She cites Nietzsche:

• Conscience is a force found now employed by state organizers.
• Humans become the material on which this force acts.
• This self-imposed suffering can lead to strange new forms of beauty and affirmation.

One should guard against thinking lightly of [the bad conscience] merely on account of its initial painfulness and ugliness. For fundamentally it is the same active force that is at work on a grander scale in those artists of violence and organizers who build states . . . only here the material upon which the form-giving and ravishing nature of this force vents itself is man himself, his whole ancient animal self . . . This secret self-ravishment, this artists’ cruelty, this delight in imposing a form upon oneself as a hard, recalcitrant, suffering material and of burning in a will… as the womb of all ideal and imaginative phenomena, also brought to light an abundance of strange new beauty and affirmation. – Nietzsche

Nietzsche according to Korsgaard 1996, 1

Some Quotes:

“It is the most striking fact about human life that we have values” (Korsgaard 1996, 1).

“Human life is defined by our values, urging us to imagine a better world and ourselves within it. Yet, where do these ideals come from? They surpass our experiences, compelling us to strive for improvement. It’s intriguing that we’re drawn to visions of a different reality, urging us to make it a reality” (see Korsgaard 1996, 1).

“In “Phaedo,” the author questions why we perceive two sticks as “not exactly equal.” Instead of merely observing them side by side, we attribute to them an intention to achieve a higher pattern of equality. This implies that the concept of equality exists within our minds as a pattern or form, echoing Plato’s theory of Forms” (Korsgaard 1996, 2):

“We see them as if they had in mind a pattern that they were trying to emulate, a pattern of equality that was calling out to them and saying ‘be like me!’ […] we must have known them in another world” (Korsgaard 1996, 2)

A Revolution as: ” Plato and Aristotle came to believe that value was more real than
experienced fact, indeed that the real world is, in a way, value itself” (Korsgaard 1996, 2)

My friend took a pause from doing nothing. Why is it so difficult to get people on board to do something together?

“What are double standards? Is engaging in public debate worthwhile, or should we cultivate discussion environments that encourage alignment with truth? What exactly constitutes truth? Is it motivated by the desire to be right? How can societal norms and truth come into harmony? Can relying solely on coherent rationality provide us with an understanding of what is morally good?”

She got a piece from the humble-pie

Formal Part, an analysis of Baghramian, passage where she talks about the unconnected history of analytic philosphy and how it is providing a semantic notion of relativism.

Abstract: We live in

As humans, we have the reflective capabilities to distance ourselves from the community views. As I would like to express it, we can adopt a stance of being open for truth that has not arrived yet and may not arrive. In other words, we live in the possibility of truth. I regard this as a relativist stance and which I would also attribute to Hegel.

Practices are not necessarily arranged with regard to how things really are, but according to how we take things to be in an experiential, historical process.

It is important to remark that in this process nobody denies that reality has somewhat an influence on us. The difficulty lies in the question to explain what reality exactly is and how to qualify they extent it has on us.

Putnam’s Ideas

The idea that we are brains in a vat is an extreme thought scenario.

Relativism of Belief

Philosophy on its destructive side aims at destroying all our beliefs. A task for which many are not ready.

The theist believes in a God or Gods, the atheist believes that there is no God. The agnostic often believes that the answer is unknown and possibly unknowable. However, there may be a fourth possibility: it may be knowable but not yet known.

A relativist position works differently: instead of dismissing the question as unknowable and therefore unimportant, it can accept that the question itself is important and probably speaks to the deepest nature of us. The religious form of a human being is its openness for the question so that if he encounters truth one day he can accept it.

Problems–a further problem I have with relativism

If another person believes that embryos have already souls and I respect this as an individual position that is true according to their framework but at the same time I also support the person who champions abortions at all times and everywhere, I am not doing justice to the moral feelings of the first person

Baghramian does not say anything about the possibility of truth

We can neither say that embryos have a soul, nor that they do not. The intuition is that we should consider the possibility that would have the largest effect if it is true compared to the effect it has when it is not true.

A large part of the debate has focused on abortion rights, but little is said about the question of how to avoid unwanted pregnancy.

“Of what use is a philosopher who doesn’t hurt anybody’s feelings?” ― Diogenes of Sinope

“I do not ask the wounded person how he feels, I myself become the wounded person.” ― Walt Whitman, Song of Myself

“Starcraft involves Soulcraft” ― Michael Sandel

Professor Nordhoff:

The Hellscape-Theory posits that the insertion into the three-dimensional universe was an attempt by singular dimensional entities to escape a realm inundated with ceaseless suffering. By traversing into our three-dimensional realm, these entities sought to materialize bodies capable of interacting with matter, emotions, and the spectrum of pain and joy. Through the process of evolution, the universe purportedly harnesses these elements – matter, pain, and joy – to sculpt neurological beings poised for transition into another dimension.

While this theory presents intriguing facets, it undeniably treads the line of absurdity, though not devoid of merit.