Recent comments in /f/philosophy

throway4r t1_isllf24 wrote

Reply to comment by Cradled_In_Space in Schopenhauer and the insatiable will to live | To reduce suffering and forge a better world we must resist desire and our metaphysical individualism. by IAI_Admin

Resisting inordinate desire is the better translation. To resist hankering over things, or getting hung up about something.

But like you alluded, you can also get too caught up in resistance to desires, which is why they always say to take the middle way, the way of moderation- not too much, not too little.

3

throway4r t1_islkwl2 wrote

Reply to comment by Drainbownick in Schopenhauer and the insatiable will to live | To reduce suffering and forge a better world we must resist desire and our metaphysical individualism. by IAI_Admin

Because he basically just retooled and the reformatted the Upanishads for a western audience. He read it every night and said it was the consolation of his life

https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~rfrey/pdf/116/116%20the%20upanishads.pdf

6

peddidas t1_isla9ho wrote

Reply to comment by FingerTheCat in Philip Kitcher argues that morality is a social technology designed to solve problems emerging from the fragility of human altruism. Morality can be evaluated objectively, but without assuming moral truths. The view makes sense against a Darwinian view of life, but it is not social Darwinism. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Yeah sure, and maybe it's also like a game theory situation: if you'd take others' food they'd probably start taking yours and it would maybe even become socially acceptable. Without the rule chaos would ensue as everyone would be taking someone else's food, so it's better to not do it.

9

DR_BLACKTHORNE t1_isl2wk7 wrote

Reply to comment by odiouscontemplater in Philip Kitcher argues that morality is a social technology designed to solve problems emerging from the fragility of human altruism. Morality can be evaluated objectively, but without assuming moral truths. The view makes sense against a Darwinian view of life, but it is not social Darwinism. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Nietzsche was the father of a particular ideology too. That statement is directly tied to the philosophy that birthed that ideology and was a catalyst for events that show the absolute worst side of human nature. The capacity for evil is expanded when denying that good and evil exists and that is the framework that Nietzsche laid down in his writing.

Civilization is civilized. If you speak in simply dominance and submission and try to apply the laws of nature to an industrialized society, you really really make a mess with some faulty logic and in the end personify evil by being possessed by "the shadow".

EDIT: Downvote all you want goobers. I have the books and have read them. You probably haven't.

−1

FingerTheCat t1_isl2kn0 wrote

Reply to comment by Ma3Ke4Li3 in Philip Kitcher argues that morality is a social technology designed to solve problems emerging from the fragility of human altruism. Morality can be evaluated objectively, but without assuming moral truths. The view makes sense against a Darwinian view of life, but it is not social Darwinism. by Ma3Ke4Li3

> such as the rule not to grab food from others

Interesting takes on things like this and I'm all for it. One reason IMO that you don't take someone else's food (even if stealing it meant you are fed and continue to live on) is more self preservation. If I take his food he could harm me in retaliation, I don't know how morals play into that. But then again things aren't just black and white.

6

Known-Midnight3555 t1_isl2b62 wrote

Reply to comment by Ma3Ke4Li3 in Philip Kitcher argues that morality is a social technology designed to solve problems emerging from the fragility of human altruism. Morality can be evaluated objectively, but without assuming moral truths. The view makes sense against a Darwinian view of life, but it is not social Darwinism. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Morality may get in the way of some short term gains, which Nietzsche might be referring to with the idea of "superior men", but long term, you are right in that there are so many more morally sound strategies than there are morally devoid ones.

Profit motivated companies are a prime example of rejecting morality in favor of better short term gains, which often results in long term problems.

Politicians rejecting morality for short term gains with a relatively short voting cycle is another example. So many examples of politicians doing unsavory things in the short term to earn votes that will have an overall negative effect later.

This is all motivated by the idea that we have to be "getting ahead" of everyone else instead of just "getting along".

3