Fenrir

Your consistency is incredible. Alright, I'll take my leave too.

But how wicked is an album like this? :D

Here, this scares me instead. Absolute perfection? Values given by birth? But which ones? To whom? Do you mean instinct, which has nothing to do with "values"? Or what is reason, the results of which are certainly not inherent but the result of observation (of oneself and the world) and processing. I agree, as I stated in the first intervention, that restriction is necessary for social coexistence, but personal laws do not exist, only the possibility of choice (the choice to do or not do something). As for polygamy, you did not grasp the argument. Saying that the family (implicitly monogamy) is a human value inherent to human nature because it is Good, and saying that instinctively man is polygamous, only means that family is an institution built over time with the development of certain cultures (which today are predominant), but it does not mean that one or the other is Good or Evil, right or wrong. If man is naturally polygamous, what should stop him from choosing to be monogamous and to set up a "traditional" family? Nothing. Because it is a choice born from his own reasoning. Instead, go tell some religious person or moralist, who is careful not to admit that perhaps the so-called inherent values they know, strangely, do not exist or at least that he does not know them, that polygamy is a natural state just like monogamy. I believe he won't say, "you've made your reflection and that's fine." Be careful when talking about natural values. You don't have them. I don't have them. No one has them. Because they don't exist. Nothing can lead to perfection; one can only be aware and content with one’s choices.

Oh, but my idea has little to do with the single thought or the predefined laws set by who knows who, which scare me too. The values, as you define them, are a starting point, not an end point. And ethics is something too subjective, and as such it must be subject to critique and discussion. Confrontation is probably the most interesting and necessary thing to develop one's ideas. And that's why we're discussing it :)

You don't understand. I wasn't talking about imposition or the common good. I agree with you that good is a nonsensical concept, just as evil is, and I agree with you if you say that the only "right/wrong" stems from individual thought and is very personal. What I was trying to express is the necessity of establishing some rules regarding certain aspects of common (social) life, thereby limiting our freedom of action (Kant's latest example, however childish, gets the idea across). However, this must not absolutely limit our intellectual or spiritual freedom in any way. As for innate concepts about human values, I agree that no one has the right to argue against them. Finally: whether monogamy is useful for social order is still to be seen.

Beautiful speech on Taoism, you intrigued me, thank you :)

@Stoney: you will agree, however, that in a social system "restriction" is necessary, as limiting freedom is fundamental to prevent one individual from prevailing over another. Therefore, as "right or wrong" is absolutely relative, by convention we separate what is dangerous for the common system from what is not (not necessarily succeeding in doing so). However, this is mooooolto far from defining what is good and what is not; no religion or ethics can hold.

Enemy of God is, in its own way, a masterpiece. We will see this.

Never heard from you. Thank you for the notification.

I’m back after more than a month to check the site, and the first thing I see is your review. I have to say, it’s perfect.