|
|
| (131 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown) |
| Line 38: |
Line 38: |
| <br><big> [[File:UltroBig2.png]] '''Ultroneism'''</big><br> | | <br><big> [[File:UltroBig2.png]] '''Ultroneism'''</big><br> |
| |image= | | |image= |
| [[File:LordCImageBig.png]] | | [[File:LORDCOMPOSTHYSTERIA.png]] |
| </gallery> | | </gallery> |
| |caption= | | |caption= Art by Hysteria. |
| |aliases= | | |aliases= |
| '''Add your own if you so desire'''{{Collapse|<br> | | '''Add your own if you so desire'''{{Collapse|<br> |
| *{{Alias|Bax.png|Baxism|Anarcho-Uism}} | | *{{Alias|Bax.png|Baxism|Anarcho-Uism}} |
| | *[[File:Qacc.png|link=User:Quark]] [[File:LBubble.png]] Epitome of post-hegelian dissonance [[File:RBubble.png]] |
| | *[[File:mfaicon.png|link=Mindform Anarchism]] [[File:LBubble.png]] ok i changed my mind, pseud ass [[File:RBubble.png]] |
| | *[[File:Hysteriaball.png|link=Hysteria Thought]] [[File:LBubble.png]] [[File:HystartHUlt.png]] Architect of Word [[File:RBubble.png]] |
| | *[[File:Weedium.png]] [[file:LBubble.png]] [[file:EgoReddit.png]] Ego-Reddit [[file:RBubble.png]] |
| }} | | }} |
| |alignments= | | |philosophy = |
| [[File:Libunity-yellow.png]] [[:Category:Libertarian_Unity|Lib Unity]]<br> | | *[[File:LordCompU.png]] '''[[phil:UserWiki:LordCompost86|{{Color|#008080|LordCompost Thought}}]]''' |
| [[File:UltraProg.png]] [[:Category:Culturally_Far-Left|Culturally Far-LEft]]<br>
| |
| [[File:Indiv.png]] [[:Category:Individualists|Individualists]]<br>
| |
| [[File:Nihil.png]] [[:Category:Nihilists|Nihilists]]<br>
| |
| [[File:Gay.png]] [[:Category:LGBT|Queer]]<br>
| |
| |influences=
| |
| [[File:Gorgias.png]] Gorgias (483–375 BC)<br>
| |
| [[File:Plato.png]] Plato (428-348 BC)<br>
| |
| [[File:Skeptic.png]] Sextus Empiricus (-) <br>
| |
| [[File:Bud.png]] Nagarjuna (150-250)<br>
| |
| [[File:Hobbes.png]] Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)<br>
| |
| [[File:SocialEgoism.png]] Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733)<br>
| |
| [[File:Kant.png]] Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)<br>
| |
| [[File:Joseph-Marie.png]] Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821)<br>
| |
| [[File:Fichteanism.png]] Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814)<br>
| |
| [[File:Hegel.png]] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831)<br>
| |
| [[File:Humanismpix.png]] Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872)<br>
| |
| [[File:Revolution.png]] Edgar Bauer (1820-1886)<br>
| |
| [[File:Stirner.png]] Max Stirner (1806-1856)<br>
| |
| [[File:Kierkegaard.png]] Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)<br>
| |
| [[File:EgoNihil.png]] Dmitry Pisarev (1840-1868)<br>
| |
| [[File:Nietzsche alt.png]] Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)<br>
| |
| [[File:Utsoc.png]] Edward Carpenter (1844-1929)<br>
| |
| [[File:Freud.png]] Sigmund Freud (1854-1949)<br>
| |
| [[File:Social.png]] Émile Durkheim (1858-1917)<br>
| |
| [[File:NeoKant.png]] Ernst Cassirer (1874-1945)<br>
| |
| [[File:PrusSoc.png]] Oswald Spengler (1880-1936)<br>
| |
| [[File:Strauss.png]] Leo Strauss (1899-1973)<br>
| |
| [[File:Lacan.png]] Jacques Lacan (1901-1981)<br>
| |
| [[File:PostHegel.png]] Alexandre Kojève (1902-1968)<br>
| |
| [[File:Analytic.png]] Nelson Goodman (1906-1998)<br>
| |
| [[File:Theocrat.png]] Mircea Eliade (1907-1986)<br>
| |
| [[File:Analytic.png]] Willard Van Orman Quine (1908-2000) <br>
| |
| [[File:Cioran.png]] Emil Cioran (1911-1995)<br>
| |
| [[File:Barthes.png]] Roland Barthes (1915-1980)<br>
| |
| [[File:EpistConstruct.png]] Ernst von Glasersfeld (1917-2010)<br>
| |
| [[File:StructMarx.png]] Louis Althusser (1918-1990)<br>
| |
| [[File:Libsoc.png]] Cornelius Castoriadis (1922-1997)<br>
| |
| [[File:Lyotard.png]] Jean-François Lyotard (1924-1998)<br>
| |
| [[File:HistPhil.png]] Joseph Margolis (1924-2021)<br>
| |
| [[File:Foucault.png]] Michel Foucault (1926-1984)<br>
| |
| [[File:Analytic.png]] Hilary Putnam (1926-2016)<br>
| |
| [[File:Pragmat.png]] Richard Rorty (1931-2007)<br>
| |
| [[File:Zerzan.png]] John Zerzan (1943-)<br>
| |
| [[File:Speculative_Realism.png]] Quentin Meillassoux (1967-)<br>
| |
| [[File:Newman.png]] Saul Newman (1972-)<br>
| |
| |likes= | | |likes= |
| *[[File:Self.png]] [[phil:Stirnernism|Uniqueness]] | | *[[File:Self.png]] [[phil:Stirnernism|Uniqueness]] |
| *[[File:Krater.png]] [[Kraterocracy|Appropriation]] | | *[[File:Krater.png]] [[Kraterocracy|Appropriation]] |
| *[[File:Nihil.png]] [[phil:Nihilism|Negation]] | | *[[File:Nihil.png]] [[phil:Nihilism|Negation]] |
| *[[File:Postciv.png]] [[Ultraprogressivism|Decadence]] | | *[[File:Postciv alt.png]] [[Ultraprogressivism|Decadence]] |
| *[[File:Pragmat.png]] [[phil:Pragmatism|Usefulness]] | | *[[File:Pragmat.png]] [[phil:Pragmatism|Usefulness]] |
| |dislikes= | | |dislikes= |
| Line 107: |
Line 66: |
| {{Quote|quotetext=‟Through the heaven of civilization, the human being seeks to isolate himself from the world, to break its hostile power.”|speaker=– ''The Unique and Its Property'', [[File:Stirner.png]] Max Stirner}} | | {{Quote|quotetext=‟Through the heaven of civilization, the human being seeks to isolate himself from the world, to break its hostile power.”|speaker=– ''The Unique and Its Property'', [[File:Stirner.png]] Max Stirner}} |
|
| |
|
| Howdy, I'm {{LordCompost}}. | | Howdy, I'm {{LordCompost}}, and this is my user page. |
|
| |
|
| | I am a [[File:Philosophy.png]] philosopher with a doctorate (PhD) written on the topic of [[File:Religion.png]] Philosophy of Religion and [[File:Artist.png]] Aesthetics. I will not disclose the name of the university nor the name of the thesis, mainly due to privacy reasons. |
|
| |
|
| I am an [[File:Self.png]] Egoist, [[File:Pragmat.png]] Pragmatist, [[File:Postciv.png]] Post-Civilisationist, [[File:CapAnti_Clerical.png]] Iconoclast, and [[File:Anti-Humanism.png]] Anti-Humanist.
| | = Actual Stuff = |
| | | See my '''[[phil:UserWiki:LordCompost86|Philosophy]]''' page. |
| I am influenced by a variety of schools, most notably by [[File:Postanalytic.png]] Post-Analytic Philosophy, [[File:Freud.png]] Psychoanalysis, [[File:IdealismPhil.png]] German Idealism, [[File:PolNil.png]] Political Nihilism, and by various [[File:Poststruct.png]] Post-Structuralist thinkers.
| |
| | |
| My interests lie in [[File:Epistemology.png]] Epistemology, [[File:Theocrat.png]] Philosophy of Religion, and to a lesser extent, [[File:Mach.png]] Political Science.
| |
| | |
| | |
| My sections will be quite long; if you do not wish to read them, then I cannot really help you.
| |
| | |
| My icons: ([[File:PolNil.png]]/[[File:Ins.png]]/[[File:Postciv.png]])
| |
| | |
| = [[File:Epistemology.png]] Epistemology & Metaphysics = | |
| <big> [[File:Social.png]] Convention </big>
| |
| These are the five 'main' principles of my views on convention and knowledge revision. <br>
| |
| | |
| 1. All knowledge, truth, fact, etc., is conventional and grounded in belief/faith (subjectively accepted). <br>
| |
| 2. All knowledge, Et al., is open to revision, being neither universal nor necessary. <br>
| |
| 3. All knowledge, Et al., is individual; intersubjective convention exists only in the mind of determinate and embodied individuals. <br>
| |
| 4. All knowledge, Et al., is perspectival; no 'view from nowhere' exists. <br>
| |
| 5. The above claims are also open to revision and the charge that they are merely conventional. <br>
| |
| | |
| <br><big> [[File:Skeptic.png]] Scepticism </big><br>
| |
| These are the five 'main' principles of my views on scepticism, the search for truth, and hypostasis. <br>
| |
| | |
| 1. There is no objective truth, only conventional and social belief. <br>
| |
| 2. The continuing search for such truth leads to the development of established "truth." <br>
| |
| 3. Without truth, we have pragmatic belief, i.e., what is descriptionally and predictively useful.<ref>I reject the 'No Miracles' argument, noting that previous "incorrect beliefs" have also been useful.</ref> <br>
| |
| 4. All objects, entities, beings, etc., are merely useful fictions; entities ranging from numbers and bosons to tables and planets are only posits of theories. <br>
| |
| 5. No theory correctly 'discovers' objects; to think so would be to hypostasize these thoughts. <br>
| |
| | |
| <br><big> [[File:Materialism.png]] Entities </big><br>
| |
| These are the five 'main' principles of my views on entities and essences. <br>
| |
| | |
| 1. All objects, Et al., can be radically reconceived, redefined, and re-understood; thus, there is nothing essential underneath our description of them. <br>
| |
| 2. All objects, Et al., are nothing 'in-themselves' and are entirely dependent on relations and descriptions. <br>
| |
| 3. All objects, Et al., are 'real' in the sense that if we accept them and use them effectively, they are real for us, true for us, etc., conventionally. <br>
| |
| 4. There is no substance that stands underneath and no whole that stands above entities that can ground an ever-evolving linguistic description. <br>
| |
| 5. There is no ultimate difference between human and non-human “entities;” they are definable and redefinable all the way down. <br>
| |
| | |
| <br><big> [[File:EpistConstruct.png]] Fixed Ideas </big><br>
| |
| These are the five 'main' principles of my views on historicism, constructivism, and incommensurability. <br>
| |
| | |
| 1. All knowledge, Et al., is taken to be universal and/or necessary. I disagree; it is situationally, casually, and materially dependent. <br>
| |
| 2. All knowledge, Et al., revision, change, and development involves negation, that is, alteration from one thing to another within the same 'genus'.<ref>I take this view from [[File:Plato.png]] Plato's ''Sophist'', where he argues that negation is just difference - i.e., not-small still means a size, either big or the same.</ref> <br>
| |
| 3. All knowledge, Et al., revision involves the 'fixed idea' of truth itself; we may throw out this or that truth, but we always remain within ''the'' truth. <br>
| |
| 4. All knowledge, Et al., exists within the boundaries of what can be said and what is true. <br>
| |
| 5. All knowledge, Et al.,<ref>Obviously, during its time; "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." [[File:Schopenhauer.png]] Arthur Schopenhauer.</ref> and truth itself is sacred and non-critiqueable.
| |
| | |
| <br><big> [[File:Sophistry.png]] Rhetoric </big><br>
| |
| These are the five 'main' principles of my views on belief, persuasion, and relativism. <br>
| |
| | |
| 1. All knowledge, Et al., exists due to power relations; these arise from factors such as education, position, fame, 'natural' ability<ref>What is seen to be a natural ability, such as [[File:Kant.png]] Kant's conception of Genius, or [[File:Lacan.png]] Lacan's 'Subject-Supposed-To-Know'.</ref>, and social acceptance.<br>
| |
| 2. Individuals are inherently linked with their environment and are strongly determined by its influence; individuals are co-opted into language, ideology, culture, etc.<br>
| |
| 3. Politics, culture, economics, etc., are thus grounded in propaganda and rhetoric; political consent is manufactured by these factors. <br>
| |
| 4. Social reasoning evolved to better help individuals convince others of their thoughts and not to discover the truth<ref>Again, this is the most current and 'predictively' effective research in evolutionary psychology; it is subject to revision and is not 'true'.</ref>. <br>
| |
| 5. Evolution, social effectiveness, and predictive ability are all subject to our view of causality; however, this is also conventional and merely correlative. <br>
| |
| | |
| = [[File:Theocrat.png]] Philosophy of Religion =
| |
| <big> [[File:Religious.png]] Religious Knowledge </big><br>
| |
| These are the five 'main' principles of my views on religious truth, existence, and relevance. <br>
| |
| | |
| 1. Religion, as with every other discipline, has an equal claim to truth; no discipline can justify itself internally and relies on external narratives. <br>
| |
| 2. Religion and religious experience/knowledge are true for those who trust religion, just as science is true for those who trust science.<ref>Following [[File:Analytic.png]] Goodman's argument for Irrealism, which is as follows. A) The Earth is flat (is true) or B) the Earth is round (is true); these are logically incompatible, but how do we choose? We could say the Earth is flat is true for flat Earthers, and the Earth is round for scientists, but this just makes claims about flat Earthers and scientists and not about the Earth or Reality. We have said nothing about what the Earth really is.</ref><br>
| |
| 3. Religion, spirituality, and truth are a matter of faith; no one can be 'forced' to be convinced or accept facts; it is reliant on belief. <br>
| |
| 4. Religion, however, is always a relation of fixity, which stifles change, creativity, and development, even if such stagnation is 'necessary' for things such as society.<ref>This does not mean I condone or praise religion.</ref><br>
| |
| 5. Religion that is, currently existing historical 'faiths'<ref>What one would usually refer to as religion; [[File:Christy.png]] Christianity, [[File:JewTheo.png]] Judaism, [[File:PagTheo.png]] Paganism, [[File:Chine.png]] Chinese Religion, etc., but could also refer to [[File:Mach.png]] Politics, [[File:Trad.png]] Tradition, etc.,</ref> are no longer effective, explanative, or pragmatically useful.<br>
| |
| | |
| <br><big> [[File:Phenomenology.png]] Religious Experience </big><br>
| |
| These are the five 'main' principles of my views on faith, religion in general, and dogma. <br>
| |
| | |
| 1. Religion can be separated into Positive/Objective Religion and Subjective Religion. <br>
| |
| 2. Objective Religion is a collection of facts, rituals, histories, texts, etc., i.e., dogma. <br>
| |
| 3. Subjective Religion is the individual acceptance, faith, or belief in aspects of religion, such as God or the soul. <br>
| |
| 4. Acceptance, faith, belief, etc., relates to the sacred; that is, what is set apart and forbidden, i.e., what is "true" for that religion. <br>
| |
| 5. One cannot be religious merely by knowing objective religion; it relies on subjective religion, which relates individuals to sacrality. <br>
| |
| | |
| <br><big> [[File:YngHeg.png]] Projection </big><br>
| |
| These are the five 'main' principles of my views on projection, self-consciousness, and essentialism. <br>
| |
| | |
| 1. Religion arises from physiological and psychological desires; it is a desire to be free of nature, which is man's weakest state. <br>
| |
| 2. Religion supplies what is missing, or lacking from human existence; i.e., liberate humanity from natural dependence <br>
| |
| 3. It is also a desire to be immortal, powerful, safe, returned to nature, etc.; these all arise naturally. <br>
| |
| 4. Religion establishes self-consciousness, that is, the consciousness of humanity as free from, or as other to, nature. <br>
| |
| 5. Perceived essential human traits are projected onto entities powerful enough to break the human dependence on or separation from nature. <br>
| |
| | |
| <br><big> [[File:Social.png]] Cohesion </big><br>
| |
| These are the five 'main' principles of my views on social cohesion, civilisation, and the law. <br>
| |
| | |
| 1. Society, or sociality, relies on a collective norm that governs relations; religion lies at the base of social cohesion. <br>
| |
| 2. Religion bases itself on what is perceived to be universal or essential to humanity, that is, self-consciousness; society naturalises and justifies what is "universal."<ref>The 19th Century German States denied citizenship to the [[File:JewTheo.png]] Jewish population because they didn't fall under the universal political subject ([[File:Christy.png]] Christian); additionally, to the [[File:Hellenism.png]] Ancient Greek's it was landowning males, to [[File:Marx.png]] Marx it is being a proletariat. The universal is, of course, not universal and thus not truly unifying, or what is 'essential,' thus, one cannot be self-conscious of oneself as it.</ref> <br>
| |
| 3. Religion is society, or human social relations, worshipping themselves; self-consciousness can only function through a social environment, i.e., what is universal to all of us is essential. <br>
| |
| 4. Religion projects this "essential" trait onto an external object, thus making that self-consciousness explicit and realisable; this is seen in the objectification and communication of laws, idols, gods, souls, etc.<br>
| |
| 5. Religion, society, and social cohesion only function when individuals subjectively accept the universal subject and its manifestations (laws, norms, etc.); without this acceptance, there would be no social relation.<br>
| |
| | |
| <br><big> [[File:StructAnthr.png]] Mythology </big><br>
| |
| These are the five 'main' principles of my views on art, mythology, and community. <br>
| |
| | |
| 1. Religion relies on collective self-consciousness and communication; even primitive artistic storytelling, time-keeping, and language itself is a form of self-consciousness.<ref>Again, social reasoning evolved due to the need to communicate and convince others; that is the 'enforcement' of one's story and language onto another.</ref><br>
| |
| 2. Religion arises from social interaction; it is a social phenomenon that is first expressed in humanity's first language - storytelling and myth.<br>
| |
| 3. Myth is a form of pre-art; it is the collective consciousness of a community expressing itself in an objective medium. However, art proper, such as the Gospels relies on self-conscious expression.<ref>Knowing oneself is being creative, expressing themselves/community, and/or making art.</ref><br>
| |
| 4. Both pre-art and art establish 'ideals'; that is, norms, values, and objectives that naturalise or establish a community through the creative expression of a collective consciousness.<br>
| |
| 5. Either artists are believed to be endowed with special skill or genius that renders their ideas 'important' or 'valuable,' or individuals believe themselves to be able to freely create values.<ref>That is, either individuals accept artists as meaning providers, or they themselves create meaning; either way they are under the influence of social determinism. Individuals do not exist in a vacuum.</ref><br>
| |
| | |
| <br><big> [[File:PagTheo.png]] Paganism </big><br>
| |
| These are the five 'main' principles of my views on paganism, polytheism, and monotheism. <br>
| |
| | |
| 1. Modernity cannot be characterised by a rise in secularisation; it is merely the separation of institutions, norms, and values from a singular overarching universal entity.<br>
| |
| 2. Modern "secular" society is merely polytheistic; there are several 'highest principles,' be that the human essence, the law, the revolution, capital, etc.<br>
| |
| 3. God is, in fact, dead. For those that have killed him, but instead of an age of nihilism, scepticism, and relativism, we have instead arrived at an even more religious society. Now everything relies on faith, on belief. <br>
| |
| 4. We have religious freedom but not freedom from religion; we have only allowed individuals to relate to their religions more directly. Now, it is freely a choice between which Gods, Spirits, and Demons we choose.<br>
| |
| 5. Not only are people possessed by the Devil and vice but also possessed by the good, by God and by spirituality. No matter whether one gets enthused and possessed by money or morality, these are all sacred.<br>
| |
| | |
| = [[File:Moral.png]] Ethics =
| |
| <big> [[File:MoralNihil.png]] Moral Scepticism </big><br>
| |
| These are the five 'main' principles of my views on moral facts, scepticism, and nihilism. <br>
| |
| | |
| 1. Moral belief is entirely separate from moral realism; we are able to explain these beliefs by relying on physiological, psychological, sociological, evolutionary, etc., factors without recourse to moral facts. <br>
| |
| 2. There are differences between physiological and psychological traits in individuals, and there are differences in sociological factors within cultures. <br>
| |
| 3. Ethical scepticism is appropriate due to the prevalence of ethical disagreement and lack of truth values needed for ethical belief. <br>
| |
| 4. Moral nihilism argues that there are no moral facts or entities<ref>supported by various reasons, including the pervasiveness of moral disagreement and our ability to explain moral beliefs without reference to moral facts.</ref>; however, one is never able to rule out moral nihilism as a possibility.<ref>I.e., it is like going to the zoo and seeing a zebra; one knows that it isn't a lion, but one cannot be sure that it isn't a painted horse</ref>; moral nihilism is always a possible option, and thus one cannot justifiably deny it. <br>
| |
| 5. Arguing against moral nihilism begs the question. It already assumes that moral facts produce moral beliefs<ref>Simply arguing for moral facts based on the supposed prevalence of moral beliefs assumes that moral beliefs rely on moral facts; it is circular.</ref>; that is, refutations begin with their own conclusion, the existence of moral facts.<br>
| |
| | |
| <br><big> [[File:EpistConstruct.png]] Moral Non-Objectivism </big><br>
| |
| These are the five 'main' principles of my views on constructivism and objective morality. <br>
| |
| | |
| 1. Moral non-objectivism denies mind-independence to moral facts; this does not mean that they are non-existent, but merely dependent on our conventions and beliefs. <br>
| |
| 2. Moral facts may not be objective or "real", but they can still be useful fictions; however, this ignores the point that if we conventionally decided that that is what makes them real, and that they are objective, then they just are. <br>
| |
| 3. Moral nihilism is overcome by begging the question; conventionally, it is decided there are moral facts. We construct and decide what is good and bad; it could happen no other way because we do not 'find' moral facts.<br>
| |
| 4. It is possible to deny moral facts and still have a robust, explanative and normative theory merely based on moral beliefs; justification extends to physiological, Et al. factors.<br>
| |
| 5. However, morality is typically regulated to something that is universal, objective, and necessary; otherwise, it is mere opinion or subjective preference for a mode of life. Thus, constructed morals may not even be morals at all.<br>
| |
| | |
| <br><big> [[File:Philosophy.png]] Subjectivism and Relativism </big><br>
| |
| These are the five 'main' principles of my views on moral subjectivism, relativism, and universalism. <br>
| |
| | |
| 1. If moral facts/beliefs are decided upon conventionally, this reduces us to either subjectivism<ref>Ethical subjectivism merely argues that moral facts are dependent on the attitudes of people; it is opposed to moral objectivism.</ref> or relativism.<ref>Ethical relativism argues that moral facts are relative to some measure, group, individual, or situation; it is opposed to moral universalism).</ref><br>
| |
| 2. Ethical subjectivism, if universalised, often relies on the 'Ideal-Observer Theory' <ref>It claims that moral propositions are about what attitudes a hypothetical ideal observer would hold.</ref>; which is to say that 'Jesus' decides what is best for all Christians. However, this relies on the acceptance of that subjectivity.<br>
| |
| 3. Ethical relativism often falls into the trap of incommensurability; or the issue of cross-relative critique. There is no common ground unless one forces their worldview on others, which already justifies one's view.
| |
| 4. Due to the denial of objectivity and universalism, conventionalist-based ethics is subjective and relative; it may be culturally, historically, situationally, or even individually subjective/relative.<br>
| |
| 5. This means that conventionalist ethics denies 'Non-Cognitivism'<ref>The denial of meaning and expressions of truth or falsity in moral statements.</ref>, as well as 'Error Theory' <ref>The denial of truth values in moral statements</ref>, however, it does deny the metaphysical status of moral facts.<br>
| |
| | |
| <br><big> [[File:Pragmat.png]] Ethical Instrumentalism </big><br>
| |
| These are the five 'main' principles of my views on instrumentalism, normative ethics, and naturalism. <br>
| |
| | |
| 1. Normative ethical theories are reliant on prior desires and commitments, such as hedonism or asceticism, which rely on a prior desire for pleasure or spiritual freedom.<br>
| |
| 2. The dominant desire shapes one's ethical commitments; if one is 'desirous' of having a dominant desire, then this ethical commitment is possessive, i.e., it dictates one's whole being through a one-sided blind interest.<br>
| |
| 3. A desire to be blessed, for example, locates itself in the Christian religion, which, as a fulfilment of that singular desire, denies other desires and holds self-contempt for aspects of one's current being.<br>
| |
| 4. A rejection of a dominant desire, or locating oneself with a particular aspect of the self, leads itself to a rejection of hedonism, asceticism, perfectionism, utilitarianism, deontology<ref>Kant argues specifically that his theory is grounded in the separation of the bodily, empirical, and inclined self with the rational, free, and transcendental self; he also argues that the later must keep the former in check.</ref>, etc., or normative ethics.<br>
| |
| 5. If one desires oneself, one should ground ethics in a form of autonomy, or ownness, in which one's desires (even if they are entirely determined) are accepted and developed without domination, self-contempt, or alienation.<br>
| |
| | |
| <br><big> [[File:Socrates.png]] Ethical Motivation </big><br>
| |
| These are the five 'main' principles of my views on the good, desire, and motivation. <br>
| |
| | |
| 1. Contrary to Socratic 'Ethical Intellectualism'<ref>The principle that everyone will do good after they know what is good.</ref>, not everyone desires the good; so too with Kant, who argues that morality is prior to desire, but Kant desires to be a moral person.<br>
| |
| 2. Moral motivation is external to whether or not something is morally good or bad; it relies on whether the person desires to be good or has a moral feeling towards it, etc. <br>
| |
| 3. Additionally, if I said the moral judgment 'pleasure is good' without the additional desire for pleasure, you would not be motivated to do the good. <br>
| |
| 4. This links above to ethical instrumentalism, in which moral theories are reliant on and build off of pre-existing desires or 'modes-of-life' they aim to justify and continue a certain lifestyle.<br>
| |
| 5. Additionally, if one was always motivated to do good, then no one would ever do bad; Socrates would chop this up to 'not knowing the good', but then you couldn't punish anyone, merely educate them.<ref>This would rely on knowing what is really good, not just what is good for that individual and then forcing it on them.</ref> <br>
| |
| | |
| <br><big> [[File:Narcissist.png]] Perfectionism </big><br>
| |
| These are the five 'main' principles of my views on essentialism, perfection, and narcissism. <br>
| |
| | |
| 1.<br>
| |
| 2.<br>
| |
| 3.<br>
| |
| 4.<br>
| |
| 5.<br>
| |
| | |
| <br><big> [[File:Self.png]] Egoism and Altruism </big><br>
| |
| These are the five 'main' principles of my views on egoism and altruism. <br>
| |
| | |
| 1.<br>
| |
| 2.<br>
| |
| 3.<br>
| |
| 4.<br>
| |
| 5.<br>
| |
| | |
| = [[File:Mach.png]] Politics =
| |
| | |
| '''W.I.P'''
| |
|
| |
|
| = Relations = | | = Relations = |
| | | Also see my '''[[phil:UserWiki:LordCompost86|Philosophy]]''' page. |
| =Notes=
| |
| | |
| <references />
| |
|
| |
|
| = Comments = | | = Comments = |
| {{LordCompost}} - Please comment below if you have questions.<br> | | {{LordCompost}} - Please comment here if you have questions.<br> |
| | | *{{Shellshock}} - add me? |
| | **{{LordCompost}} - Done. |
| {{#css: | | {{#css: |
| .cs-comments{display:none;} | | .cs-comments{display:none;} |
| }} | | }} |
Max Stirner
LordCompost, and this is my user page.
philosopher with a doctorate (PhD) written on the topic of 
Philosophy of Religion and 
Aesthetics. I will not disclose the name of the university nor the name of the thesis, mainly due to privacy reasons.
Shellshocked Communism - add me?
LordCompost - Done.