Discuss This Thesis

Let's see if we can get intelligent discussion on here, discuss this thesis that I will be posting in many parts cause its long.

Concerning the fundamental question of what is good or bad, one finds difficulty in pinpointing any means by which to objectively claim good or bad, right and wrong. No such easy answer exists but the question of "how do we decide what is a good or bad action" remains. To help us through the process of identifying the answer we must look to ourselves. Biological beings like ourselves are born with what we shall call "the will to power", this meaning individuals seek to express their will to it fullest extent. This will being the defining characteristic of what makes an individual such. As an individual that exists is an individual that wills, this is an ingrained part of our consciousness. Observing this and in the lack of any other standards we conclude that a good action is one that aligns with our individual will to power. A bad action is one that is opposed to such. This presents a troublesome scenario in application where one might claim that such radical self interest may lead to an eternal state of war consuming all individuals. However a thought experiment placing man in his primal state may serve to address these concerns. Imagine the primal man with no hierarchy, no masters and no order they will simply act in such a way that will express their will as wholly as is possible. Yet man in this scenario will run into constraints on his will as man is not omnipotent, man possesses inherent limitations to how much we may express our will based upon our mortal form.

Say for example an individual seeks to consume bananas but the only tree in the area that has not been picked clean is a tree guarded by an individual who views the tree and its bananas as his own property, this individual being more powerful physically and more mentally capable than the individual seeking bananas. In such a scenario there is no legitimate way that this person may express their will to consume bananas and thus becomes disenfranchised from their will and thus themselves. How might one overcome such a scenario? The obvious answer is to gather other likeminded individuals, individuals who possess a similar will, in this case to eat bananas, and use the collective might formed via association with one another to take them from the individual guarding the remaining fruit bearing tree.

Through this collective might generated all individuals involved have achieved greater expression of their will than possible without this said consensual collectivization. As this set of actions is repeated individuals will soon realize that their interest and their will is best represented from a standpoint of collective might standing with those who seek common goals. These individuals will seek to make these associations more permanent institutions so as to achieve maximal will expression for the maximal amount of time. These long standing associations likely manifested themselves as simple hunter gatherer tribes who’s purpose is to increase the chance of survival in an elsewise bleak world. Over time however as individuals associate with one another culture develops within groups, standards of what is “normal” and “common sense” generate via social interaction. As culture develops between individuals so do the reasons individuals associate with each other, these changing reasons of association bring rise to the various forms of the state observed through history, currently manifesting themselves in our modern nation-state system.

Now that we have gotten to this point where it has been concluded that voluntary association with other individuals in formation of a “state” is the best means to achieve one’s will, we must ask what is the idealized state? The answer to this is simple, the ideal state, that we will refer to as a “Just State” is one that is not only fully willing but fully capable of representing the entirety of the wills of all individuals involved in the association making the state. The antithesis of this being an Unjust State, failing in either its ability or will to achieve full will expression of those it represents. This meaning a Just State effectively achieves through its collective might what an individual cannot obtain alone but wishes ever so to obtain, omnipotence. In the Just State if there is any will held by an individual it may be instantaneously and fully achieved by the power of the state. Leading off from this it must be stated that the idea of the Just State is simply that, an idea. In application one would be hardpressed to find such a large and expansive group of individuals who’s interests are so closely intertwined.

So what is left of this idea, has this thought experiment ended in just a lofty idea with no useful applications? To the contrary it may be asserted this this thought experiment has given the individual a goal to strive towards in how one ought to live their life so as to maximally express their will. One should seek in their political environment to maximize the conditions used to describe the Just State. Individuals should seek to be a part of a community that is not only reflective of their own will to the highest order possible but one that is also mighty enough to achieve this common will. But what of the individual some might ask? Will the individual not be caught up in the cogs of the machine that is the state and in the process, lose their individuality and thus their will, whose expression was the reason behind the formation of the state? One willing to cast such a critique must realize that association with one’s state and one’s community is consensual. The mere moment that an individuals will is being trampled upon by the state more than it is being expressed through the state is the moment removal of one’s self from the state and if that is not possible insurrection of the state shall begin. An individual is not obligated to anything other than their own will, no institution, no organization, no association shall be held higher than the individuals will. An Unjust State deemed unbearably so by an individual being governed by such an association serves no interest to individual of dissenting wills and shall be distanced from oneself as greatly as possible.

Report for rule violation.

...

inb4 no replies cause the brainlets of Sup Forums are predictably dumb

>wow I just posted 17 gigawords of text and no one has replied in the requisite 5 second period for me to think them my equal. Sup Forums must be nothing but brainlets
fuck off user

...

>self bumps

You cant self bump 2 times in a row

>tripfag is a pseud
imagine my shock

I hope you saged user, for the good of the board

>im a brainlet who cant do anything but post holocaust denial and bbc memes

Rly maeks u thunk

...

And then you have

The Leaf

Who is also a brainlet

My brainlet hypothesis is very accurate thusfar

>w-wow, my theory is so amazing! look, it is confirmed by one whole data point! see, I'm smart, right?

100% of the data favors me

Negate this

not gonna

I can only speak for myself because I underetand myself. My will is clearly defied, however I chose to implement it when it is neccesary and productive. I do not confuse the will with choice.

What I consider bad or good, justice, justice can be cruel and still be useful thus not bad. And we humans do know what is good and bad, ee should never do anything to others that we would not like done to us if we were in their shoes.

When say a dictator orders a wrong be done for no reason and would not want that wrong to be done u to him then it is bad.

A dictator orders a bad thing to be done to someone that can, has or can do wrong to another and even worse others than it is justice!

Justice can be blind to good or bad it is not for the faint of heart, anything that is not dished as deserved is not justice anyway.

Good is also to only do good unto others if they welcome it, and if they dont and have done no wrong or can do no wrong let them be. By wrong I mean i tended or unintended damage, unfortenetly great damage can be done even if the i tent is not direct!

Good can also be bad.

We souls must consider both, we must seek to understand both and always be balances so we can prosper and ensure knowledge and prosperity.

If we live ignorat to wther one they can swiftly destry us we will not recognize it in time.

So both are neccesary, choce and logic made the diference because it intices correct activatio of villing it be and makes things tangable and produces outcomes and consecuence.

So think what you will, but chose what you will to be and do!

Sounds like you are subverted to the will of others and thus alienated and disenfranchized from the one thing that makes you who you are, that being your will.

There is no reason to be accountable to any will other than your own.

Is their a Tldr i can't read your communist fanfiction