And the bible used to be considered an explanation on the origins of earth and the human being.

Luckily as time goes on humanity have been able to understand nature in better ways than we used to.

Not really. I’m just presenting arguments I have always had about philosophy not being a science.

Even if rare, not a single philosopher could make an experiment or present me a scientific theory that would prove that abortion is right or wrong. So the opinion of a single philosopher is as good as any other, and as good as mine for this matter.

Most modern philosophers are left wing, so yes, most philosophers would agree that left-wing morals are right, and that would present an opportunity for left-wing people to say that global morality should be decided by philosophers. I’m left wing myself but I’m against tricks and lies, even if they “benefit the cause”. And even if considering philosophers the moral light of our society would benefit me (as I mainly agree on most modern philosophers views) I personally consider it to be a false statement.

The not funding thing is on the air, yet. I’m just convinced is not a science, is more like literature and other forms of personal expression. And for me the argument would be founding all equally or none. And of course I don’t agree on giving any philosopher a position of authority on morals “just” for being a philosopher in the same way I would give a scientist an authority position in science just for being a scientist (once again, because the whole thing of science is that it’s subjected to experiments and falsifiability.

I don’t even want to diss philosophers. I enjoy reading philosophy a lot. But just as I enjoy reading any other kind of literature. I have respect for Liu Cixin (for instance) but I wouldn’t give him an special position in telling people what to do just because he writes good books that make you think.

he was instrumentalized by nazis because he used one word they liked, and had vibes they wanted to appropriate, and knew their people wouldn’t actually read it-except his sister/editor, who absolutely became a nazi a couple decades after his death, as soon as that was a thing that you could be. he actually explicitly dismissed the underlying (and extremely silly) basis of the master race thing in one of his books, despite dying in the year 1900. basically saying ‘your virtue comes not from your ancestry, not from the past, but by working your ass off to build and become more than you were. don’t be a little bitch who hides in other peoples accomplishments, real or imagined.’ the phrasing in the translation I read was something like ‘we are the hyperboreans, you and I, reader, who endeavor to somethingorother’ and it would take so much education on popular batshit 19th century estoteric racist cope to explain that one line to you, like one of those weird references in a jane austen novel that you need to either be of the time or a historian or a complete no-life nerd to get, and it’s absolutely not worth it unless you like learning about just how dumb europeans were at the time, but it is also explicitly the basis of the whole ‘aryan master race’ thing, which he explicitly calls bullshit on decades before the concept of fascism, or the war that birthed it, was a glimmer in d’anunzio’s eye, by saying that, basically, you get cool new stuff with hard work and intellectual courage, not jacking off to your grandpa’s high school photos. I think it’s in either “beyond good and evil” or “the antichrist” (neitzsche was not a fan of blood cults) if you want to read more. he WAS a 19th century elitist painfully german asshole, and he does explicitly state that he’s hard to read on purpose. so take what he says with some salt, but there’s good stuff in there.

it’s part of how fascists consume information. you skim and look for the stuff that confirms what you already believe, no matter how much you need to contort cherry pick or cut out whole paragraphs between words or just totally misremember stuff. it’s solipsistic as fuck. by design, if you’ve ever read the shitty book the german government put hitler up in a castle to write.

the punching in this context is a metaphor for shooting, as I said. it’s a whole identity thing about being the winners. I’m personally of the opinion that leaving ugly survivors is better than clean corpses, but I think enough of either would do the trick, and I’m not sure which is easier, being, as I concluded earlier today, reverse miyamoto musashi-bad at violence, great at skin care.

sure, you could try appeasing them, or soft approaches, but they’ve hit a critical mass where, if that were ever possible, it certainly no longer is. they need to be killed. they are solipsists, they have no concept of truth, and they don’t see you as human. they have made themselves into subhuman things that cannot be reasoned with, because they have no more reason. they cannot be negotiated with, because they do not live in the same reality as you. they cannot even be held to a treaty, because they do not have a conception of ‘truth’ or you-as-person; it does not and can not exist in their totalizing world view, which is hostile to contradictory information. it’s kind of terrifying that a person can become so entirely not a person anymore without substantial damage to bodily function. if you want to understand fascism, there are several scholars to start on. arendt is a popular one, if you don’t want to get too commie (and if you do, you already have favorites). if you want something absolutely shitlib friendly, ecco isn’t completely wrong even if he has to avoid describing a lot of it so he doesn’t have to look in any mirrors, but please read more than his 14 points.