/lit/ - Literature

>>17053808
So the most concrete knowledge is apoditic truth, of which there isn't much. We can be certain that:
-Existence is
-We exist
-We are a part of, but not identical with existence (not omniscient)
-There must be a base state of existence (something can't come from nothing)
-That base state must fluctuate in some manner (variation in appearances wouldn't be possible if their cause was uniform in all respects)

There might be more, but that's all I've come up with in my considerations. Other truths that some might consider apodictic are either merely implications of the points above, or conclusions within systems whose terms we have abstracted from non-apodictic relations in our experience (and so I don't consider truly apodictic, as they are based upon consistencies which aren't certainly permanent as Hume argued).

Now, the 'base state of existence' one is important here, because all Why?s are all ultimately reducible to that state (at which point Why? ceases to be a sensible question since it is an uncaused cause). That base state isn't an axiom, it is an apodictic truth (even if the state's detailed nature can't be known); although there is a huge gap between our incomplete, inductive knowledge and that truth, the 'why' is still resolved.

The rest of knowledge is technically provisional, but eminently pragmatic, and most of philosophy falls into this category as well. I think studying philosophy is useful simply for the exercising of one's critical faculties—the mastery of logic. Not a pursuit for everyone, but it can certainly produce a useful capacity for some, and could theoretically make a great deal of difference in the crafting of social policy (if only average people could relate better to logical argument and see through emotional propaganda). Finally, there is a trivial sense in which we all practice philosophy by applying logic (however basic) to our experience. Along with opposable thumbs, it is this strong (relative to animals) faculty of logic that makes us the dominant macro-organism. It is the opposite of vain.

>>14737572
Utilitarianism (a mix of general rule & act).

The great thing about it is that if you're rigorous you'll go where the data leads you. Are some people better off with religious guidance? Fine, don't undermine them. Is 'diversity' really our strength? Let's examine. Is liberalism really leading to a healthier society?

In heuristically calculating utilities provided, one frankly considers such questions and as many more variables as they can process. It's the most comprehensive moral system, as it's only limited by available knowledge and our honesty in assessing the data.

Just to preempt the most common misconceptions: It does not logically follow that a utilitarian must consider all people to be equivalent and interchangeable 'units', nor to suppose that there is some universal moral formula that can optimally satisfy all divergent populations. The notion that it's purely about 'maximizing number of lives' or 'minimizing suffering (what kind?)' is also a naive interpretation... The entire manifold of utilities and diminishing returns must be considered.

Realize that pornography is a carefully calibrated weapon used to neutralize whatever threat you might pose to the "system". When the Israelis invaded ramallah and took the TV station there, they didn't play "fake news" or "hearts and minds" crap over the airwaves; they played pornography because they knew how vulnerable people, men in particular, are to it's effects. They of course learned this from the Americans who did the same during the invasion of Panama.

I feel like today's soldiers are just a bunch of fucking barbarians. I had talked to a ww2 vet and his only reason for joining was because he wanted to protect his country and how he never enjoyed killing people but did because it was necessary. Then i talked to a marine from afghanistan and he basically had a boner for murder. He just wanted to kill the enemy for revenge for 9/11, and he said he enjoyed every kill.
Is it right to have a bunch of sociopaths on the front lines? They just crave blood whether it belongs to the enemy or not

>>11028792
Not him but some might say its a benefit in certain situations

>>6249729
>laughs at /lit/'s hypocrisy
>is an elitist faggot himself

DANGER ZONE