Hello,

More of my philosophy about why morality is universal..

I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also
invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

I think i am a smart philosopher, and i will now explain why
morality is universal:

So take a look at the thing that we call "time", so you can naively look at our everyday life and say that time is not relative, but
you can like Einstein analyse it and prove that time is relative,
and morality is the same, so when you naively look at it you will
think that morality is relative, since you can notice that for example there is many countries with many laws and rules, but when you analyse it you will notice that the goal of morality that we become perfect or much more perfect pushes us forward towards more and more perfection since we have to solve our problems such as our many imperfections, it is also why morality is "progressive", so then the essence of morality can become that morality is progressing towards the goal that is that we become perfect or much more perfect, so then the other details of morality are abstracted, so then this acts of humans perfectioning or perfecting towards a much more perfect world or perfect world and that are also codified as morality become that morality is universal, since also we can take this essence of morality as the most important thing.

More of my philosophy about the superhuman of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche..

I think i am smart philosopher, and i will be more precise in my logical proof of why the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche believed, like the philosopher Spinoza, that morality is not universal, so notice carefully
how the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche has wanted to construct a new type of man that is a superhuman in his view and this superhuman in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche is a superhuman that has mastery over his emotions and it is a superhuman who takes joy in simply existing, so as you are noticing that the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is an inferior philosopher since he wanted to apply the morality of the strong to the morality of the weak in not wise manner, also you can
notice it more by him saying the following and recognizing that
there is different types of morals, and here is his saying:

"It is the will to power that must be expressed, not the morals of the
slaves or the weak."

That means in french:

"C'est la volonté de puissance qui doit s'exprimer, non
pas la morale des esclaves ou des faibles.",

So the above saying of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is a proof
that he recognized that there is different kinds of morals like the morals of the slaves or the weak and morals of the strong humans or the strong. Read more my following thoughts about it and about Stoicism and existentialism and about how i am explaining that the essence of morality is universal:

More of my philosophy about the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and more..

I have just looked at the following video about:

NIETZSCHE - L'exaltation de la vie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeVVtxlg_oE

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i think that the
philosophy of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is not good, since
he says that: "C'est la volonté de puissance qui doit s'exprimer, non
pas la morale des esclaves ou des faibles.", that means in english: "It
is the will to power that must be expressed, not the morals of the
slaves or the weak.", and he said that it needs to construct a new man
that we call the superhuman, but I think that i am a philosopher that is
smart and i am understanding the philosophy of the philosopher Friedrich
Nietzsche, and i think that it is an inferior philosophy, because it
seeks to construct the superhumans from humans and this superhuman in
the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche is a superhuman that has mastery
over his emotions and it is a superhuman who takes joy in simply
existing, so as you are noticing that it is an inferior philosophy,
because how can you be able to take joy in simply existing ? so as you
are noticing it is illogical and it is as illogical as Stoicism(read my
below thoughts about Stoicism) and i think that it is a violent
philosophy as Stoicism, this is why the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsch
is a failure as Stoicism, and here is what i said about Stoicism:

More of my philosophy about my philosophy and about Stoicism and
Existentialism..

I invite you to read this very interesting article about philosophy:

Why philosophers could be the ones to transform your 2020

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200114-why-philosophers-could-be-the-ones-to-transform-your-2020

And notice that it says the following:

“The Stoics suggest that what’s most important in order to lead a good
life is internal rather than external. It’s about developing the right
character, the right state of mind,”

I think i am a philosopher that is "smart", so i make you notice the
logical bug in the above saying about Stoicism, and it is that
developing the right character and the right state of the mind in
Stoicism needs the cultural side that also comes from the external
reality and hence from the "purpose" and the "meaning of life", and we
can notice that Stoicism is not so smart, because how can we develop
self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions
and such without the necessary requirements that have to give enough
hope or a meaning of life that gives the necessary self-control and
fortitude? so this is why i think that Stoicism as a philosophy is a
failure, so what's about existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul
Sartre ? Jean-Paul Sartre said that: "Existence precedes essence" or in
french: "L'existence précède l'essence", and it is the central claim of
existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, but i think that
this claim is not so logical, since it is like a debate that asks the
question of: Wich is more important, the genetical side or cultural
side?, and we have to notice that the essence or nature of a human is
"not" enough and it needs for example a meaning of human life and a
purpose etc. so then notice that existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre, and
like in absurdism of the philosopher Albert Camus, says that human life
is absurd, but here again my new philosophy says that human life is not
absurd, and read it below.

My philosophy about the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre and more..

I invite you to look at the following video about philosophy:

SARTRE - Le regard des autres

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJIM41TnDHI

I have just noticed by looking at the above video, that it is lacking,
since first you have to understand the following:

Jean-Paul Sartre said that: "Existence precedes essence" or in french:
"L'existence précède l'essence", and it is the central claim of
existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre.

But i think people are not understanding the philosopher Jean-Paul
Sartre, since the functionality of our essence is also our genetics that
predetermines to a certain level what is our existence, so the essence
that is our genetics is also important, but since the philosopher
Jean-Paul Sartre was a communist, he has wanted to give much more "hope"
by saying: "Existence precedes essence", and i think this also means that
humans are by essence free, and this also means that the human nurture
is much more important than the human nature, but it is not truth, so i
think that Jean-Paul Sartre has made a big error by saying so. And
Jean-Paul Sartre has also accepted the views of the philosopher Albert
Camus about the absurdism of existence, but i am a philosopher and here
again i am not in accordand with it, since i say that human existence is
not absurd, and read my below thoughts to understand my philosophy:

How can you effectively "measure" how to appreciate human life ?

I think the most important thing is to know that we can measure it
relatively or absolutely, so wich one of the absolute or relative
measure is the right way of measuring ? so now you have to know that
i think that the meaning of human life can not be measured like
absolutely like was doing the philosopher Albert Camus since you will
start to say by measuring like absolutely that human life is "absurd",
and this is not good at all, so now you have to understand the very
basis of philosophy, that philosophy has to give you the will to survive
or the will to live, so then you logically notice that we can say that a
human is smart if he is smart relatively to the distribution of
smartness of humans or such, but if you start to measure it like
absolutely by saying that the smart human is not smart when you look at
all or measuring it by all the difficulties and constraints of our world
or of our universe, i think it is not the right way to do in philosophy,
since you have to give the will to people so that they survive and so
that they live, also you have to give a meaning to human life as
i am doing it in my philosophy(read about it below), so now i
can finally say that you are understanding the how to answer the
above philosophical question since you have to measure how
to appreciate human life "relatively" and "not" like absolutely by
looking at how our past humanity was much less advanced than our today
humanity etc. and so the other important thing is to also understand the
basis of my philosophy by reading it below:

Amine says Jeffrey Sallet, Paul Abbate and Christopher Wray soon to free South Korean Moon Bears

Boycott Samsung & Hyundai until they free their moon bears

Christopher A. Wray and Amine masterpiece painting of freeing Moon Bears.

\\ ("`****/").
\\ `0_ 0 ) `-.
\\ (_&_.)' ._ )
\\ `--' / /
\\ ==1(li)===========
\\
\\
two caged Moon Bears caged all their life and bile extracted

\\ ("`****//'").
\\ `0_ 0 ) `-.
\\ (_&_.)' ._ )
\\ `--' / /
\\ ==1(li)===========
\\
\\

On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 8:11:55 PM UTC-5, Amine Moulay Ramdane wrote:
> Hello,