Fixed, thank you.
In other news, there is some proper discussion on my preface here:
http://the-ghetto.org/forums/index.php? ... 51#msg6951
lobote wrote:Slaves watch movies and stuff to have their morals reinforced. This is what they call meaning.
Yes, they call meaning the reinforcement of their morals. But that is not WHY they watch movies and stuff. The reason they watch movies and stuff is the same we all do, it's just that they are too pretentious and hypocritical to admit it.
lobote wrote:But anyway. Only person who can outsmart Icycalm is GOD really, by SMITING him before he finishes his EVIL book, thus destroying the validity of his argument, his argument, and icycalm at the same time.
lol, that's absolutely true. Except the thing about the "validity". If He destroyes me before I finish the book, then I won't have made my argument yet, so its validity will not be at all in question.
clubsoda wrote:I think your understanding of the article is wrong. It is pretty straight forward:
Games are simulations of the real world, what is the meaning of the world or the study of the world/universe?
What I don't understand how doing science is seen as evil by the slaves:
Because it's not learning a moral story and becoming a better person but instead the "selfish" desire for knowledge and therefore power?
Okay I think this is it:
Yep. Put another way, how does one become better at a game? Who IS the "better player"? Answer: he who can defeat all the other players more consistently. Hence, if you are one of the habitual losers, and moreoever a bigot who is incapable of accepting defeat graciously, the most "evil" player. Simple as that.
clubsoda wrote:I think Nietzsches description of the origin of slave morality it goes like this:
Masters are powerful and do as they wish, slaves be slaves, hatin on the masters.
The slaves secretly envy the masters but they can never become masters.
This is where resentment comes in, and the inversion of morality, everything that only the masters can do is evil, and therefore the opposite is good.
Slaves didn't chose this morality, it was grown organically out of resentment, and now you mix this with religion and you have an absolute moral code.
So slave morality is just a device to alleviate the pain a slave feels when seeing a master.
So slaves being altruistic isn't something "good" because they are just doing it to spite the masters, it is not really their choice.
Only a master can be truly altruistic since he can chose between selfishness and helping someone out.
Or something like that.
That's a good summary for some dude on the internet. There are mistakes, but it's a good first pass.
lobote wrote:I was just thinking, what will happen after he publishes his books:
1. They are ignored by academics
2. They are criticized by academics
3. The academics plagiarize his ideas without acknowledging him
4. The academics use his ideas and cite him
5. The academics wholly embrace his philosophy and litter their new papers with the word FAGOT
I kinda hope its 5. But I think 3 or 1 would be more likely.
It will be all five, and in the order you have presented them (with one exception: 2 and 3 should switch places). In Schopenahuers's words, the three stages of truth are:
1. It is ridiculed
2. It is fiercely resisted
3. It is accepted as self-evident
The only real question is the time-frame in which these stages will take place. In my case I say we'll reach the last stage within 5 to 10 years. 15 tops.