—” a rational defence of modern leftist ethics,”—
I answered that already, but I guess it didn’t stick. Apples and oranges. Ethics vs Politics vs Science. It’s a defense of interpersonal social relations that are rationally calculable from direct experience: And Not Commons.
Reply addressees: @bishkebab4
Source: Original Site Post
-
” a rational defence of modern leftist ethics,”— I answered that already, but
-
2. These people were illiterate ignorant semi-humans on the edge of starvation a
2. These people were illiterate ignorant semi-humans on the edge of starvation and suffering.
3. The only logic that they knew of, and only moral language that they knew of was empathic and supernatural – they were primitive
4. The solution was correct: hyper-socialization.
Reply addressees: @bishkebab4 -
1. the (evil people) created a universal religion of undermining out of a need t
1. the (evil people) created a universal religion of undermining out of a need to providing solace/social order to the slave, serf, and underclasses. This is a legitimate problem that needed solving b/c aristocratic religions treated them as domesticated animals (proto-humans).
Reply addressees: @bishkebab4 -
Let’s keep this going – although I’m busy at the moment. Christianity evidently
Let’s keep this going – although I’m busy at the moment. Christianity evidently works as an interim stage of development, if and only if it is offset by the martial empirical aristocracy and rule of law. My concern is not getting rid of it. It’s with replacing it w/ better.
Reply addressees: @bishkebab4 -
Again. Correct. Although my failing here is interpreting those words in the cont
Again. Correct. Although my failing here is interpreting those words in the context of the time, whereas that is not how Christians (or others) interpret them.
He’s solving the prisoners’ dilemma of zero trust, excessive familism and tribalism and continuous defection.
Reply addressees: @bishkebab4 -
I think the fundamental problem is that people want a single set of rules so tha
I think the fundamental problem is that people want a single set of rules so that they can abandon reason in life (work blame reciprocal understanding of one another ) when all decidability (knowledge) consists of a spectrum.
Theology is for children, b/c of graceful failure
Reply addressees: @bishkebab4 -
Philosophy = You may (via positive w/ threat of loss of opportunity) Theology =
Philosophy = You may (via positive w/ threat of loss of opportunity)
Theology = You should (via positive w/ threat of ostracizatin)
Law = You must (via negative w/ threat of harm)
Reply addressees: @bishkebab4 -
This is the net reason against theocracy (individual, personal, via-positiva), j
This is the net reason against theocracy (individual, personal, via-positiva), just as it is the net reason for rule of law (collective impersonal, via-negativa).
I suppose I should harden this argument analytically since as you’ve indirectly suggested it’s point of demarcation.
Reply addressees: @bishkebab4 -
Correct. Great question. When it ceases to be personal, voluntary, normative (in
Correct. Great question. When it ceases to be personal, voluntary, normative (informal) individually empirical and accountable, and is applied instead, to political, involuntary, material, and unaccountable (formal). Religion=personal individual vs State=impersonal aggregate. https://t.co/R5oJkewMjg
-
Correct. Great question. When it ceases to be personal, voluntary, normative (in
Correct. Great question. When it ceases to be personal, voluntary, normative (informal) individually empirical and accountable, and is applied instead, to political, involuntary, material, and unaccountable (formal). Religion=personal individual vs State=impersonal aggregate.
Reply addressees: @bishkebab4