/jp/ - Otaku Culture

>>11397180
>Moral objectivity is the ultimate theoretical union between all subjectivities
But that leads precisely to the kantian transcendental subject and categorical imperative that you despised... and rightly so: such allegedly objective goodness is built on an ad populum fallacy.

Ethics, as a discourse of ethos (opposed to pathos), deal with one's power of incidence in the world: with freedom. Moral duties deal with the otherness of the collective, falling into the pathos we must endure and thus may oppose to ethics (ethics may not need to be immoral but rather, amoral). As an alternative definition of the ethical act, you can take Wittgenstein's (Tractatus, Proposition 6.422): an act that find its purpose in itself; to act, on free will, out of some sense of righteousness, disregard its consequences (pleasant or not)... and that's what Fuminori did.

>what he does cannot be called love but mere lust
It's all a matter of definitions, of course. And to define love, I'd have to start with Schopenhauer, debunk it (though it's very useful to understand Saya's take on it), and arrive to Villiers De L'Isle Adam... so, in short: if rather than mere fancy, love is a process of splitting by which one's identity is translated/merged/turned into one's own concept of someone/something else that thus becomes the (semiotical) object of one's love (in other words: that love is a phenomenon by which one comes to re-organize and re-understand oneself entirely, by the means of an alleged otherness that is, ultimately, nothing but one's own invention), then I can safely say that Fuminori loved (what he and only he could see of) Saya. However, there's absolutely no implying between love and caring for the good of the otherness that serves it as source; rather, love is a rather destructive force: we want that otherness to turn into something else entirely, bounded entirely to us: into "our beloved".