>It can be the case that one is unconscious of his Universal Will. He may believe, indeed, that it is directly opposed to his Will, even though it is his [true] Will. The criminal who is punished may wish, of course, that the punishment be warded off but the Universal Will brings with it the decree that the criminal shall be punished. It must be assumed that the Absolute Will of the criminal demands that he shall be punished. In so far as he is punished the demand is made that he shall see that he is punished justly and, if he sees this, although he may wish to be freed from the punishment as an external suffering yet, in so far as he concedes that he is justly punished, his Universal Will approves of the punishment.
Georgina Rose got absolutely filtered by Crowley's concept of True Will because she couldn't understand Hegel.
>>24698628who?
>>24698619But what is the proof/argument that such Will exist?
>>24698628I would do unspeakable things to her
>>24700122She's high mid at best
>>24698619Hegel was undoubtedly the most retarded philosopher to come out of the west. It would be completely inconsequential if we burned all his works
>>24700166>Hegel was undoubtedly the most retarded philosopher to come out of the west.Yes.>It would be completely inconsequential if we burned all his worksProbably not true.
>>24698619
>>24699773Wanting justice even though you're a criminal. Chimps and dogs want justice so the inclination is not a product of arbitrary human whims but an adaptation / reflection of something external.
>>24699773Literally consensus
>>24700426>Chimps and dogs want justice so the inclination is not a product of arbitrary human whims but an adaptation / reflection of something external.Chimps being so biologically close to humans they're practically the same object from any broad stroke perspective, and dogs being wholly psychologically shaped by humans would indicate a great deal of interference here that you aren't accounting for.This revelation entails more investigation. You might be able to extend some notion of this to any mammal which has a social system (however tenuous, even herd animals apply), but observably it does not extend to non-social mammals like cats, non-mammal animals (even social ones) like cockroaches, non-animal life like plants, non-life animate objects like rivers, and inanimate objects like rocks.So then, because it's observably limited to an extremely tight neighborhood of objects, we can infer it's a product of one or more traits shared by that neighborhood, meaning it must be constructed out of internal facets.Of course, it's a faulty position to begin with, since it's trivially demonstrable that different humans have different notions of justice. Among them, many do not consider malignant action and retaliation to be just. Thus the example given is wholly inappropriate to make this argument, making this whole exercise a non-sequitur, and in good faith must be dismissed even before we get to the rest of the myriad of holes within its construction.
>>24700592>it must be constructed out of internal facetsThe context decides what rules are relevant but the rules themselves are immutable. The internal representation of the relevant rules is a map to the territory that is justice as it really exists and your internal will to justice is a reflection of the higher rules/will.Every idea of justice is a flawed attempt to approach an external ideal, since everyone is flawed their ideas are flawed but the ideal still exists.
>>24700592>Chimps being so biologically close>biologicallyMeans it's a biological adaptation to an external environment instead of a fiction made up by people.
