Ozempic should be mandatory for fat white women for the purpose of fighting female value inflation. I care about nothing else. Looking at a fat woman makes me incredibly depressed, knowing the potential inside even if it’s mid at best.
This comment stems more from the original question posed rather than the deep-rooted discussion of Good and Evil. While I consider Good and Evil to be objective concepts (Good being the actions that conform the ultimate purpose of Creation and Evil being actions that hinder its eventual purpose) the idea of Justice, I would argue, is entirely human. Justice is the human philosophy of creating harmony among the people of a community, state, jurisdiction, or civilization. Justice is a concept that allows the human spirit to balance evil with good not at the individual level but at the level of a perceived community.
For a single man surviving alone in the wilderness there can be no justice because he represents his own sovereign state. Justice is an artifact of humans organizing into groups. The purpose of justice is to "balance the scales" so that people can act in harmony rather than relying on the more base instinct which demands vengeance.
I'm working on an article right now regarding the notion of justice and vengeance.
The purpose of "Justice" is for the body politic to take upon itself the duty of individual Vengeance. That is, justice does not exist for the purposes of punishing or reforming a perpetrator of crime so much as it exists to protect the body-politic from the victims of crime seeking vengeance against the perpetrator or the perpetrators family. Multi-generational family feuds will destroy the functioning of a community or body politic. These types of feuds occur because there is no body, respected by both groups, that can balance the moral scales of an accidental death, an intentional theft of goods or land, or the like. Thus, by taking on the artificial mantle of Justice, the state (or body politic) can manage feuds by balancing the proverbial scale external to the two aggrieved parties.
Without justice, there is only vengeance... and as police forces in the West are continuously hampered from enacting justice (citation of the girl sentenced to jail time for racism after calling out her rapists)… the duty of the individual takes precedence in the form of vengeance. Justice having been abandoned.
You know I've been trying to answer this supreme question too. 2 months ago I was hiking in the Alps, returning from the mountains. As I was looking at the lush forest with it's various plants and imagined what bugs might live beneath them, I had the (initially unpleasant) thought that maybe this infinity of forms is why the Monad is Good, it is its goal. If everything was this hypothetical unchanging perfect form things would get stale quickly. As funny as it sounds, diversity is our strenght. I'm not saying that you should embrace every form, you should embrace fighting aganist the unperfect forms (which is like all of them except the One). Embrace the struggle and allat, like a bug that constantly fights for survival. This is how art, adventure, heroism and tragedy arise. This is the supreme Good, the simultaneous fight and union between order and chaos, not one of them. I'm not saying anything new and revolutionary here, but these are my thoughts.
Some things are ugly because they spit on a greater form or more accurately a greater principle. But if it was not for that shortcoming they would not be ugly
As wind strengthen the tree and the cold thicken its fiber, so too does strife keep the world and its creatures fluid and vital, permitting some to fall and some to rise. Our enemies are our teachers, mirroring our strengths and weaknesses so that we may correct ourselves and increase our individual and communal Arete.
Great article I have a few comments on it that I'll be leaving individually as their own posts.
The first is that your conception of suffering in the context of metaphysics most closely aligned with point 4 (suffering being provisional) but which deserves more fleshing out: the idea that suffering occurs as a prelude to something greater in the Grand Design of Creation. The example being that the suffering of an antelope 6000 years ago to feed a beast provided an opportunity for a pre-modern man to walk safely through that region. One who would be an ancestor to half of mankind today. The unknowable multiplicity of life is not unknowable to an all-powerful creator. Thus suffering in the here-and-now likely serves a greater ultimate purpose. It is not that good cannot exist without evil, it is that there exists a grand design with a capstone in the distant future. I have an article on monotheism on my substack that you should give a look at.
The gods are not omnipotent, but in their most basic forms they are also immune to destruction or change, as they are simply the active intellects behind intelligible forms (which themselves are immune to change). Interaction between the gods and the world is mediated by daemons, who are subject to change and can experience all of these things, but the theme of “dying gods” usually has some sort of deeper subtext in myth. Even in some eastern traditions the gods are equated to the buddhas, or the buddhas are equated to the gods.
I am not trying to formalize suffering, suffering is actually amorphous. However, this does not make it intrinsic to beings but rather extrinsic. This is why the gods are immortal, because they associate themselves with qualities and not with worldly instances of qualities, and why spirits associated with particulars (ex: a river nymph, or even the epithet of a god) are daemons. Suffering, at least in every instance I can imagine, is the product of internal contradiction, a which is not an attribute it is possible for a formal object to have.
I would like to hear your thoughts on the Mahayana notion of Buddhahood, which to me clearly implies some interest in a right world. Why would an enlightened or nigh-enlightened being invest themselves into a world which, according to you, investiture in only results in a risk of falling back into illusion even when such investiture is not tied to any particular outcome or provisional thing?
I would think, it is more like a movie is being played over and over again, and you are capable of leaving when you no longer wish to watch it, but it will always continue to play for an infinite number of new arrivals. This is why I bring up Ragnarök, and how it is implied that those who died in Ragnarok did not return to the earth but presumably remained in Valhalla for an eternity thereafter.
Ozempic should be mandatory for fat white women for the purpose of fighting female value inflation. I care about nothing else. Looking at a fat woman makes me incredibly depressed, knowing the potential inside even if it’s mid at best.
I want to cry every time I see a fat girl who would be hot if she was skinny
Give fat people Ozempic so they'll be more efficient slaves or something
This comment stems more from the original question posed rather than the deep-rooted discussion of Good and Evil. While I consider Good and Evil to be objective concepts (Good being the actions that conform the ultimate purpose of Creation and Evil being actions that hinder its eventual purpose) the idea of Justice, I would argue, is entirely human. Justice is the human philosophy of creating harmony among the people of a community, state, jurisdiction, or civilization. Justice is a concept that allows the human spirit to balance evil with good not at the individual level but at the level of a perceived community.
For a single man surviving alone in the wilderness there can be no justice because he represents his own sovereign state. Justice is an artifact of humans organizing into groups. The purpose of justice is to "balance the scales" so that people can act in harmony rather than relying on the more base instinct which demands vengeance.
I'm working on an article right now regarding the notion of justice and vengeance.
The purpose of "Justice" is for the body politic to take upon itself the duty of individual Vengeance. That is, justice does not exist for the purposes of punishing or reforming a perpetrator of crime so much as it exists to protect the body-politic from the victims of crime seeking vengeance against the perpetrator or the perpetrators family. Multi-generational family feuds will destroy the functioning of a community or body politic. These types of feuds occur because there is no body, respected by both groups, that can balance the moral scales of an accidental death, an intentional theft of goods or land, or the like. Thus, by taking on the artificial mantle of Justice, the state (or body politic) can manage feuds by balancing the proverbial scale external to the two aggrieved parties.
Without justice, there is only vengeance... and as police forces in the West are continuously hampered from enacting justice (citation of the girl sentenced to jail time for racism after calling out her rapists)… the duty of the individual takes precedence in the form of vengeance. Justice having been abandoned.
You know I've been trying to answer this supreme question too. 2 months ago I was hiking in the Alps, returning from the mountains. As I was looking at the lush forest with it's various plants and imagined what bugs might live beneath them, I had the (initially unpleasant) thought that maybe this infinity of forms is why the Monad is Good, it is its goal. If everything was this hypothetical unchanging perfect form things would get stale quickly. As funny as it sounds, diversity is our strenght. I'm not saying that you should embrace every form, you should embrace fighting aganist the unperfect forms (which is like all of them except the One). Embrace the struggle and allat, like a bug that constantly fights for survival. This is how art, adventure, heroism and tragedy arise. This is the supreme Good, the simultaneous fight and union between order and chaos, not one of them. I'm not saying anything new and revolutionary here, but these are my thoughts.
Some things are ugly because they spit on a greater form or more accurately a greater principle. But if it was not for that shortcoming they would not be ugly
Flipppp this still does feel a bit shallow though
So... Should I start working on the Confederacy article or the Anime article next?
Both are good topics but the Anime vs Right Wing debacle is reclining so push that article out faster before it becomes completely irrelevant
"emulsification" holy hel, what a word
There was originally a metaphor about bubbles of oil floating on water there, which would make emulsification more fitting.
Life, is mayonnaise...
As wind strengthen the tree and the cold thicken its fiber, so too does strife keep the world and its creatures fluid and vital, permitting some to fall and some to rise. Our enemies are our teachers, mirroring our strengths and weaknesses so that we may correct ourselves and increase our individual and communal Arete.
Great article I have a few comments on it that I'll be leaving individually as their own posts.
The first is that your conception of suffering in the context of metaphysics most closely aligned with point 4 (suffering being provisional) but which deserves more fleshing out: the idea that suffering occurs as a prelude to something greater in the Grand Design of Creation. The example being that the suffering of an antelope 6000 years ago to feed a beast provided an opportunity for a pre-modern man to walk safely through that region. One who would be an ancestor to half of mankind today. The unknowable multiplicity of life is not unknowable to an all-powerful creator. Thus suffering in the here-and-now likely serves a greater ultimate purpose. It is not that good cannot exist without evil, it is that there exists a grand design with a capstone in the distant future. I have an article on monotheism on my substack that you should give a look at.
https://alwaysthehorizon.substack.com/p/materialists-have-not-slain-god-truth
If you have comments on it, do me a favor and restack it with a note so we can have that discussion where it's visible to a general audience.
The gods are not omnipotent, but in their most basic forms they are also immune to destruction or change, as they are simply the active intellects behind intelligible forms (which themselves are immune to change). Interaction between the gods and the world is mediated by daemons, who are subject to change and can experience all of these things, but the theme of “dying gods” usually has some sort of deeper subtext in myth. Even in some eastern traditions the gods are equated to the buddhas, or the buddhas are equated to the gods.
I am not trying to formalize suffering, suffering is actually amorphous. However, this does not make it intrinsic to beings but rather extrinsic. This is why the gods are immortal, because they associate themselves with qualities and not with worldly instances of qualities, and why spirits associated with particulars (ex: a river nymph, or even the epithet of a god) are daemons. Suffering, at least in every instance I can imagine, is the product of internal contradiction, a which is not an attribute it is possible for a formal object to have.
I would like to hear your thoughts on the Mahayana notion of Buddhahood, which to me clearly implies some interest in a right world. Why would an enlightened or nigh-enlightened being invest themselves into a world which, according to you, investiture in only results in a risk of falling back into illusion even when such investiture is not tied to any particular outcome or provisional thing?
I would think, it is more like a movie is being played over and over again, and you are capable of leaving when you no longer wish to watch it, but it will always continue to play for an infinite number of new arrivals. This is why I bring up Ragnarök, and how it is implied that those who died in Ragnarok did not return to the earth but presumably remained in Valhalla for an eternity thereafter.