* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Hoffman: The Mad Moralist, Ho Ho Ho
(Apollonian, 15 Feb 18)
(Apollonian, 15 Feb 18)
Hoffman writes, "In the long term it will require a moral revolution...." What?--"moral revolution"?--so what's "moral," Hoffman?--can u tell us?--is it just "good" = to "moral"? So then, what's "good"?--what's the definition?--what's the criterion that makes "good" what it is, distinct fm not-"good" or anything else?
And of course, Hoffman can't say what's "good" aside, no doubt, fm absurd circularities like "opposite of evil" (for what then is "evil"?)--he can't isolate any essence (for there is none). It's a lot like Hoffman is un-able to give a definitive source fm ancient texts for meaning of "usury," and he's too dis-honest to admit it.
For Hoffman won't admit simple truth: he cannot say what is "good"--for there is no such thing. And it's not coincidence that no one through entire hist. of philosophy has ever been able to definitively say what's "good" that applies in all instances.
For humans are necessarily creatures of will, though not perfectly "free," only God, by definition, having a perfectly free will. Thus humans can only do as they will, always following their will, and hence humans are necessarily self-interested, always have been, and always will be--necessarily--for such is their nature, creatures of will.
So what's "moral" if reality is determined, humans required by nature to follow their will--necessarily? How can humans be "moral," Hoffman, if anything they do is what they necessarily MUST do--as in the necessary following of will.
So "moral" only has real meaning as it is logical and rational, means always consistent w. ends, necessarily--though ends might be anything chosen by the subject.
For humans don't have to live if they don't want to, and if they want to live, they must heed to facts and truth (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6). So the greatest ethical virtue is consistency, logic, and reason, as those are only thing(s) compatible w. truth (= Christ) and capable of achieving end(s), the object of will.
And we see Hoffman makes "morality" into a kind of mysticism, not knowing or capable otherwise of saying what "morality" is--it's his IDOL (false God) which he pathetically pursues so pitiably, compulsively, mindlessly, always talking about it but never able to say what it is.
And it's this mystic, mindless obsession of Hoffman's regarding "morality" that makes him soooo satanically inclined w. hatred for humanity and sympathy for his Jew masters for whom he has such sympathetic connection, whom he serves so pathetically, always wordlessly begging them to acknowledge Hoffman's "moral" dedication--as if those Jew monsters of narcissist and obsessionate satanism and psychopathology would care about or acknowledge.
But that's ok, Hoffman, as u're PERFECT example of how NOT to be and precisely what to avoid, eh? Keep up ur great work, buddy, ho ho ho ho.