Yes, it is sometimes burdensome to have things like moral principles, lines that you won’t cross, duties to one’s fellow man, etc.

Atheists are indeed gloriously free of such things, and of truth too. It is not heavy in the void of nihilism.
Of course, as Kant once noted, the soaring bird thinks that it is the air that holds it back from flying even more freely and that if only it could fly above the air, it would be truly free — only to find that, in the void of space, it flaps its wings in vain, having no air.
You can if you wish describe freedom from morality as “freedom from a burden” — one could also correctly call it “psychopathy as an ideal.” One could describe freed from truth as a “liberation” (the postmoderns do) — one could also call it madness.

Good luck with such “freedom."

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن

Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EveKeneinan

12 Sep
You seem to believe several false things, e.g.

∙ Allowing men to appropriate the status of women is good for women.
∙ Allowing women to murder their children is good for women.
∙ Socializing women to imitate men is good for women.
The reason we “do a 180˚” on “other women’s issues” is because you are 180˚ wrong on those also.

Conservatives care much more about women than feminists. We care about real women. Feminist care about abstractions which they are happy to harm real women over.
Feminists “care about women” is just the same way communists “care about workers” — they wouldn’t mind murdering them by the hundreds of millions in order to “smash Patriarchy” — which of course is the name for anti-natural imaginary utopian state.
Read 5 tweets
6 Sep
So Dianna E. Anderson (whoever that is), is going to whitesplain to other "ignorant whites" (nevermind that others might have this question "Why can't you be transracial if you can be transgender?"

It's not an OBVIOUS matter.

Let's see how she does.
First, if you want some orientation, you can watch @BenjaminABoyce's video on this thread:

You can also have a look at philosopher Rebecca Tuvel's infamous "In Defense of Transracialism."… (Excerpt below).
Tuvel's case is straightforward: almost all arguments that justify transgenderism seem to also justify transracialism, so, since we accept transgenderism, we should accept transracialism.

That we do not is irrational, and must be a prejudice.

Let's see if Dianna can sort it.
Read 65 tweets
22 Aug
And to state the obvious, this is totally incoherent.

Which is why that poor young novice philosophy professor, meaning well, got so savagely attacked for making the rather compelling case that every argument for transgenderism can work for transracialism.
The “white people cannot be black because they haven’t grown up having the black experience” argument is supposed to WORK for race. But if you say “men cannot become women because they haven’t grown up having women’s experience under Patriarchy” … you’re a hateful, bigoted TERF.
But they are, of course, the same argument: “Person P who is A cannot become B where A and B are socially constructed roles, if P has not had the full lived experience of being (assigned as) B from the beginning."
Read 10 tweets
9 Aug
Yes, in the academic community, where precise and cogent definitions MATTER.
Here’s how it would go in philosophy:

A: “I lack a belief in God.”
B: “Do you mean you hold there is no God or that you suspend judgment? That statement doesn’t differentiate.”
A: *picks one*
If A holds that God does not exist, then A would be expected to present his reasoned justification.

If A has suspended judgment, then A would be expected to present his reasoned justification for THAT.

No one has ever sufficiently justified EITHER position.
Read 10 tweets
3 Aug
Same thing I did:

1 Learn from Nietzsche and Heidegger to that Plato and Aristotle need to be taken with deadly seriousness

2 Learn from Plato and Aristotle that they are fundamentally sounder than Nietzsche or Heidegger.

Nietzsche and Heidegger are near the leve
Nietzsche and Heidegger are great philosophers, at or near the level of Plato and Aristotle. But they are fundamentally mistaken in ways Plato and Aristotle are not. Their mistakes are, at any rate, more CATASTROPHIC, and ultimately threaten dissolution into a Heracleitean flux.
διὸ δὴ καὶ τότ᾽ ἤδη θεὸς ὁ κοσμήσας αὐτόν, καθορῶν ἐν ἀπορίαις ὄντα, κηδόμενος ἵνα μὴ χειμασθεὶς ὑπὸ ταραχῆς διαλυθεὶς εἰς τὸν τῆς ἀνομοιότητος ἄπειρον ὄντα πόντον δύῃ,
Read 5 tweets
10 Jul
Let’s talk about moral relativism, by way of philosopher James Rachels.
Point 1: The main argument FOR moral relativism, and usually the ONLY argument for moral relativism, is INVALID and therefore FAILS.

Rachels calls this the “cultural differences argument.”

It tries to infer for differences in beliefs about morals to moral relativism.
Rachels sets out a few modus tollens arguments to show that it is very unlikely that moral relativism is or could be true. I’ll give four, but these could be multiplied fairly easily.
Read 28 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!