CiRrO's philosophy and teaching ought to be embraced.

"Sacrifice consists of giving up something one values for something one does not, or something one values for something one values less. It is wholly impossible that any increase of good, i.e. increase of values, can come about by exchanging greater values for lesser values. Nor is such stable, it is dynamic, specifically, dynamically moving toward a complete lack of value (death)." >> Sacrifices do not always have to be something greater to something less. I will refer to one of CiRro's debates: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. It is necessary to sacrifice one person for the sake of the larger amount of people. If society allows more people to die, then they are not really a stable society. Furthermore it is you who said this: "If you were driving a car and you were going down hill and the breaks went out and you had to chose between hitting a group of people os swerving and hitting one person. I would say yes." "The type of conflict is not specified, making this a poor teaching to spread in it's current form. Does the fact that seventeen armed FBI agents are on your tail make you stronger? I was under the impression that it made you weaker, and quite likely to die if you resist. A society, of course, cannot have the terms "strength" or "weakness" applied to it, as it is not an entity, only it's constitutent entities can be referred to as strong or weak. Also, as society is an entity, it cannot be a justification for anything. The individual's benefit is a justification in it's own right, insofar as it is true... and the only possible justification." >> I'm sorry, I didn't have time to be specific, good thing you asked for clarification. Cirro: "a state of opposition between persons or ideas or interests." Now, lets look at your example. CiRro of course is a big proponent of the law. I would assume that 17 FBI agents are chasing you because you have done something wrong or illegal. However, I would say this does make you stronger. Stronger in wit and body. By running you are getting an exercise, and by running from the Cops, you are learning how to get away from bad situation. Thus, you have made yourself stronger. Furthermore, you say that society cannot be termed as strong or weak. That is specifically why CiRrO is against attempts at making everyone strong. He believes as the point shows, that strengthening the individual first, would lead to a stronger society. "Surrender to problems, surrender to conflict, means you failed any capacity these had to "Test your strength." The point, though, is not to prove your strength, it is to solve problems, because the solution of problems is the only thing strength is good for. Point 4, in essence, subordinates ends to means and then loses both. And assuming the usual definition of peace, i.e. humans not killing each other, it is eminently possible- if it is within the power of a human being to kill, it is also within his power not to kill." >> The idea is never to surrender. Either strive and achieve, or strive and fail. You can say that being able to solve problems is a strength. There are many ways to be "strong". Furthermore, peace is not just the end to killing. Peace: a state of harmony or the absence of hostility. CiRrO is trying to say that "peace" can never be truly be achieved, because peace itself is a conflict. It is a conflict opposing conflict. By finding peace, you will only spur apathy, which in time leads to aggressive hostilities. Therefore, peace is just a lingering aggression, waiting to be freed from the agent. Remember, CiRrO is against "aggression" but he admires "assertion" "Emotional struggles do not strengthen people, they weaken people. Everyone who has ever been unable to decide on a course of action has an emotional struggle behind it, often though not necessarily with an intellectual struggle at the base of that. I agree, however, that they should be kept to oneself unless the person you're telling about them offered to help, or caused the problem through use of force. " >> Emotional struggles do not strengthen, really? You seem like a smart guy. Emotional struggles if used correctly could lead to effective action to be victorious over conflict. Link this to the peace point. Conflict and struggles that are kept to linger are not good. It is when one triumphs over these conflicts and strengthen themselves to the next level. He specifically pointed out emotions struggles, because those are the ones that tend to lead to irrational action, rather then constructive achievement. "Power, by definition, is the ability to achieve one's goals. It has no meaning apart from some other goal, worthy or not." >> Power in and of itself. Definition: one possessing or exercising power, influence or authority. Power essentially is what everyone craves. In doing so, the weak in this world are pushed down by those mightier then they are. That is what leads to a good society. The weak doing what they must, the Strong doing what they must. "This is never true. One, society as I mentioned earlier can never be the beneficiary of anything. Two, if it is true that such a chess game is desirable, which I do not hold, the existence of an even stronger person to control YOU makes it all the better if you are to be consistent. Three, by definition anything which is beneficial to one's goals is not a weakness." >> Society is the beneficiary of individuals. As I have brought up, by strengthening the individual society as a whole is strengthened. Furthermore, the "chess game" is a metaphor for power. It is easy to influence the weak to become pawns. Pawns are always necessary. One of CiRrO's favorite quotes: "No game of dejarik can be won without pawns, and this may prove to be a very long game." Pawns only further the inevitable struggle for pwoer, which makes the cycle go round, and round. "This is an absurd contradiction. One cannot simultaneously advocate "This is a good goal" and "The achievement of this goal is bad." Goals are there to be achieved, not to stay just out of reach of." >> My opponent doesn't understand. The ROAD to gaining power is good, it makes people strong. However, when one gains power absolutely, it harbors arrogance, apathy, and unwarranted aggression. Therefore, to stop such hindrances to the overall struggle of life, power must be struggles for. Thus, more people are strengthening themselves. It is a cycle again. The struggle is what makes people stronger. You seem to not understand this concept. Of course, the goal will be achieved, but once you devalue that final goal in such ways as apathy, another person will be there is claim it. And so on. "Horrible metaphysics. A is A and power is power. No matter what. It's known as the Law of Identity, without which the word "philosophy" has no meaning and no value." >> lol, you take things way to much at face value. Power is not power because it has been corrupted. When one corrupts power, it losses its meaning. "And this is a semantical claim, not a philosophical one." >> I do not disagree. < > >> You only claim one contradiction, when I accidentally used the word absolute twice. Furthermore, I Believe my above reasons should have cleared any up.