#Moralist

[katyhoodlum]

the cult threesome ship redraw

i drew two versions of it with different brushes for nostalgia,

the og art was drawn with the fluffy brush

singular moralist because hes so cute

[scotianostra]

On August 18th 1803 the Scottish poet, moralist and philosopher James Beattie died.

You may not be familiar with his name but he carried such weight in literary history that he was one of the sixteen Scottish writers included on the Scott Monument that was completed in 1844 on Princes Street, Edinburgh. It is, perhaps, remarkable that he chose to remain on the staff of Marischal College, near Aberdeen having been appointed Professor of Moral Philosophy and Logic in 1760 at the tender age of 25.

He was born on the 25th October 1735 in Laurencekirk, a small north east town in Kincardineshire (now part of Aberdeenshire). His father ran a small farming concern as well as being a shopkeeper but the means were found to send his son to Marischal from where he graduated in 1753. He had ambitions in both philosophical and literary fields and his first volume of poetry was published in 1765 under the title The Judgment of Paris. The piece of work that really made his reputation though was published in 1771.

Beattie often spoke out vehemently against the slave trade and his feelings were outlined in a remarkable work from the Scottish “common sense school of philosophy” called An Essay on the Nature and Immutability of Truth. This proved popular around the world, including America, and Beattie was inducted into the American Philosophical Society in 1784. Translations of the book were published in Dutch, French and German and he was soon summoned for an audience with King George III. The result of this was the award of a Crown pension of £200 per annum and Oxford University bestowed an LL.D. degree upon him. The famous painter Sir Joshua Reynolds painted his portrait.

Beattie’s major work of poetry also came out the same year although The Minstrel actually constituted two separate books, the second being published in 1774. Many readers and literary critics considered it to be a beautiful piece of descriptive writing,it earned praise from all quarters, including the likes of Edmund Burke and Samuel Johnson. It’s full title was The Minstrel; or, The Progress of Genius.

While his professional life flourished his family life disintegrated when, first, his wife was committed to an asylum having been declared mad and she later died there. Then he lost both of his sons. The elder son died in 1790 and the younger lost his life six years later.

Beattie struggled to cope with such tragedies and his health deteriorated rapidly. He had several strokes until his body finally gave up on him.

James Beattie died in Aberdeen on the 18th August 1803 at the age of 67.

Want to know more about James Beattie, check out the link here https://www.iep.utm.edu/beattiej/

[evilelitest2]

So, where do you fall on Leftism spectrum? I sure hope not believing in left armament or successful uprising disqualifies me from being futher left than a liberal.

oh this is a complicated question, but in short not wanting a violent revolution doesn't make you not a leftist, it just makes you not an idiot. My view of leftism is that it is about protecting human rights, which is my first priority. I think my leftism boils down to the following points

Liberalism: Negative Freedoms, aka Civil Liberties, protections against government tyranny

Examples: Right to free speech, Freedom of religion, equality before the law, right to a fair trial, habitus Corpus, innocence until proven guilty, warrant any sort of limit on state power

Socialism: Positive freedoms, aka things the government needs to provide to all citizens

Examples: Free education, Free housing, Free Healthcare, free food, land redistribution, free clothing, free lawyers, free support ect

Progressivism, aka Civil Rights, things to protect citizens from other Citizens, mostly in terms of opposing bigotry. So policies that fight back against racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, xenophobia, nativism, religious intolerance, anti Semitism and antiquated cultural norms.

Democratic Republican (not the political party like pro Democracy) Pro Democracy: Democracy is the best government system that we have and the more proportional a democracy the better, we need to remove most authoritarian power structures. democracy should be designed to resist corruption and graft form the ground up

Examples: Ranked Choice voting, abolish the Senate, lower the voting age, popular election of Presidents, term limits, abolish gerrymandering, limit the Supreme Court

Green: Oh dear god, please make the environment less horrible we are going to die

Examples: AHHHHHHHHHHH

I generally think that leftists must balance all 5 of those, if not, its not leftism i want, intersectionality is the name of the game

now within Leftism I am a huge statist, I think the State is the most effective tool for implementing these policies, and the most powerful tool for the left (i also have a low opinion on human nature) I am anti utopian, I am pro intellectual and anti conspiracy theory

So I think that makes me a Progressive Social Democrat, since "humanist" isn't a political party (except in disco Elysium)

[tmarshconnors]

The Laws Of Court Politics

Avoid Ostentation.

It is never prudent to prattle on about yourself or call too much attention to your actions. The more you talk about your deeds the more suspicion you cause. You also stir up enough envy among your peers to induce treachery and backstabbing. Be careful, ever so careful, in trumpeting your own achievements, and always talk less about yourself than about other people. Modesty is generally preferable.

Practice Nonchalance.

Never seem to be working too hard. Your talent must appear to flow naturally, with an ease that makes people take you for a genius rather than a workaholic. Even when something demands a lot of sweat, make it look effortless—people prefer to not see your blood and toil, which is another form of ostentation. It is better for them to marvel at how gracefully you have achieved your accomplishment than to wonder why it took so much work.

Be Frugal with Flattery.

It may seem that your superiors cannot get enough flattery, but too much of even a good thing loses its value. It also stirs up suspicion among your peers. Learn to flatter indirectly—by downplaying your own contribution, for example, to make your master look better.

Arrange to Be Noticed.

There is a paradox: You cannot display yourself too brazenly, yet you must also get yourself noticed. In the court of Louis XIV, whoever the king decided to look at rose instantly in the court hierarchy. You stand no chance of rising if the ruler does not notice you in the swamp of courtiers. This task requires much art. It is often initially a matter of being seen, in the literal sense. Pay attention to your physical appearance, then, and find a way to create a distinctive—a subtly distinctive—style and image.

Alter Your Style and Language According to the Person You Are Dealing With.

The pseudo-belief inequality—the idea that talking and acting the same way with everyone, regardless of their rank, makes you somehow a paragon of civilization—is a terrible mistake. Those below you will take it as condescension, which it is, and those above you will be offended, although they may not admit it. You must change your style and way of speaking to suit each person. This is not lying, it is acting, and acting is an art, not a gift from God. Learn the art. This is also true for the great variety of cultures found in the modern court: Never assume that your criteria of behaviour and judgment are universal. Not only is an inability to adapt to another culture the height of barbarism, but it also puts you at a disadvantage.

Never Be the Bearer of Bad News.

The king kills the messenger who brings bad news: This is a cliché but there is truth to it. You must struggle and if necessary lie and cheat to be sure that the lot of the bearer of bad news falls on a colleague, never on you. Bring only good news and your approach will gladden your master.

Never Affect Friendliness and Intimacy with Your Master.

He does not want a friend for a subordinate, he wants an assistant. Never approach him in an easy, friendly way, or act as if you are on the best of terms—that is his prerogative. If he chooses to deal with you on this level, assume a wary chumminess. Otherwise, err in the opposite direction, and clear the distance between you.

Never Criticize Those Above You Directly.

This may seem obvious, but sometimes some sort of criticism is necessary—to say nothing or to give no advice, would open you to another kind of risk. However, you must learn to coach your advice and criticism as indirectly and politely as possible. Think twice, or three times, before deciding you have made them sufficiently circuitous. Err on the side of subtlety and gentleness.

Be Frugal in Asking Those Above You for Favors.

Nothing irritates a master more than having to reject someone’s request. It stirs up guilt and resentment. Ask for favours as rarely as possible, and know when to stop. Rather than making yourself the supplicant, it is always better to earn your favours, so that the ruler bestows them willingly. Most important: Do not ask for favours on another person’s behalf, least of all a friend’s.

Never Joke About Appearances or Taste.

A lively wit and a humorous disposition are essential qualities for a good courtier, and there are times when vulgarity is appropriate and engaging. But avoid any kind of joke about appearance or taste, two highly sensitive areas, especially with those above you. Do not even try it when you are away from them. You will dig your own grave.

Do Not Be the Court Cynic.

Express admiration for the good work of others. If you constantly criticize your equals or subordinates some of that criticism will rub off on you, hovering over you like a gray cloud wherever you go. People will groan at each new cynical comment, and you will irritate them. By expressing modest admiration for other people’s achievements, you paradoxically call attention to your own. The ability to express wonder and amazement, and seem like you mean it, is a rare and dying talent, but one still greatly valued.

Be Self-observant.

The mirror is a miraculous invention; without it, you would commit great sins against beauty and decorum. You also need a mirror for your actions. This can sometimes come from other people telling you what they see in you, but that is not the most trustworthy method: You must be the mirror, training your mind to try to see yourself as others see you. Are you acting too obsequious? Are you trying too hard to please? Do you seem desperate for attention, giving the impression that you are on the decline? Be observant about yourself and you will avoid a mountain of blunders.

Master Your Emotions.

As an actor in a great play, you must learn to cry and laugh on command and when it is appropriate. You must be able both to disguise your anger and frustration and to fake your contentment and agreement. You must be the master of your own face. Call it lying if you like; but if you prefer to not play the game and to always be honest and upfront, do not complain when others call you obnoxious and arrogant.

Fit the Spirit of the Times.

A slight affectation of a past era can be charming, as long as you choose a period at least twenty years back; wearing the fashions of ten years ago is ludicrous unless you enjoy the role of court jester. Your spirit and way of thinking must keep up with the times, even if the times offend your sensibilities. Be too forward-thinking, however, and no one will understand you. It is never a good idea to stand out too much in this area; you are best off at least being able to mimic the spirit of the times.

Be a Source of Pleasure.

This is critical. It is an obvious law of human nature that we will flee what is unpleasant and distasteful, while charm and the promise of delight will draw us like moths to a flame. Make yourself the flame and you will rise to the top. Since life is otherwise so full of unpleasantness and pleasure so scarce, you will be as indispensable as food and drink. This may seem obvious, but what is obvious is often ignored or unappreciated. There are degrees to this: Not everyone can play the role of favourite, for not everyone is blessed with charm and wit. But we can all control our unpleasant qualities and obscure them when necessary.

“A man who knows the court is master of his gestures, of his eyes and of his face; he is profound, impenetrable; he dissimulates bad offices, smiles at his enemies, controls his irritation, disguises his passions, belies his heart, speaks and acts against his feelings."

Jean de La Bruyère was a French philosopher and moralist

Born: 16 August 1645, Paris, France

Died: 11 May 1696, Versailles, France

[sugarymechanoid]

hi kitty ^_^ do you have any headcanons for ur ship with moralism? - @capitalistbf (i love seeing other centricide/realicide shippers :3)

HIIII OMG I HAVE SO MANY TY FOR ASKING

Moralist is totally a goody two shoes, and I’m a terrible influence on him 😭 my horrible manners got him to cuss

He likes to go out and I’m super indoorsy so he has to drag me out of the house to go anywhere

He and I are both super affectionate but I initiate all the pda<333 he has a kissable face

He’s taller than me so he has to get things for me and I hate it! Grr I appreciate it tho

I attempt to be the “man” of the house but my arms are as strong as uncooked spaghetti so I can’t open jars for shit

I make him watch Star Trek with me because I’m a NERD and he and I talk about it forever <3 (William Riker is his favorite and mine’s data <3333) (I’m the riker to his Diana Troi <3) (if you don’t get it uhh look it up I thinkies)

He’s the only one who laughs at my terrible jokes

Neither of us can cook but we try via freezer dinners

He takes care of the bugs bc I’m too scared of them. I try to get him to kill them but he doesn’t because “everything deserves to live!” And I think that’s total bs DEATH TO FLIES

I’m a night owl and he’s a morning person so he lays in bed for at LEAST an hour with me before he gets up

On topic of the bed, I take up 90% of the bed and he just squeezes in and takes the remaining 10%

I keep trying to convince him to get a pet, and the only issue is I want a cat and he wants a dog (we will eventually compromise and get both. The dog is gonna like me most much to my displeasure) (it’s like when dads say they don’t want a dog and then the two become inseparable)

He always gets perfect gifts somehow?????? But I’m total shit at gift giving so I give him a card and some money every year for his birthday

I got him to dye his hair once but it was cursed so never again

I got him to actually take care of his hair and it’s so pretty now <3

I tell him kinda creepy shit and he hasn’t called the police yet, I think he should

I do make up on him. He’s very pretty

Animals always seem to like him and it makes me jealous! He’s a Disney princess and it’s unfair

He has gorgeous nails and I love to paint them pretty colors!!! <333

I have to do the clothes shopping because he’s super simple and won’t get anything fashionable unless I’m there

(We’re not married yet but I have plans!!! This is under the cut bc it’s secretttt) (all my mooties are invited<3)

[the-last-hipopotamovolador]

People on this app have to learn to see people (and characters) not as horrible monsters or angels who could never do anything wrong in their life. Idealizing and dehumanizing people/characters is an empty form of analysis that is based on the childish criteria that people are intrinsically and totally good (angels or heroes) or that people are intrinsically and completely evil (villains). THIS IS NOT HOW PEOPLE WORK. (And if you want a realistic character, it shouldn't fall into those categories either)

Labeling a person/character as a monster even though they have done the worst unimaginable things is totally counterproductive to the discourse of social justice and human rights. As long as we cannot put aside that childish idea that there are people who are born evil (they are born "monsters") or that cruelty appears in people just because, we will never be able to correctly analyze the cruelest behaviors that people commit (rape, torture, genocide, hate speech, etc) and so, we will not be able to understand it's "reasons to exist" meaning what feelings, social pressures and stimuli cause the violent behaviour. To eradicate the violence of humanity once and for all we have to be extremely aware that ALL PEOPLE ARE THE PRODUCT OF A COMBINATION OF FACTORS WHERE THE SOCIAL CONTEXT AND PERSONAL HISTORY ARE INSEPARABLE FROM THE PERSON AND THEIR WAYS OF THINKING AND ACTING. People are not born bad (or good) we are formed as people by learning from our environment, VIOLENCE AND HATE ARE LEARNED (AND TAUGHT). THERE ARE NO MONSTERS OR ANGELS, WE ARE ALL HUMAN PRODUCTS OF SOCIETY. Classifying someone as a "monster" only leads to the ERRONOUS idea that their cruel way of acting was inevitable since they lack humanity, WHEN IN REALITY HUMAN SOCIETY IS THE ONLY GUILTY OF GENERATING "MONSTERS". As humans who have spent centuries living in societies dominated by hatred, wars, racism, exploitation, abuse, misogyny and any type of violence imaginable, we have to ASSUME that all that is a HUMAN product, as a society we have to take responsibility of our "monsters", assume them as people who are what they are because of everything they have lived and learned and actually do research on how violence and hatred is taught and learned in order to stop the circle of violence through EDUCATION.

Other things that seem very obvious but evidently a lot of people on tumblr don't seem to understand:

1. UNDERSTANDING why a person is the way they are and act the way they do, DOES NOT MEAN believing that their violent acts cannot or should not be judged and punished. (I can understand the reasons that led a baby to become a abusive man, but that does NOT MEAN that I believe his actions are correct or that he cannot be judged for his actions.)

2. FEELING SORRY FOR A PERSON IN A MOMENT OF "WEAKNESS" DOES NOT MEAN LIKING THAT PERSON OR BEING UNABLE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THEY HAD GENERATED A LOT OF DAMAGE TO OTHERS (with the same example I can find out stuff about the life of the abusive man that makes me feel actually sorry for him but that does not mean that I will stop believing that he is an abusive person and that his abusive acts should be judged) FEELING EMPATHY FOR THE SUFFERING OF OTHERS IS TOTALLY HUMAN AND DOES NOT IMPLY LIKE OR SUPPORT TO SAID PERSON.

3. liking a fictional character who is abusive, toxic, violent, etc. DOES NOT MEAN YOU APPROVE THEIR ACTIONS (NEITHER IN FICTION OR IN REAL LIFE). There are many characters that I like that are extremely violent and that does not mean that I am a fan of violence itself, there are cruel characters or characters that act violently that I like because I consider that they are very well constructed characters and that they are very realistic/representative of how humanity works (something that I personally really like to see in fiction).

LIKING A VIOLENT CHARACTER BECAUSE IT IS WELL WRITTEN AND BECAUSE THEY FIT WELL INTO THE STORY/ FICTIONAL UNIVERSE IS NOT THE SAME AS LOVING AND SUPPORTING VIOLENT REAL PEOPLE.

[shopipersia]

"Fabian: The Story of a Moralist; A Journey Through Society’s Struggles!" 📚 The iconic book "Fabian" by Erich Kästner is now available to you! 🌟

Book lovers and literature enthusiasts! 💡 One of the most powerful and thought-provoking novels in the world, "Fabian" written by Erich Kästner, is now accessible on our site! This captivating story of a man navigating the moral and social crises of pre-war Berlin is a timeless exploration of human nature, society, and the pursuit of meaning in a rapidly changing world.

🔗 Get this book from our site today and embark on a journey through the complexities of life! Shopipersia.com

With this book, reflect on society’s challenges and the resilience of the human spirit! 💪✨

[underleveledjosh]

Calling you a moralist is the insult, actually. A miralist is somebody who dictates what somebody should or shouldn't do based on arbitrary moral standards, which describes you. You are not morally obligated to give any money to humanitarian aid organizations. Not like any of that money can go to Palestine due to blockades, anyway. You are a morally pandantic jackass, and you are terminally online.

As I said before: whether somebody donates or not is not indicative of their morality. You just want to control people. My money, my business. You don't get a say in what I spend on. Or what anybody does with their money, for that matter.

can i be real? i think ao3 should die for doing a donation pool for themselves with everything going on

[linusjf]

Francois De La Rochefoucauld: Neither last nor first

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/74809293 “It is more often from pride than from ignorance that we are so obstinately opposed to current opinions; we find the first places taken, and we do not want to be the last.” —Francois De La Rochefoucauld, moralist (1613-1680).

[san-sebastienne]

With truly all the love and empathy in my heart: crying daily over the sexual assault allegations against Gaiman isn’t healthy. I’ve seen multiple people –especially fans of GO – saying this since they came out, and it’s really fucking concerning me.

I wonder if it has to do with the insidious ideas that 1) people are either Bad or Good, 2) Bad people can only do Bad things, and 3) liking Bad things or Bad people makes you Bad.

None of these things are true.

People are mixed up and incredibly complicated. Someone can be an incredible artist/friend/chef/ally against racism/drag queen and still be predatory/homophobic/antisemitic/never tips their wait staff. People do things that harm others in big and small ways all the time. You do too. I promise.

(Also the idea of anyone, even people who do genuinely insurmountable harm, becoming somehow less than human is an inherently fascist ideology)

The fact that you (yes, you!!) do harmful things doesn’t immediately make you Bad. There are certainly things that someone might do that causes more harm (say, assault) versus less, but that doesn’t somehow infect all the things they’ve done in the past with their Badness. Gaiman helped write Good Omens. There’s no way now to say “I was wrong and this book was Bad all along” or even “oh, all the parts I like were written by Pratchett, the Bad parts must have been Gaiman.” You didn’t miss an inherent evil by liking the book in the past. It doesn’t make you Bad for liking it now.

(It also doesn’t mean that people associated with Gaiman, like David Tennant, are also Tainted by inherent Badness. Tennant isn’t, you aren’t. Saying otherwise is also a slippery slope argument into dehumanization and fascist ideas)

By all means: if it feels right, stop giving Gaiman your money. Stop tagging him in your Azi/Crowley fanart. But do this as a way to disentangle yourself from parasocial relationships that are actively causing you grief and to vote with your wallet, not because unlinking yourself from Bad Art and Bad People will somehow absolve you and make you Good again. If you already have a copy of Good Omens or Sandman, whether you reread it is between you and your gods. Interacting with a text you find important doesn’t make you Bad or Good. It’s just reading. What you do with the stories is what matters (ironically, that’s the message of a lot of both Gaiman and Pratchett’s work).

Maybe take a peek at Good Omens and re familiarize yourself with its other core message: People are not Bad or Good. People do bad and good things.

Then maybe drink a cup of tea. You need to rehydrate.

[whats-in-a-sentence]

In 1983, at a conference on gene therapy, Ola Huntley, the mother of three sickle-cell anemic children and a counselor of sickle-cell patients, declared, "I am angry that anyone presumes to deny my children the essential genetic treatment of a genetic disease. I see such persons as simplistic moralists."

"In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity" - Daniel J. Kevles

[katyhoodlum]

heathers moralist redraw

[sweatywerewolfmentality]

La felicidad en esta vida no consiste en la serenidad de una mente satisfecha; porque no existe el finis ultimus (propósitos finales) ni el summum bonum (bien supremo), de que hablan los libros de los viejos filósofos moralistas. Para una persona, cuando su deseo ha alcanzado el fin, resulta la vida tan imposible como para otra cuyas sensaciones y fantasías estén paralizadas. La felicidad es un continuo progreso de los deseos, de un objeto a otro, ya que la consecución del primero no es otra cosa sino un camino para realizar otro ulterior.

Thomas hobbes

Leviatan o la materia, forma y poder de un estado este eclesiástico y civil (1651)

[twafordizzy]

Jan Steen houdt huis in een vrolijk gezin

Ooit gehoord van de uitdrukking: een huishouden van Jan Steen? Weet dat deze uitdrukking verwijst naar vrolijke chaos. Dat is wat bijgaand schilderij van Jan Steen (1626-1679): Het vrolijke huisgezin (1668) zeker toont: vrolijke chaos. Kunstkenner en voormalig directeur van het Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, Henk van Os (1938), besteedde aandacht aan wat het schilderij ons nog meer vertelt. Zijn werk…

[dlartistanon]

Like a flame to a willow

[alles-ist-anders]