Wouldn't that mean exactly the same shit happening, again?

>>14572
No anon.
I mean im a little unsure of what you mean (as you COULD be meaning going to either of the two basic possibilities leads to the repetition of the cycle, which is true)
But the accepting and fully understanding the third option breaks the cycle completely.
Instead of going mad from Lovecrafts Realization, of fleeing into the peace and security of a new dark age,
We instead face the realization, understand and accept it.
Moving forward as a society past this reality and onto further problems.
This is about solving the basic problem of morality post-enlightenment without having to rely on the teaching of Deity.

>>14573
Subscribing any sort of morality would designate immorality as well, making another class disruption

>>14571
You have not escaped the illusion, only painted patterns on the walls so that the shadows might look closer to the truth; you have acknowledged that what you have seen is a lie, but refuse to move on from it.

I should like to play the part of Socrates, but text is a format ill-suited to his method, so I must adapt it to work by my understanding of your thought, and I ask you forgive me if it seems as though I construct a strawman of your writing, for such is not my intent. But to continue...

You argue that morality should be based in the objective function of man as a living creature, and as part of the dominion of life; that because we are beings of genetics and evolution, then these must be the Archimedean Point on which we might lever any objective morality. Thus, by this shared understanding that we, like all life, exist by the implied purpose to evolve, spread our genes, et cetera, should build a system of philosophy and society that promotes this.

There is so much you take for granted, though. That we are creatures of evolution and biology is true, but for how long? Or is our existence only of value so far as it contributes to the genetic inheritance of mankind? And this is to say noyhing of the implications at the smaller scale, that of the individuals themselves, be it toward those unable to pass on their genes due to matters of birth or injury, or toward those very much so capable by any means necessary.

But these are lesser arguments, ones rooted in a concession that yours is, indeed, an Archimedean Point to begin with. Instead I ask you: "Why care?

What is objectively important about the spread of our genes or the continuation of the human race? What is so undeniable about its obhective importance that it could be a universally accepted measure? Why should anyone care? Should we care because we are human? So what? None of us are important, this spaceborn rock could blink out of existence right now and reality itself would hardly notice; humans only matter to humans because we care about each other, not because we have some objective importance or intrinsic value except in relation to each other. Just because genetics and life exist gives no objective value to them. Their existence means nothing objective beyond their existence. Tautology is the only thing that can be objective. All value is assigned, and thus a matter of perspective.

>>14589
So you wrote that long a wall of text just to drive the same threadbare nihilistic point home?

>>14589
Value can be natural, value can be universal even. Without assigning value, the term itself implies a superior function.

>>14573
You don't understand: the realization of God's tenets as a law is a burden, not a alleviation.

If you do delve into the eldritch, it doesn't leave you away just like that. NO matter how much pretty your morals and objectioves for mankind may be.