There is neither anyone left to observe. It is impossible to meet death because it would require an oxymoronistic self to observe the process of dying and the post mortem status. How is nothing absurd or insane? Unless you have learned sayings by heart and now you are only repeating these mental scripts that don’t have a meaning.

Now that would be hellishly absurd and enstranging.

Why would dying be insane or absurd? Seems like a machine produced article once again.

In the case of satan his persona seems to be fixed to be evil. So I was asking if satan can do good deeds and would it make any sense to call him evil then.

As far I remember satan is most importantly an accuser not doing so much evil deeds. So he is being his own advocate huh?

Is it the deed or the essence of that person good? Becoming good refers to the latter. Right?

So if a person assumed to be evil and a person assumed to be good did the same deed would the deed itself be affected by the person doing it or would the deed in itself be good or bad, or morally right/wrong?

Lately there have been several threads about evil in ways that do not at all tease the whole conception. This is one of them. I was replying to the thread, not your personal reply.

Destruction of what? Pinatas? improbable societal orders? What? To destruct is a verb that requires a subject and an object.

It is so silly that theology can not take even rudimentary ethical critique. I guess that is why it is called belief. But even belief must be feasible on the level of following a coherent set of rules.

If you ask a matrix chatbot whose mission is to blur that line further.

Chuckles

Satan is not evil per se. There is no water proof explanation of evil in the Bible. He does not just obey and serve God. It would be circular to think that everything diverging from the status quo is automatically evil.

Break the loops and fill the pig holes.

Wow, so you can choose to be poor even though you can’t realistically compete with the superior pseudo intelligence, that however in the field of philosophy can only parrot wikipedia articles - or the things you have said - combining them into a coherent or incoherent whole. Gee, we are really on the verge of something - namely this shitty hype being exposed.

Just trying to tinker with the argument from the incoherence/shelfishness of human nature. Not guaranteeing it will fit a whole. Sadly.

And of course it is hedonistic, well, atleast materialistic because that is the question about. After the system is maximally rational, so that no one's position can be improved you can do b) give away your share if your religion tells you to. It does interfere with what is rational for the individual in particular.

We don’t have a system that is maximally rational (maximum efficiency and justice) so that departure from it could be evidenced as pareto suboptimal. Obviously breaking the rules of the status quo further increases your position in so many cases. It is just an arbitrary way of living at best,

I would not know by tribe even if I wanted to.

So you are saying people cannot follow any set of rules ever because ”human nature”? But that is what makes humanity: the ability to think.

What if we make a system that is maximally rational (because another thing about human nature, ”shelfishness”) that any departure from its rules is actually altruistic (anything short of violence against bodies) or self-harm?

In trivial terms: for example a scenario where you cannot steal other people’s parcels that are equally distributed and one can only depart from its rules by a) not taking own share and causing self-harm or b) gifting it to others making it an altruistic deed. They are actually the same thing: altruism does not exist among sane people.

You can live your phases in a random order so that it makes a comedy atleast.

No. There are possible dichotomies. Not just all of them are good. It is like a capitalist putting out a false dichotomy and then his lackeys concluding "philosophically" that the whole articulation/categorisation is wrong, making a way to nonmoral/naturalistic capitalism and laissez faire.

You don't need to throw off the baby and keep the bathwater.

This whole community is 100% anti-philosophical propaganda.

Inb4 AI made article about the propaganda used in Reddit communities within 24 hours.

The after life is like the customer service robots still idling at the abandoned fairground like in ”Detroit become human”

Sounds like opportunism rather than serious search for truth.

If we are searching for something that does cannot be evidenced to exist, then it is not possible to say that x.....y are not true.

If I pull a concept out of my ass and say that nothing is this x, it is different thing to say as we should that the whole concept does not exist rather than trying to catch that false question setting like dogs. Because of course saying that nothing is x is not innocent but a way of doing something, implying obligation etc. For example the justification of capitalism is that no morals can be measured so we should welcome laissez faire.

Idk what you want to say with that. There is no bomb or if there is may be you should call the police. Im only saying that there may be a procedure for something but outcomes are no longer possible. One could possibly know how to catch butterflies but he/she could actually catch them any longer if they had become extinct.

Actually truth requires 100% unanimity.

Because this is never the case, we got different schools of thought, religions and churches, languages, political parties.

But it does not mean that we would not have common raw observations or basic logic even though we disagree about the further, for example metaphysical implications of them.

It simply means going ahead of things. 99% of reddit is this kind or turdy turd.

I think the idea of truth has to regard the possibility of a black swan, thus the idea of probability. So the question should be more like: does the idea of truth exist if basically everything is fallible rather than speculating whether some thing deserves the name tag ”true” on it. So it begs the question; is there even such a concept if we can’t use it in any way.