So, am I insane that I don’t care about money, girls, materialistic things, and only want to be virtuous

So, am I insane that I don’t care about money, girls, materialistic things, and only want to be virtuous.

You sound like the man Ive been searching for my whole life.

Are you self actualized?

I feel like I’m insane because no one else behaves in this way.

I don’t know, if I am I missed the moment

lol, if that was true, you wouldn't be here, faggot.

How so?

No, just boring

Good on you if you wanna help others build, though

Absolutely not, but don't be surprised if your peers think so. We live in a world that worships the dollar. Remember that.

Not from what my friends and family say

tell me something interesting about yourself

What do you think about nature OP?

nope just means you aren't jewish. this is the natural state of man. there are higher order priorities than Central bank reserve notes and vemblen goods. How-ever if I put your life in the balance I'm not sure you would stand up to the test of virtue. The will to live typically superecedes the desire to be "good"

I don’t know. I have lived in Europe and America. I write. I read. I discuss. I love.

In what sense, physical?

none of those are intrinsically interesting

dig deeper or admit you are a perfect bore

Maybe I don’t care to dig deeper because you annoy me.

thin skinned AND boring

what a package you are

>pouring whisky like a fucking baboon
never post this gif again

You sound very wise.

I suppose I don’t care.

I'm sceptical, I reckon you pretend not to care rather than actually not care. Or you believe that without said things you still wouldn't care.

Maybe, I’m not sure where the wisdom comes from

even through text i can tell how uptight and ultimately uninteresting you are

Care and necessity are two different things

Really? I’m high as hell, and feel pretty relaxed

do you have an identity outside of 'virtuous'?

I do, because I have to function in this fucked up world but the mask deteriorates and I have to constantly throw it back on.

Depends. Are you actually being honest about that, or trying to rationalize your neuroticism and lack of spontaneity?

What does being virtuous mean to you?

It’s honest

>virtuous
Virtue is relative.

>only want to be virtuous
>is on Sup Forums

muh mask

boring and edgy

c'mon man, i'm not an antagonist. i want to see you do better

but u on Sup Forums

I don't think you are insane that anything

You're someone who's never truly been tempted by any of those things, then. If you have then you aren't honest with yourself. If you feel like you're honest with yourself, you are insane.

>Virtue is relative
virtue is not sufficiently defined. Once defined, it might be capable of objective measurement. The term isn't relative, it's vague and ambiguous

Become a politician.
There's your challenge.

People tend to say this sort of thing, while having very strong beliefs about virtue.

Virtue is completely relative.
Relative to the individual or the group.
A society won't condone murder and sanction it.
An individual can't lie and be completely truthful.
Virtue is in no instance vague.

>while having very strong beliefs about virtue
You prove my point.
I can have very strong beliefs about what virtue means to me, as your belief of virtue is completely different.

You're posting in the mos eisley of the internet. No one with true moral values cones to this shithole

According to Merriam Webster virtue can mean:

-chastity
-conformity to a moral standard
-a capacity to act
-manly strength or acts

not to mention others. In the case that OP meant conformity to a moral standard, it is still vague and ambiguous as to which moral standard OP was referring.

While I agree that I was incorrect in saying virtue wasn't relative (for some reason, in my mind, I read it as "subjective") you are equally incorrect in saying that OP was not vague in his use of "virtue."

You're a man for the new era, you won't be consumed by greed

I like to be objective I guess

No, just insane for coming on here and lying about it.

What a useless fuckface you are. Don't understand a concept, don't know much about it. It must be vague. Wrong. Try again after thinking and studying.

You might be the one lost friend.

Op is vague yes I submit as well.

Why are you arguing about me being vague?

Which does not mean he was being vague about virtuosity. At all. There is nothing vague about his statement. If virtuosity is the motivator, the construct it is directed at is not needed for a specific communication about it.

Lost how?

Because you did not define what virtue means to you.
Do you have the morals of a headhunter or of Jesus?

He was describing op's description (which is vague) as I was describing virtue as a concept (which is relative).
We were just talking about different things. Both correct.

Define? He doesn't have to define virtue. Everyone knows what it means. What you are trying to say is that OP has not named his virtues.

see
>Do you have the morals of a headhunter or of Jesus?

Why is it then that he was rambling about the meaning and the definition of virtue?

This is the argument that what OP intended to convey was not that he had a specific set of morals in mind but, rather, that when he acted he liked the act to conform to -some- set of morals.

The problem is that moral systems, especially including historical ones, are so completely varied that it makes essentially every action virtuous under this argument. That being the case, OP would have intended to convey nothing with his post. Pragmatically, this is a very unlikely scenario and thus, your argument based on semantics has a very high probability of being incorrect. More likely, OP was just vague about what system of virtue he meant to refer to, expecting that his audience would know what he meant when, in fact, they did not.

Yes. First part of that post is poor choice of words. It does not signify what is meant with the question.

I have been clean and sober from heroin for thirty days the last time I used my son Tristan's mother Alicia and I overdosed we both died but I got to come back, she had huntingtons disease and was slowly slipping away she called and said "user I can get this really premo stuff from my brother" so I came over went and got us some drinks come back into the room and shits all prepped and ready to go, how was I supposed to know she dosed us with carfentanil? I look back and now see that she didn't want to go without me and I gladly would have gone but Tristan needs me. But it's so hard without her. I hear her in his laugh, see her in his smile and he even has her eyes. I can see her and feel her jugding me I can't take this I'm on the edge barely hanging on and each day a finger slips, I'm almost out of fingers...help!

A shiite or a sunni for instance.
He was talking about op's definition, which is vague and ambiguous because it could be anything.

Define can mean to define the word itself, or to proscribe the boundaries thereof. In this context, he clearly meant OP had not proscribed the boundaries of what he considered virtue and the use of "define" is correct.

Grammarfag detected lol

The problem? How is that a problem? I can be virtuous at shitting, playing the piano, playing soccer, golfing, drinking alcphoohol, growing weed, analyzing literature, architecture, biology, morally virtuous (fairness, honesty, freedom, justice, whatever) etc...

My argument is not based on semantics. It is based on your inability to be categorically precise when precision is required.

That's right, but you wouldn't make a post labeling yourself with a word that conveys no meaning unless you believed that it did, in actuality, convey a meaning. Hence, my point that OP assumed we'd know the moral system he was referencing. Your assumption that OP made a post about being virtuous when he knew that saying that would convey nothing to us is pretty absurd- not impossible, but very unlikely.

Now, you're arguing OP was not vague, but as we can see with the evidence before us, the problem probably is a problem of vagueness, and not that OP purposefully used a meaningless word to describe himself.

yes.
and the morals of Sup Forums....
Not impressed op.

OP intended to convey more information that he did. His post was therefore vague. The fact that the statement -can- have a precise meaning does not mean that it was an effective communication of a precise thought.

Now, I've admitted that your hypothesis that OP conveyed exactly what he intended to convey is possible but it is not likely. On that I suggest that my argument that OP was vague as to virtue is the stronger argument.

He was not really asking for a definition (as indicated by him giving an obvious definition later). He was asking about which actions or capabilities are virtuous for OP.

I was. He wasn't. :)

Nope, just pretentious and annoying.
Go live with dogs, align with the world spirit.
Pray to Christ, abandon your possessions, starve yourself, become a yogi, feed the homeless, create a business, become master of your destiny, bind others to your will, become brazen, or tranquil and still in some fucking rock garden in Tibet you gargantuan fucking faggot.

Why is this argument meaningless?

No. Your definitions of definitions is irrelevant to the case. He was not asking him to describe the objects that are within “virtue“. The Objects of virtue are always capabilities to act and capabilities to think. That is the extension of it's definition.

He was vague. Just not about virtue.

About his own virtues.

Yes :). Now we could ask him. Hey OP: what are your virtues? Besides that, it is not unlikely that vietuosity is perceived by OP as a value in itself. Which would result in: it does not matter what his virtues are.

Because op is boring and doesn't participate in his own thread.

So he accepts whatever virtues he comes across?

You are assuming one definition of the word "define" when I believe the poster meant an alternate definition of that word, which I described.

The world is irrelevant like everything in from materialistic, everything is materialistic. The only relevancy is that within thyself, no laws of nature or nurture exist in the mind when set free. I myself choose to live free from everything around me except inside. There I will always be free.

>live
>free from everything around me
Life requires at a minimum food and water, which are material.
Your consciousness is also material at a quantum level but humans have yet to observe/accept this fact.

Faggot

It would be meaningless then too