What can I say, I’m actually having fun here. Thanks again, Draconusmajor. 🙂
I can’t really agree with your idea that morality doesn’t have anything to do with law or vice versa. (If I understood your long post. Do you realize that most of your posts tend to be too long to read and follow effectively?) And honestly I don’t really care, I’m following your blog more as a curiosity. You’re kind of a Psychology experiment in action. I’m interested in your personal evolution on a psychological level. You’re clinically depressed, narcissistic and arguably delusional but it’s interesting. If you’d be willing to I’d like to propose a series of blog posts and track your personal evolution thru the posts. I challenge you to write a post that has nothing to do with law or social justice, write about something you have watched or read (non fiction only please) that restores even just a little faith in humanity.
So first off, I want to address the ad hominem here. At least, I’m pretty sure it’s an ad hominem because if feels like they’re using charges of clinical depression, narcissism, and delusion to invalidate what I say. It could just be an insult, in which case it failed because I am a guy who admits dealing with suicidal thoughts a lot and talking to gods, so on two out the three can’t really claim they’re false. Not sure if I’m a narcissist, or I talk about my self a lot because I tend to not have much of a social life, but meh. It works for Tony Stark, might as well make it work for me.
Also, sorry I can’t make everything nice sound bite for you DM. That’s the problem with philosophy, it tends to take up books, not twitter posts. If you’d like something shorter to read though, you can follow me on twitter @lucius_c_sulla. I haven’t had any of my other readers complain about the posts being too long, but hey, people, if it’s a problem let me know. Also, if you keep wanting me to write specific posts, you should probably donate to my patreon account. After all, why not pay me for what you want to read. 😉
Also, I love how these challenges are progressing. First, no social justice. Then no law. Because you didn’t like what I wrote about law existing outside of morality and how it should not be used to legislate morality. Or how Social Justice People were trying to make the law legislate their morality. So let me bring some psychology myself.
Draconusmajor, from what you’ve said it can be inferred that you believe that law and morality are joined together or at least should be. That the law should be used to enforce good morality and to restrict bad moral actions from being done. I’m also going to guess that like most people who tend to believe such things, that you hold your morality is not only the correct one, but the default correct morality that the law would of course follow and enforce.
The problem is…it never works out that way. There are a plethora of moralities out there, each judged to be the correct one by those that follow it. However, what is holy to one man is abhorrent to another. For example, under many philosophical and theological branches of Islam, it is not only right to rape and enslave non-Muslim women as sex slaves, it is a holy act pleasing unto Allah. Frankly, most of the world finds this idea offensive. For Pagans, making prayers and offerings to many Gods and Goddesses is a holy and proper thing, but to Christians and Muslims we’re commuting the worst sin imaginable and to Atheists we’re delusional and need psychological treatment. Scientists believe it is morally imperative to understand the way the world works through experimentation, and in doing so have given basis to horrific acts of racism, sexism, genocide, human experimentation, and facilitated many, many war crimes, all within the ethical guidelines and philosophical foundation of what they do, deeds which many religious people find morally abhorrent.
So who then, has the correct morality that we should lay down as Law? What morality shall we then give the ultimate power too? Your’s? By everything you’ve said you show a preference for totalitarianism which governs the moral choices of everyone. Mine? Certainly I hold that the law governs best when the law governs least, but you seem to find that as equally horrible as it doesn’t enforce proper morality.
And that is why Law should not be joined to morality and vice versa. All to often, when law is legislated by morality, it is freedom which looses out and those who believe differently who are punished. This is certainly pleasing to many, Social Justice proponents, Shariah law proponents, Fundamentalist Christians, etc. And anyone who disagrees with them becomes not just “wrong” but a criminal. Thoughts become criminalized, words become criminalized, and people become criminals simply because of who they are and what they believe. That we punish people not for the wrongs they do their neighbor, but for the crimes their neighbor feels they should be punished for.
How could a God of Law justify that?
Actually I don’t care about what you said about law and I wasn’t insulting you, I was making observations. Here’s another observation, you used to have interesting blog posts on a wide range of topics but in more recent posts you’be narrowed your focus so severely that now you repeat yourself. Your previous posts were full of interesting prose and unusual comparisons. Your latest posts sound either like street preachers prosletizing or like law professors giving a lecture in the tone of a diatribe. Hense my prior challenge.
It is interesting though that you chose to reject the challenge. It speaks to how you view yourself. Tell me, ‘and remember, this is for posterity so please be honest,’ does the idea of writing a blog about having some faith in humanity restored tamper with your sense of self? Does it alter your role as a ‘God’. Or are you just naturally opposed to acquiescing to the challenges or requests of others if it doesn’t fit your ‘lone voice in the desert’ persona.
Lucius Svartwulf Helsen said:
I didn’t reject the challenge. It might still happen. But your comment had me wanting to write the above. I write what I feel like writing. And if occasionally that has me sound like a street preacher, a law professor, or any number of things, well, it wouldn’t be the first time. Probably won’t be the last. As for repeating myself, I’ve been at this gig for over a decade. Repetitions happen, sometimes closer than others. This really isn’t the first time I’ve gone on a subject like this for multiple posts. Generally because I find it something important that needs to be stressed, not a one off comment lost in the hundreds of posts I’ve written.
And no, writing a post about “faith in humanity restored” really wouldn’t tamper with my sense of self. Finding something that actually restored some faith in humanity might make me write about “faith in humanity restored.” Unfortunately, humanity hasn’t been all that willing to co-operate lately. Especially in the non-fiction category like you insisted it come from. Because of the non-fictions books I’ve read, humanity hasn’t really put much out there to have faith in. And sure, I could find some one off articles about people helping kids with cancer, but then I can also find articles about people throwing a hissy fit about how those other people are helping kids with cancer. Faith in individual humans? Maybe. Faith in humanity as a whole, not so much. Plus, what restores faith in humanity for one person can remove it for another. #blacklivesmatter restored many people’s faith in humanity, but watching how said people have acted, going so far as to slander those who actually were part of the civil right movement, decreases my faith in humanity. #gamergate has restored some of my faith in humanity, watching millions of diverse peoples coming together to fight corruption inspires me, but to many that same movement is everything that is wrong with the world.
Which is why I tend to put my faith in Gods, not men.
And no, it doesn’t mess with my self perception or my being a “god” or any of that stuff. Nor does it do anything for my “lone voice in the dessert” thing either. It does interrupt my “lone voice in Tanaan Jungle” thing, but frankly I’m often happier with that interruption than anything. Humanity being something worth having faith in or not doesn’t really affect me personally, even in the “pre-deus” days, mostly because they were the diabolus days. Good, bad, hell even just a guy with a gun, humans have always been what they are and I’ve always been me, whatever me happens to be at the time. Nor does doing some of the challenges presented to me by my readers, those can be fun. Hel, I’ve enjoyed these. Up until it starts being a dictation of what I write, at which point my little anti-authoritarian brain starts protesting, at least unless I’m getting paid. So if you want me to write about some of the non-fictions books I’ve been reading, like “Days of Rage” (which is about the terrorism of the 70’s and 80’s done by “leftists” apparently) or “why islam needs a reformation now,” (a good idea but one that is not likely to work out well), I’ll be happy to write something when I’ve finished reading them. But what started this whole mess was my non-fictional reading of things that, arguably, were all about “faith in humanity restored.” And then answering your challenges exactly as you specified.
tl:dr version: I already gave you what you asked for the last three/four posts ago and you didn’t like it, so expecting a different result is unrealistic. But i’ll keep writing stuff and eventually there should be something you like.
I see no reason to pay you when your work is of arguably little value to me. You’re a curiosity. I neither like nor dislike what you wrote a few posts ago. Getting emotionally invested in your work would be pointless. No what interests me is your psychological evolution. How you have progressed, or perhaps regressed, in the last year. As I said prior, you went from having a broad range of topics to narrowing your focus so intensely that you’re in danger of becoming boring. What saves you is your reactivness. You eschew reflection in all but the most self pro-motive sense and you react in a marvelously diverse manner to the most inane of comments.
I have wondered and brought up in discussion with my peers that your relationship with your mother and your ex seems to have driven you into your adopted persona of a ‘God’ of Law. Interesting that it is Law and not Law & Justice/Order as most historical and even modern delusional self proclaimed ‘Gods’ have. It speaks to your lack of interest in the actions of Justice, You instead prefer the catharsis and the inactivity of the Letter of the Law. This could be either laziness or apathy on your part. I tend to lean toward Apathy.
My writing Challenges to you have been an attempt to garner new data, new reactions and perhaps as a side effect some reflection and personal growth from you. Your ‘Anti-authoritarian little brain’ (I quote) however seems to have had the same reaction you usually do if your posts are any indication. A somewhat child like response of ‘You can’t tell me what to do!’ It is only my imagination that adds the crossed arms and the petulant tone of an adolescent to the words I’m sure.
Now to my final point for this response; There are a multitude of non fiction sources for Faith in Humanity moments not least available if YouTube. With that point made here for your enjoyment (Or more likely for you to ignore) is a montage of moments.