Post by Nexet on Dec 2, 2014 2:59:40 GMT -5
It took me a while to do, but I made a video and uploaded it.
Video:
New Destructivism (as I dubbed it):
Well...what are your thoughts? Feel free to comment on any aspect of my presentation.
Video:
New Destructivism (as I dubbed it):
For centuries people have debated on the controversy of philosophical topics such as religion and morality. When one of these topics are introduced in a philosophical debate, both the advocate and defendant are immediately thrown into a position where they must judge what is best for society as if they had the almighty power to tip the scales one way or the other. The fact of the matter is that we as individuals are inherently powerless if we are in a society where people don’t support our individual convictions. If you don’t express a view that is pleasing to the majority you likely will be ridiculed and possibly deemed to be evil. Given this insight into how society treats people who hold ideals that don’t accommodate the majority, I must ask the question, “Why do we even try?” Why attempt a social reform when the consequence of doing so, in the scenario of you presenting something that does not reach consensus, is ostracism? The chances of an ideal triggering a social revolution is just about the same as an individual winning the mega millions. It is quintessentially a gamble in between a chance to change the world as you know it and a chance to destroy your place within society. With this in mind, it is more beneficial for an individual to conceal their actual convictions, views, and judgement from the masses, only showcasing what are intuitively known to be socially acceptable judgement.
New Destructivism is a school of thought created as an outline of my own philosophy. Ironically, it would be destructive for myself and society if the preponderance of people were to adjust their views according to the ideals I present here. Furthermore, the debut of this philosophical standpoint is not to insinuate an argument for the way people should think, but rather to outline and consolidate the process in which I, personally, evaluate value-based judgement.
In this school of thought, what others deem to be right and wrong are of little importance to the individual. The individual masquerades behind a pretense that allows them to adapt to societal norms and different social settings, in accordance with the idea that different cultures have different moral codes. This is what it means to have Surface Views. Surface Views are perspectives that are only constructed to provide awareness of what the majority believes and why, thereby giving the individual the ability to blend in with the social environment. The construct of Surface Views as a whole only inversely reflect upon what an individual truly believes. What is right and wrong to that individual is significant insofar as the situation permits it. The Individual of this school of thought is advised to suspend their personal convictions in the face of a situation in which the cost of substituting one’s personal beliefs or Interior Views are pale in comparison to the benefits gained by doing so.
Therefore, the individual opts to adjust his or her ethical outlook to the circumstances, according to whether the individual intuitively is convinced that by putting on a facade they can yield a desired consequence. Social reforms are but a group of men and women foolishly attempting to move a van, already progressing toward ruin, more quickly into oblivion. They barbarically push and shove only to realize that at every checkpoint, they are dissatisfied with another aspect of their positioning. I refuse to participate in the political holy grail war we humans of the western civilization are so obsessed with.
New Destructivism is a school of thought created as an outline of my own philosophy. Ironically, it would be destructive for myself and society if the preponderance of people were to adjust their views according to the ideals I present here. Furthermore, the debut of this philosophical standpoint is not to insinuate an argument for the way people should think, but rather to outline and consolidate the process in which I, personally, evaluate value-based judgement.
In this school of thought, what others deem to be right and wrong are of little importance to the individual. The individual masquerades behind a pretense that allows them to adapt to societal norms and different social settings, in accordance with the idea that different cultures have different moral codes. This is what it means to have Surface Views. Surface Views are perspectives that are only constructed to provide awareness of what the majority believes and why, thereby giving the individual the ability to blend in with the social environment. The construct of Surface Views as a whole only inversely reflect upon what an individual truly believes. What is right and wrong to that individual is significant insofar as the situation permits it. The Individual of this school of thought is advised to suspend their personal convictions in the face of a situation in which the cost of substituting one’s personal beliefs or Interior Views are pale in comparison to the benefits gained by doing so.
Therefore, the individual opts to adjust his or her ethical outlook to the circumstances, according to whether the individual intuitively is convinced that by putting on a facade they can yield a desired consequence. Social reforms are but a group of men and women foolishly attempting to move a van, already progressing toward ruin, more quickly into oblivion. They barbarically push and shove only to realize that at every checkpoint, they are dissatisfied with another aspect of their positioning. I refuse to participate in the political holy grail war we humans of the western civilization are so obsessed with.
Well...what are your thoughts? Feel free to comment on any aspect of my presentation.