Analetheism

The amoralist project as I intend it extends beyond morality in the common sense of right and wrong. It includes all presumedly objective (or absolute or categorical) standards. Thus, an amoralist in my sense would dispense with not only right and wrong but also good and bad, beautiful and ugly, funny and flat, logical and illogical, true and false … and when you get right down to it, anything and everything . Yes, my kind of amoralist is a thoroughgoing nihilist. For even to say “That’s a cat” is (as we normally conceive it) to presume that there are definite, objective standards of what counts as a cat. But I doubt this (see my post on “ Reality ”). Thus in a sense for me nothing at all exists (including me, of course). But even to say that nothing exists presumes an objective standard or definition of what it means to exist . So a better formulation might be the Buddhistic one: “The cat neither exists nor does not exist.” (This makes it sound like the condition of Schr ö dinger’

Amoralism, Stage I  The essence of amoralism as I conceive it is the recognition that human beings possess a natural tendency to objectify what is in fact subjective, plus the suggestion that this tendency is responsible for life and the world being less to our liking than it would be if we resisted the tendency or discounted its effects.  Details:  The objectification is an illusion .  A moralist (or insofar as a person is moralist) is someone who is taken in by this illusion, that is, who not only experiences the illusion but also fails to recognize that it is an illusion.   In a word, then, the moralist is de luded (in this way or to this extent).  This illusion or delusion is pervasive in all aspects of mentation or experiencing the world: in believing, desiring, perceiving, valuing, and so forth. Thus for example: Sensation. A bad smell is a smell that someone does not like (or perhaps that most people do not like), but it is not a(n objective) feature of the smel