/lit/ - Literature

>>12854671
doesn't logically follow; why should moral correctness be assigned to strength? in a system where it is, a very large man would be correct in the murder of every living being, or, better yet, the ai in ihnmbims would be justified.

>>12854671
>it’s okay to kill disabled people

>>12854675
>implying this wouldn't be based
>>12854676
disabled people are disgusting

>>12854676
...and?

>>12854681
but this means that an ai without the ability to reason could just torture and kill everybody and everything and be justified just because it could

>>12854671
Thucydides disproved it.

>>12854686
Uh...it would be justified. Skynet is based.

>>12854671
Ah, put it on the backdrop of eternity. As god, you may think it really fun to have nothing but puppets who obey you through sheer force, tryanny of your capacity to make them do exactly as you want.

Let me provide a separate possibility. You have many 'beings' with their own personal and unnaccessable experiences who are capable of surprising you and doing things which exceed both your expecations and your ability to do anything about (to negate the consequence of their actions in some divine immediate way).

Believe it or not, the second experience is more fun. Puppets and playthings are fun for awhile, the same way a rapist has fun with a woman with a gun to her head, but in reality, what is more fun is to enjoy yourself with another sentient, willing human. There is a larger symbiosis of life occuring there. More generative and less static-feedback-loop-inducing.

>>12854692
>p-p-please Gods, do not torture me for eternity, and I shall dance like a jester for you in return!

>>12854671
If being smart or convincing counts as might.

>>12854746
yes

>>12854671
You can just as easily say
>Weakness is right
Both are arbitrary statements.

>>12854738
Dunno if you read what I wrote properly

>>12854671
There is nothing to disprove, and it has been known for thousands of years.

>>12854779
yours doesn't even rhyme

>>12854676
>implying that a mere man is mightier than its social structure as a whole

>>12854820
Yes because we all know that similar sounding syllables to the ends of words is the hallmark of truth, as elucidated in the ancient texts of fucking nothing has ever said that,

Yeah I know you're being silly but im responding seriously for fun.

>>12854831
Based retard, not-knower of truth

>>12854671
Social Contract, book one, chapter 3
short enough

>>12854831
Truth is just another word for aesthetic, poetic forms which embody beautiful patterns like rhyme by their very existence imbue any idea with the quality of truth.

>>12854836
Amazing book. :3

That book can turn you into a sociopath, believe it or not. It's worse than the Prince. Just pay attention to what Rousseau says, he is a sociological fucking genius.

>>12854841
Butts are futts for mutts and cutts.

OOOH WE'VE ALL LEARNED TODAY.

>>12854865
that's not aesthetic at all though

The just society is the mightiest of all, hence justice is correct.

>Only I exist
No philosophical system ever managed to disprove that.

>>12854910
those 3 words are just the summation of fundamental human narcissism
(which is why people that are selfless are hailed as heroes)

>>12854676
Every idiot at the Eugenia Home for Retards costs more in annual upkeep than a single able-bodied worker's wage for the same year.

>>12854671
Yeah, but might is being a balding geriatric Jew aggressive in nepotism, subversion and manipulation. Being valueless, not being strong and willful and righteous, being more like a tumour of social-political-economic ebb and flow than a person.

Also, in practice it always holds true as what is morally right has to be enforced or won out in some way, something that isn't just won't be (widely) believed and therefore won't be right. Might is not right because the mighty have made it so, though might is right if you're indirect about it because the mighty have made it so. But there's still no philosophical justification for what it being objectively right. It's nothing more than a social observation, maybe even a matter of representation.

>>12854671
Literally Republic book 1

>>12854910
(Not true, by the way)

>>12854671

I mean it IS true, but the platitude is very confused about what might actually is. See: Jesus, Dialectic, immortality.

Tell us, Trasymachos, who is so much wiser than I - why is that?

>>12854910
That's because it's true, everyone is actually the same I which is God

>>12854671
>>12854675
>>12854675
>>12854676
>>12854681
>>12854683
>>12854686
>>12854687
>>12854691
>>12854692
>>12854738
>>12854746
>>12854750
>>12854779
>>12854809
>>12854812
>>12854820
>>12854824
>>12854831
>>12854833
>>12854836
>>12854841
>>12854843
>>12854865
>>12854876
>>12854910
>>12854930
>>12854938
>>12854946
>>12854963
>>12854982
>>12854985
>>12855061
>>12855369
POO POO PEE PEE

>>12854671
Love disproves it. Not having love in your life, knowing the absence, and aspiring towards love gives the potential for growth, but if you're a loveless miserable incel who worships the lovelessness of omnipresent war you have made yourself less than nothing, an undead machine of power and control, the perfect subject of the state.

One can live a life full of love without romance as there are many forms of love, all of them involving co-creation and mutual transformation. But such a thing isn't for everyone.

>>12854982
On the topic of Scaruffi, have you read his opinions on philosophers? Pretty embarrassing, about what you'd expect from a stemfag "polymath" tho.