money without state.
morality without religion.
networks without centralization.
Discussion
I like this
Central Bankers:, if we can't administer the ledger, the economy and people will suffer!
Priests: If we can't define transcendent objective "good" and morality, society and people will suffer!
Megacorp social media: If we can't administer your accounts and conversations, public discourse and network scale will suffer!
Reject, Reject, Reject.
Morality without religion devolves society into barbarism power hierarchy. It's a cope to shirk responsibility. Religion is the true exit. Double down on meaning and responsibility for its continues expansion. Post-modernism failed us all. It's time to rebuild the human spirit.
try the analogies and let me know why this one is a special case:
money without central bankers [insert bad result]. social networks without central data brokers [insert bad result]...
Your analogy method mixes two dislike categories. Human created systems are always flawed in some way. Money and social networks are human-created systems that can function through different mechanisms. Morality, however, addresses the foundations of human value, purpose, and meaning. Without religion's literal transcendent framework, morality becomes merely subjective preference or social convention, vulnerable to whoever holds power. This is a very dangerous road to travel.
you presume we didn't invent morality. what's your evidence there?
lots of real, true things are dangerous. it doesn't make them less true.
The Bitcoin analogy misses the point. Developers didn’t invent value exchange. they built on something real that already existed.
Same with morality, it’s not made up, it’s discovered. Every society shares core moral values, we judge by standards beyond our preference, and even relativists make absolute claims.
If morality were just human-made then Nazi morality would be valid if they had won. But we know that’s wrong, which means morality isn’t just opinion, it needs a higher foundation to draw from. Without it, morals become just another form of power struggle, which is exactly what’s happening in secular societies as they abandon religion in search of meaning that isn't there any more.
Friedrich Nietzsche was correct when he warned “God is dead, and we have killed him.”
It has moral conciseness that played out in the 20th century ending with millions dead because of "progress". If God is dead, what stops morality from becoming just another tool of control?
I love these conversations BTW 🙏
All you have to do is find two people with conflicting morals to realize that this is nonsense... Sure, societies share many core moral values - and we share a lot of genetic similarity with snails - but all you need to do is find two moral values that conflict. Now which one is the "discovered, objectively correct" one?
> what stops morality from becoming just another tool of control?
Indeed... are you sure that's the point you want to make?
nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqth65u2mhdrd6klxkldg6acqyek3ze6tjyacz79dmdwzuc7esue3qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3zamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0qqsxg8lwsrdx7a0qs8335vfjc9l8ct06hxhl0eanps76jhhzly37tscjhseu8
"without central bankers, money is left to software developers. this is a dangerous road to travel"
Wair you actually think, that there are books in our world, that have not been written by human nor machines developed from human?
Information from any book comea from a human. All other believes is giving away responsibility. No matter how you argue about it.
Stories that we tell ourselves endure through out time because the carry with them a truth of reality and human experience.
This is true. But I think this spiritual side everybody can experience without religion. One can study ethics and think about good sustainable behaviour, without any existing religion.
I think Vinney means this. And I approve on this.
Yes I understand. And my point is, there is no ethical framework without religion that is internally and logically consistent. You need a meta-framework of value to derive the ethics you are relying on. Anything else is simply a preference. This leads to death. Literally. Believe in God or not. You have free will. My point is that there is massive societal value in religion that is being overlooked.
is religion internally and logically consistent? how do you determine from which of the world's religions to derive your ethics - is that a meta-framework or no?
Yes I see that for many people religion can give a savespace. But I think whatever safety one can find in a religion one can find in reasoning as well. Good realists are optimists.
I like to refer to myself as an optimistic nihilist :)
https://blog.vinneycavallo.com/posts/2019/12/05/optimistic-nihilism
lol
Thank you for this post. Just go up read about Nihilism and realized, that I defnitly make part of Nihilism 😂🙏
First time to learn about it 💪🍻
And directly had to think about the film "the worlds end":
Verstehst du Deutsch?
episode/7qcHFhBGt1XixY1bLFyFmK?si=XqR0wwz3RHGwQS7nlOTBtw
Ich habe gerade die neuste Folge von Philosophie to go gehört.
Hier wird Nihilismus als die Alternative von Nitzsche auf die Sinnfrage welche bisher mit Gott beantwortet wurde, in der Welt der Wissenschaften zu finden.
Nein, ich verstehe kein Deutsch, aber ich kann eine KI für Übersetzungen nutzen :)
Das klingt gut, ich werde schauen, ob ich eine englische Version davon finden kann. Ich habe einige Werke von Nietzsche gelesen, aber das ist schon lange her. Weißt du, aus welchen seiner Werke sie für diese Episode zitiert haben? Ich könnte es griffbereit haben und direkt zur Quelle gehen
"Thus spoke Zarathustra" is the original source I think. In this book the idea of eternal recurrence is discussed. Did not read it myself. I listen to this podcast sometimes, since these brothers have a very easy to understand way to explain complex philosophy.
💯
State's fiat is centralised money.
Religions are centralised moralities.
Social platforms are centralised conversation.
Decentralise everything! 💪
🫂
Order without authority <3