CiRrO's philosophy and teaching ought to be embraced.

I do not know this CiRro, but I take it it is fair to debate based on your summarization of what he holds, the fact of your summary existing being a concession to this assumption. I should note that a philosophy must be appreciated as a whole, that is, one need not necessarily dispute all of it's component parts to dispute the philosophy, just some of them. " 2) Sacrifices are necessary to ensure a greater stability, which in turn leads to a greater good." 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). " 3) Conflict should be pushed as a means to strengthen the individual. Strengthening the individual would lead to a stronger society. " 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. " 4) Peace can never be achieved. It is merely a figment of the human mind to oppose conflict and problems, which are tests of strength. Peace weakens us." 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. " 5) Negative emotions should be kept as a private affair, unless it furthers some greater purpose. Emotional struggles help strengthen the inner person, however are sometimes used as ways to get attention, which is a weakness that must be overcome. " 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. " 6) Power is the ultimate goal. In finding true power, those that are to weak are weeded out. " Power, by definition, is the ability to achieve one's goals. It has no meaning apart from some other goal, worthy or not. " 7) Weakness, if used properly can be a plus for society. Those that are weak and cannot obtain power become pawns in a greater game of chess." 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. " 8) There must always be a struggle for power. Absolute power corrupts beyond repair. Power is a goal, however power loses its meaning when only one holds it." 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. "Power is not power anymore" 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. " 9) Manipulation is an art that most people see as an evil." This is not even a philosophical claim, it is a statistical claim. And one wholly without evidence. "Manipulation is not having the ability to control anthers actions. It is the ability to propel events to determine future outcomes." And this is a semantical claim, not a philosophical one. " 10) The ultimate goal is truth. " Nakedly contradicts: " 6) Power is the ultimate goal." Ultimate means there can be only ONE. By the way, truth cannot be a goal either, because it cannot be worked towards. True is always true, no matter what you do. Knowledge of the truth can be a goal, though it is not the ultimate one. Essentially ultimate goal is a matter of choice: Though everyone who is in this debate has already conceded life as their goal, or they would be dead, and the facts of morality, i.e. how that goal is best achieved, is not so relative. "Truth comes from conflict." Truth is a property of propostions, specifically the property that says they describe reality, as opposed to not describing reality. The existence of conflict does not alter it in the slightest. The essence of the resolution is at hand is whether the philosophy, which Pro believes to belong to CiRro, above described, ought to be embraced. The trouble is, it contains contradictions, and other false claims. Since everyone here is trying to live (otherwise they would be dead, human life, you see, requires constant sustaining effort, both mental and physical), they ought to be careful to obtain knowledge of things, so that they can act on that knowledge and thereby survive. This entails that they ought not embrace such vessels of false claims and contradictions.