Andrew Tate Arrested

[Consept]

14 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Beauty is a higher goal. An artist actualizes "their vision" - do you call that selfish and degenerate? Or could it be that this is actually a noble pursuit?

When i mention Tates goals, im not guessing, he himself will say that his aim is to conquer as a king did in days gone by, he will say that he does want to amass as much wealth and power as possible. In of itself theres nothing wrong with this he is free to go ahead, I might think its shallow or not a deserving purpose, which actually i dont really, but if i did i would be free to think and make that judgement as i might hold higher pursuits more worthwhile. 

Now if we can agree that these are Tates goals and you can call the idea of achieving them beauty if you like, as in its beauty to set a goal and achieve it. Then really you can put any achievement or any individual goal that is achieved in this same bracket, despite the consequences. So for example if im a serial killer i could say there is beauty in me going out and killing 100 people, which is also fine but as you say there is a trade off for the beauty which is the loss that is incurred. This is similar with Tate, if his goal is to achieve money, power, status and he hurts numerous people along the way I would 100% be willing to sacrifice that beauty for the people that hes hurt. 

For me its not even about 'goodness', Tate doesnt have to good, but what i would label not good is the negative effect he has on people which is calculated, manipulative and deceptive. To me he is a con man, in that he promises much, while taking your money and not really delivering, yes there is an art to that, but lets call it what it is. Also its easy to talk from a distance and pontificate, if you were affected by Tates actions, lets say your sister fell in love with him and ended up doing cam girl work which she later regretted or when you were young and vulnerable you scrapped together 5k to do a course with him that didnt actually get you anywhere you wouldnt be saying 'yeah i was just a necessary sacrifice in the art of Tate getting rich'.

You also might say that all these people he gets money from chose to give it to him on some level, which is true, but then that is the genius of Tate and what all con man do, they offer you your wildest dreams, for the cam girl its to fall in love with a strong man and make money, for the men that pay for cam girls its sex/love with a beautiful girl, for the young men that follow him its a strong father figure and a way to become rich and strong themselves. These are all people in need, Tate has an intuitive knack for indentifying these needs, pretending to fulfil them and taking as much money from them in the process. It is art but not an art that should be encouraged and celebrated. 

[Nilsi]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

To be truly selfish, you cannot give yourself to any one philosophy. That would be to give yourself to something outside yourself. If Tate is truly the power God, he would switch the moment it becomes pragmatic to do so.

If he's just faking it, yeah. Maybe you're right.

But it would be a better story if he couldn't handle the pressure anymore, gave up his divine claim to power and then got sacked by the "matrix" for it.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

@Nilsi

Is Nietzsche's concept of power holistic? Because if it's not, it will fail to address human needs. Examples are things like self-determination theory's "autonomy, competence and belonging", or Plato's "man-lion-beast", or Freud's "id-ego-superego", or the biopsychosocial model, or the triune brain. Models with three parts are usually the way to go ;D 

[UDT]

@Nilsi If he does not go to jail, he is still rich and has even more attention on him so that only helps him in the long term.

[Nilsi]

42 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Nilsi

Is Nietzsche's concept of power holistic? Because if it's not, it will fail to address human needs. Examples are things like self-determination theory's "autonomy, competence and belonging", or Plato's "man-lion-beast", or Freud's "id-ego-superego", or the biopsychosocial model, or the triune brain. Models with three parts are usually the way to go ;D 

Nietzsches conception of power is more akin to Freuds Libido or Platos Eros - kinda.

Its fundamentally about asserting your vision of the world and doing so increasingly effective - he would have no problem with you asserting your version of "autonomy, competence and belonging;" he would however have a problem with you hesitating to do so, because of ethical quandries.

Its important to get that he wrote his philosophy for kings and emperors, not for peasants; and did so mainly as a reaction to moral universalism. He was not interested in creating a philosopy that could work for everyone; thats the whole idea behind the Übermensch - the exceptional man whose ends justify all means. The peasants have to follow the categorical imperative, of course, or all hell breaks loose.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

@Nilsi

Unethical behavior makes satisfying social needs difficult.

[Nilsi]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Nilsi

Unethical behavior makes satisfying social needs difficult.

Universal ethics makes satisfying aesthetic needs difficult.

[Carl-Richard]

17 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Universal ethics makes satisfying aesthetic needs difficult.

I know. I'm criminally buff ?

Holism though. You want a balance. Neglecting all ethics or all aesthetics is what you want to avoid, if you care about health. If you only care about aesthetics, sure.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Rafael Thundercat]

So, someone clarify here for me: Is this guy in prison or not? I really allowed a criminal in court process to engage on social-media debates?

 

[Nilsi]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I know. I'm criminally buff ?

That's fantastic, but then again, the body is not everything - and you can't afford all the bio hacking you would need to maxx your physique out anyways.

You're essentially arguing that no one should have it all and I'm saying I'd rather some people have it all.

[Carl-Richard]

10 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

That's fantastic, but then again, the body is not everything - and you can't afford all the bio hacking you would need to maxx your physique out anyways.

You're essentially arguing that no one should have it all and I'm saying I'd rather some people have it all.

Can you really have it all if you're neglecting aspects of yourself? ?

[Nilsi]

10 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Can you really have it all if you're neglecting aspects of yourself? ?

Who's saying you should neglect aspects of yourself? I'm not a Nietzsche puritan; this was before psychoanalysis and developmental psychology - of course you should be as integrated as possible. 

I don't see how some universal ethics are necessary for my wholeness though. In any case, there will be tradeoffs and individual differences, depending on what role you want to play, your personality, genetics etc. - nothing new.

[Leo Gura]

It's funny how Tate suddenly cares about truth.

He's never cared about it before when defauding his clients.

If the gov is no defrauding him, well, is his life philosophy: defraud whoever is weak enough.

When the bully cries about being bullied.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Leo Gura

[MarkKol]

Good or bad, Tate is idealized way too much, on this forum especially. 

He makes a lot of money and he has girls, crazy! never seen a guy that masculine and epic!

Edited February 5, 2023 by MarkKol

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Nilsi said:

I don't see how some universal ethics are necessary for my wholeness though. In any case, there will be tradeoffs and individual differences, depending on what role you want to play, your personality, genetics etc. - nothing new.

Ethics is not just an external thing, or some abstract framework. You have a conscience. Unless you're indeed a maxed out narcissist, if you're acting very unethically, there will be internal conflict, conscious or unconscious.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's funny how Tate suddenly cares about truth.

He's never cared about it before when defauding his clients.

If the gov is no defrauding him, well, is his life philosophy: defraud whoever is weak enough.

When the bully cries about being bullied.

   In a twisted way, Andrew Tate does care about truth: the truth of gaining success at all cost, ends justify means as long as his truth survives and thrives in the sea of sycophantic minds, male and female drunk in material ailments. 

[Nilsi]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Ethics is not just an external thing, or some abstract framework. You have a conscience. Unless you're indeed a maxed out narcissist, if you're acting very unethically, there will be internal conflict, conscious or unconscious.

There is no conflict if I don't believe in the ethics.

If I secretly thought everyone should act according to the CI and then break it, there would be conflict. But if I don't believe in it in the first place, why would there be conflict? 

You can push this philosophy to it's limits and at some point everyone will break. I'm sure Tate would have a bad conscience if he choked one of his girls to death or murdered one with an axe or whatever.

It's arguable whether such acts would ever be necessary in the first place to assert your creative vision though, so I'm not sure this is a sensible question. 

The Don doesn't shoot his adversaries himself of course; he might not even have to tell his minions to do so, or ever even find out about it - so there is no bad conscience for him.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Nilsi

[Nilsi]

58 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

There is no conflict if I don't believe in the ethics.

If I secretly thought everyone should act according to the CI and then break it, there would be conflict. But if I don't believe in it in the first place, why would there be conflict? 

You can push this philosophy to it's limits and at some point everyone will break. I'm sure Tate would have a bad conscience if he choked one of his girls to death or murdered one with an axe or whatever.

It's arguable whether such acts would ever be necessary in the first place to assert your creative vision though, so I'm not sure this is a sensible question. 

The Don doesn't shoot his adversaries himself of course; he might not even have to tell his minions to do so, or ever even find out about it - so there is no bad conscience for him.

Before you say, "oh that's terrible, you should not detach yourself from such acts as murder - you should have a bad conscience"

-- oh yeah? Out society has the same control mechanisms that are in place in the mob. We pay money to have a subset of people take care of all the ugly problematic people that make us feel bad about ourselves. We put those people in prisons and mental institutions, where we don't have to look at them any longer. Is this entire system not designed so as to salve our conscience and have us be as distanced from this as possible? Out of sight out of mind. 

We do this for good reason, of course - and so does the Don.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Nilsi

[Rafael Thundercat]

In a sense he is saying the truth because the "I" being imaginary even if it imagine to kill itself, as soon as it is selfkilled it realize that it killed nothing. 

And overall, This guy loves to talk about Killing, such obsession. 

 

[Consept]

4 hours ago, Nilsi said:

There is no conflict if I don't believe in the ethics.

Everyone has some form of ethics, really it just depends on how far your scope of concern reaches. Does your ethics include others or does it just include yourself? Tate has ethics in that if someone wrongs him from his perspective he would be against that ie him being put in prison, to him unfairly, is 'wrong'. However his ethics dont extend to other people, hes happy to take advantage of others for his own ends. 

Ethics are not some ideology that you believe in for the sake of it, although they could be, but really its an attempt to have a society where everyone is better off. If everyone did think like Tate, in that their ethics only extended to themselves it would be a terrible society, most likely someone like Tate would rule over it.