Is Pornography Destructive to Society?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Pythagorean
 
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 08:12 pm
@Pythagorean,
Quote:
Mr. Fight the Power wrote,

Nietzsche did believe that truth can be found, and moral truth for that matter, but it can only be found through the subjective individual who is free of any externally generated misconceptions.

Nihilists do not reject morals and values, they merely argue that they do not exist objectively.


I don't think it's accurate to say that Nietzsche believed that a moral truth could be found; according to Nietzsche it is not to be found or discovered but forced upon others. There is no such thing as finding a subjective truth, for that would be a contradiction of the relativist or perspectivist formula which would falsely open the door to rationalistic interpretations (i.e. dialogue or diplomacy). In Nietzsche there is only the subjective, forceful, assertions of masters. We should not disentangle the necessary connection between subjectivity and radical brutality, or between subjectivity and destruction, in Nietzsche.

He taught that a moral truth could be advantageously asserted as long as the indivdual was strong enough. There is no moral discovery in Nietzsche but only bald assertions based upon whoever had the strongest will, i.e. the most powerful.

I just don't think we should white-wash the element of violence and war-waging in Nietzsche.



Boagie, any comments on this?
 
boagie
 
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 08:36 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean,Mr Fight the power,

From a nihilistic position,how could there be truth,when all things have no meaning in and of themselves,would not truth be itself meaning.We tend to believe in meaning due to the relational nature of subject and object.There is only truth in society due to the agreement on a common subjective experience.Yes Pythagorean,there is a dark side to Nietzsche,might is self-righteous.Perhaps this is a misintepertation on my part,he has apparently commonly been misunderstood.


"Nature red in tooth and claw." Byron I think!
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 08:44 pm
@boagie,
Yes, Nietzsche is commonly misunderstood. It seems that they tend to remove the tragic consequences.

Nietzsche thought in terms of destruction and war and those who mis-read him today think they can have nihilism without destruction. But they can't and that is Nietzsche's last laugh at them!

--Pythagorean
 
boagie
 
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 08:59 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
Yes, Nietzsche is commonly misunderstood. It seems that they tend to remove the tragic consequences.

Nietzsche thought in terms of destruction and war and those who mis-read him today think they can have nihilism without destruction. But they can't and that is Nietzsche's last laugh at them!"

Pythagorean,

Is not nihilism simply an open eyed perspective,nihilism is not particular to Nietzsche.Granted it is a troubeling insight at first,ones lost innocence.It simply destroys the concept of good and evil,and hello post modernism.
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 09:05 pm
@boagie,
Quote:
Is not nihilism simply an open eye perspective,nihilism is not particular to Nietzsche.Granted it is a troubeling insight at first,ones lost innocence.It simply destroys the concept of good and evil,and hello post modernism.


If you want to talk about nihilism, I have an idea, why don't we start a nihilism thread?

Hey boagie all I'm saying is that you can't have nihlism without the concomittant ideas of violence, radical cruelty and destruction that go along with it.

By the way boagie, this was a pretty good thread all in all. You posted some really great ideas and questions. I would like to get back to some of the ideas that you posted if I get the opputunity.

--Pythagorean
 
boagie
 
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 09:19 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
If you want to talk about nihilism, I have an idea, why don't we start a nihilism thread?

Hey boahttp://www.cybercollege.com/sexrsh.htmgie all I'm saying is that you can't have nihlism without the concomittant ideas of violence, radical cruelty and destruction that go along with it.

By the way boagie, this was a pretty good thread all in all. You posted some really great ideas and questions. I would like to get back to some of the ideas that you posted if I get the opputunity.

--Pythagorean


Pythagorean,

Sounds good to me,the thread on nihilism and the shareing of ideas-------great stuff!!!
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 07:32 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
I see that you place your self within the "progressive" morality camp!? Even though previously you seemed to deny any moral bias??!


I never denied a moral basis, I only posited that moral valuation is subjective, and due to that, the institution of an objective moral code would actually undermine true morality.

Quote:
Be that as it may, I do not believe that our simply calling a spade a spade quite adds up to "traditional morality". It is merely common sense. This is what makes it so easy to see the moralistic tones within your argument. Your argument throws away any common sense condemnation of run-of-the-mill social decay such as the progressively disturbing pornographic content that the society is swimming in. (Just because I think that calling women "ho's" and "bitches" is a symptom of decadence doesn't necessarily mean that I am "traditional".) It is your attempt toward an a-historical defense of the lowest and most obvious human vices that places you in a moral camp. You misunderstand the role that reasonableness plays in our perfunctory condemnation as you misunderstand the moral element (read politically correct) of your own irrational stance in the name of your cherished "right" to do whatever you please at the expense of community well-being and furture security.


Take a step back and look at your post. You refer to "run-of-the-mill social decay", "disturbing pornographic content", "lowest and most obvious human vices", without providing any basis for these valuations. I, on the other hand, have not made a single claim towards the value or morality of pornography (I have explicitly said it is neither good or bad).

I have repeatedly urged you to spell out for me what makes pornography inherently bad, to which you have only repeated your mantra: "dark", "disturbing", "decay", "decadence".

So it takes a certain gall for you to declare me guilty of irrational moralizing.

I can provide a rational backing for my vision of just society, but it is simply not necessary: you have made the positive claim, all I need to do is refute it. Furthermore, until you propose some argument, I will be forced to gainsay you.

Finally, calling women "bitches" and "ho's" is not sexual or pornographic, it is misogynistic.

Quote:
I don't how many times I can say that our society is self-doomed and there is nothing that can be done about it. This repeated statement of mine means that I am on the outside trying to describe things and not a "traditionalist" or a partisan player.


One cannot make such an interpretation of trends without employing moral conceptions.

Quote:
The social contract, by definition, negates the individual will.


The inverse is true, the absense of a will negates a contract. A contract is enacted through agreement, and agreement can only be an action of the will.
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 08:20 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
I don't think it's accurate to say that Nietzsche believed that a moral truth could be found; according to Nietzsche it is not to be found or discovered but forced upon others. There is no such thing as finding a subjective truth, for that would be a contradiction of the relativist or perspectivist formula which would falsely open the door to rationalistic interpretations (i.e. dialogue or diplomacy). In Nietzsche there is only the subjective, forceful, assertions of masters. We should not disentangle the necessary connection between subjectivity and radical brutality, or between subjectivity and destruction, in Nietzsche.

He taught that a moral truth could be advantageously asserted as long as the indivdual was strong enough. There is no moral discovery in Nietzsche but only bald assertions based upon whoever had the strongest will, i.e. the most powerful.

I just don't think we should white-wash the element of violence and war-waging in Nietzsche.



Boagie, any comments on this?


Nietzsche's idea of the ubermensch was a person who overcame himself, not others, and by his own overcoming found his own absolute truth.

Egoism is not a doctrine of confrontation.
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 08:41 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Pythagorean,Mr Fight the power,

From a nihilistic position,how could there be truth,when all things have no meaning in and of themselves,would not truth be itself meaning.We tend to believe in meaning due to the relational nature of subject and object.There is only truth in society due to the agreement on a common subjective experience.Yes Pythagorean,there is a dark side to Nietzsche,might is self-righteous.Perhaps this is a misintepertation on my part,he has apparently commonly been misunderstood.


"Nature red in tooth and claw." Byron I think!


Nietzsche sought to destroy the value of truth, in that truth should not be something sought for its own sake. He believed that falsehood could be life-affirming and could therefore hold more value than truth.

This brings up the central problem with Nietzsche, through his relentless criticism of past philosophers, he rendered himself a nihilist. At the same time the ideal he proposed was an escape from nihilism in creating your own values.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/05/2020 at 10:20:02