• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans





Photo
- - - - -

Cultural Relativism

Posted by Darkly Origins , 26 December 2014 · 1,319 views

psychoanalysis sociology social norms cultural relativism relativity the human brain darkly origins
Cultural Relativism; naturalistic modes of planetary existence; metaphysical and evolutionary arguments against homosexuality; Drug use, contraceptive use, the killing of animals, and subjectivism.

The argument used in the book titled: “The Elements of Moral Philosophy,” are void because they lack appropriated logic.
To begin, I’ll exemplify; contrary to “Chapter II, pg. 47, in The Elements of Moral Philosophy textbook,” naturalistic standards do apply to all that which exists, and does not support the twisted idea of non-naturalistic, and/or counterproductive evolutionary modes of measures. Homosexuality, in essence – is wrong in the metaphysical, and by evolutionary standards.


Evolutionary: The act of having homosexual versus the traditionalized and non-mechanized norm’ of heterosexual – sexual encounters, and eventuated intercourse is by evolutionary reasoning (as pertains, is theoretical, such as, and as like creation – additionally, both are in essence subjectively held ideals, and theoretical from a scientific viewpoint at best as such, represents what theory means – to theorize, but leave any said theory stagnate, due to, and because of a lack thereof application of that given theory; as nothing is absolute in retrospect), - continued; is by evolutionary reasoning backwards. Further elaboration – it is evolutionary reversed because it is counterproductive in ethical ideology, and is also naturally contradictory to forwarded production.

In the sense of procreation, and giving life as per would be naturalistic in evolutionary aspect – furthering your own inherited genes, and expanding your genetic pool – behest the bearing of children to carry your genes, and pass them on further – as evolution instilled, the idea to continue procreation so that life may continue, in every aspect’.

We need not discuss why evolution works the way it does, because it does not pertain to this very objective idea. As is insignificant to understand our purpose in truth – in evolutionary retrospect, irregardless of how we feel, or what motivates one to do as they will in life, matter not – because evolution does not stop for anyone, or anything; it will continue to prosper, with or without you – homosexuality isn’t a threat to evolution’s expansion, but it is contrary and backwards in methodological, and naturalistic perspective.
As pg. 47 states, it’s a broken, and invalidated argument, to say – “homosexuality defies the natural laws of nature, and/or of God.” However, the truth has peaked – and will be heard; we are evolving in regards to the senses, and in the physical; therefore, as essentially apparent – our ways of completing tasks, and of doing things on a daily basis – such as “snapping one’s finger,” is merely an evolutionary step forward, albeit – currently stagnating from a humanistic, or conceptual point of view – because our lifespans are so incredibly short – in the sense, or essence of the “atomic clock,” astronomical and evolutionary progression – as history shows us, evolution happens, but the evolving species don’t necessarily see it happen – as it does happen.

Evolution, in idea; needs time to occur, why if you ask – is meaningless, as that would be a senseless question – we may have an idea on how life began – (cited; big bang); but because we weren’t there, we need not ask the questions such as ‘why’, or ‘how’, as it is behind us – linearly speaking, above us, intellectually thinking, and in eccentric mannerism – beyond our comprehension; so it is now – apparently obvious for one to understand why the questions “how, and why,” are senselessly useless. They are a waste of your breath, of your effort – and of your finite life.


Take ye also into consideration, – that creation is thereby a validated idea, because as evolution, and the big bang – we haven’t seen the beginning – we weren’t there for the precipice of the beginning of life; hence we cannot say that trees, mammals or humans are inherit proof of either evolution, or creation; as that is an unknown – and that is the only concrete, and perfectly implied, or inherited absolute; we did not witness life’s beginning precipice’, therein – and thereof we haven’t the inherited, or authoritarian right to say creation is invalid and void of reason, (albeit, humanistic in thought), and we haven’t the right to dictate on if evolution, like creation – is invalid and voided totally of reason.

We have only perpetuated an inappropriate, and even inaccurate – estimation(s) on what we deem to be true; as I feel the only way we should dictate on the manners, and ideals in regards to existence – and how our indifference in thought towards subjectively held ideas on what is moral, and what is not moral should be deemed infeasible, lest we anew a concluding factorization for a moral basis.
However – given a mode of a median; makes one idea more plausible – due, or behest of the societal norm, or popular vote – with every individual’s thought, we could anew our (currently, broken) and distorted views on existence, and life’s origins; and with those votes – we would collectively apply a concluding idea for what is moral, and what is immoral, by applying an institutional reason for the said mode of a median, for which would be accurately stratified, and appropriately supported, for what the majority feels is most relevant, sensible, and/or plausible, as accordingly related to a collectively and subjectively held idea on what’s societally normalized and objectified as moral, and immoral.
As truth would have it, there’s no evidence to the contrarily assumed modes of reasoning – creation or evolution; either way – we know not which it is, absolutely. Moreover; and likewise, there are only absolutes in a subjectively appealed, and conceived notion of a now, and then idealized, (albeit, subjectively) notion of objective path, or patterning of possibility; we cannot say from an objective perspective – that either idea is plausible, and that either idea is that of a logical fallacy; it’s merely the collectiveness of any, and every individual – in which thinks, and feels in a subjective manner – to what, where, why and how existence has occurred in any form or motion.


In exemplified summarization of the concurrently applied ideas of normalization, of possibility, of ideological essence, and subjective ‘objectifying’, all is relative at best; naturalistic relativism. Without a popular vote of some sort, there is no cultural relation between individual thought patterns, and relativism as a whole. Likewise, in that same application of my own conceived notion of reason – my own, and inferred mode thereof, and therein ‘critical thinking’, there cannot by any standard – irregardless of our scientific forwarding, advancement in thought, intellectual approach, and subjective ‘objectifying’, be a subjectively ‘objectified’ absolute. One cannot dictate with certainty a concrete, and therein – verifiable conclusion for life’s purpose, reasoning, patterning of possibility, truth, origin of thought, nor as to why, how, and when that beginning precipice of life began.


Metaphysically: The practicality of influence; from my perspective, it appears psychophysiological drugs, (in which, are increasingly being newly founded, created and manufactured for thousands of mental diseases), are the problematic and founding factor for which I would personally, accredit for seemingly removing peoples senses of accountability, and/or responsibility.
Exemplification: psychotherapists’ citation needed’, are currently attempting to make ‘pedophilia’ a mental disease, in which can be treated medicinally; the problem is, from how I perceive it – the idea that any given dose of medication (that isn’t a serotonin inhibitor or ‘sedative’) can control such an individual’s impulses, twisted temptations, and then – the idea of trusting such an individual to take their (perpetually, inefficient) medications in which (idealistically) inhibit such impulses; but even then – is that not unethical, in retrospect?



To imply such actions committed by the individual, (albeit, heinous ones), are merely that of mental deficiency, and/or psychopathic illness – in which can be medicated, and then, alas – the perpetrating individual is not responsible for committing previous crimes, solely based upon the reasoning that the (choice, to commit a terrible crime) is something that was, and is involuntary in essence; as would pertain, because it’s just an illness – and a perpetually treatable one; henceforth, my idea on why medications are counterproductive in many cases, and then – are only adding to the negative aspectual spectrum of that ideological plane, to, and of a depraved person – removing that sense of accountability from such a person. I believe this issue to be morally reprehensible.


I don’t believe the legalization of gay marriage is doing much to our culture, only because I feel this nation has long since lost any sense of cultural integrity or moralistic application. Likewise; this is a young nation, in which is dying, democracy has failed, because the people have failed to commit themselves to ethical reasoning, to moral decency, to just and appropriated living, to being empathetic for one another, and for failing to uphold any values for the sake of our future – our children, collectively.

To think of it; videography has brought us nothing but that of a means to waste time, and desensitize persons, (especially – youth). Moreover, the distinction must be made – exemplary; a liquor store is on a corner of a busy city block, and then – an arms, and munitions store is only but a block away…within this failing country, we are condoning everything, without an exception for pedophilia, murder, rape, incestuous sexual encounters, homosexuality, drug use, alcohol consumption, driving while intoxicated, while texting, etc., as well – we’re seemingly accepting of meat-eating, enslavement, human trafficking, the voluntary destruction of nature, theft, contraceptive use, the lack of empathetic thinking for our children – smoking around them, drinking around them, using profane language in their presence, etc., and the worst of it all – is our inability to deal with confrontation and relativism making; our depraved indifference will be our perpetuated undoing.


All of that which was stated is not by some subjective measure – immoral, but by an objective manner – they are wrong, as accordingly to the conceded ideological elements of religion, and evolution. The condoning, and acceptance of all that which is listed is contradictory to religion and evolution both – in a collective measure, human beings are not the persons in whom should be trying to fix things – as with every attempt we make at bettering our societies, we further demean naturalistic existence, and further render our own (very, futile) attempts at forwarding our societies.


With every passing moment we spend idle, we further plunge ourselves deeper into the (metaphorical) depths of non-existence. With every enacted and volatilely based enablement and exhorted effort(s) at expansion in the humanistic – we further prove ourselves to be counterproductive, and backwards in methodology. It’s as if; we’re a reversed paradigm, violently reverberating our ineptitude and transgression, if only to repeat our historical failures.

If we, as a collective and humane whole, wish to further ourselves in social, ethical, intellectual, metaphysical and evolutionary happenings, we must first stagnate, momentarily; and then realize the coldness of progress is real, and is encircling us; we must better ourselves on a subjective level, by redefining our ideals of morality, by evolving spiritually, and becoming newly-manifested shadows of our pale past, we must educate ourselves further by reading, and heeding the works and collective wisdom of one another, in order to further progress intellectually; and we must instill into our children momentous clarity and glory – but refrain from instilling into their minds our flaws and various fallacies; to become better as a whole – we must conform to our peers, and be intelligible in approach, and respectable in conversation; we must as a collectively accumulated product of naturalistic and physically productized essence, reinstate inane integrity, and embody our very beings – our senses of consciousness, into a drowning pool filled with vain repercussion(s) and uncertainty.

For a collectively satisfactory conclusion, we must adhere to a common-ground among societal normality, for the sole purpose of a shared, and objectified – ideological principal, - to create our first humanly shared absolute.

Thereby concluding, the thesis; opposition to either spiritualism (in religion), or secularism (in anti-theism) is contradictory to human forwarding and expansion, and is anti-intellectual in aspectual context.



All Rights Reserved; 2011-2015; copyright protected:


(T3T Innovations); Jacob A. Eder; Darkly Origins/Eerie Flickering;





I find your logic quite interesting. Being homosexual, and spiritual, how "I" fit into the cosmos is well-considered by your thoughts. I look for more discourse between us. You are brilliant beyond the norm. I can learn a lot from you.

 

Many blessing,

Michael


Trackbacks for this entry [ Trackback URL ]

There are no Trackbacks for this entry

MyBlogLog

August 2019

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18 192021222324
25262728293031

Twitter

0 user(s) viewing

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Search My Blog

Latest Visitors

  • Photo
    mhillgizmo
    07 Jul 2019 - 19:41
  • Photo
    bobolander
    10 Jul 2018 - 00:09
  • Photo
    ketogeniclongevity
    29 Oct 2017 - 16:45
  • Photo
    nmckeehan
    01 Feb 2017 - 20:03
  • Photo
    j l grace
    15 Jan 2017 - 22:49

Google Shared Items

Digg