But you said that the ego is subversive, as in destructive. This means that man's ego is evil and that we must use the will of the lord or god to be good. And that isn't contrary to basically anything I've heard or read on the subject.
Oops, I didn't mean subversive, I meant to say subservient. I derped hardcore on that one.
By vague I don't mean that the person sees it as vague, I mean that the word good is vague because many people have their own conceptions of it, even if they think they share the same belief system as another individual.
And I remember reading some Kant. When I saw the categorical imperative I was like, "But I wouldn't apply the categorical imperative
to the categorical imperative!"
And I've always thought,
in its own way, a law that you can't get away from is the worst kind of law. Think about it. In the real world, if you don't agree with the operations of your country's government, whether its for the "best" or not, you always have the option of
leaving! Kant, by trying to adhere to the will of a hypothetical legislator in the kingdom of end, has likened himself to a legislator of the kingdom of end. Narcissism wrapped in philosophical rationalization, how terrifying. But I digress.
Psh, good is a static thing, no conception of good can change what good is, and if mine happens to be false then it is false. Kant reminds me a lot of Nietzche in his narcissism, the two classes of philosopher I've seen are arrogant or humble.
Aye, in the real world, if the inquiring murderer came to your house and asked you which way the man he wanted to murder went, you have the choice of shutting the door in his face and making him pissed, saying nothing and thereby neither lying nor cooperating with evil, and better yet saving the other person's life and likely your own by stopping the criminal.
I agree, a law that you can't get away from is the worst kind of law, but I apply that only to laws of the government of men that do not coincide with the natural law; it's why we have Jury Nullification here in the states, though it's hardly ever used nowadays and you're likely to get peremptorily challenged
I'm one of those people who actually WANTS to be on a jury.
But, I can't avoid the laws of physics. Economic laws and moral laws are borne of social phenomena (one of God's handy dandy tools), but we can break them and with that comes a multivariate of negative side effects, and ultimately in the end of our lives, final judgement, those laws being the way we ought to live rather than physics being the way we're forced to live.
That's actually my bad, I apologize. For some reason I thought idyllic meant poetic because of the word idyll, and hearing such an idea left me confused.
I was like, "What?! I'm not trying to be poetic at all right now.. ;_; "
We all make word mistakes *pats shoulder*. . .
The original point I made was that "brothers" still fight amongst one another, and then later you said that some "brothers" you wouldn't call "brothers". My intention was to point out that you were creating an ideal to which you denied all of those who would identify themselves as "brothers" or what you mean by "brothers" because they do not behave in the manner in which you identify as being "brothers". And even in following your defined "brotherhood" they still have the capacity and inevitability to fail to adhere to said definition and thus allow for strife, even under the assumption that this "brotherhood" is strife-proof when applied to conduct.
My hypothetical "brothers" may fight with each other, I guess I should expand on my definition, a brother as I used it in my all caps letter earlier would still be subject to his free will, and not have to adhere to the natural laws, but rather my brother would recognize his failure, perhaps even with the help of his fellow brother, and eventually return to sanctifying grace. They're not strife proof, of course, but they have a much higher probability of returning to good. In reference to the some brothers I wouldn't call brothers, I refer to the Christians who are Christians only in name, who any man may use as a strawman against the tenants of our faith.
