as a philosopher this anon is compelled to point out that the perfect eternal energy bullshit just isnt philosophy at all.
not because there are no philosophers that might espouse such an idea (Spinoza, Hegel and perhaps even Schopenhauer are candidates as is Whitehead in a roundabout way). Rather the issue is that the view is simply dropped like a steaming load of shit without any context or connection into any philosophical tradition.
Also, there is a further philosophical point on which this ive seen quite a bit of confusion on the board over the last couple of days, namely that moral judgments are absolute and not relative. this is a prime example of a false dilemna and one of the most common confusions harbored by non-philosophers (or poor philosophers or those engaging in political speech as opposed to philosophical speech). moral laws are always either:
(1) Relative to the context in which they arise (so the facts on the ground are relevant to the truth or falsity of the judgment) or,
(2) Burdened with an implicit value judgment baked into the law itself.
case in point from the 10 commandments:
"thou shalt not kill".
this either means don't kill unless the cirumstances justify it or the actual commandment is construed as "thou shalt not murder" in which case the law must be interpreted using a value judgment as to what it is that distinguishes murder from killing.
note here that (((they))) prey upon this confusion at every turn. abortion on demand for a long time has been justified by (((them))) by citing outlier cases (danger to the mother's life and that sort of thing) in which there are conflicting intuitions as to the moral status of an abortion performed in that context. it's is a bullshit argument trading on situations that are better analysed as exceptions that prove the general rule.