/lit/ - Literature

>>11714963
First, you must break from the current Western Culture, and acknowledge that there is objective truth. Can you do that first?

What state of affairs does the correspondence theory itself correspond to, bucko?

>>11714976
Before that, you must breakdown language, and realise that there is a commonality shared in truth. Can you do that first?

>>11714980
spokes (spooks) in the mind of god

The correct theory of truth is that Truth is whatever I say it is, pussies.

>>11714989
Nay. I'd rather prefer to think that the correspondence theory corresponds to the object-subject interaction itself, distributed over the spatial temporal field.

All perceptions and true judgements ultimately depend on processes of observation which arise via interaction between the sensory apparatus and the physical properties of the environment. Without those necessary physical states of affairs underwriting the process, no perceptions or judgements may be performed by the observer.

>>11714976
First, you must realize correspondence theory is contingent on objective truth existing, fool

>>11714980
Reality

>>11714963
>be me
>try and tell my friends about virtue ethics
>"But anon what if other people see virtue differently?"
>"That's the point. It's not up for interpretation, its axiomatic."
"Well anon that doesn't leave much room for personal interpretation. What if I want to do virtue differently?"
>mfw

Post modernism was a mistake

>be me
>try and tell my friends about virtue ethics
>"But anon what if other people see virtue differently?"
>"That's the point. It's not up for interpretation, its axiomatic."
>"Well anon that doesn't leave much room for personal interpretation. What if I want to do virtue differently? We all have to find our own truth, as Macklemore teaches us."
>mfw

Post modernism was a mistake

>>11715150
What ethics are we talking about here? Kantian?

The virtues in Stoicism are subjective as fuck desu

>>11714985
Before that we need to take a stance on the question surrounding reality; so you accept the premise that there exists a reality independent of us, or do you not accept such a premise?

After that you can defend those stances with the use of modal logic: the logic that deals with statements surrounding possibility and necessity. This opens the possibility to talk about truth using a logical system.

>>11715150
nice fanfic.

>>11715150
modernism != post-modernism.

>>11715150
I've literally had this conversation before and I fucking hate it. People today have "morals" without any meaningful source.

They have no right to condemn others for anything ever if all morals are stuck in a fog of postmodern relativity.

>>11715150
>>11715305
I would just scoff at them macintyrely

>>11714980
Our usage of the word truth.
>>11715150
Theories of ethics that don't include consequences are shit.

>>11715150
> "As long as you're not hurting anyone you should be free to do whatever you want."

Yet they always support taxation, supply management, minimum wage, and every other form of big government.

>>11715851
>he wants to discredit reasonable social policies out of an ideological opposition to "big government"
sad!

>>11715150
>>11715305
I don't know what's worse, the
>everything is subjective, maaannnn...
or
>I can like... have objectivity... with nihilism... maaaannnn......

>>11715896

It's the quickest counterpoint.

"As long as you're not hurting anyone you should be free to do whatever you want."

How should this principle be implemented?

How do you define what constitutes harm?

As long as their children aren't hurting anyone, should parents be forced to allow their children to do whatever they want?

If you believe children are an exception to this principle and that parents should to some extent have control over their children, why then do you not allow for the possibility of situations where adults should have control over other adults?

If you do allow for this possibility, what are its constraints?

Oh look at that, you'll need to develop an actual position. Who would have thought?

Anyone who thinks "do whatever you like" is a reasonable moral position has never read a book in their life.

>>11715942
You just ended that anon's short /lit/ career.

>>11715896
>be me
>be a middle schooler who trades Yugioh cards
>find a kid who's willing to trade a sick limited edition card from one of the yugioh movies for one of my egyptian god cards
>8 foot tall, 400 pound school bully looms over behind us
>him: Nice consentual exchange of goods you got going here. Why don't both of you give me a cut of some of your other cards?
>me: wow, what gives you the right to do that?
>him: look, you need me. Without me, a bunch of other kids would be bullying you. It'd be the wild wild west.
>me: gee, I don't know man. This sounds like a lie based on fear you propagate in order to justify your power.
>kid in the background: HEY, IF YOU DON'T LIKE OUR SCHOOL, YOU CAN JUST TRANSFER SOMEWHERE ELSE
>him: Yeah. That. Also I'll lock you up in the lockers for 10 years if you keep avoiding giving me my cut.
Taxation is theft.

>>11715982

You're as dumb as the guy the you're replying to.

"Taxation is theft"

Without taxation how do have central authority?

Without a central authority how do you derive the concept of ownership?

Or if somehow you manage to create a central authority without taxation, by what right should anyone submit to it? How your authority any different than "government" other than name and lack of taxes?

Somewhere, on some piece of paper, someone will have to write down who owns what. Who writes this down? Who controls the piece of paper? Who enforces what the paper says? Who pays for it?

Or do you also want to abolish ownership? Yay, you did it. No more theft.

>>11716070
Homesteading principle guides what's considered legitimate acquisition of goods from the earth on a moral level.
It's up to you to defend your property and make people respect it as such.
There's no difference between me declaring what's mine is mine and the government doing so for me, other than the fact that I'll follow NAP and the government actively infringes on such.

>>11716111
The problem with labor theory of property is that not unlike utilitarianism it is impossible to implement.

Evolution favors those who are willing to group up and exert their influence. Is it immoral? They won't care. The NAP supporters will go extinct. It's only by the cushions of the western world your ideas are possible.

This is not the perfectionist fallacy. I am not saying you are wrong because it would be difficulty or because there would be unforeseen scenarios. I am saying it would be impossible (at least for any groups larger than 150 or so).

Systems of economic distribution should be seen for what they are - as tools. You want to achieve some end. Thus the question becomes how to optimize towards that goal. How do we balance freedom, distribution of wealth, happiness, health, and all the other values we desire?

If you pick just one value, ie. liberty, and put it in a vacuum you pull the argument outside of the scope of reality, ignoring the inherent complexity of the real world.

>>11715150
Based and redpilled

>>11715982
Who built the school?

>>11714963
How can truth correspond to anything if there's no such thing as an objective world independent of our observations, as Rovelli showed in his paper on relational quantum mechanics? Observers can literally disagree about the same series of events and both be right.

>>11716416
It corresponds to God's mind

>>11714963
>correspondence
Why would you take on only one of the seven hermetic principles?

>>11715150
>autist arbitrarily arrives at an axiom
>doesn't justify it
>gets mad and cries when I ask for some reasoning

It's actually deflation.

>>11716417
You're going to have to expand on that. I'm willing to entertain that we may exist as disassociated sub-personalities in the mind of God - as in Bernardo Kastrup's theory - but truth would still be subjective to each alter.

>>11716423
>I like playing devil's advocate
>but am also a complete pussy who will never actually act upon evil tendencies
>at least I can BTFO someone online

>>11714976
Objective truth shouldn't change depending on what OP does or doesn't do.

>>11716448
It should unless you're a dogmatic eternalist.

Who cares if morality is subjective? 99% of people hold the same moral axioms and almost all moral/political disagreements are over facts.

>>11716456
>morality is subjective
>99% of people hold the same moral axioms

>>11716459
Those statements are perfectly compatible.

>>11716459
The rest are considered mentally ill as well, not just immoral or amoral.

>>11716465
Sure they are compatible but I would argue that it is a clear argument for why morality is NOT subjective. Whether we are consciously aware of an objective morality is something we will have to explore further.

>>11716456
No, there are plenty of disagreements over moral and ethical problems.
What are you on about?

Here's a few:
Abortion
Death Penalty
Wealth redistribution
Gun control
The role of criminal justice in society
The relative weight if intent, agent, and consequence in moral situations
The role of religion in civil life
The relative rights and responsibilities of citizens and non-citizens

Just because a lot of people think that murder and sexual assault are bad things that you shouldn't do doesn't mean there is anything approaching agreement.

Go outside.
Talk to some people who are different than you. There are a lot of them all around.

>>11716398
The government. Ideally every school would be private.

>>11716475
>ethics
>list of political issues

>>11716475
>death penalty
Does it deter crime? Does it effect society in other ways? If we give the state the power to kill, would that have other negative effects?

>wealth redistribution
If we redistribute wealth, what will happen to the economy? Would rich people leave? Would anyone strive to create things without reward?

>gun control
Will it lead to more crime? Will weakening our constitutional rights lead to more authoritarian government?

I could go on. Most ethical debates are about these sorts of factual questions. Abortion is perhaps an exception, but even there many debates are about when life begins, when personhood develops, can the fetus survive on its own etc.

>>11716433
Came here to post this. Deflationism about truth is one of the great discoveries of the 20th century.

>>11716518
>since there are factual questions, there are no value questions

Here, I'll help you out:
>Death penalty
State sanctioned murder is still murder.
Murder is always and unconditionally wrong.
The consequences can sometimes justify pre-meditated murder.

>Wealth redistribution
Government expropriation is always theft.
Taxation is the right of the public to a portion of wealth from the successful and lucky.
We should tax the rich and give to the poor because it's fair.

>Gun control
Gun ownership is an invioble natural right.
Gun ownership is not a natural right.

>>11716538
Except that in any debate, any of the below statements will be followed with "but why" and the debater will have to justify his axiom with some fact that appeals to another axiom both share. It's like you've never debated anyone.

>>11716578
No, debates are not won with facts moron.
They are won with appeals.
Popularity is more easily gained with clever deception and demagoguery than with appeals to logic.
Appeals to emotion generally have more force anyway.

Half of the arguments people find convincing are subtly fallacious.

You're also using the term axiom incorrectly. These are genuine impasses.
They are not papered over with convincing rhetoric, but with compromise and side channels.

>>11716518
>consequentialism: the post

>>11715150
The general population is hopelessly ignorant about ethics.
The current morality is "If I feel good then it's good" plus some nonsense about consent and not judging people.
It's utter shit that doesn't stand up even to the most superficial of tests.
You can even see this here will all the morons who keep repeating basic bitch arguments about moral anti-realism.

>>11717254
This. The hedonism is sickening.

>>11716423
You can't prove or justify an axiom, you just pick one.

Peirce

The real red pill is that taxation is theft, but that's okay.

>>11715092
And what IS reality?

And please don’t speak like a block Gapt. It’s unbecoming.

>>11715150
>What if I want to do virtue differently?

>>11715150
Multiple cultures had various virtue based systems. Make the case that yours is the correct one and don't try to meme your way out of it by making fun of naive relativists.

>>11715851
POLITICAL ECONOMY DONT REAL
NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES DONT REAL
LAFFER CURVES DONT REAL
ME BIG BRAIN BTW

>>11715982
>What is a negative externality
>Not realizing a central authority is necessary to have a free market in the first place
"Taxation is theft" lolbertarians are the dumbest group of people on earth, probably dumber than most african tribes

>>11718494
>What if I want to do virtue differently?
>t. Catholic Church

>>11716538
>Taxation is the right of the public to a portion of wealth from the successful and lucky.
>We should tax the rich and give to the poor because it's fair.
Get fucked commie
You have to explain the reasoning behind idiotic blanket statements like these

>>11716518
>abortion
lol no, White women just want abortion as a birth control option even though they barely use it. It's mostly non-whites who get abortions. It's just a shit test anyway. I say, if abortion is allowed, child support should be abolished as well. After all, if a woman can unilaterally decide not to care for a child she chose to produce, a man should have the same privilege.

The abortion "debate" is just crying harpies browbeating feeble men.

>>11716612
This. Debate is about dominating your opponent. 99% of people listening don't give a fuck about truth or facts or whatever.

>>11714963
LOOK AT THE TOP OF HIS HEAD