Comments by "Gruso" (@Gruso57) on "Big Think" channel.

We need fundamental morals to agree on as a society, that said morals are a subjective social construct that has been built upon generation after generation which usually is just a framework around the harm principle. That said it's still boiled down to individual truths. It isn't "toxic". It just is. That's like saying nature is "toxic". Its neutral. The opposite of what you are saying is we should all agree on something objective so we can "move forward". This sounds like totalitarianism and I cant think of a more "toxic" way of governing a society. Diversity of views is the better alternative
3
@StephenLewisful The problem with your skeptical view of truth is that it ends up being circular. Without a fundamental understanding of truth there can be no logic behind it. When logicians use syllogisms and dialectic they are assuming a truth behind their thesis. You cannot ever come to any conclusions with your view, and that is part of the toxic problem the OP is suggesting. Also the claim "Truth has no definition" is a self-refutation because it is a statement you believe to be, ironically, true. Its a paradox
2
Heightened emotions often leads to irrational thinking. It's why it is suggested to "cool off" when angry or not to make decisions when overly happy because reasoning is skewed by too much passion. At least when making crucial decisions you should not be overcome with any kind of heightened emotion. "People are not automatons who live in a world of first order logic and can separate emotion from reason." This is completely false. We often become emotional and that is natural, however we can be logical in our decision making after we are able to deal with our emotions. This statement is also off-putting, it's akin to saying humans cannot control themselves.
2
Avoiding labels is impossible and this is nonsensical. He's taking the political approach because he wants to avoid the negatives. This is a spineless way to do things
2
@oz_jones He was sick his whole life. It wasn't because of nihilism either. Nietzsche was an existentialist before the term existed. He coined amor fati. Which is a love of fate. That isn't nihilism
1
 @33up24 Exactly. Most people who think he was haven't actually read his full works
1
Who would be doing the testing? The government? If so, that's a bit pointless since they too are powerful. Its akin to a corrupt police force doing an "internal investigation".
1
Well then you probably weren't shown how to deal with it or see it for what it is. I was too and I am grateful for my rough youth. It has made me a stronger adult
1
“When we have to change our mind about a person, we hold the inconvenience he causes us very much against him.” -Nietzsche
1