Farathriel

Philosopher and journalist.

Interested in metaphysics, anthropology, philosophy of nature and natural sciences.

[Farathriel @Farathriel]

Po bodajże 5 letniej przerwie, nagrałem taką recenzję Gothic 1 Remake w formie podcastu. Analizujemy wątki groznawcze zw. z muzykologią, projektem artystycznym, autentycznością i filozofią rozgrywki.

https://t.co/icFlp5PZ0z

[Farathriel @Farathriel]

@ThatDudeFlunks @David_Kicinski I didn't know what did you refer to. That's all. There's no dishonesty, I simply lost the track.

So you don't believe that there is a beginning of the reality? Not even a logical one? (cause I assume temporal beginning is out of question since time is transient too)

[Farathriel @Farathriel]

@ThatDudeFlunks @David_Kicinski If there's an absolute, then there's law underlying reality which it emanated, thus the direction and purpose of things.

[Farathriel @Farathriel]

@ThatDudeFlunks @David_Kicinski Who says it's outdated? Why is it outdated? Because other paradigms say it?

[Farathriel @Farathriel]

@Minniemystik @David_Kicinski Why is it arrogant? I can say whatever I believe in. Isn't intention what shapes the nature of our words? Why do you assume an arrogant intention in the first place?

[Farathriel @Farathriel]

@ThatDudeFlunks @David_Kicinski What do you mean you don't believe in the existence of "being"? Do you mean that you're an ontological anti-realist?

[Farathriel @Farathriel]

@ThatDudeFlunks @David_Kicinski Thus my point stands: there's a universal purpose that stems from how the reality is wired. Humanity being the eyes of macrocosm, can distinguish what preserves existence, and what harms it.

[Farathriel @Farathriel]

@Minniemystik @David_Kicinski Does it make it less real because it's a perception?

[Farathriel @Farathriel]

@Minniemystik @David_Kicinski I judge their actions based on the philosophy I assert. Is it arrogant to consider what is right and what is wrong?

[Farathriel @Farathriel]

@Minniemystik @David_Kicinski "Philosophy doesn’t dictate the human experience, only a perception of it…"

That, in of itself, is a thesis that dictates the shape of philosophical inquiry. Your subjectivism isn't free of such meta-philosophical scrutiny.

[Farathriel @Farathriel]

@Minniemystik @David_Kicinski How am I doing that? By writing what I believe in?

[Farathriel @Farathriel]

@Minniemystik @David_Kicinski For you to call it arrogant is an act of arrogance itself, as you simply refer to my supposed character flaw, whereas in reality I merely paraphrase philosophical concepts with which you disagree.

[Farathriel @Farathriel]

@Minniemystik @David_Kicinski In fact I am. There are three types of love formed among people. Classically they're defined as eros, agape and caritas. Whereas eros is a romantic love, agape is a familial bond, caritas is the most excellent of all by the virtue of servitude and selfless care.

[Farathriel @Farathriel]

@Minniemystik @David_Kicinski I don't, and this is a strawman.

I consider procreation and bonding as two sides of the same coin: love. If you alienate any of the sides, things get nasty.

That "arrogance" argument is flat and pointless though.

[Farathriel @Farathriel]

@Minniemystik @David_Kicinski Elevated consciousness? How does that relate to having a degrading form of intercourse that poses a real medical risk? What are you even on right now?

I analyze the topic from personalist and Thomistic approach, kind of as John Paul II did in theology of the body.

[Farathriel @Farathriel]

@Minniemystik @David_Kicinski That's correct. You don't. Pleasure is a mean to and end. Homoeroticism and hedonism absolutizes the pleasure above other ends such as love and procreation.

Yeah. Heterosexual, albeit non-orthodox acts that people gladly practice are also immoral and harmful.

[Farathriel @Farathriel]

@Minniemystik @David_Kicinski Ah, you mean the OP image. Yeah. It's a silly remark, more like a rhetorical point than a real philosophical argument.

It's not the state of homosexuality itself that is morally condemnable but the homoerotic act, which is without purpose and, in some cases, medically harmful.

[Farathriel @Farathriel]

@Minniemystik @David_Kicinski It is however good or bad based on a different criteria: whether its consequences were good, or the intention of the acting agent was good, or that the matter of the action itself was good (it can be bad when it violates purpose or dignity of an agent).

[Farathriel @Farathriel]

@Minniemystik @David_Kicinski It's the same thing as it simply points towards why any ad naturam argument is a fallacy. Just because something was born of its kin or has an intrinsic, ontic property, doesn't mean it is morally good or bad.