[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:

View post   
>> No.23053165 [View]
File: 104 KB, 304x360, 1707511787189.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23053165

>>23052538
Plato

>> No.23031390 [View]
File: 104 KB, 304x360, 1707042662045.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23031390

Moral statements aren't logical statements and hence assigning truth values to them is a categorical error. In particular they cannot be derived deductively from empirical observation. They stem from the platonic realm of ideas. Truth is subordinate to morality in so far as it is an absolute moral obligation to accept truth when you encounter it.

>> No.22669171 [View]
File: 104 KB, 304x360, 1698928749130.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22669171

Dualism is the only acceptable answer. Simple as.

>> No.22667198 [View]
File: 104 KB, 304x360, 1698872052691.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22667198

Substance dualism is the solution. Simple as.

>> No.22580002 [View]
File: 104 KB, 304x360, 1696774668118.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22580002

I watched one of his videos and read some of his blog posts. His argument goes like this:

>1. Your perception of the real world involves information processing of sensory input. Therefore, you are not perceiving the real world but merely a limited representation of it.
Okay, that's just run-off-the-mill idealist platitudes.
>2. From the first point I conclude that the real world doesn't exist.
Nice non-sequitur, dickhead. Why do you refuse to provide evidence?

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]