Reproducing is a biological need. The ways some will satisfy that need is immoral (talking about non consensual relations).

>You mean you see no reason why you "should" or "must"?

No, I don't. When I say no reason, I mean no reason. Why are you assuming something that I didn't even say? Having a reason to believe something does not mean you should believe it, all it does is provide proof in favour of its reality or its factualness or accurateness. So, no, I'm not talking about should or must as you have decided to randomly assume.

>There is no such thing as "necessarily" since "necessity" is a myth

Yeah, that's why it isn't necessarily. I didn't say it was necessarily, I said it wasn't. What are you even talking about? Your whole response there wasn't even contrary to anything I had said.

>morality to actually factually be

How have you logically proven this at all? Morality is a word with a definition. You're just using your own definition, which is fine, but don't act like you have at all proven what morality is factually. This whole section, as I understand it, was meant to prove that morality is as you say it is:

"If you're malevolently doing harm (evil) without some benevolent prevention/undoing harm (good) to "cancel it" you're not being a moral person, you're being an immoral person"

The issue with this, however, is it isn't even an argument. It's just a conclusion. I think you misunderstand how deductive logic works. You have to provide premises that show what you're saying is right. I'm not sure how to put this more clearly, but you simply have not done that.

>The answer to the last two questions are: No one and nothing does. This is how morality and immorality have nothing to do with right and wrong or good and bad.

No, that doesn't actually logically follow. Just because "should", "right", and "wrong" do not actually exist does not mean that morality necessarily has to ascribe to something real. That's not a logically sound argument, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. All that would prove is that morality may not be talking about something real in the first place. In fact, one of the viable, actually logical conclusion from these premises is that morality is imaginary, as I have been arguing. Let me demonstrate this with deductive logic:

1. Morality is generally considered by definition (in available dictionaries), by the general populace, and by philosophers to be about "should", "right", and "wrong" (premise)
2. "Should", "right", and "wrong" are imaginary (premise)
3. Therefore, morality as it is defined and understood (by the general populace) is about imaginary things (conclusion)

This is logically sound. If you disagree, please respond in a similar manner, using a deductive argument that is organized in a similar manner (with numbered points, and labelling your premises and your conclusion) or else I'm just not going to respond. I sadly just don't have the time in the day or the patience to sift through looking for any actual deductive arguments.

Beaucoup:

If pronounced Boh-kew or Boh-koo, with a slight pause in between them, sounds like the word is being split into Beau Cou, which means beautiful neck.

If pronounced Bohkou, quickly, with no gap, comes across as Beaucoup. I gotta admit tho, I had to really think about that one, it's a very subtle difference.

(don't mean to sound condescending, I'm sure you know how to pronounce it now, you just got me interested with your comment :P)

I think it’s problematic to draw a distinct line as there are so many different levels of proficiency in language, even between native speakers. When someone says “language” it includes so much, grammar, writing, spelling, prononciation, clarity, etc. One might be good at any number of these and bad at some too. Proficiency in ones native tongue is not set too. As an adult I’ve improved my writing and even my pronunciation. I mention that as I don’t think there is a great divide between a language learned as a child and as an adult. The difference is a child can learn it all for free. We don’t have that now and must put in the work. In most cases it’s not worth perfecting a second language, it’s an accent, it’s understandable. But native proficiency is still possible, an accent’s not ok for a spy, but I don’t have 9-5 to learn a language so I will have an accent.

If you were to draw a line in the sand for knowing languages I think it have to be based on how successfully one can communicate as otherwise it’s just too subjective. I’d say use the CEFR scale and consider c1/c2 “knowing the language”

Are you saying there is a kiki/boba effect in Arabic? Like, the shape of the sounds hold a meaning that is greater than the definition of the word itself?

So is yours. Everything about what you are is way off.

Conveniently I commented on a YT Video about it today since people wanted to educate a deaf person about their language:

I find there are even few people who can speak their own mother tongue fluently. I am bilingual (english) growing up with the german school system and the internet. However, I often come across a word in both languages that has been lost in the modern world and I therefore didn't know it. I hardly know people who don't have an accent reminiscent of their mother tongue while trying to communicate in another one. Fluent means 100%. You usually only need one language to communicate with those close to you; with whom you speak on a daily basis. However, there are always exceptions as you could see in someones example. (Someone said their mom was fluent since the love of her life was deaf and that's how they communicate therefore she's fluent/"knows" it.)

Even teachers/professors who teach language every day openly admit that they do not know everything about the topic and that their not necessarily 'fluent' in any of them/ ''know'' them. As a native speaker, one simply perceives the language differently. But even as a native speaker, you don't know everything. A lot of our language got lost in history. We're losing some of the fundamentals.

Sorry for the ''rant'' - I'm stoned af and a sensitive being, but I can clearly see that I'm not alone.

To know a language starts with learning it, but I don't think humans can reach the full wisdom, no matter what they want to master. But that's the amazing thing about learning - it never stops and it never gets boring if you're fascinated by it.

I used to work at a daycare and I had a lot of bilingual kids, especially English/Chinese and some of their parents were concerned that speaking Chinese would delay their English and I was always telling them no, the kids know there’s a difference and they rarely use words from one language while using the other. It’s amazing. Some of the toddlers couldn’t tell you that they spoke two, like if you asked them what’s this in Chinese they couldn’t but by the time they were four or five they knew they understood two separate languages. It was so amazing to see them just switch when they’re parents picked them up.

Democracy is just one big game of kick that can down the road.

If you want coherent arguments, why are you reading Nietzsche?

To me, he's a concept guy. Like Will to Power. Is is it just a metaphorical concept or does it actually exist? If it exists, does it exist metaphysically or as a psychological concept? Nietszche never clarifies. Eternal recurrence is another one. There are dozens.

That said, will to power is an interesting and potentially useful concept. Which is why I think Nietzsche influenced a lot of schools of thought. He's got a shit ton of concepts that allow people to pick and choose which ones work and how to interpret them. But it's up to those others to do the heavy lifting.

You're making it sound so fun to learn. Sadly, It would probably take me twice my lifetime to even get close lol. Can you provide an example? I'm interested

In United States: you can say 'yes/no', 'please', and 'I don't understand'.

​

In the rest of the world: fluency

Signed languages aren’t using gestures. They’re complete languages with all the requirements. There’s a general lack of knowledge about signed languages, as a lot of people think it’s simple gestures or coded English (or whatever language is natively spoken in the region) which isn’t the case. I don’t know of a single sign language that perfectly maps onto a spoken language. I know this isn’t like, the point of your essay, which overall I thought was interesting, I just studied ASL and thought maybe it was interesting to tell people that.

>"My bad, I typed i.e. instead of e.g., I was just making an example."

Ah, I see.

>"I don't agree, and I see no reason to agree with you."

You mean you see no reason why you "should" or "must"? "Should" and "must" are myths. You can disagree with me about the Earth orbiting the Sun instead of the other way around but that is not participating in a philosophical conversation which I thought was what we were doing.

>"You can define evil in that way, but I see no reason why I would define evil in that way."

It's not really about defining. Definitions are just for language as, if I haven't said this already, the definition for the Sun used to include "orbits the Earth".

>"On top of that, morality isn't even necessarily about good and evil."

There is no such thing as "necessarily" since "necessity" is a myth. But to answer you; Wrong, that is what morality is. If you're malevolently doing harm without some benevolence to "balance it" you're not being a moral person, you're being an immoral person.

>"You can just as easily say it's about right and wrong, or good and bad."

No, you can't (and be correct, that is) and I just explained how that is not the case in my last post but I'll try again:

If you're malevolently doing harm (evil) without some benevolent prevention/undoing harm (good) to "cancel it" you're not being a moral person, you're being an immoral person.

This is Jack The Ripper butchering women out of sadistic serial killer joy.

It has nothing to do with right and wrong (right and wrong according to who or what?) or good and bad (good and bad for who or what?). Who or what decides if Jack the Ripper butchering women is right or wrong? Who or what decides if Jack the Ripper butchering women is a good thing or a bad thing?

The answer to the last two questions are: No one and nothing does. This is how morality and immorality have nothing to do with right and wrong or good and bad.

Let me do it again:

In the Judeo-Christian mythology, God said "Let there be light." and there was light, the first thing in the universe.

Who or what decides if God creating light (or anything else e.g. Lucifer or Adam or Eve or the apple) is right or wrong? Who or what decides if God creating light (or anything else) is a good thing or a bad thing?

Again the answer to those two questions are: No one and nothing does.

>"My main point is that you have failed to provide any conclusive proof to define morality in the way you want."

Again, definitions is about language. I'm talking about what's real and what's not. "Morally wrong" and "morally bad" do not exist.

>"This isn't semantic, because most philosophers and even just the general populace don't agree with your definition."

See my point about the Sun above.

>"Especially in philosophy, I haven't heard anyone advocate for a theory that says "morality is good and evil, which is benevolence and malevolence","

Why would I care? I'm talking to you, not them. I'm not talking to Plato or David Hume or your philosophy teacher or anybody else.

>"and yet again, I see no reason to all of sudden agree with your definition of morality"

I am not asking you to "suddenly agree" with anything I've said, we're having a conversation.

And to beat a dead horse, definitions are just about language, communication lifeform to lifeform. It doesn't change the facts e.g. that the Earth orbits the Sun and not the other way around.

>"when you've provided no good reason for me to."

I have not tried to provide a good reason for you to agree with my personal definition of morality like I'd for example try to convince you to start using the definition of "a few" as 2-4 things and the definition of "several" as 3-9 things.

What I've done is descibe what I have (with logic, as I understand the term) concluded morality to actually factually be. If you choose to simply believe (for your own reasons) that I have jumped to that conclusion, there is no "imperative" for you to do otherwise and there is no "should", you are free to simply ignore me like people ignored Galileo saying the Earth orbits the Sun.

If you (or anyone else, living or dead) believe/believed they can disprove my explanation I am happy to examine their logic just like you (or they) are free to examine mine.

Agreed. My father began studying Russian when he was in his early 50s, and got conversational (to the point his Russian friends and tutors kept insisting he was fluent, despite him not being confident enough in it to feel like he was) in just a few years. It’s ludicrous to suggest there comes an age where your brain just shuts off language acquisition forever.

Man I want the 2 minutes it took me to read this back. A bunch of nothingness spreaded over 4 paragraphs...

Philosophy major? Even then your language/meaning ratio is way off.

So much of his writing is ironic and a lot of it is playful exaggeration. His books (as a German reader) are easily some of the greatest pieces of writing in the German language. Countless philosophers, artists and writers concur. Thomas Mann would be an example. I‘m sorry but describing his writing as „deliberately boorish“ or „nasty/crude“ is irritating, if not plain wrong.

I'm bilingual but I see myself as more of a francophone and I can still ace the English C2 tests 9/10. Education is a prime factor, speaking and writing are essentially two different skills.

>I would say that economic development, higher literacy, better health outcomes, and robust human rights protections are inherently good.

I don't think most people would agree that economic development is inherently good, though.

From my point of view, it needs a bit of reframing. In the context of a discussion about politics, it can be useful to assume that the things you mentioned are inherently good, if only as an approximation. Otherwise discussions would take too long and delve into irrelevant topics; there's a practical limit there. But assuming democracy is an inherent good is a really bad approximation for many reasons.

What about people who learn more than one language at once in infancy? And I call BS on not being able to learn a new language once you're adult (that sounds like some american redneck mentality) I was raised on English and French (speak both with no foreign accent) and i've been learning spanish for almost 3 years now (I'm 27) and am now an intermediate speaker. I've traveled with it and have been able to have long discussions about alot of different things even though it wasn't perfect.

Not a single coherent argument against any of Nietzsche‘s ideas.

[deleted]

You’re not stuck with what you got in adulthood. I learned how to speak Spanish & Portuguese between the ages of 25-30

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Yeah, I think the second the term “inherent good” comes up the actual understanding of the situation becomes muddled. It moves from understanding the relationship and benefits and detriments of a systems and policies. Inherent values are arbitrary, cultural, and subjective; they obscure the subject you are attempting to understand, especially empirically.