Moralism is an unchangeable household of tropes present in all cultures the same.<\/p>\n
Amoralism denies the omnipresent tropes of evil and sin. <\/span><\/p>\n A-moralism is not to be confused with im-moralism.<\/p>\n We do not accept the notion that \u201ebeing moral\u201d makes you \u201ea good human.\u201d The most \u201emoral\u201d phaenomena imaginable are the angry mob with forks<\/em> and neighbourhood watch<\/em><\/span>es, <\/em>the latter being caused by the moral trope of \u201estranger danger\u201d.<\/p>\n Being amoralist does not mean a lack of empathy. Get it.<\/p>\n Amoralism rejects the trope of Eschatology (Utopianism) Eschatology is the idea of a historical development of a fight between the forces of good against evil, with final triumph of the good. The \u201echange\u201d that Eschatology always wants to bring about is necessarily tied to violence as \u201eabsolute ends justify absolute means.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Amoralism poses the question of the legitimacy of the enlightenment as coined by Karl L\u00f6with. (theological implications in secularism) This means that we think that criticism of religion today is criticism of secularized religion<\/em><\/span> all too regularly.<\/p>\n Amoralism proudly rejects any form of spiritualism. As patients of medicine we proudly reject \u201eholistic\u201d forms of treatment.<\/p>\n Amoralism dissociates itself from token-skeptics, closet-theists, deists, false atheists (namely: humanists)<\/p>\n Regularly Humanism falsely labels itself Atheism and atheistic. Humanism is not atheist, it does not reject spiritualism, does not reject moralism, does not reject utopianism and sometimes not even teleological thinking.<\/p>\n Amoralism further distances itself from professions such as psychology and education as they have, in the secular world, taken the position of moral authority. Further, as Susan Sontag states, psychology is only \u201esublimated spiritualism\u201d which is whence it draws its popularity and persuasiveness.<\/span><\/p>\n In order to talk about moralism, we need to define good and evil. The way we will have to take in order to define evil is similar to how in model-theory the so-called undefined terms are defined by virtue of formal characteristics of relationships such as reflexive, symmetric <\/em>or transitive<\/em>. Only with the difference, that the formal characteristics are that of opposites. <\/em>Our task shall start with the contradictory opposition<\/em>, but this is not enough to derive any moral terms or tropes from. The\u00a0contradictory opposition<\/em> is only some negatio alicuius.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Evil is at least a privation<\/em>, not only a negation. <\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Amoralism is not Immoralism Moralism is an unchangeable household of tropes present in all cultures the same. Amoralism denies the omnipresent tropes of evil and sin. A-moralism is not to be confused with im-moralism. We do not accept the notion that \u201ebeing moral\u201d makes you \u201ea good human.\u201d The most \u201emoral\u201d phaenomena imaginable are the … Was ist der Amoralismus<\/span> weiterlesen The Legitimacy of the Modern Age<\/h4>\n
Defining \u201eEvil\u201d<\/h4>\n