/lit/ - Literature

>>23101101
>How can you say that there are no individuals with altruistic perspectives on the purpose of their own life?
>Even if they hold an egoistic perspective, why would that make their perspective irrelevant to their own life?
>Must they believe their purpose is to help others in order to have purpose?
>You said yourself that the ultimate perspective is that there is no purpose.
If there is no purpose, how can that perspective be altruistic, and by your own logic, relevant?
>Just tell me why the all-encompassing perspective defines what is right more rigorously than that of an individual perspective.
>What if I say I don't know the purpose of human existence (which, I really don't; I really only know my own purpose). That contradicts what you said about there being purposes from all perspectives.
The individual perspective focuses on the individual. His benefit, he is not moralistic, like you. You are trying to merge the perspectives, as if the purpose of helping others belongs to the individualist when that purpose clearly belongs to the perspective of the family onwards (where retard altruism begins). You speak as if the ultimate perspective has less value because it removes all purpose and relevance from our existence, but it is the most relevant because it is the one that focuses on everything and, at least in my opinion, is altruistic in a negative way (real altruism). The last perspective (Subspecies aeternitatis) is the approach with which negative ethics was born.
>I can only guess that you have been abused
Nah
>Yeah, if you weren't born, you won't have ever felt pain, but you also would never have the chance to experience happiness.
>Let me get this straight: happiness can only be experienced if there is pain?
I notice that you always focus on the individual perspective, I guess you do your best to avoid the terrible things that happen every day, do you ever watch/read the news? The world is completely screwed. In short, happiness is an effect of pain. Or in other words, for there to be happiness in ONE living being, there must always be a lot of pain in other living beings. And that hasn't changed.
>Also, you imply that people are evil, could you then define evil?
People are the definition of evil, also pic rel.