romanticallyafflicted:

oh god, thanks a lot, now im gonna be terrified of this when i pole vault >.<

romanticallyafflicted:

oh god, thanks a lot, now im gonna be terrified of this when i pole vault >.<

zap89:

LOL

When you’re a kid, they tell you it’s all… grow up. Get a job. Get married. Get a house. Have a kid, and that’s it. But the truth is, the world is so much stranger than that. It’s so much darker. And so much madder. And so much better.
Doctor Who- Love & Monsters (via mylifeinnotes)
copied from A nihilist’s dream at http://nihilistdream.tumblr.com/

The only basis for morality is by force. Morals, whether derived from logic or not, cannot be enforced without force. If a individual feels that murder is wrong, then that is his own morals, but that does not stop someone else from murdering. When a large enough group of individuals agrees that something is wrong, that morality is defined in a law. Legal morality is based upon the ideas of a majority of the society in which it is drafted. As that society changes, the morality of it changes. Moral stances are backed up by force and the threat of force rather than by reference to an absolute morality. An idea that something is wrong or right does not become an “universal” moral rule until it is backed up by the people that believe it, and enforced by those people. If the people who believe in a certain moral rule do not exist, then the moral rule or law ceases to exist. A moral rule is fully dependent on the people who believe it and enforce it. Might makes right.

Even if a God exists, how is the morals that God imposes on the universe any different from a mortal human being’s own moral beliefs? The only difference is that God is all-powerful, and a mortal is not, which again proves that might makes right.

 

What follows are my own comments 

“might makes right”  I believe Sherman or Grant said that when they marched south? 

I like what you said here. I ruminated on this subject for a period of time when I was in my early twenties, unsure if this is right or not. Now I just accept it as undeniable fact. There came a point when I realized the consideration of the rightness or wrongness of this observation is an absurdity (Russell’s Paradox can be extrapolated to this). Still, I don’t often like it. 

I also begin to think that there is something to the majority opinion whether it is right or wrong. That French guy wrote about the “tyranny of the majority” in “Democracy In America”; which has a negative connotation to it. Imagine instead of tyranny we view it as dominance in an ecological sense of the word. Right and wrong are no longer applicable. Outcome becomes more important and it is useful to view your future as an individual in terms of outcome (not that it isn’t useful to know whether something is factually right or wrong). 

I try not to limit my understanding of things by thinking of them in terms of dualities; A or B, right or wrong, true or false. It is oversimplification at it worst to think like this. Everything is dependent on a multiplicity of other things and the answer is often actually several answers at any one time. Existence is multiplicity.

The thinking in this piece was very nice. Sometimes I imagine that I know and understand everything all at once and have the ability to create or void at will. I then think of this thing called mankind and wonder what purpose it may serve in my schema. As a whole it may exist for some reason (a kind of organism) and each individual might serve some purpose in the existence of the specie as an organism that serves some purpose as another part in another part of the whole of existence. In this way I realize that the worship of this creature that is an insignificant piece of a piece means nothing to me, let alone it’s beliefs. 

Being one of these insignificant creatures is something different. Things matter to me  in a more relative sense to my individual existence. But, I do not waste my time believing or contemplating the idea of belief to the extent that it becomes important to me because if some god existed in some form or another it would not care if I worshiped or believed in it. If these kinds of things were important to it, it would be a small god, a petty god to care about these kinds of things and not worthy of my approbation. 

As another point, certain things are currently unknowable to us. They may always be so. I would say that any idea of god that is currently propagated on this lonely little planet is without proof or evidence beyond the superstitions of people thousands of years dead. With this in mind I would have to say that all the worlds religions are a bunch of shit mixed with ignorance in about equal proportions. As an environmental consideration I pay attention to them but I don’t credit them anything beyond that. 

 I like the quote from Lennon. His mother had it right.

Crazy

Crazy