2006-12-23 [ceridwen]: Hmm... I think you think way too highly og Nietzche. He did have his faults, you know. Though... Kant's 'morality' is vile.
2006-12-23 [Dil*]: Nietzsch owns.
2006-12-23 [ceridwen]: Hmm... You rely on his ideas too much. He doesn't own all.
2006-12-23 [Dil*]: Have you read Nietzsche? How do you know that I rely on his ideas too much?
Actually, for this article, I was relying more on the confidence that Nietzsche agrees with me. It takes a bit too much arrogance for an 18 year old to insult Kant like I just did, but if Nietzsche calls him an idiot, I can too without feeling I'm going in way over my head. :)
-I was a determinist before nietzsche and can fully recognize Kant's freewill arguements to be piss-poor
-I made arguement against perfection myself
-I read Kant's morality before Nietzsche's the antichrist, meaning I thought it was stupid before nietzsche tore into him
-I'm a moral subjectivist not only because of nietzsche
-Kant's style of writing does nothing for me, I can barely understand what he's saying, I'm lucky to have found that annotated book
2006-12-23 [ceridwen]: Eh... you may not. I was just trying to be stopmped into the ground. ;P
And I agree with you on Kant. I was just teasing. You always mention Nietzche... and yeah....
As for perfection, it is attainable. If it wasn't how would we know what it is? It all depends on ones definition of perfect, which is relative and usually subjective.
2006-12-24 [Lost in Illusions]: Sorry, Kant is God. I hate him, too, but he will pwn any philosophy you try to bring against him.
2006-12-24 [Dil*]: "As for perfection, it is attainable. If it wasn't how would we know what it is? It all depends on ones definition of perfect, which is relative and usually subjective."
I said that in my rant :P
Kant maybe a God of philosophy, but his morality sucks, it sucks, it sucks, it sucks :)
2006-12-24 [ceridwen]: Really... well... Hmm.. I think I got confused.
"Perfection is something that is unachievable, and arbitrary."
Which is why I made the comment about perfection.
2006-12-25 [Dil*]: "If it wasn't how would we know what it is? It all depends on ones definition of perfect, which is relative and usually subjective. "
Since you agree perfection is subjective, then you agree with why you cannot make an objective morality out of it. We can imagine a perfection, but it's nothing but a prediction, not to mention, our senses would totally be unable to measure perfection (imperfect ruler to measure the perfect division).
2006-12-25 [ceridwen]: Soo... perfection doesn't really exist? it's just kind of a big bang theory, like big bang. Supported by little evidence, but widely accepted. xP
2006-12-25 [Dil*]: No, it exists as a concept, like the lines of latitude exists as a concept, but nothing more.
You do 'big bang' little justice, it does have a substantial amount of evidence.
2006-12-25 [ceridwen]: I know. I was teasing. But... it really doesn't have much evidence. And if you're talking about the red shifts, its pretty flimsy 'evidence'.
You know, I find it funny that you use big bang to refute creationsim. At one point many scientist didn't like big bang because they thought it was too religious.
2006-12-26 [Dil*]: Everything refutes creationism, and no, I did not use Big Bang to refute creationism specifically.
You mean, red and blue shift right? I think I've said this before, read about it, come back with some substantial critiques.
2006-12-27 [ceridwen]: Ah, well I've only ever heard of red shifts. I know quite a bit more about red shifts now, seeing as it was on my final exam. xP If I get around to caring enough, I'll try and look into it. I know my ignorant 'I ain't no monkey from no asplosion' agrument must get annoying.
2006-12-28 [Dil*]: how can you not know blue shift, they go hand in hand..
2006-12-28 [ceridwen]: Well... in my testbook it only mentions the red shifts from Doppler... and how the nice big ones indicate that other galaxies must be retreating from us. Heard nothing of the blue shifts...
2006-12-28 [Dil*]: sigh..