#like can we truly categorize someone as evil if they have no concept of right or wrong

[mostofthingsmostofthetime]

Todd: *gets introduced*

Me: ooh his cute, wonder how he'll cope with the terrible things the others do

Todd: *murders a child with zero remorse*

Me: Oh

[mariposakitten]

So... @brazenautomaton says TERFs are named for their trans exclusion. They are! That is true!

That's two letters. What do the other two stand for?

Radical Feminists. Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, that's the whole acronym.

If you're arguing that radfems have lost the plot, no argument here. But like. You (and @khorneschosen and @mylibertarianblog2) do understand that there is much more to feminism, and many more strains of feminism, than the particular group called radical feminism... right?

R-right??

Like, if you're going out in public and speaking this confidently about what feminism is and isn't, arguing with actual feminists about it, SURELY you've read enough theory to distinguish between radical feminism, liberal feminism, intersectional feminism, lipstick feminism, third-wave feminism, etc... right? Because otherwise you wouldn't be out here claiming so boldly that you can definitively explain what feminism is and isn't?

You know, for instance, that the idea of women as pure and innocent angels who can do no wrong, while men are always the evil predators who hurt women... you know that's specifically a radfem concept, right? That MOST schools of feminism reject that idea? You understand that while yes, just about all schools of feminism believe in the concept of the patriarchy, most non-radfems understand it as a societal system that hurts everyone, men included? That we welcome men as allies, that we believe that dismantling a system that holds one specific ideal of masculinity up as the ideal everyone should aspire to, and which claims that anyone who doesn't meet that standard is less valuable, would benefit everyone?

You understand that intersectional feminism and other Black and post-colonial schools of feminism have extensively explored the concept of how factors other than sex/gender affect privilege and oppression? How, for instance, a Black man's gender privilege and a white woman's racial privilege can interact in complicated and not-easily-categorized ways, and yet as feminists we MUST grapple with it and try to understand all those intersections, lest we do more harm than good?

You understand the difficulties and tensions deriving from "lipstick" or "choice" feminism? The paradox that some women, when given a choice, will choose to conform to societal expectations, to wear makeup and skirts and be mothers and housewives? The debate that rages to this day over whether such a choice, in the society we live in, can ever truly be freely made? If we are being pressured and manipulated by the expectations around us, would we even know? And yet, if we don't let women choose to conform, aren't we also denying them agency and infantilizing them, acting as if they can't make their own choices? It's a debate with no easy answer, and it continues to this day.

You've seen, presumably, the deep scrutiny things like the bear question and the m&m scenario have been subjected to in feminist circles? The arguments? You were there for the "Not All Men"/"Yes All Women" movement? The furious arguments as we tried to strike a balance that encompassed both a) that every one of us has had at least one experience that gives us cause for fear or at least caution, but also b) that one man does not and should not carry the blame for what another man did? You were there for the discussions of where the line was drawn between "protecting yourself" vs "demonizing a stranger"?

Because if not, if any of this, ANY of it, is news to you... you may not have the requisite background knowledge to be talking about what feminism is or isn't.

Imma close with an anecdote. 12 years ago, I gave birth. Now, if you've never done this or been a partner to someone who has, you may not know this, but: even today, even with all the advances of modern medicine, there is still a question that must be asked before each birth.

The question is: if everything goes wrong, if it's a worst-case-scenario, if the doctors can save only one... who should they save? The mother or the child?

My husband had a conversation with his mother and grandmother, and this question came up. Both women were feminists. They disageed, vehemently, on the answer.

His grandmother, you see, grew up in an age where doctors wouldn't even ask. They would save the child and let the mother die. Feminists of her era were quite literally fighting for their lives, among other things; for the right to be seen as full human beings worth saving, not just vessels to bring a new life into the world. To her, the answer was obvious: save the mother. An existing, established life is worth more than a potential life. To even ask, to even doubt that that was the correct answer, was a hideous disregard for the lives of women. If he truly cared about me, if he saw me as an equal worthy of respect, he would tell the doctors that my life came first, period.

His mother, however, told him: the choice isn't yours. Ask your wife. See what SHE wants. Because in HER day, the fight had changed. Women weren't expected to martyr themselves for their families as a matter of course, but they absolutely were talked over and treated like children as their husbands and fathers and brothers made important decisions for them. To her, acknowledging a woman's agency was key. It was my life at stake, after all; the choice should be mine. No one else had a right to make it for me.

Two different eras, two different schools of thought, two different answers. Both feminist. Both steeped in the ideals of feminism.

If you are trying to say, definitively, "this is what feminism is," you're almost certainly going to be wrong. Yes, all feminism STARTS with "the radical notion that women are people," but then branches in many different directions. Mistaking one branch for the whole will have you throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

the story of tatsuya ishida is truly tragic because i can believe the guy startd from a genuine place of wanting to engage with feminism

the problem is that the framing of it was inherently conspiratorial and tinged with a heavy dose of guilt and self loathing

and that is just not a good foundation upon which to build a sane ideology and understanding of the world and so inevitably went from that, though this

and it ended up leading to this:

he is like the textbook case of the radfem to fascist pipeline. because the guy has been making comics every day for decades in here we have a perfect, methodical and granular dissection of how the process happens.

it truly is a tragedy

[violetosprey]

Can I ask what it is that you like so much about yanderes? :)) I feel the same but just wanna know. I love your blog and your TTDUP / BTD analysis so much!

Thank you so much!  This is also really nice to get a question like this again.  I know I’ve mentioned a few times here and there already what I like about yanderes. This question made me really happy to see though, so instead of linking older posts, I’ll go ahead and just write my thoughts out here.

People who’ve been around this blog before may see me reiterate some stuff I’ve said in the past, but I’ll try to throw in some new points as well that I might not have covered before.

Short version:

-        The very personalized/ one-on-one relationship

-        The irony of love being a source of terror (if it’s a horror story)

-        The unpredictability and over-the-top nature of the character

-        The flexibility of a character for a story

I’ll place a longer version below.  A fair warning, I did originally start liking the character type as a horror element and still lean towards that even now, so my apologies if I emphasize that too much below. I’ll try to touch on the more romantic element as well towards the end.

“Love makes you crazy” is such a simple phrase.  People may act out of character or embarrassed in front of their loved one, or even put themselves in harm’s way to save someone they love.

“Anything in excess is bad” is another phrase I also take to heart.  For instance, all humans need water to live, but it’s physically possible to actually die from consuming too much water in one sitting (Don’t worry, it’d have to be a LOT of water- you’re not going to do this on accident).

Yanderes are a pretty good example on the validity of these statements.

Love is a very normal and necessary emotion for people to have.  Heck, if you grow up without love of ANY kind, there’s a good chance of a person developing into an unscrupulous character.  As for romance, nearly everyone desires to find that special person someday to spend the rest of your life with.  No one wants to be alone, society praises love stories and getting married is one of the most common goals in everyone’s lives.  Love is something that can bring out the best in us. Our compassion starts to thrive. There are so many stories where love is viewed as pure.  In stories of “good vs. evil,” of course love, compassion and understanding are the way of the good guys.

So what got me hooked on yanderes to begin with, and still remains one of my favorite elements about them? It’s the concept that even LOVE is something that can become terrifying when we have too much of it.

I’ve said it many times before, and I’ll say it again:  I love the irony that love can be used as a horror element.  Yanderes are essentially characters that are craving a very normal and wonderful connection with another person.  They’re focused too, so when they find the one they love, it’s intense and they dedicate themselves to that person alone.  It truly is romantic when I spell it out like that.  There are two main problems though.  The first being a yandere’s feelings are SO intense that they tend to go overboard with their actions.  They don’t know how to temper themselves at times, so what they do may seem weird or creepy even (ex. Excessive texting, odd or numerous gifts).  They also may not be able to accept other people getting in the way of their desired relationship.  The second problem being that a yandere may not be able to accept rejection.  This depends solely on if the S/O does reject the yandere for whatever reason, and what kind of yandere it is.  If it’s a selfless yandere, there’s a little less to worry about, but they WILL still remain persistent.  The selfish yanderes though, those are the ones where everything goes to hell when they realize things aren’t going their way.

Another thing I like about yanderes is, regardless of whether or not the S/O accepts the yandere, the relationship is ALWAYS very personalized.  One-on-one. I absolutely adore personalized relationships.

To explain my love of more villainous or antagonistic yanderes, I think there’s an element I never mentioned before here on this blog that helps get that point across a little more.

I love villain characters to begin with.  Plain and simple.  I have found media sometimes that I never pay attention to until randomly a villain pops up in the media that catches my eye (this may also explain a little on why I took to the BTD/TDDUP series).  

Now every hero needs a good adversary.  Not all villains are up to snuff, but when you come across one that you find interesting, everything becomes a lot more fun.  The best is when a piece of media is very good about developing unique relationships and interactions between the good characters and the villain.  It’s even better if you have the villain has a VERY particular relationship with just ONE of the good characters.

I have a little hierarchy of interest when it comes to one-on-one good guy and villain relationships. In order of least to most interesting here (EDIT:  All these relationships are interesting and fun for me, but this is categorizing which ones I like more):

5) 1v1 relationship between the hero and villain. This is purely antagonistic between the two, with one or both likely wanting to see the other dead.  Think of special rivalries like Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty.

4) Villain does not want to kill the hero.  This could be for a plethora of reasons such as a sense of respect the villain has for the hero, or the villain’s “game” would end without the hero around.

3) Villain wants the hero to join them.  This could be as a minion, a pet, a partner or their prodigy.

2) Villain is attracted to/in love with the hero.  Basically, a Batman and Catwoman relationship.

1) Villain is OBSESSIVELY in love with the hero.  THIS is where we get a yandere here.  The hero is now the pinnacle focus of the villain…not because the villain wants them dead, but because WANT them.

Like I said, the horror element is what snagged my interest first, but it certainly isn’t the only element to focus on for yanderes.

It’s been fun exploring more about yanderes on tumblr!  You can certainly expand more on romantic element of the character type.  Heck, if you FORGET the romantic element (which unfortunately can happen sometimes), then you really don’t have a yandere to begin with.  As long you make sure the character remains obsessive and possessive towards a person they LOVE to a degree, you can still have a yandere WITHOUT making them the villain or antagonist of a story. Put some elements in a story that make the yandere not the main issue.  Or you can put have the yandere and the S/O actually in a relationship. That’s a very interesting dynamic right there.

The over-the-top and unusual nature of yanderes doesn’t have to end simply because they’re not the main problem in a story or because they finally got together with the love of their life. Anime’s most famous yandere, Yuno from Future Diary, does develop a relationship with her S/O, is full blown yandere and also is not the main problem in the story (aka there’s still the Survival Game).  One of my favorite male yanderes is actually No Onyu from the Metronome manga (or webcomic?).  At least he’s a yandere so far (translations are slow as hell).  That’s a yandere in a more heroic role.  He’s very protective and it’s fun see him not only go murderous at times, but also have to hold back at the S/O’s behest.

The best thing about having a yandere in a supporting or heroic role, is you can still guarantee that there won’t be anything “normal” about the situation.  Even if the yandere has a fair control of their emotions and/or is rather tame, the way they solve issues to help their beloved is probably not going to be as clean cut as a normal protagonist would do.

You can also take really extreme yanderes, or one’s that start out antagonistic, and have them go through some character development to get past their more problematic traits (especially if it’s to become more appealing for their S/O).

To sum it up, the base element of yanderes (that possessive and obsessive love) makes them fun to watch, but they can still be flexible characters depending on the situation you place them in.

I hope this explanation didn’t sound lackluster.  I’ve been a little busy this weekend, but I really appreciated this ask.  It’s always fun to reminisce and lay things out in the open.

[viadescioism]

How to get started on your magickal journey!

Magick is a very real, and powerful thing. It can be learned, and used to not only better your life, but to better the world around you. It is a beautiful art, and science that has been with us throughout, and even before history. It is shaped our cultures, and traditions, and has even been at the focal points of our religions. It is been feared, and it has been praised. It has been used for all manner of tasks, from benevolent acts to malevolent deeds. It has been well understood, and it has been hidden in the occult. There has always been some type of mystical, and occult practitioner that has taken up the use of magick to help, and understand the world around them. You need nothing in particular to be a practitioner. Practitioners are all as different as our practices, and our understandings, but together we all share the universal understanding of magick.

All this post is supposed to help you do is to find a path to start exploring the basics of the occult world, so that you can continue to learn more, and explore your individual path. Magick is a practice that you never stop learning about, there will always be something new to learn, and you will always find yourself being surprised by the things you have found. This practice is very vast, and expansive, and will always keep giving you more as long as you are searching for it. You are about to embark on a very personal individual journey that will teach you much about the world around you as well as yourself. This will allow you to better yourself, and to learn things you never thought you would. Welcome to the beginning of your magickal Journey.

In this post I will be giving you some tips to remember, so that you can build your own foundation, and begin your practice as a magickal practitioner. All of these things I have found very helpful in my own practice, and I have also seen them work very well for others, and because of this I hope that you can also bring it into your own practice, and use it if it resonates with you. So take this information as you would like, and use it as a compass to help direct you to where your path is leading you.

Personal path:

There are a lot of different perspectives from various magickal practitioners. Some are a lot more prevalent than others due to the fact of their upbringing in culture, but you must understand that there is not one path, and there are many various ways of doing things. So look for the best path that suits you, and resonates with your soul. By being more connected to your practice, and enjoying what you are doing, it will allow your practice to flow more smoothly, and achieve the unimaginable. Remember that your path will be unique, and may not even be the same as a person that practices the same tradition as you. By understanding each other's perspectives you can learn, and become even better than you both were separately. Others can be your greatest teachers. Even people that you believe cannot teach you a thing can teach you a lot, as long as you are open to their teachings. It is also a very good idea not to weigh yourself against anyone else's practice, because everyone will be at different points on their path, and will be learning what they need to at that time to get the most out of their experiences. Your path is your own. It is beautiful, unique and will stretch out to exactly where you needed to go. you are an individual, and you can personalize your craft any way that you see fit, so do not be afraid to be your true self, and to experiment.

Know yourself:

knowing yourself is very important. It allows you to have control over yourself, so that you can have control over the world around you. By understanding your spiritual, religious, and philosophical beliefs, and the reasons that you got into magick in the first place will allow your path to run much smoother, and to be more organized, and focused. Take time to think about the big questions, and what you truly believe, and why you are doing certain things. Introspection is key here, and it will help shape your morals, and ideologies going forward allowing you to be more connected with yourself, and the magick that you do.

Magick, and religion:

As a practitioner of magick you can be part of any religion, and still practice magick. Almost all religions have some form of understanding of magick in them, and magick is not exclusive to any religion. You do not even have to be theistic in order to practice, and can even be an agnostic, or an atheist. Your practice of magick does not have to directly correlate with your religion in any way, and can even remain separate. Magick, and witchcraft are not religions, but are practices, and can be practiced by anyone.

Magick is not "evil", nor "good":

Magick, and witchcraft are not objectively inherently "evil" or "good", but our neutral like everything else that exists. "Good" and "evil" are very subjective terms that are completely based off of the morals, or ethics someone holds, and will be greatly influenced by cultural relativism. What you do with your magick, and how it is perceived will determine if it is "good", or "evil" by the person perceiving it based on their own subjective understanding, and experience. Your magick is a tool, and you will decide how you use that tool.

Research:

Research is important, and it will always be good to double check your information. Learn as much as you can about magick, because you never know what information will be valuable later. Do not rely simply on one source for information, but go out, and gather multiple sources, so that you can cross reference that information in order to find out what is reasonable, reliable, and true. There is a myriad of information on magick that can be found in books, online, and in a multitude of different sources. It is a good idea to try not to hold on too tightly to your understandings, but allow them to change, and evolve with you. Remember to also always have a very good healthy amount of doubt, because this will keep you from falling into misinformation, or delusion. Which can be a very easy thing to do especially for a beginner, so be careful, double-check, and always use common sense. Understand everything about the practices, and why they work. Don't just believe things, because people tell you they are true. Ask why it works, then go out ,and deeply analyze the understandings, so you can make sure they are true. Remember that belief alone does not  equal truth, and should be able to be justified in some manner. Knowledge is power, and by knowing things you have power over those things, and will be able to work with those things in order to expand your magickal practice.

Take it slow, and enjoy the ride:

Take it slow you have a lot to learn, and you got a lot of time to do it. You don’t have to jump in so suddenly, and learn everything. Start with the basics, and work your way up. There is no need to go for something so advance in the beginning. Take your time, and get invested, and connected with you with your spiritual path. Remember that it is not a race, and there is no need to try to beat out any other practitioners. You will find the things that are right for you, and they will find the things that are right for them. There may be some times when you need to step away from your practice in order to regroup, and this is perfectly okay. Remember to take time off when you need to it will help you progress in the long run. Do not do anything that you believe you are not ready to handle. Take time, and work up to the harder more advanced things.

Learn the fundamentals of magick:

Take time to learn the fundamentals of magick they will help you later in your practice. It is important to understand why magick works, and how it will react in certain situations. Learn what magick is not, and what magick can do. Learn universal laws, occult philosophy, and magickal theory, and take time to understand them, and how they may work in magickal practice. Understand spiritual concepts, and believes, and understand spiritual energy, and intention. Once you have the fundamentals down you can pretty much make anything fit into that mold, and from there you will be able to work and understand pretty much any magickal practice allowing you to go anywhere that your path leads you.

Learn to protect yourself:

I'm not saying things will go wrong, or even have a high chance to go wrong, but it's better to be prepared for every situation. Learn cleansing, protection, and banishment spells, or rituals as early in your practice as you can. This will keep you safe in case something goes wrong, but these techniques do not have to be the most advanced. Just a way to defend yourself in case of spiritual attack. Your safety is very important, and you should be able to know how to defend yourself in situations where it is necessary. Remember if you feel overwhelmed, or if you can't handle a situation to reach out for help there are so many wonderful practitioners that would be glad to help.

Elemental framework of learning magick, and witchcraft:

This is the path that I would have beginners take. This path is based off of the elements, and the work of Christopher Penczak in his Temple of witchcraft series. In this system you work your way up through the four elements which categorize different types of magickal practices in order to create a base understanding of knowledge that can then be personalized, and individualized openly depending upon what the practitioner wants to get into. This system will start with the element of Fire then it will go to the element of Earth, water, and then air. The system is meant to act as a framework, that will allow you to play around with fundamental constructs of magick. A practitioner following this framework would just have to look up the different terms, and study those terms in order to gain knowledge about them, so that they can begin learning, and practicing magick. Terms in this framework could also be skipped over if the practitioner does not want to learn them, or does not find it necessary to learn them now. My hope is once you finish this framework, you will have enough knowledge to go, and learn what you need to, and to follow your own magickal path.

Fire - More Knowledge-Based and Energetic Based Workings

Start a journals (book of shadows, dream journal, book of shadows, book of mirrors)

Authentic thaumaturgy: the laws of magick

Hermetic principles of the kybalion

Theurgy and Thaumaturgy

(Masculine and feminine energy), and (yin and yang)

Magickal names

Understanding spiritual energy (chi, ki, Mana, PSI,)

Understanding magickal intention

Energetics system

Visualization

Centering

Grounding

Ki breathing

Psychic bubble of Lights

Power hand, and receptive hand

Energy Ball / Ki Ball / Psi Ball

Programming spiritual energy

Seeing auras and energy in the air

Focus meditation

Clearing your mind meditation

Earth - More Thaumaturgy Based Workings

The elements (fire, earth, water, air, spirit)

Magickal tools

Crystal magick, and Crystal correspondences

Herbs magick, herbalism, and herbs correspondences

Candle magick

Nature cycles, and lunar phases

Astrology

Color magick, and color magick correspondences

Taglocks, And Magickal Links

Cleansing methods

Invoking and banishing the pentagram

Casting and closing a circle

How to set up an altar

Divination

Sigilcraft

How to write your own spells and rituals

Curses

Water - More Meditative Based Workings

Mindfulness meditation

Journey meditation

Shape-Shifting meditation

Dream work

Create an Astral Temple

Spirit guides

Thought-forms

Communicating with your higher self

Channeling

Past life regression

Shadow work

Astral travel

Astral projection

Air - More Theurgy Based Workings

Planes of existence

Dimensions

Lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram

Gnostic pentagram ritual

Greater ritual of the pentagram

Triangle of Art (Solomonic triangle, Triangle of Evocation)

Invoking and evoking entities

Extra tips:

Do not summon anything that you believe you cannot put back.

Respect other people’s practices, and hopefully they will respect yours.

Learn from other practitioners a lot of them are willing to help you as long as you ask.

If you send out curses make sure that you are ready for a fight you never know if that person could end up sending it back at you.

You do not need a lot of fancy things in order to do magick all you need is intent, and energy to send your desire out into the universe.

You do not have to do magick every single day.

Try forms of guided meditation, if you are having trouble doing meditation.

You do not have to be religious and anyway in order to be a practitioner of magick.

Magick can be learned by yourself, or with a group, and it can be practiced openly, or in secret.

You do not need to find a mentor but if you would like one you can always seek one out.

A lot of the sources you are going to run into, or going to be wiccan, and new aged based. This is fine but it is also important to have a plethora of different sources.

[sharonisthebettercarter]

this an interesting thought experiment confessor, was this me??? fuck if i know

anywho~, while it is arguable that homelander does commit categorically 'evil' acts, the notion that he could know 'better' does make one wonder whether they are acts of 'true' evil

from a moral standpoint, 'true evil', as we understand doesn't just require mal intent and harm caused

if this were the case, a bear could easily be called 'evil' for hunting fish because it, at least for the fish, *has mal intent* and *causes harm*

HOWEVER~, for obvious reasons, this would be fucking stupid. you don't call a bear 'evil' for being what nature dictates it do, it is simply being a bear and has no real intent other than survival.

this is where the question of *nurture* comes in, the question of learning and understanding, as undoubtedly, homelander's situation is a bit different from the bear

the reason this is important is because 'morality' is a human made concept. and it changes with time and the understanding that people have, grows along with the people. sure we can look back and judge our past, but if we're not learning from it, if we're not constantly asking ourselves the 'moral' question, we're not really doing much better than the people of back then

it also does NOT run in absolutes, and is more often a tone of grey than black or white

in contrast, 'true good' is not *always* being on the moral high road, as this is quite plainly, impossible

humans are flawed and make mistakes, 'true good' as i see it, is taking an active role in *recognizing* our own mistakes, and doing what can be done to amend those, to mend the wounds of those that may be hurt by you, and to do the best that you can in avoiding causing harm

BUTT~, i digress

there is a MASSIVE difference between ignorance and true malice

a child may commit a crime such as arson not knowing that what they did caused harm or even could, and without mal intent behind it. this is clearly fucking tragic and awful but to call the child 'evil' if they prove to NOT have an understanding of what could have happened, or that what they did was wrong, is... well, fucking stupid

the kid doesn't really have a choice here, and i don't mean the choice in regards to the act, that's a separate can of worms. i mean the kid has no choice in the sense of the *moral* question, because it wasn't presented prior to the action, and there was no understanding that the action even *could* cause harm

the child could have also been manipulated, in which case, they would be a victim of someone else's malice, but not truely 'evil' themselves

this is why we bother TEACHING children and people about morality, why NEGLECT is a crime that would likely pin the blame on the parents for this, but situations like that are why there are so many exceptions or even sometimes loopholes, in regards to laws and crimes, 'intent and understanding' are why there is a distinction between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder, all of which have different sentencing

'true evil', is fully understanding the moral question, fully understanding that there is mal intent, that the action WILL cause harm, that doing so falls on the WRONG side of the moral question, and CHOOSING to do so regardless

'true evil' is 'knowing better, but doing worse', and in the world, it is actually exceedingly rare

no one ever wants to believe that they're the bad guy, and the brain has a method of coping and rationalizing everything we do to prevent guilt in order to continue ensuring survival, that much isn't right or wrong, it simply is

but truly answering the moral question requires actually knowing what it is, superseding these innate brain functions to have an understanding beyond the simplicity of 'does it cause harm?'

but this is the wrong, and often mistaken question that is moot, and fails to acknowledge--harm is *necessary* for life to LIVE

and even in some cases, simply for balance or function

viruses are gonna virus, they don't need to, but they're still designed for it, and no, doesn't make them 'evil' either, they serve a function as a natural population limiter and culler~

yes, death can be sad, but no, if the grim reaper were real, it wouldn't be 'evil' either, as it's simply falling on the designated function given to it by nature

in the case of humans, and let's be honest here, most of them are too animalistic to be capable of higher moral function, morality is only possible because of the *nurture* aspect

but if that aspect is 'absent'... or even fucked up in the process... do you really think it leaves the 'moral question' untouched?

in homelander's case, he was raised to believe he was a 'god'. that he *had* to be *perfect*, that he had to *set* the *moral question* itself for others, *be* judge, jury, and executioner in regards to those that *break* it, and as completely fucking predictable, it's the way he's raised and what he's taught to believe, the way he's *enabled* and his wrong doings dismissed that ultimately corrupt him

he still does 'evil' shit, or rather, shit *we* understand as 'evil', but he's never taught the moral question and has no understanding of it, functioning as little more than any other animal

now, IF someone managed to sit him down and TEACH him right from wrong, have him fully understand the moral question, that he wasn't a god and couldn't do whatever the fuck he wanted without causing harm, etc.

then and *only* then, much like if the little shit i mentioned earlier fully knew starting that fire would be bad wrong and did it ANYWAY, could his actions from a philosophical perspective, be deemed as 'truly' evil.

that being said, he's still for sure a sadistic fuck, and probably would be just like butcher even if he knew the difference, he only gets off on technicality, lol

and butcher definitely knows the difference, he's absolute chaos, and i love him~<3

also, the distinction i feel is SUPER important to make, because without it, we run on the assumption that people can only be 'good' with moral 'perfection', which again, not only doesn't exist, but causes far more problems by limiting the allowance of mistake and growth

or in other words, the entirety of the human fucking experience, missteps, redemption, and growth aren't just part of the moral question, they are *necessary* for the system to work at all

WHOO! that was a wild ride of philosophical bullshit~ kudos to you if you read it all<3<3<3

[mvdelinegrace-blog]

Kant and Nietzsche on the Actualization of Freedom

This is a comparative/contrastive essay I wrote on Kant and Nietzsche and their ideas on freedom

There is this evolution throughout the works of philosophers, often building onto, branching off of, or disagreeing altogether, in respect to the work of another. Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche are two examples of this occurrence, specifically in the actualization of freedom, in regards to their ideas on the will, how the moral law comes into play, and how that defines what it means to live well. Kant and Nietzsche share a commitment on the freedom of the will, and how that freedom is actualized. For Kant, the will comes from within and gives rise to the universal moral law, and the actualization of freedom is acting in accordance with the moral law, which he defines as duty; Nietzsche also believes that the will comes from within, as in the will wills itself, however he also states that will of an individual says to decide for oneself what their morals are, and he criticizes Kant’s idea of the moral law, in that then, the will subjects itself to something outside of it, something objective, and freedom should never come from an outside source or influence.

Kant believes that “the will” is our ability to utilize rational thinking, “The will is thought of as a faculty of determining itself to action in accordance with the representation of certain laws, and such a faculty can be found only in rational beings,” (Kant 35). Rational beings have the ability to make their own choices and decisions throughout life, that they are able to reason through themselves, “[This is to say] The will of a rational being can be a will of its own only under the idea of freedom, and that much a will must therefore, from a practical point of view, be attributed to all rational beings,” (Kant 50). Kant also believes in the idea of autonomy, where the individual makes decisions directly derived from their own line of reasoning, the will, and the will heeds the universality of the moral law. It is this will that is key to the actualization of freedom, because the will presents the moral law, and the actualization of freedom is acting in accordance with duty.

Duty is acting in accordance with the moral law, simply because it is the right thing to do “[Therefore] We shall take up the concept of duty, which includes that of a good will, though with certain subjective restrictions and hindrances, which far from hiding a good will or rendering it unrecognizable, rather bring it out by contrast and make it shine forth more brightly,” (Kant 9). Kant believes in the idea that there is a “right” or “wrong” action, and a “right” or “wrong” motivation behind said action, that there is a moral law that universally applies to all rational beings, and it is this moral law that allows for an individual to actualize freedom. For Kant, the motivation behind an action is critical in whether that person holds any moral worth, because that aligns with duty. An action should be reasoned through and done simply because it is the right thing to do, and that holds moral value. An action completed for any reason besides that, is not morally worth anything, and rational beings know what the right thing to do is because of the universality of the moral law, it is good because of their will (self- law), and there is intrinsic moral value in their choosing to do something because it is their duty to do so. Reason/the will gives oneself the moral laws to follow, and when one follows them because it is the right thing to do, one is acting from duty, therefore holds moral worth or value, and actualize freedom itself. “This relation, whether it rests on inclination or on representations of reason, admits only of hypothetical imperatives: I ought to do something because I will something else. On the other hand, the moral, and hence categorical, imperative as that I ought to act in this way or that way, even though I did not will something else,” (Kant 45). Nietzsche agrees with Kant on the idea of the will, in that the will is something that all rational beings possess and that comes from within, “What urges you on and arouses your ardour, you wisest of men, do you call it ‘will to truth’? Will to the conceivability of all being: that is what I call your will!” (Nietzsche 136). Nietzsche also agrees with Kant on the idea that the will is directly derived from the individuals own will, so the will wills itself, “it is not the river that is your danger and the end of your good and evil, you wisest men, it is that will itself, the will to power, the unexhausted, procreating life-will,” (Nietzsche 137). However, Nietzsche argues that there is no “moral law” to begin with. The will wills itself, and an individual decides for themselves what their morals are/are not, “‘This - is now my way: where is yours?’ Thus I answered those who asked me ‘the way’. For the way - does not exist!” (Nietzsche 213). The actualization of freedom in the will for Nietzsche does not take place in the moral law, because he believes the moral law does not exist. He criticizes Kant’s idea of duty because it indicates that duty is the origin of morals, and Nietzsche believes that one’s morals need to come from their will, and within themselves, “Yes, a sacred Yes is needed my brothers, for the sport of creation: the spirit now wills its own will, the spirit sundered from the world now wins its own world,” (Nietzsche 55). If one’s morals are not derived within oneself, Nietzsche believes they are not living well.

In order to live well, one’s values have to come from within and cannot stem from any outside force of influence. If someone’s values are outside of them, it devalues their own life, and living with universal and objective values makes them weak and not living well, “The weight-bearing spirit takes upon itself all these heaviest things: like a camel hurrying laden into the desert, thus it hurries into its desert,” (Nietzsche 54). The weak find values outside themselves, skirting the responsibility off of them and allowing themselves to be commanded by others, however, the strong recognize that true value comes from within, they guide themselves through life, following the values that they have set for themselves and not following the regulations of anyone else, including Kant’s idea of duty. Nietzsche believes that Kant is actually wrong about himself, and that there is no moral law to begin with. If a universal moral law exists, then the will is forced to subject itself to something outside of it, and there is something objective about that, and that is not the actualization of freedom for Nietzsche. In order to truly actualize freedom and live well, Nietzsche believes that one needs to place their morals, which arise from the will, within their own existence, and live a life they feel can be repeated infinite times again and be completely satisfied, “Courage, however, is the best destroyer, courage that attacks: it destroys even death, for it says: ‘Was that life? Well then! Once more!’” (Nietzsche 178).

Kant and Nietzsche both agree that the will comes from within and that the will wills itself, but divide when the actualization of freedom arises and what it means to live well. For Kant, the will opens to the universal moral law, and the actualization of freedom is acting in accordance with this, which he defines as duty. Acting in accordance with duty, is acting in accordance with the universal moral law, which he sees as the way to live well. Nietzsche’s stance is more absolute than Kant, in which he states that will decides for itself what that individuals morals and freedom are, and he criticizes Kant’s idea of the moral law, in that it does not exist. If a universal moral law existed, then that forces the will to rely on something outside of it and something objective, and if one relies on an outside influence and not within their self, then they are truly actualizing freedom and living well.

Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the metaphysics of morals: with on a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns. Hackett, 1996.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, and R. J. Hollingdale. Thus Spoke Zarathustra: a book for everyone and no one. Penguin Books, 1969.