individual or culture that is in stark contrast to the absolute morality and permeation of the greek cardinal virtues that you see stemming through almost every culture on the planet.

 

4. (...)North Korea, Atheistic state venerating the "Glorious Leader" and forces thousands into labor camps and commits executions on its own populace. Read the North Korean refugee statements to the U.N. that were recently released.

 

5. What do you think the Nazi Party was? Facist with no moral basis in absolute ethical virtues. Stalin, executed millions of his own people and stated by his Daughter he cursed God and wanted nothing to do with him. Stalin killed millions of his own people through execution, torture, famine, and forced exile upon millions to siberia starting in the 1930s. AGAIN! His morality subjective to his own desires and motivations instead of towards the good will of any human being for his purpose of rule, as a tyrannt.

 

Whoah, what a mess. Let's try to take it apart.

 

 

1. You seem to understand that a subjective morality means to not draw your morality from "outside authority", but from your own views.

 

According to that distinction, the absolute morality you describe is, in fact, a subjective morality. What authority is issuing these morals does nothing to resolve whether they're absolute or not. Kant's categorical imperative is hardly an example for absolute morals, anyway.

 

2. Ironically, the only people that ever attempted to justify the mutilation of children, rape and torture of women, and so on, tried to do so on religious grounds, "with god on our side" ("Gott mit uns", for reference.). Generally, the good people will do the best they can, the bad the worst they can - but to make a good person behave wickedly, it needs religion.

 

3. See, that is where the things you say get confusing. Forgive me, but it sounds like you think that 'subjective morality' = 'pertaining to an individual or small group's interest' and 'absolute morality' = 'acting for the greater good'.

 

Well, that's barking. I'm sorry, Sir. I don't think you studied philosophy as extensively as you purport to have done.

 

4. North Korea's head of state is de facto Kim Jong Il's father, Kim Il-sung. His son remains commander in chief of the army, but his grandfather retains his position beyond the grave.

 

Hitchens actually described this wicked clutch of zealous yahoos as a "necrocracy" - and, "just one short of a trinity". Just take a look at the fanatical worshipping of these leaders. The parallels are horrifying.

 

Just to make this clear: there is no such thing as an "atheistic motivation". Atheism is the rejection of theism. You can act upon it about as well as you can be motivated by the fact that you're not a dog. It gets people upset that atheists may chalk Hitler's mania up to religious motivation (as well as the church's silence and inactivity during the time of the final solution), but that you cannot apply it analog to Stalin (such in the following: "stalin's atheism was what killed 20 million people") or any other massmurderer.

 

A nonreligious motivation is not an atheistic motivation. Is that now clear?

 

5. Nazis were socialists, and socialism is rooted in the same virtues that religions prescribe to: although, the Nazis were even more explicit than the christians in preaching self-sacrifice, sacrifice for the "Folk", the people.

 

 

Bolt Italic Underlined: Re: socialism (communism lite)

 

This is exactly what both Hitler and Stalin achieved by adhereing to the very morals you declare as "absolute" and "ethical", erroneously as I already pointed out in (1.). This is literally what communism achieves: A considerable life quality drop, compulsion to uphold a government of moral betters, a serf party by which everybody is enslaved to everybody, economic disaster and nationwide depredations.

 

All based on altruistic principles, on the value of self-sacrifice and that we cannot be trusted to be morally good by ourselves. We should be able to agree that absolute morality is not an automatic solution to the failures of moral insanity. It generally is interchangeable, anyway.

[Cstriker 737]

Whoah, what a mess. Let's try to take it apart.

 

 

1. You seem to understand that a subjective morality means to not draw your morality from "outside authority", but from your own views.

 

According to that distinction, the absolute morality you describe is, in fact, a subjective morality. What authority is issuing these morals does nothing to resolve whether they're absolute or not. Kant's categorical imperative is hardly an example for absolute morals, anyway.

 

2. Ironically, the only people that ever attempted to justify the mutilation of children, rape and torture of women, and so on, tried to do so on religious grounds, "with god on our side" ("Gott mit uns", for reference.). Generally, the good people will do the best they can, the bad the worst they can - but to make a good person behave wickedly, it needs religion.

 

3. See, that is where the things you say get confusing. Forgive me, but it sounds like you think that 'subjective morality' = 'pertaining to an individual or small group's interest' and 'absolute morality' = 'acting for the greater good'.

 

Well, that's barking. I'm sorry, Sir. I don't think you studied philosophy as extensively as you purport to have done.

 

4. North Korea's head of state is de facto Kim Jong Il's father, Kim Il-sung. His son remains commander in chief of the army, but his grandfather retains his position beyond the grave.

 

Hitchens actually described this wicked clutch of zealous yahoos as a "necrocracy" - and, "just one short of a trinity". Just take a look at the fanatical worshipping of these leaders. The parallels are horrifying.

 

Just to make this clear: there is no such thing as an "atheistic motivation". Atheism is the rejection of theism. You can act upon it about as well as you can be motivated by the fact that you're not a dog. It gets people upset that atheists may chalk Hitler's mania up to religious motivation (as well as the church's silence and inactivity during the time of the final solution), but that you cannot apply it analog to Stalin (such in the following: "stalin's atheism was what killed 20 million people") or any other massmurderer.

 

A nonreligious motivation is not an atheistic motivation. Is that now clear?

 

5. Nazis were socialists, and socialism is rooted in the same virtues that religions prescribe to: although, the Nazis were even more explicit than the christians in preaching self-sacrifice, sacrifice for the "Folk", the people.

 

 

Bolt Italic Underlined: Re: socialism (communism lite)

 

This is exactly what both Hitler and Stalin achieved by adhereing to the very morals you declare as "absolute" and "ethical", erroneously as I already pointed out in (1.). This is literally what communism achieves: A considerable life quality drop, compulsion to uphold a government of moral betters, a serf party by which everybody is enslaved to everybody, economic disaster and nationwide depredations.

 

All based on altruistic principles, on the value of self-sacrifice and that we cannot be trusted to be morally good by ourselves. We should be able to agree that absolute morality is not an automatic solution to the failures of moral insanity. It generally is interchangeable, anyway.

 

NOTE: Before I start, please sincerely believe I do like a good conversation. I harbor no ill will, and you seem fun!

 

Though I appreciate the debate, I found your judgment of my knowledge a bit insulting. Only some of what you stated is accurate and that you are not understanding my layman’s description Moral Absolutism. Let's begin counter point, in the order of your statements:

 

 

Your first and second points, you mention "Gott mit uns" from Hitlers famous speech regarding nationalism and pride in the nation. You are correct there, in fact in "Mein Kampf," Hitler described himself as having a faith in God and Country. This however is where your statement fell short. This does not apply to the entirety of the Nazi Party, and thus connects to your statements on Human Experimentation.

 

Mengele and Eichmann were neither Christians and were big followers of Social Darwinism. In fact so was Hitler (though Hitler arrived at Social Darwinism through the Divine Purity of the German master race as opposed to scientific progress and atheism). Mengele was a student of Ernst Rudin, a staunch evolutionist and social Darwinist in addition to being a Doctor himself. He aided in the establishment of the 1934 Sterilization laws detailing the castration of physically and mentally disabled humans removal from reproduction to prevent diseased offspring. This influence permeated the entirety of the upper echelon of the Nazi Party. Rudin even stated in lectures that some lives are not worth living and therefore it is a medically responsibility to end lives devoid of value. We will approach this again later in your critique of Kant and Moral Absolutism...

 

 

Another interesting fact, though the Wermacht motto was Gott mit uns, the Wafen SS motto was actually "Meine Ehre heißt Treue" meaning my honor is loyalty, and were staunchly loyal to Himmler and Hitler. Much of Himmlers motivations were not guided by a Christian stance, but ultranationalistic behavior. Himmler, though born to Catholic family, was not catholic himself. During a speech in October 1943, Himmler did the opposite of what you stated. You mentioned that the doctors of the Nazi party justified themselves through Religious right, when in fact Mengele DID NOT nor did Eichmann (as leader of Aushcwitz), Himmler speaking to the Wafen SS stated:

 

"I am talking about the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that is easily said. [quickly] “The Jewish people is being exterminated,” every Party member will tell you, “perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, a small matter”. ...I will never see it happen that even one ... bit of putrefaction comes in contact with us, or takes root in us. On the contrary, where it might try to take root, we will burn it out together. But altogether we can say: [slowly, carefully] We have carried out this most difficult task for the love of our people. And we have suffered no defect within us, in our soul, or in our character."

-Himmler, 1943

 

Himmler was not following orders, Himmler was the leader of the Wafen SS and was giving orders, and was a firm believer in the extermination of Jews as state enemies, not from a religious standpoint but from a political preservation view. Back to Eichmann, even to the gallows he denied God and a priests help further detailing his denial of absolute morality.

 

Your third point on Kant and Moral absolutism. I attempt to keep things layman for others, now I will not as too clear confusion. You misunderstood what I stated. Through moral absolutism, morality and right and wrong are absolutes that transcend culture and persons. In Moral Absolutism, certain actions are always right or wrong regardless of intentions, cultural perspective, consequences, or individual acceptance. This is largely held in religious beliefs, but is not mutually exclusive to religion, as a secular stance is also applicative to this. Moral subjectivity or rather moral relativism is morality based in differences between different cultures and that normative behaviors in different cultures should be tolerated even if we disagree with the morality behind the action. If this were the case, the Nazi party’s actions would become justified. This didn't happen however and the rest of the world intervened by committing to war and holding the Nuremberg trials.

 

As to Kant, Kant was a STAUNCH absolutist. So much so that he stated in his Critique of Pure Reason that even lying to protect someone else, despite the ends being good, was still morally wrong.

Furthermore, he established absolute rights as well in his description of intrinsic worth:

 

"But suppose there were something the existence of which had itself absolute worth, something which, as an end in itself, could be a ground of definite laws. In it and only in it could lie the ground of a possible categorical imperative, i.e., of a practical law.

Now, I say, man and, in general, every rational being exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will…All objects of inclinations have only a conditional worth, for if the inclinations and the needs founded on them did not exist, their object would be without worth."

-Immanual Kant, Critique of Pure Reason

 

Here by Kant establishes value to a person, and through the Good Will he also describes in his work, any one person has intrinsic value and is never a means to an ends, but an end in and of themselves and therefore of value. Taking this back to lying for example, a lie contradicts rationality in the person telling the lie, and further more prevents the freedom of the person being lied to, to make a rational choice. When a lie leads others to think a rational or commit take action they would otherwise NOT do or believe, I have destroyed their autonomy and their human dignity...why do you think in Germany Nazi artefacts beyond a museum are illegal to own or possess? Shame? A loss of Dignity? Furthermore, Kant establishes our Perfect Duties, where we must not interfere with, damage, or hinder the ability for to make free decisions. This extends to his universalization when he state a person should not act in manners that are contradictions to logical or practical purpose when universalized. This is pretty clear he is an Moral absolutist. Our connection to Himmler and friends details that the entirty of the Nazi movement and despite Hitler being "Catholic," at no point did they treat humans like humans. Even as a christian, Hitler stood out as he still killed and cleansed a race of people that by the bible and torah were Gods chosen people and therefore I am pretty sure is not claimed by christians as a "member." They were used as a means to an ends, for racial purity and eugenics, against the right life, liberty, and self evident truths as established in the vast majority of civilizing (I use civilizing as even we [western world] are still growing and learning) societies.

 

 

Your ending points, Stalin moral base was certainly not grounded moral absolutism, and neither was Hitler! If that was the case, a fascist state would not have developed. Look at what Richard Dawkins stated to Dave Berlinski about the moral and Metaphysical ramifications of the Darwinian world view (both Doctors by the way and have paid their dues). When asked by Berlinski if he could live with the moral and metaphysical ramifications of a Darwinian world view, Dawkins stated no. Dawkins! Staunch evolutionist and despises religious belief! He stated no, and when asked why? He stated the end result COULD BE FACISM!!! It has been, and history as seen this multiple times. Germany, North Korea, USSR, China (Ravi Zacharias has a good speech at Princeton on this).

 

You misunderstand further when you stated that I said "Atheism is a motivation." That is not what I stated at all. Atheism CAN BE a motivation; the question is was it a motivation for Hitler or Stalin? Not for Hitler, but may have been a large factor for prominent Nazi party members. Stalin? Verdicts out on him. I turn to Stalins past to attempt to understand his motivation for killing millions of his own people. He started in seminary and then left the catholic church, but for what reason? I do not know. But I can surmise that a series of events or thoughts may have motivated him to making a choice to take the rise to power that he did. His daughter detailed on his death bed that he shook his fist at the heavens before finally dying. Why? Perhaps a hatred of God or what religion means? Perhaps he realized absolution was beyond him? What anger was there that caused him to kill MILLIONS of his countrymen?

 

 

Last, you also mentioned that "there is no such thing as an "atheistic motivation". Atheism is the rejection of theism." I agree to a point, it may not a be a true to being a single motivation, but in being compulsory it certainly is, as is any religious movement and is a belief as much as many atheists would say it is not, even when there are such vocal and militant atheists. I turn again to Richard Dawkins at his Rally for Reason in 2012 when he stated and I quote:

 

"So when I meet somebody who claims to be religious, my first impulse is: “I don’t believe you. I don’t believe you until you tell me do you really believe — for example, if they say they are Catholic — do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?” Mock them! Ridicule them! In public!

Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits.

Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt."

-Dawkins 2012

 

The issue here is his militant use of contempt to mock and ridicule people. Would he do this to mother Theresa? A woman who was a devote Catholic and sacrificed more and did more than I or many other people on the entire planet? There is absolutely conviction in his voice and compulsion in his purpose and thus Atheism CAN be a motivation.

 

From here my friend, thank you for your response, perhaps I should not have approached this as light as I did. I have attempted to not do so this time in order for there to be clarity in what I say. I pray that you understand what I mean by Moral Absolutism and Moral Relativism/Subjective moralism. Thanks!

Edited May 29, 2014 by Cstriker

[Milky Jade 138]

1. Your first and second points, you mention "Gott mit uns" from Hitlers famous speech (...) This does not apply to the entirety of the Nazi Party (..)

 

2. You mentioned that the doctors of the Nazi party justified themselves through Religious right (..)

 

3. Your third point on Kant and Moral absolutism. (..) You misunderstood what I stated. Through moral absolutism, morality and right and wrong are absolutes that transcend culture and persons. In Moral Absolutism, certain actions are always right or wrong regardless of intentions, cultural perspective, consequences, or individual acceptance. (..) Moral subjectivity or rather moral relativism is morality based in differences between different cultures and that normative behaviors in different cultures should be tolerated even if we disagree with the morality behind the action.

 

4. If this were the case, the Nazi party’s actions would become justified. This didn't happen however and the rest of the world intervened by committing to war and holding the Nuremberg trials.

 

5. (Kant quote)

 

6. Here by Kant establishes value to a person, and through the Good Will he also describes in his work, any one person has intrinsic value and is never a means to an ends, but an end in and of themselves and therefore of value. Taking this back to lying for example, a lie contradicts rationality in the person telling the lie, and further more prevents the freedom of the person being lied to, to make a rational choice. When a lie leads others to think a rational or commit take action they would otherwise NOT do or believe, I have destroyed their autonomy and their human dignity...

 

7. why do you think in Germany Nazi artefacts beyond a museum are illegal to own or possess? Shame? A loss of Dignity?

 

8. Furthermore, Kant establishes our Perfect Duties(..) This is pretty clear he is an Moral absolutist. (..) despite Hitler being "Catholic," at no point did they treat humans like humans. Even as a christian, Hitler stood out as he still killed and cleansed a race of people that by the bible and torah were Gods chosen people and therefore I am pretty sure is not claimed by christians as a "member."

 

9. Your ending points, Stalin moral base was certainly not grounded moral absolutism, and neither was Hitler! If that was the case, a fascist state would not have developed.

 

10. Look at what Richard Dawkins stated to Dave Berlinski about the moral and Metaphysical ramifications of the Darwinian world view (..). When asked by Berlinski if he could live with the moral and metaphysical ramifications of a Darwinian world view, Dawkins stated no. Dawkins! Staunch evolutionist and despises religious belief! He stated no, and when asked why? He stated the end result COULD BE FACISM!!! (..).

 

11. You misunderstand further when you stated that I said "Atheism is a motivation." That is not what I stated at all. Atheism CAN BE a motivation; (..)

 

12./10.5. Last, you also mentioned that "there is no such thing as an "atheistic motivation". Atheism is the rejection of theism." I agree to a point, it may not a be a true to being a single motivation, but in being compulsory it certainly is, as is any religious movement and is a belief as much as many atheists would say it is not, even when there are such vocal and militant atheists. I turn again to Richard Dawkins at his Rally for Reason in 2012 when he stated and I quote:

 

(quote)

 

12. The issue here is his militant use of contempt to mock and ridicule people. Would he do this to mother Theresa? A woman who was a devote Catholic and sacrificed more and did more than I or many other people on the entire planet? There is absolutely conviction in his voice and compulsion in his purpose and thus Atheism CAN be a motivation.

 

This is going to my last reply to you, so make of it what you will. You can make nonsense of it, too.

 

First of all, I tried to cut as much of the irrelevant junk away, and I'm still left with a dozen-odd issues to tackle. So let's start.

 

1. I make mention of it in reference to nazi belt buckles. That's right, they all wore that. The majority of Nazis and the Nazi Party were christians. Hitler explicity stated that Nazism was founded on Christianity.

 

2. Nyet, I haven't been refering to Nazi doctors. I have been refering to christian and islamic practises, like circumcision and the rape of virgins in order to make* them* legally executable under shariah law.

 

3. I made a deduction of what you chose to state. You could've said this from the start, or you could've stated that subjective morality stands in contrast to wide cultural practise, but somehow still transcultural. You know, just saying. Confusion cleared, moving on.

 

4. Nowadays, moral relativism basically translates to "thought". What's the point of establishing a morality if everyone is equally valid in their actions?

The truth is that they're not, according to moral relativism anyway, and no person that subscribes to it should be found saying that the Nazi's action were proper because they were proper to THEM. Truth time: The morality of ethnic cleansing cannot ever be rationally defended. Moral relativism "knows this". The entire time I'm getting vibes of "moral relativism gives you permission to function like an asshole, therefore moral absolutism must be valid". I'd disagree, if that's really your view.

 

5. Pretty much agreeable what Kant says, if only by accident. However, intrinsic worth is a ham-handed thing for philosophers to argue.. consider they should know best that the issue of values presupposes someone to which something could represent a value, and to value indiscriminately or by force means to destroy that precept: without a standard of value, there can be no values. Values are relative to the standard of value you choose. Caveat: This truth doesn't make a case for relativism.

 

6. I should think it is possible for people to be alive and still NOT value themselves, or their lives.

Inherency, inherent values, inherently good, inherently evil, are all fallacies in one vein: To be morally good, or evil, presupposes a choice that would distinguish your actions from its corollaries in order to make a judgement. Where there is no choice (read: where there is no alternative), then what you possess is not within the province of morality. Consider a robot that has no choice to act but in the way it was programmed to act. You cannot apply 'good' and 'evil' to it: The robot cannot consider anything as 'for' or 'against' any given standard of value. Just as it would be absurd to blame the water if you drown, an undertaken action may only be moral if there exists the choice to be not.

 

7. It is not illegal to own Nazi artefacts in germany (unless it is illegal to own them anyway, like guns). Scores of elderly people have their attics filled with them, functioning as a goldmine for any chance cleanup service. "keep what you want", they'll say, and it makes me a bit jealous. I mean, admit it, lugers are sexy.

 

8. Hitler didn't really behave unbiblically.. isn't it the duty of the chosen people to get everyone out of their promised land, and all the chosen people inside of it? So they can be raptured? What of the "smite them with great slaughter" and "take their women, their asses, and their stocks" and "lay waste to the rest"? I don't think it's really proper to say "even as a christian/catholic": It is precisely immoral actions like that (though less severe in consequence) that people who consider themselves morally serious could and would justify on religious grounds. The genocide. The slavery. The fact that the church now approaches us in this smiley-face, ingratiating way, still leaves all their work and due apology ahead of them. Also, note that the church only officially admitted that slavery was uncool 20 YEARS after Hitler's death.

 

9. I don't follow

If christianity's 'absolute morals' is equal to 'do whatever god says because we trust him not to lie to us', then how the bloody hell is that different from the totalitarian regime Hitler and Stalin edified? I made the case that their moral fundamentals are the same, and whether or not the moral extrapolations were purposely relative or absolute doesn't change the fact that the outcome is literally the same.

 

10. I don't think what Richard Dawkins has to say is in any way relevant enough to be brought up more than once. I don't want to accuse you of an appeal to authority.

 

Anyway, it is widely known to anybody that knows Dawkins that he is not a social darwinist, "IN SPITE OF BEING A DARWINIAN".

Like.. hurrrr... does it come as a surprise to anybody? Did it really surprise you? Really?

 

Darwinism has no moral ramifications. Not even any serious repercussions. You can be a wanker and say "if you believe in darwinism, that means you believe in eating the less fit/fortune and where is the place for morals in your world view if you believe darwinism is true hurf de durf" - nevertheless, that is self-evidently beyond even a straw man. No, darwinism isn't a moral world view. This is why you TYPICALLY don't see darwinists encourage a dog-eat-dog society. Besides, "survival of the fittest" is often mistaken for "survival of the strongest", and this biological misconception is clearly why the moniker "social darwinism" is even a thing.

 

11. I'll stick to what I said. Atheism cannot be a motivation for the reasons I gave you. Think of a motivation as a vector pointing radially away from your center. To assume atheism can be a motivation is to assume that it exists as a negative.. but vectors may only have definite sums. I'm sorry, Sir - you may be motivated by 'something', but you may not claim to be motivated by your 'lack of motivation' for another thing. You're trying to set up a default with a clear alternative, formally known as a false dichotomy.

 

12. Militant atheism is motivated, which actually serves to beautifully confirm what I said. Atheism is aware of theism's and theocracy's worldwide depredations - fractionally increasing their dislike for the arrogations (occasional works of charity) and the false consolation parts of it, but mainly viewing it as a global force for evil. Thus, it is called "Anti-theism", which ought to be distinguished from the definition of Atheism, which is sterile and proper without the optional addendum. You *can* be anti-theistically motivated. You can be motivated to establish an opposition to theism. That is the basis of anti-theism, or militant atheism.

However, to be an atheist does not mean that you are automatically (by default) trying to establish an opposition to theism, nor does it mean you are automatically motivated to do anything. Stalin's actions were clearly not undertaken to wipe religious fanaticism off the globe. Whatever his motivations may have properly been, they were not *based* in his supposed atheism. You cannot *base* anything in your lack of belief. However, your lack of belief can have corollary consequences in which you may in turn base yourself in (such as the proliferation of your view, which applies to any view).

 

 

I think I missed the mother theresa quote somewhere along the lines, so I'll just deal with it at the end.

If by Mother Theresa's humanitarian works, you mean the establishment of "hospitals" (read: transitional morgues, made from cots and bunks where medicine is scant, needles are being reused, hygiene is foreign and prayers would do more than the aid people receive from the nuns), the ingenious use of the fruits of her fund raising (above a million dollars from charles keiting!), and her very constructive ideas that serve as hallmarks of her moral splendour (abortion is the leading cause for the misery in this world)(contraception is the moral equivalent of murder)(AIDS might be bad, but not quite as bad as condoms are bad) etc.

 

From a person that shady, that disgustingly abject, you could not expect any better than this: From a person that thinks diseases are jesus' (cold) hands embracing you and calling you to heaven, can you expect her hospitals to do any more than function as a dying site under the banner of humanitarian work? "Oh, I am so humble, I can hardly bother to feed myself". Now that's the moral maxime that humanity needs - to not work cooperatively to diminish suffering and hunger, but rather prohibit abortions to make life just so much more taxing for the starving populace.

 

 

*Never once could I have imagined a moral paragon in the consensus of the world to be this abhorrently wicked and destructive. Just thinking about the deaths her preachings and actions have tallied is making me shudder with disgust and loathing.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Milky Jade

[Cstriker 737]

Yeah I'm washing my hands clean of this as my last post. Hitler absolutely behaved un-biblically. It is one thing to say you are a christian and practice and to say you are a christian and behave contrary to those beliefs. There is nothing in his actions that was condoned by the entire rest of Christendom. What you have stated about being founded as "christian" does not make it a christian nation nor any other belief system when the actions taken are in such contrast to accepted morals. It still does not explain away what his goals were with the Hitler Jungen nor towards the Jewish population.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Cstriker

[Denim&Venöm 19,280]

Well I did take intro to philosophy and eastern philosophy in college. If I ever choose to finish my major one day, philosophy will probably be what I go for. Plato's apology was quite the gripping read. And his logic for one of his earlier stories, about how all knowledge is within us, but experience unlocks it, kinda makes sense. 

At first I thought it was all gonna be one of the behavioral sciences, like Psychology or Sociology, but it's really the science of debate and logic. 

Haven't delved too deep into any one camp of philosophy, but Albert Camus and his ideas on Absurdism interest me. 

[Olly 1,011]

I study philosophy in college but I like to say "on the internet, everyone's a philosopher" 

[TBD 17,256]

I'm not heavy on philosophy but I do dwell in this "deep thoughts" about life. 

[Jedishy 3,549]

I enjoy philosophy to a degree. I love the pop culture and philosophy series of books. I like the works of the Stoics and Ayn Rand but LOATH postmodernist drek. Worse are the people who get into the whole " there is no spoon only your idea of a spoon crap ".  Oh and I find a lot of religious philosophy interesting such as works by HH the Dali Lama or Thich Nhat Hanh 

[碇 シンジン 27,433]

I like to think that I practice religious philosophy  to some extent.

Some principles that i believe in and follow are: Everything that exists has some kind of purpose and use, there is no good or evil there are just free will of every human being, no one else can be at fault for anything you can only blame yourself for everything, God is a collective entity formed from adding everything that exists together so they become one, every human is destined to become a God at the end of the cycle by uniting the current existence into themselves and becoming one with it.

[Stone Cold Steve Jobs 22,441]

There was a philosopher Named Diogenes, who was known to be very good at insulting people. He once watched an archer fail to hit any of his targets, and so he sat down next to one of the targets, saying it was the safest place to be. 

On another occasion, a prostitute's son was throwing rocks at a crowd. Diogenes said, "Careful son. Don't hit your father."

Savage.