/lit/ - Literature

>>19735138
>He doesn't know
Sasuga nietzsche fan

>Premise 1: If X is (analytically equivalent to) good, then the question "Is it true that X is good?" is meaningless.
>Premise 2: The question "Is it true that X is good?" is not meaningless (i.e. it is an open question).
>Conclusion: X is not (analytically equivalent to) good.

>What is "good?" Why, good is a nice cup of tea and a tobacco pipe.

why are anglos like this?

>>13541303
>It’s subjective.
Cringe.

I have hands

LMAO CHECKm8 SKEPTICS

>I know

>>18171
Philosophers can't even agree what "good" means
Ethics is one of the most autistic philo fields besides epistemology

Why are philosophers of ethics so obsessed with intuition? What does it matter whether a certain system or position is intuitive?

If our intuition is a reliable judge of moral facts, then surely we should go directly to the source instead of constructing other systems and then testing them against the measuring stick of intuition. If it is not reliable, it should be ignored completely.

And while I'm not one who usually cares for this sort of thing, the intuition they refer to always seems to be a Eurocentric (if not Protestant!) one. No philosophers give a shit about the moral intuitions of Afghani poppy farmers or Amazonian tribesmen, but there's nothing indicating that their intuitions are less valid than our own.

>>6519503
>MFW philosophical skepticism was blown the fuck out by this gentleman.