Who was in the wrong here?

The formal answer is this: Self realization is result of developing from self centric desire to the greater desire to have meaning for others. You gain meaning by becoming meaningful to others.

donald is just your typical fedora tipping redditor

mickey is being heidegger here

I have to return some video tapes.

Attached: tenor.png (498x346, 267.6K)

Edgy and pretentious

You can read pic related in a day. It's babby's first argument against moral relativism but its a good place to start.
Then, determine that a moral life is the only life worth living, and devote yourself to that.

Attached: 41Yoho--ikL.jpg (354x500, 30.96K)

In support: The first 150 years of self improvement literature was entirely devoted to the improvement of foundational character. The last 100 has been devoted to tecniques and tactics. - Paraphrasing Stephen Covey

Based subversion poster.

Find someone to hate, it is easier than finding someone to love and will give your motivation just the same. Don't believe the faggots who say that hate is self-destructive, every great man had enemies.

>value isn't something that can be measured" which is dumb because humans created the idea of value so of course we can assign value to something arbitrary
Son, you might be retarded

>and taking a chance that theres nothing on the other side.
You're "taking that chance" from the moment you're born

>muh solipsism
Cringe.

>While it's not certain that our senses are actually telling us the "truth", it's overwhelmingly likely
How is it overwhelmingly likely?

tryhard

It's unlikely that if our senses were lying, they'd be consistent over time, or between people. Scientists observe gravity acting the same way and come to the same theoretical conclusions about its effects, which lends credence to the idea that our observations are actually true.

The only thing that you can really be cerain of is your own solipsism. You might be the brain in the jar.
But you know what, who cares.
If you're in a construct it boils down to how you play the game. In all realities.

I'm not saying we can be absolutely certain of anything, but that we can be reasonably sure of things through empiricism, repetition of experiments, etc.

My issue with objectivism vs relativism is mostly that a mostly objectivist society is a lot nicer place to live than a mostly relativist one, am I a coward?

There is nothing to suggest that is true. In practice, really, an """objectivist""" and """relativist""" society wouldn't look very different. I'm assuming you're not talking about actual objectivism, i.e. Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Sure. In what you percieve as your reality.
Reproducability and consistency is what gives us confidence in this reality.
But in the end its just a ruleset. Your foundational character is still the determining factor in how you participate and how you percieve.

We live in both "objective" and "subjective" realities, individually and as society's.
You actually have to assume very little to get to objective moral truths for example (The assumtions are: Life seems to be important. Human lives seems to be important,at least to us. Less suffering is preferable to more suffering) HOWEVER you can never practically reach those truths and your best effort will always be a subjective approximation. Now I know these statement open a whole can of worms but...

I am quite tired, so see ya later.

Sneed