The only problem with people who unironically believe that "might makes right" is that they almost never keep that same energy when they're losing. When they're defeated or on the decline, they go full victim mode and start giving a plethora of excuses about why they and their vanquished ideologies are still valid and irrefutable despite their massive L.
>>23309559Nietzsche is one of the few counter-examples, he never relented, no matter how pathetic his life became.
just because a bigger guy is punching you and you are screaming for him to stop, doesn't mean the proposition becomes invalid
>>23309594Nietzsche would ask you why do you believe in this "valid proposition" and not the stronger guy punching you into the ground?
>>23309594I don't believe that might makes right. I just want the people who do believe it to stay consistent if the tide changes and not immediately cope about why the mightier person's ideas are not validated by their superior strength.
>>23309598You don't need to believe in it, that's the point. The sun rising tomorrow does not depend on anyone's beliefs. It's a proposition that's valid by definition. You could even call it a moral axiom.
>>23309599That has nothing to do with anything. People staying consistent in their beliefs does not inform how the world works, people are prone to biases and self delusions. I mean people today believe they can become women, etc.
>>23309605Yeah, but the question is: Why does the stronger guy in your dichotomy not believe in the "moral axiom" and contrary to the victim? If you answer this you either refute the nietzschean "might makes right" account or get right down to its core concept yourself.
>>23309610That's what i am saying, he doesn't need to believe anything. You are trying to make beliefs necessary for action when people do things contrary to their beliefs all the time. Beliefs are poor placeholders for animal instinct, they don't represent authentic human action.
>>23309591Nietzsche didn’t believe in might makes right, tard
>>23309559If the sole determination someone is using is merely might makes right then if they lose why would anyone care?
I don't think you have to "believe" might makes right. That's just the way the universe works.You can believe yourself mighty until proven wrong.
>>23309693Nah, might makes exactly might and nothing else, the rest of this is sentimentalism for useless faggots.
>>23309698The only reason laws, rights, etc. have any value in reality is because the government is strong enough to enforce them.
More like might be right lmao.
>>23309706That doesn't mean rights are identical with strength, that only means strength makes rights possible.
>>23309712Yeah, it means might makes right.
>>23309717>Yeah, it means might makes right.Not really, because might might also not make right, which is something distinct from might, and therefore not something that necessarily accompanies it.
Problem is that most people who spout this are larpers who don't truly understand what might means.
>>23309720It means might is necessary for right not necessarily that might always leads to right.
>>23309559"Right" doesn't exist, strong people are just forcible
>>23309720Listen, the way I understand it is this:>Grug is strong caveman, says it is bad to eat red berries>Grog is weak caveman, says there's nothing wrong with eating red berries>Grug beats Grog to death, and tells everyone else they will also get their brains smashed out of their skulls if they even talk about eating red berries>Nobody eats red berries again because it is badWas it bad to eat red berries? Doesn't matter. The strong do what they want and the weak suffer what they must.That's how Moses did it in the bible too.
>>23309727That's a pretty milquetoast statement then. Everybody knows that to have laws there must be capability to enforce those laws.
>>23309721Exactly.>used to express permission, liberty, probability, or possibility in the past>used to say that something is possible>used to express a present condition contrary to fact>used as a polite alternative to may>used as a polite alternative to ought or should
>>23309733>Nobody eats red berries again because it is badNot really, in this example they won't eat it because they fear that Grug will beat them to death ie. they are afraid of his might. Might is might.
>>23309736We are not talking about laws, we are talking about a general sense of established truth. Truth is established through might, laws are just a small category here.
>>23309745You talked about laws and rights yourself though - or the guy I was responding to did.
>>23309743Yeah, I think I skipped the step when Grug can say whatever he wants to back up his decision to stop everyone from eating red berries.Then again, that's an example of arbitrarily stopping people from doing something harmless (like Mormons and coffee).In your society, if you're the big strong man you can let men have sex slaves or you can make it so everyone has the same rights. You might say "of course sex slavery is wrong, we must stop this", but if in comes a stronger bigger man who likes it that way and sees no problem with it, he's gonna make it the new right.Sounds farfetched as fuck. I don't think of myself as a moral relativist, but what the fuck do my opinions matter if I don't have the strength to back them up?
>>23309743And yet that's how truth is inherited and passed down to become culture. The generations after will not remember grug beating grog, etc,
>>23309759>yet that's how truth is inherited and passed down to become cultureNot by itself it isn't - it needs something more than simple might and fear for people to have these extra beliefs. If people are just afraid of the might, they will pass down the information: "Be afraid of this might". >can say whatever he wants to back up his decision to stop everyone from eating red berries.If everybody is afraid of him, he doesn't need to say anything like that.
>>23309771Yes but might is still necessary, just because it isn't the only thing doesn't refute the argument.
>>23309771Also disinformation can make everything but might not work, if you can scare enough people and keep the 'truth' hidden, you can create beliefs that later become accepted, etc.
>>23309771I think I get it now. Might by itself doesn't make right.But for something to be right, there has to be enough might to back it up.
very intellectual conversation
>>23309559OP here. I just want reiterate my original point that I don't care about the philosophy or universal truth or whatever behind "might makes right." I just want the people who make it THE mantra they live by and guide their decisions with to be willing to stick to their guns with somebody with a bigger stick, dick, gun, etc. shows up and smacks them down. Don't be like the Germans in WW2 who bombed every civilian target they fancied for years but then cried because the Bongs nailed Dresden, or the Serbs who were happily genociding their fellow Balkanigs but will still cry to this day about Clinton bombing Yugoslavia to make them stop chimping out."Live by the sword, die by the sword" should always be a companion belief alongside "Might makes right." Otherwise, you just come off as a mentally weak faggot who only talks tough when things are going your way or when nobody your own size or bigger is in the room.
>>23309796And i told you it doesn't matter, people don't act according to belief, you've still not responded to that argument because you have no refutation. Belief does not have bearing on the validity of logical propositions.
>>23309796Ok, will do.
>>23309559>>23309796People that are serious about might is right do not (and cannot) care about consistency or honesty. At most those would be secondary characteristics you might pick between alternatives "at constant might" but the situation never happens.
>>23309801>people don't act according to beliefOf course they do. They just don't believe what they say or even "think" they believe. A person's true belief system is tested when times get rough and they're forced to either stand on their ideological business or abandon it and reveal to the world that it was all just sophistry disguised as creed. True belief is for men and women of character and fortitude like the early Christians who chose to be tortured in Rome rather than disavow Christ. Now I'm not saying their belief was objectively right. I'm saying that, through maintaining that belief in the face of adversity, the Christians, through proselytizing and martyrdom alone, managed to have the beliefs of Christ overtake all of the Roman empire. The Greco-Roman gods, whose followers conquered most of the Western ancient world were vanquished by people whom a core tenet of their belief was "turning the other cheek."
>>23309831Those are not beliefs then, they are instincts, beliefs are not things, they are placeholders for what we feel at one time and discard at the next. A person might believe in christ while in church then call his brown neighbour a heathen at the next moment, doesn't mean he didn't believe in christ, he acted on fear and anger not on his belief of christ even though he still believes christ is lord. There are no true beliefs, only what works at the moment.
>>23309733Might does not make the red berries unfit for consumption, either the red berries are fit for consumption or they are not and that is something that is independent of what any grug or grog thinks. You may just want to stick to moral arguments if that is the limit of your thinking.
>>23309905It does if you spread disinformation chud, today some men believe they can become women because of said disinformation propagated through liberal might. You moral fags need to think harder than this.
>>23309831Sorry to ruin your LARP but none of that's true, in fact the opposite is. Arthur Desmond was a devout Christian and a firm believer in Christian Anarcho-Socialism. The book is constantly talking about how great the Jews of the OT are, and he openly talks about how the Aesir and Olympians don't exist. The Torah is pretty consistent on its extolling of the Jews' might and their subsequent right to do whatever the fuck they wanted to gentiles, who were created as their slaves.
>>23309920No it literally does not, either the berries are unfit or fit for consumption independent of whatever you think, claim, resort to, or try to persuade others of. It is you who needs to think harder, and that might be just to keep up in moral observations. If you are really this convinced then by all means go enforce something like this in your little sphere of influence because you do not seem to possess logical reasoning to convince others without force, and I would even be inclined to say you probably do not even possess enough force to do this irl since your example needed a weaker specimen to make it work.
>>23309943That doesn't matter, no one will touch the berries if disinformation is spread well enough. The truth exists by might. The only reason why you know the berries are fit or not fit is through might, and we aren't talking about literal berries btw if your brainlet ass is too stupid to understand the analogy of how truth is propagated through might, how do i know you are science faggot who is eager to be pedantic about something that doesn't deal with science.
>>23309958You are the retard who made the berry analogy.
>>23309965I am not but that doesn't matter, i can make a better one, in fact i just did with trannies but you didn't even bother addressing it.
I like Lin Yutangs take on this. The rule of might is the domain of animals. The rule of right is the domain of gods, or ideal rational beings. Only humans, who are inbetween, have the ability to, and must make excuses and try to rationally account for their animal nature, i.e. they must make might the right thing. You can replace might is right with racism is true and it still holds.
>>23309972You made a poor analogy and lost, and because might is your only determination I do not care about how retarded you are. I also do not care about your attempts to move goalposts or your thoughts about trannies for that matter because you sound like a weak bitch who is probably too afraid to eat the red berries and find out and you might even be a tranny or tranny in the making, which is about all you are good for at this point.
>>23309991So an adhominem about me being a weak bitch, you love arguing with weak bitches who don't eat berries chud, don't you? Show me just how much you don't care? Hit me with a real argument and not this weak angry, fearful diatribe that you are half assing right now.
>>23310009You were the retard who started with the ad hominems.
>>23310027Of course i was, are you afraid of trannies chud? Do they keep you awake at night?
Something I’ve noticed is that people who spout might is right tend to either be A: extremely dysgenic B: impulsive retards
It really amazes me how idiots here can't wrap their head around concept MIGHT IS RIGHTIts so simple and so straight forward that cannot be put more easily to it yet some idiots still argue about it.Might is Right in other words is same as "Stronger Force overcomes Weaker Force" Its simple as law of physics and you just can't deny it... There is nothing to argue about it, its universal fact and cannot be refuted.You can try to create experiment and prove it wrong but its impossible.Stronger Rule over Weak .... how hard is it to wrap your head around it?Might is Right .... means primitively that one who has power over other makes the rules over him even if those rules are stupid....Mighty man who dominate over weaker impose their RIGHT .... If Stronger Man / Animal / Force dominates weaker it is doing it because it can The sun shines, therefore it is right that it should shine the rain falls, therefore it is right that it should fall the tides ebb and flow, therefore it is right that they should ebb and flow.Darwin’s law exists — may be seen in operation — is practicable — of dailydemonstration — therefore it also is right. It is not a dream like “Religion,” it is not aninvention like “Morals;” it is not an assumption like “God.” It is a cosmic Fact, like thesunshine, the rain, and the tides! Nature does not set up Idols, does not foundSuperstitions, does not invent Decalogues. These toys and fetters have been constructedby man, for his own infinite — damnation.What does it matter if someone gets dominated by stronger guy and cries like victim.... Fact still stands true... MIGHT IS RIGHT ... what is there to debate about it nikkers?
>>23310043I was already in agreement that you are a bitch, but I do applaud you for admitting to it. You are also the retard who brought up trannies, so perhaps they keep you awake at night and occupy your mind, that I do not know, and frankly do not care about.
>>23309559>The only problem with people who unironically believe that "might makes right" is that they almost never keep that same energy when they're losing. When they're defeated or on the decline, they go full victim mode and start giving a plethora of excuses about why they and their vanquished ideologies are still valid and irrefutable despite their massive L.How is that incompatible with "might makes right"? It's just a more subtle strategy to gather sympathy and support when you're losing, and to make the winner look worse to potential allies.I feel too many people interpret the principle of "survival of the fittest" in an excessively aesthetic way, as if the fittest should not only be so, but should also look like it. But from a strategic point of view that's just nonsense.
>>23310064You are like a child crying out in the open, crying to its mother to show it the truth, too scared to see it for what it is, too stupid to differentiate btn a puddle of its own urine and an ocean full of ancient monsters. What is the truth, you ask your mother, teary eyed and snot running down from your nostrils, your mother smacks you and tells you to stop asking stupid questions. That's you chud, scared of trannies and ancient ocean monsters lurking about always trying to remind you of how insignificant you pedantry is. You should carry a gun whenever you are outside, you don't want a tranny sucking your blood.
>>23310088This has been a case in point that the OP was exactly right. Congratulations >>23309559 you were right, and needed no might.
>>23310104No might needed at all, except for intellectual might which you unironically don't possess seeing as you are too scared of trannies to argue about them and too uncaring as you keep replying to me, to field any real argument. Do you sleep with a rifle on your bed thinking of trannies raping you?
>>23310149Why do 90% of discussion on here start going around winning some imaginary verbal argument over started subject?Now you like toddlers try as hard to insult each other in hopes of getting some reaction.Really patheticWhats point now of mentioning trannies and shit?Can you go back on point?Or you just gonna continue toddler arguing?
>>23310163Oh so now you care don't you? You go back on point and show how i was wrong about berries, aren't too stupid to understand the analogy? You are the pedantic faggot who is too stupid to understand the grug analogy and instead of coming up with an analogous argument you become pedantic about berry nutrition like some midwit sci faggot who had no other way to enter the argument. That's the only thing you could attack in the berry argument. Why do you care all of a sudden chud? Are trannies really that scary to you?
>>23310182I am third guy that wrote this :>>23310054-------------------------------------what the fuck are you ranting about? You dumb as other guy engaging into toddler argument
>>23310163>>23310182Vgh… /lit/. Truly the most intelligent board
>>23310197fuckoff faggot, no one asked for your 1000 word essay
>>23310198I haven't came on 4cancer for years and now after years I come on lit exactly because of this subject and expect that smaller pool people would have quality discussion but it still like posting on /pol/ or /b/ just random retards arguing like toddlers throwing tranny and faggot words good by 4cancer going back to kohlchan
>>23310198Why don't you make your contribution and show us what comprises intelligence instead of stepping in the middle of an ongoing argument like an ignorant faggot trying to intervene btn a quarreling couple and getting surprised when both tell you to fuckoff.
>>23310227>kohlchanYes the /int/ that’s only slightly better than 4/int/ Cope all you want, both sites are shit
>>23309599It doesn't matter "what you believe" materially, might enforces it's rightness, either through coercion, or other violent means. The only way for it to be challenged is for a competing might, to become mightier
Even these pathetic pissing contests here on 4channel are a manifestation of might makes right.I am right because I have the last word, because I make better arguments, because I owned that other faggot and BTFOd him. I dominated him here, the only place in which I can have dominion and might over another human being.No one can escape this reality. It's like the laws of physics. Why don't you just keep your opinions to yourself?
>>23310774sucka on my cocka ('tis a big cocka)
>>23310883Watcha say? Socka on what? *Stabs you* SOCKA ON WHAT? *Keeps stabbing you and kicking you* NO! YOU SOCKA ON MY COCKA YOU MOTHERFUCKER YOU
>>23309733The problem is that this is short-term, isolated, human thinking. There is also long-term, non-local, universal thinking. So I will put it like this:>Grug has intimidated all into never talking about red berries>a regime of no red berries is enforced for some time>Grok, a weak caveman with wits and defiant spirit eats red berries in private>Grok sees nothing is bad about red berries, it is just Grugs opinion backed by force>Grok tells the other cavemen privately about this, starts underground trade in red berries >everyone is still afraid of of Grug, but now they also know red berries are good>Grug's regime is exposed as blatant tyranny, slowly undermined in the minds of all cavemen>cavemen begin to resent Grug's arbitrary rule and rules>cavemens resentment builds up over time>cavemen eventually decide enough is enough, band together, and kill Grug>red berries flood the tribe, Grok is remembered as a heroic rebel and wise man>Gorg is born, doesn't like cows milk>Grok says cows milk is fine>Gorg kills Grok>cycle resetsThat's how it tends to go throughout long term history Tyrants get what they want in the short term, in the long term, any regime based on arbitrary force subverts itself and dies China's "mandate of Heaven" is the closest thing to a true law of politics and force
>>23312080Grok had the intellectual might and charisma to band together and defeat grug, why are you faggots getting your panties in a bunch about this. Whatever analogy you twist, might is necessary to propagate right, this is true by definition.
>>23312098That's not what I was saying though, because Grok didn't really do anything to kill Grug; the people themselves did this and the impetus was the dissonance created by Groks eating of red berries. My point is that might doesn't create right; might creates and enforces might, whatever is right is simply right, and when there's enough dissonance between these; right actually winds up defeating might, always. If might is enforcing something that is too far from what is objectively shown to be closer to the truth, it sews the seeds for its own downfall. Hence why most oppressive structures fail, they're usually rooted in a lie or half truth. Over time this is revealed and becomes too much for people to bear. Grok didn't organize a revolt in my example. He just ate some berries and told others about it.
>>23309796Yeah, but this tendency in all wars and battles of wills itself disproves the theory that "might makes right." Very few people submit to a stronger foe when their time in power is coming to a close because of them, they continue to insist upon the validity of their ideas and fight to the bitter end. Which goes to show you, that might never makes right; might makes might. The reason they're continuing to fight and insist upon themselves isn't because they're hypocrites; it's because they're stupid. They never actually believed might makes right, because that's the dumbest thing in the fucking world, they believed that might makes might, and conned themselves into thinking this meant anything more. My point being they were charlatans to begin with so idk why you expect truth out of them on their death bed.
>>23312111People don't do things spontaneously, they rally behind strength and integrity ,etc. I don't know why we are arguing about such an obvious thing.
>>23312148Because the thing that undermines lies is truth, therefore, might makes might; not right.
>>23312111Also there is no objective truth lmao. The idea behind might is right is that, might decides truth, truth isn't hiding in some golden cave waiting to plucked by the chosen few. Truth is what is currently propagated by might wherever that maybe, iran, china, russia, the US, etc.
>>23312162>There's no objective truthProve it. Jump off of your roof.
>>23312181Lmao, humans don't agree on the most fundamental things, i don't have to jump off anything to know this. If objective truth existed, humans wouldn't diagree on anything least of all the most fundamental questions.
>>23312183That assumes that humans are the arbiters of truth...so your argument is that because humans can't agree on most things, truth doesn't exist? Have you ever heard about "logic?" Might be neat to check out. Also, have you jumped off your roof yet? Or stood in the street and waited to see what will happen? There's no objective truth, so who knows, maybe it'll work out well
>>23312190Lmao if you don't believe we are the arbiters of truth then how can you know truth? How can you ever hope to reach it? And if you are a christfag which you seem like, then why does god keep truth confined to specific people in a geographic location, I mean if he created everyone, why discriminate over this, and worst of all propagate his truth through a flawed creature called man. Try another argument, telling me to jump off a roof makes you look like a 12-yr bullied nerd who is too retarded to field any valid arguments. I could do the same and tell you to go have sex with your mom and see how well it works out, see if your god intervenes with his truth.
>>23312199I never mentioned or even implied a religion or a God, I was just saying if you think all truth is relative, the easiest way to prove it is by doing something extreme, like jumping off of a roof. If the truth is relative, then you dying when you do it shouldn't be a certainty, you believing you'll be fine should make it so. The rest of your post was wildly melodramatic and pretty revealing, very funny btw. Lmao are you alright man
>>23312213Truth can be relative with me jumping off the roof and dying not being affected. For instance, all triangles have 3 sides. That truth still needs human observation and consensus. The other truth about human opinions on governments or religions is relative because it depends on geography. You need to study logic more before fielding juvenile elementary opinions on truth. Truth requires consensus regardless of whether we agree 1+1=2 is true by mere fact of having brains or whether we agree democracy is the right way to govern because our ancestors started it 2000 yrs ago is irrelevant.
>>23312259I need to study logic more? Now you're really making me laugh. Noam Chomsky and Foucault already duked this out many years ago. Foucault argued that all truth is relative and enforced by power, "regimes of the truth." Chomsky argued that much of human life operates this way, but cross-cultural universals and rationalism both point toward something deeper lurking underneath, a recurrent, eternal "is" that all things tend back towards, cyclically. Chomsky was right, Foucault was a psychotic idiot. The truth is always relative until it comes for you, then it's inescapable; it's relative until you jump off of your roof and hit the ground. It's relative for Grug, until his subjugates stick the dagger through his chest and start cultivating red berries en masse, because when they eat them, they don't die, and they like the way they taste.
>>23312259Also; governments that produce stability do so because they are most closely aligned with what is objectively true. A government that says the sky is green, produces the seeds of its own destruction in the dissonance it creates. It can enforce its regime through coercive violence, but it cannot alter people's minds or the sensory input they receive; it can force people to say 2+2=5, but it can't prevent them internally knowing that it's actually 4. So the revolution is already underway on day one. No government is ever 100% aligned with the truth, because nothing is. Human life is artifice by default, we use words as stand ins for raw sensation, we corrupt the truth the second we speak about it. But it's still there underneath. A stable government is one that gets closer for the widest number of truth claims. The sky is blue, 2+2=4; a regime that says this will last longer, because it doesn't cause as much dissonance in its citizens minds, therefore the impulse toward revolt is kept at bay and undermined simply by comporting to readily apparent reality. Look at today's systems compared with the past. They spread less lies, but they still contain contradictions. They're more stable than in the past, but their contradictions still haunt them. Is a perfect system possible? Probably not, but we get closer with each epistemic insurgency.
>>23312271Jumping off the roof has nothing to do with truth faggot. Like i said truth is consensus, jumping off the roof doesn't disprove this. Yes you do need to study logic if you don't understand this simple argument. Relative literally means that truth depends on something, in this case consensus propagated by might, whether or not everyone has their own version doesn't matter as long as there's consensus among them.
>>23312291Consensus is consensus, not truth. The truth is infallible. Consensus isn't. You jumping off of a roof and dying isn't consensus, it's physics. Every person on Earth could agree that you won't die when you hit the ground, but you still will. That's truth.
>>23312281No govts that are stable, become so because their version of the truth serves their cultures which have evolved geographically, different from some other culture. This is how china and russia have govts that have stayed so long in power yet they are the antithesis to western democracy, there is no objective relation btn the two, there is no underlying gem of truth that connects them together. What you are trying to say is that humans are largely similar but the govts are different, that is not the same thing as saying that objective truth exists.
>>23312294You dying depends on observation, you could jump off a roof and nobody would be there to see you, and people would then assume you went missing. In fact people would believe what serves their current biases. Your family would believe you are still alive, your enemies would believe you escaped, etc. Truth requires consensus, physics too. We have to collectively observe the same thing over and over till we can agree that this is what is happening.
>>23312299More so what I'm saying is that I acknowledge all of that; but there are metaprinciples behind how it all works that are universal across varied cultures and governments, and these are closer to the "truth."China has a wildly different government from the West but has stayed somewhat stable regardless; you're correct there. But the reason it was able to do this is because it kept the dissonance it's contradictions create in check, and what it could not, it devised coercive methods to mute the dissonance through brute force. The west does the same thing, it just uses different emphases to keep dissonance at bay, and different coercive methods to mute it where it cannot do it through narratives. Dissonance is what sews rebellious ideas, because that regime of truth is too far from externally verifiable reality. If it only does this for a few people, that's fine; but usually, the more far from reality, the larger the dissonance created, and the larger the dissonance, the less stable the system. This is why China's "Mandate of Heaven" idea is more than it appears. The idea is that there is some underlying truth in things, that people intuit, and a government will always contain some level of dissonance away from it; but to the degree that it can align itself to it to achieve balance, the more stable and "mandated" the regime is. Therefore, it is more like right is what gives permission to might.
>>23312311Right does not exist without might. You are trying to say that there is some right that some human found and started propagating it using might. That's not how humans evolved. Humans developed from chimp like animals that use violence to decide what is right, not the other way round. Right doesn't exist independent of its propagation by might or by some other manner. Also right changes all the time, 1000 yrs ago, the right thing to do was worship some pagan god, today that has changed because we have different environmental pressures, who knows what the right thing to do will be 100yrs later.
>>23312320That is not how human evolution works. Human evolution works the same way I had mentioned before. There is a truth that exists, that puts pressure on mankind's lies. It allows for some artifice, to maintain balance. But it still places limits and pressures, that's what natural selection is. Humans putting their ideas against that which they cannot control. A man in the past who enforced his rule through sheer violence and with no level of concern for the truth, would either get his whole tribe killed, or killed by the tribe because they wake up to this. If a chief was very violent, and said, wood club just as good as stone club, no stone clubs allowed. A tribe who had stone clubs would have a major advantage over his regime of lies. If he said, man no need water, water not allowed. People would start dying of thirst. Natural selection isn't might enforcing what is right; it is right allowing for the reproduction of might.
>>23312320You had mentioned God before. I like the concept of the Tao. It is the unspeakable unknowable that guides all things spoken and known. You brought up environmental pressures; where do these come from? By definition, these are the things we can't control; we create systems to overcome one pressure, and another appears. Where does it appear from? By definition, it implies we are never in full control, we are always just unaligning, and realigning, with the Tao. The mystery, the truth is the truth because when we don't follow it, we fail. When we do something and it doesn't work, it didn't work because it was too far from the truth. Limits in general are the barrier between our lies and the truth. You could call it God, you could call it whatever. It is that force outside of human will that human will responds to.
>>23312334That doesn't follow. Might doesn't enforce what is right, might decides what is right, there's a difference which you don't seem to get. Might enforces something, then and only then it becomes right, until natural selection changes everything again. Right does not exist independent of us knowing it. That is clearly a contradiction that arises from your circular logic of some right existing to be discovered.>>23312350>The mystery, the truth is the truth because when we don't follow it, we fail.This also doesn't follow. If we knew the truth, we wouldn't fail, everyone would agree, otherwise it isn't the truth. Which goes back to my previous point that truth requires consensus, we fail because there is not enough consensus, not because some truth exists in the sky to be acquired by few then propagated to many who don't believe its the truth. This truth would be by definition self evident to everyone if it existed, it wouldn't need might or anything else to propagate it.
>>23312080>cavemen eventually decide enough is enough, band together, and kill GrugThat right there. That’s where you accepted the proposition that might is right.
>>23309559>Portions of Might Is Right comprise the vast majority of The Book of Satan in Anton LaVey's 1969 The Satanic Bible, the founding document of the Church of Satan. Though it is no longer included in current printings of The Satanic Bible, early printings included an extensive dedication to various people whom LaVey recognized as influences, including Ragnar Redbeard.lmao why am I not surprised
>>23309559Ok? How does that make it any less true. They are wielding power through victimhood and maintain the same ideological bend. We give power to weakness too.
>>23312580There's no contradiction there. My statement is that right gives permission to the reproduction of might; right makes might, not the other way around. The reason the cavemen decide to enact their might against Grug, is because Grok highlighted the dissonance created by Grug's tyranny, and this made the tyranny intolerable. I'm not saying humans don't use their wills, of course they do. But if their will is unaligned too much with the truth outside of that will, they fail and they die, either by their own hand in some act of stupidity, or by the hand of their subjugates, who can no longer bear the liar.
>>23309559That doesn't invalidate the philosophy.It just makes the proponent a hypocrite yet to be revealed.
>>23309591damn he just like me
>>23313768You cannot marry a 12 year old kid because it is wrong. That's an universal thing most people will agree it's good and right. That doesn't stop all those Arabs, Mexicans, Africans, etc. They are not part of a trafficking ring or something, that's just the way things have always been. Ti them, there is literally nothing more natural than marrying girls at 12.And of course you think "these fucking savages are crazy, someone should stop them".Do you know what they think? They think "this motherfucker, who is not one of us, wants to take away our rights and tell us what to do". Do you think they will come around to your way of thinking? Will you ever start thinking like them?Someone will win and someone will lose, and might will make right.Back to the Moses example. Imagine the red berries are the same as gay sex. Why is gay sex wrong? Because Moses had the biggest baddest God, strong enough to fuck the golden calf in the ass. Might making right all around!
>>23309743when we say "right" in this context we mean "what is VIEWED as right", facts aside. For things like berries being poisonous this is of course silly as either their are or aren't, but in the context of socially constructed ideas it becomes more relevant
>>23314130I've no interest in making anyone "come around" to my way of thinking, and you're not getting a key aspect of this: right exists, but nobody knows what it is. I dont know what it is. Nobody knows the Tao. But it's there, and all things eventually come back to it due to pressure. At one point, our ancestors thought that the dark skinned races were animals, literally, traded them around like livestock and treated them as such. Eventually some sensation caused them to think this was wrong, they warred about it, but stopped short of full parity. Now, those races have woken up to how unjustified that was, and there's more pressure on this culture to go further in dismantling these concepts. In Islam, I'm not going to do anything, I have no leverage or interest. But remember that girl Malala? The one who wanted to go to school? She caused quite a stir. It was on par with the abolitionists saying "these aren't animals, these are men just like us."It takes time, but it never fails. Women can drive in Saudi Arabia now. The pressure always wins, and the pressure is contained in the Tao, all things come back to the Tao.
>>23314130Lmao universal my ass, humans have been marrying children and teenagers since the last one hundred years. There is no universal thing, you've been watching too much hollywood films. Thousands of years of history are not erased just because we modernized.
>>23315356Nobody knows where it is but it is there?? Faggots in this thread are arguing with a clear schizophrenic who thinks things nobody knows, exist.
Might make right is not literally true, though it touches on ideas from game theory, where adaptive strategies win over iterated games and in effect become 'correct'. Maybe pacifism is the moral position, but if you don't defend yourself and some militarist power conquers you, then who cares.
>>23315429When you do something you think will work and it doesn't work; why doesn't it work?
>>23309559What does this have to do with literature?
>>23315548That has nothing to do whether nobody knows. It's simply a matter of experience. You only do something because you are capable of it not because it will work. I could ask you to flap your arms and fly, but are you capable of this, do you know anyone who is capable of it. This is not the same as saying a truth nobody has ever revealed the workings or efficacy of exists. Truth by definition should be self evident to everyone.
>>23313768I didn’t say contradiction, I said acceptance. You accepted the premise that right makes right.
>>23315583The reason flapping your arms can't make you fly; is because of whatever the truth is. The unspeakable unknowable.
>>23315688Sure, no one has ever spoken of it or thought of doing it.
>>23315574Might Is Right or The Survival of the Fittest is a book by pseudonymous author Ragnar Redbeard, generally believed to be a pen name of Arthur Desmond. First published in 1896,[1] it advocates amorality, consequentialism and psychological hedonism.The author sums up his work as follows:This book is a reasoned negation of the Ten Commandments—the Golden Rule–the Sermon on the Mount—Republican Principles—Christian Principles—and "Principles" in general. It proclaims upon scientific evolutionary grounds, the unlimited absolutism of Might, and asserts that cut-and-dried moral codes are crude and immoral inventions, promotive of vice and vassalage.[2]In Might Is Right, Redbeard rejects conventional ideas such as advocacy of human and natural rights and argues in addition that only strength or physical might can establish moral right (à la Callicles or Thrasymachus). The book also attacks Christianity and democracy. Friedrich Nietzsche's theories of master–slave morality and herd mentality served as inspirations for Redbeard's book which was written contemporaneously.[3][2]James J. Martin, the individualist anarchist historian, called it "surely one of the most incendiary works ever to be published anywhere."[4] This refers to the book's assertions that weakness should be regarded with hatred and the strong and forceful presence of Social Darwinism. Other parts of the book deal with the topics of race and male–female relations. The book claims that the woman and the family as a whole are the property of the man, and it proclaims that the Anglo-Saxon race is innately superior to all other races.[5] The book also contains anti-Christian and anti-Semitic statements.[5]S. E. Parker writes in his introduction to the text: "The most likely candidate is a man named Arthur Desmond who was red-bearded, red-haired and whose poetry was very similar to that written by Redbeard."[5] The Bulletin, a journal associated with the Australian labour movement, reported in July 1900 that Desmond (a former contributor to the publication) was Ragnar Redbeard.[6][7]The Church of Satan founder Anton LaVey and white supremacist publisher Katja Lane (wife of The Order member David Lane) both believed novelist Jack London was substantially involved, if not the author of the entire book; the latter based her judgment on London's distinctive grammar and punctuation.[8][9] However, this idea was rejected by Rodger Jacobs, a biographer of London, since London was only 20 years old at the time and had not yet developed that writing style, nor had he read anything by Nietzsche.[8]
>>23315815Leo Tolstoy, whom Might Is Right described as "the ablest modern expounder of primitive Christliness", responded in his 1897 essay What Is Art?:The substance of this book, as it is expressed in the editor's preface, is that to measure "right" by the false philosophy of the Hebrew prophets and "weepful" Messiahs is madness. Right is not the offspring of doctrine, but of power. All laws, commandments, or doctrines as to not doing to another what you do not wish done to you, have no inherent authority whatever, but receive it only from the club, the gallows, and the sword. A man truly free is under no obligation to obey any injunction, human or divine. Obedience is the sign of the degenerate. Disobedience is the stamp of the hero.Expressed in the form of a doctrine, these positions startle us. In reality, they are implied in the ideal of art serving beauty. The art of our upper classes has educated people in this ideal of the over-man — which is in reality the old ideal of Nero, Stenka Razin, Genghis Khan, Robert Macaire or Napoleon and all their accomplices, assistants, and adulators — and it supports this ideal with all its might.It is this supplanting of the ideal of what is right by the ideal of what is beautiful, i.e. of what is pleasant, that is the fourth consequence, and a terrible one, of the perversion of art in our society. It is fearful to think of what would befall humanity were such art to spread among the masses of the people. And it already begins to spread.[10]S. E. Parker wrote: "Might Is Right is a work flawed by major contradictions." In particular, he criticized the inconsistency of the book's central dogma of individualism with its open sexism and racism (both requiring a membership in a collective). However, he concluded that "it is sustained by a crude vigor that at its most coherent can help to clear away not a few of the religious, moral and political superstitions bequeathed to us by our ancestors."[5]Author Chris Mathews suspects that the work is at least partly intended to be a satire of Social Darwinism, and he also characterizes it as a "proto-fascist white power manifesto".[11]Portions of Might Is Right comprise the vast majority of The Book of Satan in Anton LaVey's 1969 The Satanic Bible, the founding document of the Church of Satan.[12] Though it is no longer included in current printings of The Satanic Bible, early printings included an extensive dedication to various people whom LaVey recognized as influences, including Ragnar Redbeard.[13]Santino William Legan, the perpetrator of the 2019 Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting in Gilroy, California, mentioned Might is Right in an Instagram post. NBC journalists have claimed it is a 'staple' of white supremacist groups online.[14]
>>23315817EditionsYear Publisher Notes1896 Auditorium Press[15][1] 1896 A. Uing Publisher 1903 A. Mueller Publishers 1910 W.J. Robbins Co. Ltd 1921 Ross’ Book Service 1927 Dil Pickle Press 1962 Unknown publisher 18-page abridged edition.1969 Same unknown publisher Expanded 32-page edition.1972 Revisionist Press Reprint of 1927 Dil Pickle edition. ISBN 978-14782251711984 Loompanics Unlimited ISBN 0-915179-12-11996 M. H. P & Co. Ltd. Centennial edition, with intro by Anton LaVey.1999 14 Word Press St. Maries, Idaho.2003 Bugbee Books 2005 Revolva Russian edition with commentary. ISBN 5-94089-036-5, released online2005 29 Books Reprint of 1927 Dil Pickle edition. ISBN 0-9748567-2-X2005 Dil Pickle Press Edited and annotated by Darrell W. Conder. ISBN 0-9728233-0-12008 Zem Books ISBN 978-1-329-41381-82009 Edition Esoterick German hardcover edition. ISBN 978-3-936830-31-62012 Kustantamo Vuohi Julkaisut Finnish edition. ISBN 978-952-92-9531-92014 Camion Noir French edition. ISBN 978-235779-620-12014 Aristeus Books, ed. Dragan Nikolic Second ed., eng. edn. ISBN 978-16820402322018 Zem Books Hardcover ed. ISBN 978-1-387-51811-12018 Noir Anthologie Spanish edition. ASIN B07DH2QWS82019 Underworld Amusements The Authoritative Edition, with intro by Peter H. Gilmore. ISBN 978-19436872512020 Pentabol N. E. Spanish Extended Edition. ISBN 978-02442747572021 Underworld Amusements 1927 Facsimile Edition. ISBN 978-1-943687-26-8
>they almost never keep that same energy when they're losing. When they're defeated or on the decline, they go full victim mode and start giving a plethora of excuses about why they and their vanquished ideologies are still valid and irrefutable despite their massive L.Real question here, why is this always used as some sort of "gotcha!"? The point of "Might is Right" is that it is ALWAYS true regardless of what you think or believe. The strong, through whatever medium or means, will do what they want. You will not be able to stop them unless you are stronger. That is literally how everything that is contentious works.
