What do you think of this philosophy?

>>9431480
THAT PICTURE GOES AGAINST THE REDPILL

>>9431488
the "live and let love" redpill?

>>9431480
Morality is a spook

>>9431491
we are against race mixing. We believe that white women belong to us (as white rational men)

>>9431480
I think bad, but fair thoughts about it.

>>9431502
sboog :D:D:DDDD:DDDDDDDDDDD

>>9431503
I think you're on the wrong board buddy, this is /lit not /pol/

What does it mean to experience the good or the bad? Feeling pleasure/pain? If yes, fuck off, you dumb utilitarian.

Just miscegenate my family desu senpai

>>9431579
I don't think there's any point to reducing the good/bad dichotomy any further as it's already irreducible. When you get in the habit of providing synonyms for simple concepts then you being to lose the forest for the trees.

But if you want more synonyms, desirable/undesirable is probably the most irreducible.

>>9431503
Then go fight for her.

You can do it. :)

>>9431503
>rational
I can't believe how incredibly spooked and cucked you are

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-26 at 6.25.24 PM.png (365KB, 879x223px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 879x223px

>>9431503
kek

do you cucks really take this stuff seriously? I know quite a few attractive white girls that are now married to indians. Admittedly, these indians are making 200k-ish a year doing various tech-y things as indians are wont to do, but there it is. How does that make your NEET, basement dwelling self feel, my man?

>newfags STILL falling for le /pol/ bait man
honestly kill yourselves

>>9431544
>>9432243
>>9432462
>>9432463
>taking the bait

>>9431480
is the statement talking about total universal fairness or just fairness for a given individual?
in case of the first, fairness seems like a way too subjective concept to ever be universal, so no?
in the case of the latter, no why would it?

Is that doubleswee in drag on the left?

>>9432512
In the sense that the source consciousness would have to experience all its individual constituents' lives, even though the individual constituents themselves seem as if they're cut off from everyone else.

So, whatever created the universe HAS to experience all of its creation otherwise it's decision to create existence was a malevolent decision, because it inadvertently created individual suffering.

>>9432570
not sure if i follow the logic, regardless of whether or not a source consciousness experiences everything or not, individual suffering does exist right?

>>9432658
It's possible that individual suffering is only an illusion, and that this thing we call consciousness is something that everyone experiences via the source consciousness

>>9432668
how is creating an illusion to fake individual suffering not malevolent?

File: IMG_1005.jpg (203KB, 1177x1177px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1177x1177px

>>9431480
Now you're thinkin like a mysoginist

>>9432508
/pol/ has poisoned 4chan so much that people can't tell the difference.

I'm looking back at old image macros from 2006-8 /b/, and I've noticed, while they are super racist and misogynistic, there's a level of tongue-in-cheek that's not present in /pol/.

>>9432689
Because you're going to be experiencing what every other "individual" conscious has experienced and will experience. Just, you won't know about it because it's already happened or has yet to happen.

Think of it as a form of masochism. Infinite knowledge was available to you as the creator of this universe, and you decided to create this universe despite that and go through all this suffering.

>>9431544
>>9432243
>>9432462
>>9432463
>falling for such obvious b8
This place truly is reddit now

>>9432508
>>9432877
>taking the bait
>falling for such obvious b8
This place truly is reddit now

>>9431503
This guy gets it

>>9431503

>implying I'll be content with dominating only the white women

All of the female race must heed the redpill

>>9432809
correct me if i'm wrong, but to summarize, the only way for the universe to be fair is that everyone is part of a masochistic god that creates fake individual suffering for an unknown reason?

what is even the point of this idea? it assumes that a god or source is present, it assumes fairness is an universal objective thing that is supposed be true, it assumes an universal moral compass where self harm is less malevolent than harm, even more so it assumes an universal moral compass where malevolence and benevolence exist in the first place. those are all things that really seem like subjective and/or man-made principles to me.

>>9432956
Well it wouldn't be an unknown reason per se; I'm assuming that with infinite knowledge comes the realization that infinite knowledge isn't all that is' cracked up to be, and that there are certain elements of beauty and aesthetics that only manifest themselves via the causal, temporal relationships of the universe as we experience it now.

>that fairness is a universal objective thing that is supposed to be true

Fairness is only a concept that manifests itself in a universe containing individual beings.

That is, a single creator being has no need for a concept of fairness in his own domain, as his domain is essentially timeless and featureless.

>where self harm is less malevolent than harm

Once again I'm not really concerned with the domain that this all-knowing being resides in so much, because we don't know the reasons for its action or inaction. But, by definition, self-harm is less malevolent than harm because malevolence is the desire to harm OTHERS.

>>9432764
t. came here in 2014
You seriously need to lurk moar

>>9431480
>"The only way for fairness to be possible in morality, is for all individual consciences to be experienced by the same source consciousness, that way this single source experiences all the good, and all the bad"


>proposition: 'fairness' as being an objective 'thing' outside a measure in scope.

nope

>'source consciousness'?

Consciousness is the product of the brain's structuralism in synthesis, creating a perception of continuity through space and time, through a sensorium of quale emerging as 'personal experiences'.
There is nothing ethereal about it. there is nothing 'universal' about it.

It can be turned off, frozen, turned on, turned up, and burned out. Likewise, consciousness as a phenomena has nothing to do with the experience of 'good/bad', as those are just qualities in the value of a personal experience; personal experiences seem to differ with personal bodies.

Therefore, no one will experience a 'universal experience' with their human conscious, unless that experience is universally perceived as 'good' or 'bad', and most of the issues we resolve to 'good/bad' intentions or consistences are simply issues of prisoner dilemma and what side you're on, or sense of taste 2.0 (religion over liberality, ect).

The only 'universal experiences' we can possibly have are those formed from like parts, in like fashions, from the same modalities of observation and experience, with the same conditions - otherwise, those experiences are different. "A priori' experiences in knowledge might be universal, but only to the functionalist mind capable of producing a language of structure and modality like 'logic' or math.

So, one could say, only mathematical experiences are universal, because they measure the 'material universe' with the modalities in conceptual limit capable of such measure; yet, they are still just an impression of modality and not an understanding of 'universal consciousness'.

If consciousness is to be universal, and that universality evolved in like scarcity conditions of a material universe, with like biological mechanisms towards survival and reproduction, we can assume the common ethic in the universe is a form of 'hedonism'.

In a society then, a form of 'Utilitarianism'

So, a universal consciousness probably shares a hedonistic point of view tempered by utilitarianism if its social evolution merited accountable cooperation ('fairness').

>>9433030
>nope
Fairness is merely the notion that every individual thing gets equal treatment. What I'm saying is that the only way for that to happen is for the central consciousness to experience all individual, earthly, consciousnesses

>>9433030
>Consciousness is the product of the brain's structuralism in synthesis, creating a perception of continuity through space and time, through a sensorium of quale emerging as 'personal experiences'. There is nothing ethereal about it. there is nothing 'universal' about it.

You're talking about our individual experiential consciousness, yes, but you can't know for a fact that a source consciousness does not nor cannot exist.

>>9433030
>It can be turned off, frozen, turned on, turned up, and burned out. Likewise, consciousness as a phenomena has nothing to do with the experience of 'good/bad', as those are just qualities in the value of a personal experience; personal experiences seem to differ with personal bodies. Therefore, no one will experience a 'universal experience' with their human conscious, unless that experience is universally perceived as 'good' or 'bad', and most of the issues we resolve to 'good/bad' intentions or consistences are simply issues of prisoner dilemma and what side you're on, or sense of taste 2.0 (religion over liberality, ect).

True, but that doesn't preclude the 'universal' from experiencing the 'individual'.

>>9431480
I don't see how those points follow or make sense as a concept can you expand it?

>>9434614
what kind of concept are you lookin for?