ceruleanhansen

I have considered that my way of thinking is only a veil for behavior that actually prevents me from doing things that would make me more satisfied. I think this response is quite astute. The reason I seek self-knowledge is to avoid self-destructive behavior. Even though you said that you think you will be more manipulative, I think that this is self-destructive so the knowledge you are seeking will lead to ending this behavior. How is it self destructive?

I have considered that my way of thinking is only a veil for behavior that actually prevents me from doing things that would make me more satisfied. And what was your conclusion? Maximized power will make me happier as long as it is not too overwhelmingly guilty. The immorality of coercion does not seem to be a fundamental psychological moral source, and it is not a part of my culture. Thus, culturally approved uses of violence should not be problematic. I am careful with emotional "evil" because my training will kick in and I will innevitably feel guilty. I try to minimize this, but it is still a part of me to some extent.

A part of effectively controlling others is not being controlled yourself. Often I see that manipulators seem to also be the easiest to manipulate, but that could be the toupee effect (that is, the people who I can see are manipulators are probably the worst manipulators). I also hope that by better understanding myself, I will be more able to understand others, allowing me to control them more effectively.

I came here to understand myself. The things I'd like to get from this place pretty much require me to be open and honest about myself, so manipulation would not really benefit me here. Deal.

I have considered that my way of thinking is only a veil for behavior that actually prevents me from doing things that would make me more satisfied.

So you're the schoolyard bully on a philosophy forum. I was never that type. Outright coercion is usually not a desirable solution to problems. Not because it is immoral, but because the backlash is too intense and hard to control. Using force is not manipulative exactly. A manipulator convinces his victims that he is acting in their interest, that he loves them, and that they should love him too. I do not think I was disrespectful in my post, so what is the point of the name calling?

That is moral nihilism, and I agree with it entirely. It's the epistemological, existential, and ontological forms of nihilism that I find problematic (though I find them less problematic than, say, objectivism).

You are committing the naturalistic fallacy. Why does the fact that we have evolved to have moral intuitions mean that we should follow them? I understand that as a practical matter we will generally follow them. But as a relativist, you are saying we should follow them. Why? That is called "rule utilitarianism".

Nihilists claim that truth is impossible. This is, itself, an assertion of truth. Thus, nihilism is paradoxical. Then your actions have no more to do with morality than eating strawberry icecream instead of vanilla icecream because you feel better if you eat strawberry icecream. By this logic if you felt better after killing children, you would do that. Completely unrelated to morality. Unless you are reletavist, in which case you actually believe it is morally right to do what you feel is right. I think that is circular logic. Nihilism is an argument against the possibility of objective truth, morality, or value. No one doubts that subjective truths and values exist. For example, if you hold it to be true that 2+2=5, that would be a subjective truth. Nihilism does not disagree that people have beliefs; obviously they do. According to nihilism, there is no reason to pursue anything, including power. I personally pursue power, but not because it is the objectively "right" thing to do.

Means to an end. I manipulate others to to benefit myself. If I benefit more from being honest, I am honest. I don't particularly prefer one or the other (well, except that being manipulative is good practice so I like to improve my ability, and being honest puts me at less risk of being caught defrauding someone, so there are benefits to either approach outside of merely accomplishing a specific goal).

But you have been nice to me, and I will tell you a secret in return: I do not feel like I have meaningful self knowledge. And although I do want it, I know that the only reason I want it is because I feel like it would give me more power to manipulate others. This board has received me kindly and in return I am giving my honesty, which is something I almost never do (and certainly never do without a psuedonym to hide behind).

Your first sentence is correct, but not for the reasons you give. You are describing the is-ought problem. Nihilism is logically inconsistent for reasons I explained above. Anyway, to answer your question, the things I pursue have nothing to do with objective values or morality. I have evolved to pursue certain things and have certain desires, so I act on them. There is no inherent meaning or value to any of it. The second book looks very interesting. The first book not so much (it's summary speaks of "depression, low self-esteem, chronic anger, and feelings of helplessness"). Thank you for the recommendation!

Since this sentiment exists in humanity, there will always be a State. I disagree. In my experience most statists are actually moralists who have been convinced that the state is a moral good. I would argue that the morality used to justify statism is little more than a thin veil over the will to power (whereas the morality of objectivism is a social anesthetic to make inferiors less of a burden on superiors). "Inferiors" and "superiors" in what way though? The free market tends to favor those who are superior at making money. What about those who are superior at other important things, such as nurturing or offering emotional support to family, which are often unpaid positions? Just as an example. The point is that "inferior" and "superior" are pretty broad judgments of an entire human being, especially when they may only refer to one's ability to create a lucrative product or service in a market economy. Also, why can't we aim for a balance in which there can be some room for competitive people to seek some advantage if they work for it and play by the rules while also offering some baseline of safety from complete exploitation? Honstly, that was an unfair criticism I made. You guys here deserve better than that kind of insult, so I apologize. To answer your last question, why not do as much as possible to remove the potential of others to exploit me while maximizing my own ability to exploit? As a collective agreement what you said is reasonable, but why wouldn't I break the rules of that system anytime I could get away with it, or try to put myself in a position of authority within the system so I can manipulate it to increase my own power? Either way you cut it, there will be people who increase their own power because they excel at it. There will be people who exploit other people, because they excel at it. There will be people who control and rule because they find leverage. Historically it's always been the case. And because of that, they are the State, whether people want to call it that or "not". A rose by any other name. There have always been rulers, and there has never not been those who rule, so believing somehow there will be a society without rulers is religious because it hasn't existed in any life form. The strong, or smart, or most deceptive, or most adaptive always rule. They always become the rulers. So no matter what a person, or people wish, doesn't really matter. The best we can do is to try and do what we can to make our own lives happy. Trying to change humanity into something undoable is fantasy. That doesn't interest me. I completely agree with this, except for the happiness part. Why would I want to be happy? Heroin will make me plenty happy, but I recognize that happiness is merely a biological incentive to accomplish certain tasks. It is those tasks that happiness exists for, so instead of chasing happiness, I chase the tasks it is supposed to help us with.

I want self knowledge. I do not have it, therefore, according to you, I am incapable of philosophy. While this statement is silly as I am perfectly capable of pondering epistemology, morality, logic, and so on, I assume you mean I am incapable of being ethical? Actually, I really don't know what you mean by that. Anyway, I would very much like self knowledge.

Even mediocre predation is extremely difficult to recognize and usually impossible to prove. I have a large circle of friends and many people to whom I am dear. All of those relationships are lies. I have gained much from that and I have no problem with it. As far as your truism about evil preying on the weak, what evidence do you have to that end? To me evil is a fairy tale used to enforce social cohesion. Your assertion is as meaningless as saying "Santa Claus never gives presents to the naughty". I assure you that those who are sufficiently clever in their naughtiness can have bountiful holidays. I was never involved in that sort of culture, so it's something I can't really say much about. In business, education, and relationships, manipulation and fallacious reasononing have served me very well. Whether an argument is true or not is unimportant to me. Truth is valuable only when it is required to serve an end (that is to say, if a fallacy will work better, I use the fallacy). Congratulations, you are intelligent and rational, the great enemy of the manipulator. When I encounter people who are rational I appeal to their rationality. If their rationality is superior to mine, I cannot break them through some emotional trick, and I cannot coerce them, then I am fucked. Being rational and strong is A Good Thing ™ and I commend you.

Since this sentiment exists in humanity, there will always be a State. I disagree. In my experience most statists are actually moralists who have been convinced that the state is a moral good. I would argue that the morality used to justify statism is little more than a thin veil over the will to power (whereas the morality of objectivism is a social anesthetic to make inferiors less of a burden on superiors). "Inferiors" and "superiors" in what way though? The free market tends to favor those who are superior at making money. What about those who are superior at other important things, such as nurturing or offering emotional support to family, which are often unpaid positions? Just as an example. The point is that "inferior" and "superior" are pretty broad judgments of an entire human being, especially when they may only refer to one's ability to create a lucrative product or service in a market economy. Also, why can't we aim for a balance in which there can be some room for competitive people to seek some advantage if they work for it and play by the rules while also offering some baseline of safety from complete exploitation? Honstly, that was an unfair criticism I made. You guys here deserve better than that kind of insult, so I apologize. To answer your last question, why not do as much as possible to remove the potential of others to exploit me while maximizing my own ability to exploit? As a collective agreement what you said is reasonable, but why wouldn't I break the rules of that system anytime I could get away with it, or try to put myself in a position of authority within the system so I can manipulate it to increase my own power?

Since this sentiment exists in humanity, there will always be a State. I disagree. In my experience most statists are actually moralists who have been convinced that the state is a moral good. I would argue that the morality used to justify statism is little more than a thin veil over the will to power (whereas the morality of objectivism is a social anesthetic to make inferiors less of a burden on superiors).

Nihilism is profoundly contradictory. I say that no descriptive claims can be made without other descriptive premises, which need their own descriptive premises, and so on, in infinite regression. Therefore truth is impossible. However the claim that "truth is impossible" is itself an assertion of truth. The impossibility of logic is an argument that itself relies on logic. This disproves the nihilist assertion, but it does not solve the inherently paradoxical nature of truth.

The good sociopaths make you think they are on your side. It is interesting that you only conceive of power in terms of threats. The people who are using you do not want to threaten you. They want you to think they are sacrificing everything for you. Acting like it's my planet means going above and beyond to care for you, tend to your needs, make you love me, so that when I need you I can use you for what I want. Your conception of how manipulators work is very naive. The people who make grandiose threats are the ones you have to worry about the least. Evil prospers when good men are convinced that evil is good. Edmund Burke knew that perhaps better than any. I have no idea how this relates to anything we are talking about. This is a painfully stupid example. I am from the Bay Area and have walked in many parts of it in the late night, stop being such a drama queen. Now let me explain to you why this argument is the opposite of what I said: Wouldn't I benefit myself more by NOT going on a presumably dangerouo street? Wouldn't that ensure greater power for me? How are you this incapable of rationality? No, your delusion is in mistaking pretty quotes for arguments. Something being in the Bible does not make it true. Yep. The trick is to make them love you (or think they love you). It gets bizarrely easy after a while. If the people you use hate you, you are doing the whole "manipulation" thing wrong.

Game theory might lend some insight. If you look at the prisoner's dilemma, which deals with when one should cooperate vs. retaliate to attain the optimal outcome, the best strategy is usually "tit for tat." This strategy involves a mixture of cooperation and retaliation. Neither all one nor all the other is a wise strategy at all times. So you are right to sense that just blindly cooperating with everyone allows you to be exploited. You are also right to sense that just exploiting everyone all the time will soon backfire. A complex and wise mixture of cooperating and retaliating so as to stand up for and protect yourself is often best. There are often situations where you are unlikely to get caught, or where the exploited cannot fight back. The state, for example. I do not think using the state to benefit myself at the expense of others is likely to backfire.

Are you saying that you do not experience empathy nor compassion? If other people are very excited, it can make me excited. I suppose sympathy is a better word. I feel it in a very weak, basic way, but I do not believe I feel it in the way others do. For example, things like murder, assault, rape, and so on, are only unappealing because of the danger to myself. If there was little risk and something to gain, I have no problem with any of them whatsoever. In fact it would be quite appealing because I would have something to gain and I would learn things that not many others know about how people react when they are confronted with their impending death, which might give me useful insight into manipulating people in the future.

I know this is elementary and I'm sorry for this kind of intellectual laziness, but I feel impatient about this and it might be important. Why would I ever do anything that doesn't increase my own power? It is baffling to me, but something in me doesn't want to be "evil" anymore (and still, a much larger part is infatuated with evil). Evil as you fine people would call it, that is. The Goddess Morality hasn't blessed me with the sensibilities that seem to lead to moralism (empathy, compassion, other adorable and sweet adjectives) and to be frank they seem more like poison than truth. I don't believe true things because that is universally preferable. I believe them because my ancestors who did so survived better that those who didn't. Rationality is the only obstacle standing before instinct and my rationality has done nothing to convince me that I do not benefit from believing true things. Why would I let ethics, compassion, or any other collective delusion stop me from obtaining as much power for myself as I possibly can? Power is the burden of the great, morality is the lullaby of the weak.

If there are a few of us who'd like to, perhaps we should get together sometime.

It's interesting you interpret my response that way. I was genuinely relieved that you make statements with no expectation of belief on the part of others. As it is an inevitability that that will occur, I assume you're trying to hurt my feelings. Discussion and debate are not wars of wills. You may, if it is your desire, say anything about me. Thrashing wildly will not help you get at the truth. Should I believe that? It does. The is/ought problem is irrelevant. Of the many assumptions we make by arguing, the most curious is this: if a proposition is true, it ought to be believed. You see, if I should believe the things you say because they are true...well then, we've already crossed the is/ought problem. If that's not the case, then there's no rational reason for anyone to believe anything you say. From the implicit acceptance of the value of truth while arguing, the rest of the moral argument is developed. If you do want to learn, I recommend starting at the beginning. I am too defensive. I'll eat something and try to inch away from the edge of attack. I apologize!

As a nihilist I do not have any ethical principles. Perhaps that makes me "evil" according to moralists, but it is the honest outcome of my thinking. I mentioned democracy because I believe it to be just as arbitrary as homesteading in a moral sense. But it seems like the claim of the propertarian anarchists derives from descriptivist ethics. That is, it attempts to find the consistent axioms upon which our moral intuition is based. This is more psychological than philosophical, but that is irrelevent - I don't see how the specific circumstances under which a propertarian anarchist calls property valid or invalid are at all related to any such axioms (I believe the term Molyneux uses is "first principles", but I am a newbie and don't want to misuse that phrase in case it means more than that). That sounds interesting, what is the distinction? I sometimes use ethics to mean a theory of morality, and morals to mean the judgments that result from an ethical theory's application. Most ethical theorists I meet use them interchangeably though, and I've picked up the habit myself.