Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Rehhagel

    Suicide Note

    The thing is, it is like there are two me's. One is the subconcious that is demonic and the other the conscious that is ok. I don't want to die, the problem is that sometimes the other me takes over and wants to kill me. It may sound weird but that is how I see it. I only posted to wonder if anyone else had this problem and if so what it was and how they dealt with it. I don't want sympathy or attention, I just want to get rid of it. I don't like talking to people about my problems because I don't want to get them down, I won't phone the samaritans, as far as I know they aren't professionals in the field of mental illness and won't diagnose over the phone and provide a solution over the phone. It may be a mix of anxiety, depression and something else, I don't know what. Amongst the many problems, the major one is that my gf has leukemia and other equally massive problems, there is nothing I can do, nor anyone else, so it is difficult to deal with. Maybe what is happening is like in the film Me Myself and Irene, I don't talk about my problems, bottle it up inside and another personality is created because of it. I am losing my mind because I sometimes am not in control of it, something takes over. Anyway I must go
  2. Rehhagel

    Suicide Note

    I wonder if anyone else has experienced this phenomenon. You are sitting there, or laying there, and suddenly you begin, in your mind, writing a suicide note that you will leave behind. You are not fully aware what you are doing but as soon as you realise you stop yourself immediately. It's like you've been taken over by your subconscious. This past week or two I've been doing it, like I used to do it 7-8 years ago, only then it led to something. I need a brain transplant, I'm losing my mind, I seriously think I am. This is not the black dog, it's the black elephant. Anyway, whoever has had it, did you get yourself checked out? what was it? how do you stop it?
  3. He is a magician, which means he didn't really hold his breath for 17 minutes, cannot levitate, cannot...I wish that I could hold you now, be with you somehow
  5. In order to know what evil is you have to know about morality. What is morality?, what is it for? what does it apply to? do you as a person need it? why do you need it? how is it distinguished from other human knowledge (for instance, to understand that an apple falls does not require morality, to understand that two people can talk does not require morality) what is the difference? None of these questions have been answered, if they have it has only been in a collectivist way, by looking at how morality works in society rather than how it applies to man, A SINGLE MAN.
  6. The example I gave was pretty awful actually, because a lot of things were omitted and so Haswell replied in a manner that conveyed to me that he did not understand my point. Which is understandable considering my example was bad and so too my explanation. You can't really ask a question like the above, "in itself" because all knowledge is interconnected and based on some context, but I suppose you ask because my example was useless as it did not have a context. For instance, if we have the context that the farmer had an accident, a boulder fell on him and crushed his leg, leaving the only option of sawing it off in to order to get away and get help, to survive, then it would be the moral thing to do. This itself rests on certain facts, that the farmer wants to live. If he wants to live then it is right that he saw his leg off. In fact this type of incident has occurred, I saw it on a documentary some years ago. It would not be the right thing to do if his ankle was trapped, he could just saw his foot off. The problem with these examples is that they hardly ever occur, but it was just used to explain something. The problem I have is understanding everyone else here. Every action a man takes always has consequences for himself, it promotes his values/interests/goals/life or works against them. Sometimes in addition to this there are consequences involving other people, it harms their values/interests/goals/life. Why bar morality from the first and apply it only to the second, since the second depends upon the first and includes all of the first? I have written a reply to some posts here many times and deleted it, not knowing how best to express myself in a way that can be understood. Now I have a huge headache.
  7. "I'd say if there are genuinely no reprecussions for other people then it's not immoral" Then what is it? amoral I guess?
  8. Do they ever highlight cases when policemen shoot a woman, and proceed to accuse them of sexism? or killing disabled men and accuse them of anti-disablity? or Christian policemen killing muslims and accuse them of Islamaphobia? it would be great if they did, we need to see something different, race has had its centre stage. I vote for sexism to be highlighted.
  9. I tried to choose a crazy example that did not involve others, just to make it clear, and you managed to bring other people in, IN ORDER to evaluate the morality of his action. So you once again cannot conceive of judging an action as good or bad if there are no other people affected by that action, and has harmful consquences for the person initiating that action. So his guide is, I'll do whatever the hell I want, heck I'll saw my leg off just for fun, I just better hope I don't meet anyone as then morality will get involved.
  10. I couldn't and didn't. I said "divorcing actions from morality THAT HAVE HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES FOR THE SELF" For example, actions taken that do not affect other people, such as taking a drug. Let's just say you're a farmer in a field in the middle of nowhere, and, whilest driving your tractor you decide to take some heroin. Good or bad? well, if morality is only a social thing, then the only answer is "ugh, there are no other people around so it's outside morality"
  11. Well, everyone here equates morality with actions that affect other people. If an action affects another person in a harmful way then it is considered bad. But if you divorce actions from morality that have harmful consequences for the self, then what is that subject? or can you just not conceive of an idea of actions that affect primarily/only the individual that takes the action and the affects it has on him alone?
  12. "A modern human is a result if a community based evolved species no matter how an individual lives." I have no idea what this means or how it negates the fact that man needs morality whether he lives amongst people or alone.
  13. So actions are good in themselves, intrinsically. So they are dogmatic absolutes right, and apply at all times? man merely has to perceive this somehow, not conceive it by use of concepts and looking at reality. So don't lie is an intrinsic good, why? the intrinsic says, it just is, it's self evident, can't be proved by reason, you just have to see it, know it. That man should act with no incentive to act is absurd. A man comes to your house with a gun, he says he wants to kill your daughter, he asks "what room is she in?", BlueStar would say, up the stairs first door on the left mate. Lying is always wrong and I shall not benefit from acting morally.
  14. Hypocricy doesn't negate your morality. What does the bible say about abortion? the commandment "thou shall not kill".
  • Create New...