The Universe as a prison

Well... if your goal in life is "owning the world", sure!
It's not that being ruthless and with no morals comes with all the advantages. You'll be up against other animals of the same kind.

No, it's not just if you have the goal of owning the world. That's an incredibly naive thing to believe. The people who have other goals also share the world with those types. You're in competition with them no matter what. The only difference is that the people who are willing to push the hardest and able to not become impuslive and emotional about it tend to get a lot further than the people who don't. Generally the people with that level of ambition understand how it's just dog eat dog, whereas the rest tend to complain that other people are being immoral and how everything is everyone elses fault except theirs. One really good set of examples of this is modern feminism. Successful women often say they aren't feminists, they don't believe there's some oppressive patriarchy holding them down. Wheras it's the unsuccessful ones that clamour for authoritarian controls and interference in the markets such as quotas for female employees as opposed to just hiring the people who can best do the job, male or female. It's unsurprising that such people and the ideas they expouse have been routinely used by ambitions people in or trying to get positions of power as disposable tools throughout history.

I mean here's just one example of this:


I tend to agree with Nietchze when he says that the weak were the ones who created ideas like morality and equality as a means to judge and restrain the strong, because that's the pattern you see all the time in society. Just take a quick glance at the modern social justice movement and the industries it's tried infiltrating and look at the tactics employed for proof of that. Marvel Comics for instance.

Such people and ideas cannot survive without a powerful top down authority backing it up with military force. And governments supporting these ideas gives them a justifiable excuse to expand their power and control over the citizenry via the guise of protection. And since teh governent is made up of and controlled by "the monsters" they're allegedly supposed to be protecting people from it's just more proof that the "mosters" way of thinking is more accurate to reality than the rest. Just look at the revolving door between Monstanto Exectutives and the FDA for example. Or banking executives and banking regulators. Trump appointed a president of Goldman Sachs as his Treasury Secretary for fucks sake. Did he say drain the swamp or fill the swamp as quickly as possible?

It's not like anyone could argue this is a new phenomenon or that they didn't see it coming. Aristole even said that tyrants first appear as saviours.

We all live in the same world together, the monsters don't just go away when you bury your head in the sand and act like being a "good" person somehow makes you special and immune from it all. It's just spitting on those people who did have to deal with the "monsters" despite not wanting to and got destroyed by it.
 
Last edited:
Take Pablo Escobar, he sure owned the world (well at least his world, Colombia) for a while... how did that worked for him? And I don't just mean how he ended up. I mean in general... how did his life go? He had so much money he didn't know what to do with it and had to live half of his life segregated and isolated from the world. Most of his relative and close friends where killed by his enemies: not sure how efficient was the thinking behind that.

Yeah, and how was the life for everyone living beneath him? I guess it was just peachy keen right? He was just some random dude with crazy ideas who had allllll the money and no one else was ever affected right? Come on man.

Go look up Chicago's infamous "skullcap crew" and see how well the neighborhoods they lawfully patrolled faired.
 
No, it's not just if you have the goal of owning the world. That's an incredibly naive thing to believe. The people who have other goals also share the world with those types. You're in competition with them no matter what. The only difference is that the people who are willing to push the hardest and able to not become impuslive and emotional about it tend to get a lot further than the people who don't. Generally the people with that level of ambition understand how it's just dog eat dog, whereas the rest tend to complain that other people are being immoral and how everything is everyone elses fault except theirs.
Yes, you have described the profile of a sociopath pretty well :)

One really good set of examples of this is modern feminism. Successful women often say they aren't feminists, they don't believe there's some oppressive patriarchy holding them down. Wheras it's the unsuccessful ones that clamour for authoritarian controls and interference in the markets such as quotas for female employees as opposed to just hiring the people who can best do the job, male or female. It's unsurprising that such people and the ideas they expouse have been routinely used by ambitions people in or trying to get positions of power as disposable tools throughout history.
There are fields where women can express their natural abilities and fields where male succeed more.
Certainly the world of engineering is "dominated" by men because there's very few females interested in that subject in the first place. So yeah... no need to impose quotas for jobs that female are not much interested in.

That's probably something modern feminists need to realize. But I am not sure where this is going...

I tend to agree with Nietchze when he says that the weak were the ones who created ideas like morality and equality as a means to judge and restrain the strong, because that's the pattern you see all the time in society.
Yeah though Nietzsche thought human life is an incidental part of nature in a deterministic universe... Dawkin's "biological robots" with no free will and such.
I find this position a self defeating one. Humans have reason and agency, if your premise is that those are illusory then your argument stands on nothing.

With that premise the whole effort that Nietzsche put into building reasoned arguments is useless. You can't persuade robots, they will just play the deterministic script of nature. Reason is an illusion too :)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, and how was the life for everyone living beneath him? I guess it was just peachy keen right? He was just some random dude with crazy ideas who had allllll the money and no one else was ever affected right? Come on man.
So are you suggesting he was a benefactor?
 
No, it's not just if you have the goal of owning the world. That's an incredibly naive thing to believe. The people who have other goals also share the world with those types. You're in competition with them no matter what. The only difference is that the people who are willing to push the hardest and able to not become impuslive and emotional about it tend to get a lot further than the people who don't. Generally the people with that level of ambition understand how it's just dog eat dog, whereas the rest tend to complain that other people are being immoral and how everything is everyone elses fault except theirs. One really good set of examples of this is modern feminism. Successful women often say they aren't feminists, they don't believe there's some oppressive patriarchy holding them down. Wheras it's the unsuccessful ones that clamour for authoritarian controls and interference in the markets such as quotas for female employees as opposed to just hiring the people who can best do the job, male or female. It's unsurprising that such people and the ideas they expouse have been routinely used by ambitions people in or trying to get positions of power as disposable tools throughout history.

I mean here's just one example of this:


I tend to agree with Nietchze when he says that the weak were the ones who created ideas like morality and equality as a means to judge and restrain the strong, because that's the pattern you see all the time in society. Just take a quick glance at the modern social justice movement and the industries it's tried infiltrating and look at the tactics employed for proof of that. Marvel Comics for instance.

Such people and ideas cannot survive without a powerful top down authority backing it up with military force. And governments supporting these ideas gives them a justifiable excuse to expand their power and control over the citizenry via the guise of protection. And since teh governent is made up of and controlled by "the monsters" they're allegedly supposed to be protecting people from it's just more proof that the "mosters" way of thinking is more accurate to reality than the rest. Just look at the revolving door between Monstanto Exectutives and the FDA for example. Or banking executives and banking regulators. Trump appointed a president of Goldman Sachs as his Treasury Secretary for fucks sake. Did he say drain the swamp or fill the swamp as quickly as possible?

It's not like anyone could argue this is a new phenomenon or that they didn't see it coming. Aristole even said that tyrants first appear as saviours.

We all live in the same world together, the monsters don't just go away when you bury your head in the sand and act like being a "good" person somehow makes you special and immune from it all. It's just spitting on those people who did have to deal with the "monsters" despite not wanting to and got destroyed by it.
Ugh, one thing I hate about Nietzsche is that so many people quote Nietzsche. He may have been very intelligent and observant for his time, but his philosophy wasn't without its problems. People also have a habit, I think, of misconstruing his words because truthfully, a lot of people cannot honestly make heads or tails of just what the hell he was trying to say. Which to me indicates a weakness. Some claim it's because he was just so beyond the comprehension of your average peon. I think that a good mark of intelligence is that you not only can formulate rational and insightful observations and theories, but that you can communicate them in a manner in which is readily understood. Otherwise, what is the point? Why bother formulating a hypothesis for the purpose of being if nobody can understand what your point even is? But I guess that just makes me an intellectual simpleton, and if so, so be it I guess.

But I digress, I realize your point had little if anything to do with Nietzsche. However, your comment regarding morality and equality isn't very clear. Are you saying that a moral structure, and the idea that man is of equal VALUE (not of equal talents) is unnecessary, stifling or superfluous?

What is there if there is no underlying moral structure? How do humans go about governing themselves in a world in which concepts such as morality are considered obsolete? Isn't that pathology run amok?

I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that those who behave as though morality is a non-issue are correct? That the ends always justify the means? Are those who do conduct themselves in an ethical manner just judgemental and resentful of their obvious inferiority?

I feel like you're kind of all over the map. Or perhaps confusing morality with ideology? SJW's don't necessarily behave in a moralistic manner. If anything, they seem to have adopted the idea that the ends do indeed justify the means. I believe Antifa openly says this.
 
Are you saying that a moral structure, and the idea that man is of equal VALUE (not of equal talents) is unnecessary, stifling or superfluous?

No actually I'm saying the opposite, that seeing everyone of equal value is freeing. But the concept of objective morality creates artificial hierarchies that inevitably lead to oppression. This is fundamentally because no set of restrictive moral values labelling some things "good" and others "bad" can mathematically be an objective component of reality. This isn't to say that there are not social commonalities in what people like or don't like, just that people liking it does not in and of itself give it that value.

What is there if there is no underlying moral structure? How do humans go about governing themselves in a world in which concepts such as morality are considered obsolete? Isn't that pathology run amok?

Underneath there's just raw math and physics. There's no divine safety net to catch you. There is only the interplay between what someone can do and what they want to do.

What do you mean by humans "governing" themselves? Do you actually mean the concept of a natio state or do you mean the concept of how do individuals live their day to day lives? Or something else?

Why would it be pathology run amok? Are you saying that if tomorrow you found out there was no morality you would immediately go out and mass murder people? Are you only not doing that because you believe there's an objective morality? If so, damn man, damn. If no, then why would you think it would be any different for anyone else? Why would someone want to go out attacking people knowing that they could just get attacked in return? How would that be in their self interest?

I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that those who behave as though morality is a non-issue are correct? That the ends always justify the means? Are those who do conduct themselves in an ethical manner just judgemental and resentful of their obvious inferiority?

Technically yes, those people are correct, because morality doesn't exist. It's just an opinion. Which is why they on average tend to be more accomplished and stable in life since they know that if they want something they gotta put the work in for it. They understand that no one's obligated to notice their existence let alone care about it. There's a very good reason that people in highly demanding leadership roles such as CEO's and Presidents tend to score the highest on the Psychopathic Personality Index. Because to get to that level you need to be ruthless and efficient. You need to have a very strong grasp of reality to get there and stay there, naturally ideas like morality get tossed in the trash with belief in the tooth fairy and santa clause. These people got there because they recognize that all they truly have is themselves, their own knowledge, their own capabilities, and nothing else. Everything is just a means to an end, even being nice to people is at least partially a tactic to gain favour and/or not make enemies. Talk to some people who went from being homeless to being millionaires and you'll hear more or less the same story. That in one way or another they got there because they made their life about them and their desires. And now they're the happiest people inn the world. Those people, more than anyone else, understand that the world is nothing but dog eat dog. And it really makes them appreciate the help that they do get along the way, since no one was obligated to give it to them.

He says it a little differently than I do, but it's the exact same message.


I think the means determine the ends so.... yes... maybe? I don't actually know. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what I think in regards to how someone else conducts themselves if I lack the power to influence it so I don't waste my time worrying about it.

Inferiority is a moralistic concept by definition since you need a hierarchy in order to label one thing as better or worse than the other so no, no one's inferior. It's possible that they could be using inferior methods to achieve their goals but that doesn't mean that they are inferior.

I feel like you're kind of all over the map. Or perhaps confusing morality with ideology? SJW's don't necessarily behave in a moralistic manner. If anything, they seem to have adopted the idea that the ends do indeed justify the means. I believe Antifa openly says this.

I might be confusing your definitions of morality and ideology with mine but thatd be because niether of us have given formal operational definitions of what we mean by those terms, Here's one I grabbed off the net:

Morality -
  • The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
  • n.
    A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
  • n.
    Virtuous conduct.

but of course, what does "good" or "virtuous mean? Here's their definitions for the same source

Good -
  • Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor: a good experience; good news from the hospital.
  • adj.
    Having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing: a good exterior paint; a good joke.
  • adj.
    Serving the desired purpose or end; suitable: Is this a good dress for the party?

So, an opinion

Virtuous -
  • Having or showing virtue, especially moral excellence: led a virtuous life.
  • adj.
    Possessing or characterized by chastity; pure: a virtuous woman. See Synonyms at moral.

So a circle jerk leading back to morality which on it's own proves my point that morality is just an opinion.

All ideologies have a moralistic foundation, that's what makes them an ideology. SJW's are COMPLETELY moralistic, believing they are the good moral crusaders out to fix all the racism, sexism and whatnot in the western world. Their belief in the good of their cause justifies their methods to themselves since they're "the good guys" and thus can't be wrong. Just like every other moral crusade throughout history:


Or as C.S Lewis put it:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
 
The whole thing with religions is to me....not enough CONTEXT. You have "books" that have been left out, mistranslations, misinterpretations (more subjective). literalists, dogmas, passages and chapters that have been purposely edited, stuff taken out.

It like catching last nights episode of Game of Thrones and not seeing the first 5-6 seasons. There is just no context at all. From what I have been reading Jesus has stated that he was Lucifer. Lucifer represents the planet Venus, it is the light bearing planet before the sun comes out. None of this is concrete, but all we can do is dig deeper. GOD in the bible does sound like a tyrant though
 
-MANLY P. HALL in THE LOST KEYS OF FREEMASONRY

Combining the essences of the three quotes, we arrive at something like this: Lucifer (popularly regarded as Satan) fell from Heaven, bears the “Light” and the controlling of Lucifer’s (the Devil’s) energy is the Mystery of The Craft. This results from perfunctory examinations of these three quotes; a considered study of them (and a few more lines previous to them in their respective texts) can help to cure this myopic ignorance.

A charge frequently made against The Craft is that it is involved in evil doings, including the worship of The Devil (or Lucifer, in this case). The Internet does not suffer a lack of anti-Masonic websites advancing this line of thought; Pike’s quote (as well as the fictions of Leo Taxil) is usually given pride of place; Manly P. Hall’s less so. But both are often given as proof of The Craft’s “devil worship.”

We cannot too quickly fault those who assume that the mention of Lucifer either in connection with The Craft (as in Manly Hall’s quote) or by a noted Freemason (Albert Pike) indicates that our Order is something nefarious. After all, Lucifer is simply another name for Satan, isn’t it? In popular parlance, yes, Lucifer is a synonym for Satan; less commonly, Lucifer is a distinct entity from Satan.

In the main, I wish for my readers to know that:

  • The Lucifer of the Bible is not The Devil, and
  • The Craft should rightly venerate Lucifer.
In translating the Hebrew Tanakh into Latin (The Latin Vulgate), St. Jerome, in the Book of Isaiah, rendered the Hebrew word “heylel” (meaning “day star” amongst other things) into the Latin “Lucifer.” “Lucifer” comes from the Latin words “lux” (meaning “light”) and “ferre” (meaning “to bear.”) The Septuagint renders the word as the Greek “heosphoros.” Jerome, recognizing that the word “heylel” in the Hebrew Tanakh and “heosphoros” in the Septuagint both referred to the morning star, or Venus, quite reasonably rendered them as the word “Lucifer” – the Latin name for Venus.

Most modern translations of Isaiah 14:12 do not use the word “Lucifer” at all; the New International Version instead gives us “morning star”, the New American Standard Bible offers “star of the morning”, and Young’s Literal Translation uses “shining one.” It is noteworthy to mention that even the King James Version of 1611 affords us this note concerning “Lucifer” in the margin: “Or, O daystarre.”

Importantly, Jerome did not confine his use of “Lucifer” to Isaiah 14:12, wherein the word refers to a fallen and prideful Babylonian king; see this entry under “Lucifer” from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for “the light of the morning” (Job 11:17), “the signs of the zodiac” (Job 38:32), and “the aurora” (Psalm 109:3). Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) as preeminent among the princes of his time; to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse 2:28), by reason of its excellency; finally to Jesus Christ himself (2 Peter 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16; the “Exultet” of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life.
 
Interesting thing a person I talked to told me as an example. In the some horror movies when person/people summon entities, they person/people who summon them look at them as gods or angels and serve them. The ones that don't look at them as demons or the devil. Food for thought
 
http://www.truthcontrol.com/pictures/true-meaning-satan

it is a good idea to start our review by looking for the sources of "Satan" word,
which could be found in the ancient Sanskrit language. Here are the related words:

"Sat": pure existence; something that really exists; true justice
"Sat-chit-ananda": existence--consciousness--bliss
"Ananda": bliss; spiritual ecstasy; the very nature of the transcendental and infinite existence
"Anna": food; substance; dense visible matter
"Sat-asat": existence and nonexistence

SATAN - is a shortened version of sat-anna, which means "existence--matter" (without consciousness) ; it is an opposite to "Sat-chit-ananda" ( existence--consciousness--bliss )
"Satan" does not have its' own consciousness - that means, its neither a creature
nor a transdimensional entity. But, in the same time, it is also a real material stuff...

We could get more clues by looking at the translations of Hebrew word for "Satan" - " שָׂטָן‎ "
" שָׂטָן‎ " is also translated as: adversary; opponent; enemy of god. Sometimes, "Satan" is also named as " הילל " (e.g. Isaiah's prophecy 14:12) which could be translated as "light-bearer" - or, "Lucifer" in Latin language
 
Can I recommend someone who I haven't noticed get any mention on here. Manly P Hall check out his work
 
Objective morality is unavoidable for the proper functioning of individuals and society, and rests on the acknowledgement of an all-powerful and all-good being. The alternative is relativism, the belief that no one has authority to offer a moral code in preference to another, and ethics is the purview of well intentioned and intelligent groups. If man is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, morality is relativistic. That's the dominant ethical position currently, the idea that morals are an agreed behavioural norm that function without recourse to a higher authority. It's the reason why an individual can rail against the horrors of child abuse, but pre-natal slaughter on an industrial scale is consistent with human rights. It's why rational people can't condemn rape and murder on moral grounds, only transgression of good taste.

I have yet to hear any meaningful moral position that circumvents a deity and holds up to scrutiny. The universe is not a prison, it's peoples' compulsions and moral weakness that imprison them.
 
Objective morality is unavoidable for the proper functioning of individuals and society, and rests on the acknowledgement of an all-powerful and all-good being.

I agree with you on your first point (and thus strongly disagree with Mediochre, as he already knows). I disagree on the second point.

W.r.t. the latter: how, Gabriel, do you respond to the Euthyphro dilemma?

Edit: Discussed earlier on this forum (but briefly) here.
 
Last edited:
morality doesn't exist. It's just an opinion.

Last time I challenged you on this, I asked you whether you were willing to say that it was "just an opinion" that (paraphrased - I forget the exact words/example I used) a sadistic, narcissistic psychopath who tortured and raped young children for decades at a time was doing the wrong thing, and you doubled down and said (again, paraphrased) "Yes, because from the perspective of the Infinite, nothing matters".

Well, here's the thing: "the Infinite" doesn't have a perspective. It is not conscious. Morality necessarily relates to conscious experience, and only consciousness has a perspective. So we can right off the bat drop your notion of recurrence to some sort of "Infinite Perspective". And if "the Infinite" was conscious, then it would be just as prone to those objective aspects of conscious experience as the rest of us are, and would recognise implicitly that to cause harm to others for no good reason is objectively wrong.

So, anyway, dude, love your experimentation and prowess with magic and psi, but on morality, you are hopelessly mistaken.
 
I agree with you on your first point (and thus strongly disagree with Mediochre, as he already knows). I disagree on the second point.

W.r.t. the latter: how, Gabriel, do you respond to the Euthyphro dilemma?

Edit: Discussed earlier on this forum (but briefly) here.
The highest appeal is conscience, the acknowledgement that we instinctively know some things are morally repugnant. If we know that to be the case, we have to ask if it is the result of genetic self interest or objective morality and if so, what is its source? There are sufficient incidences of self sacrifice to see such events are not exclusively the result of self interest, including ones where the beneficiary is not known to their benefactor (volunteering to take the place of a condemned man in a prison camp, for example), most of which have absolute moral good as their outcome albeit at the highest possible price.

If philosophy is the study of what it is possible to know, we know people recognise good from evil but are limited as to the origin of good and evil in the world, or what its ultimate outcome might be. We can only acknowledge it within the limited mortal frame of reference we have, and stay true to our instincts about it. We also know people have the capacity to override conscience and apply alternative justifications to their actions, most of which are about empowering them to act as they are predisposed to do. Predisposition and desire do not function on the same level as moral conscience. The first is about empowering the self, the second about recognising the authority of instincts of no clear or immediate benefit to the holder.
 
The highest appeal is conscience, the acknowledgement that we instinctively know some things are morally repugnant. If we know that to be the case, we have to ask if it is the result of genetic self interest or objective morality and if so, what is its source?

Quite right. And earlier you had claimed that its source was:

an all-powerful and all-good being

I think that the Euthyphro dilemma puts this claim in serious doubt, which is why I asked you for your response to that dilemma. You didn't provide it. Care to try again?
 
I think that the Euthyphro dilemma puts this claim in serious doubt, which is why I asked you for your response to that dilemma. You didn't provide it. Care to try again?
The dilemma you've proposed is fallacious. I'm proposing that knowledge works on two levels, a) logic and b) instinct/conscience/"the heart". Someone can rationalise their actions to their own satisfaction and that of others, including legal process, while knowing they're contravened morality and "the good". God and good are indivisible, and the Euthyphro dilemma is based on a false premise of consequence and flow.
Conscience functions as a hotline to absolute truth, not relative or expedient truth.
 
God and good are indivisible

That's William Lane Craig's response to the dilemma too. I don't think it works, as I explained in the thread I referenced above:

And I don't think that any of the refutations succeed. The one with which I'm most familiar is canvassed in the WP article, and I have also seen it advanced by William Lane Craig: that the dichotomy is a false one, and that in reality, God's nature is the standard for value. But what is the nature of this identity? Clearly it is not analytical: "God's nature" is not analytically identical to "the standard for value", so there must be some (contingent?) reason then for the identity to hold, from one side or the other, and here the dilemma simply reasserts itself. If God's nature is identical with the standard for value because God's nature adheres to the standard for value, then again we have morality being independent of God. Yet if the standard for value is identical with God's nature because whatever God's nature happens to be, that is the standard for value, then again we have morality as arbitrary.

So yes, I don't think that the dilemma can be escaped.
 
That's William Lane Craig's response to the dilemma too. I don't think it works, as I explained in the thread I referenced above:
The premise of the dilemma is flawed because it assumes there's an objective way of addressing reality that is outside God, and God outside of reality. This view of God has become popular within the last few hundred years and is universal within atheism, it's the hero God who can be negotiated intelligently, a larger than life version of ourselves. I see no evidence for that God, and am atheist towards him. Reality is contingent on the God I believe in and emerges from him, he is not subject to it. Morality is a clue to what God is, but we can't claim our ethics and justice exhausts His possibilities and it's futile to ponder goals wider than our limited purview.

Cosmologists tell us the number of suns in the universe vastly outnumber grains of sand on the earth, and most have their own solar system. Anyone who has idly lain on a beach and let sand sift through their fingers may have pondered the fact, and most quickly give up an intelligent appraisal of the prospect. If that reality is the result of a creative act rather than a cosmological accident, it's difficult to navigate the ultimate moral implications of such a mind beyond our instincts about it. On scale alone it is completely beyond our comprehension. There's no reason to believe divine morality and its implications are on a different scale.
 
The premise of the dilemma is flawed because it assumes there's an objective way of addressing reality that is outside God, and God outside of reality.

Well, no, all it assumes is that both objective morality and God exist and have some sort of relationship. You have failed to address in any way the argument that I made. Of course, you were under no obligation to have done so, but likewise I'm under no obligation to pretend that you have.

In any case, we can at least appreciate that which is held in common between us: a belief in objective morality and in God, even though we differ on the relationship between the two, and on the nature of each.
 
Back
Top