/lit/ - Literature

Nobdoy actually considers Sartre a philosopher. He's a novelist who puts some philosophical ideas into his works, like Dostoevsky.

>>12545350
Spinoza.

>>12545350
Nah Sartre’s okay. He’s definitely a big step down from the people before him, but after him it’s like a face-first dive into a pool of autism

>>12545350
Whitehead

>>12545350
Kant by a country mile. Good astronomer though.

nietzsche

>>12545350
Jesus

>>12545355
This

>>12545464
I've never read the critique but didn't he basically just steal Locke's epistemology and confuse it with a bunch of big words?

>>12545467
This.

>>12545464
The thing in itself is a great thought though.

>>12545360
what crack are you smoking

>>12545493
no

>>12545350
Anyone whose entire modus operandi consists of comparative literature and hermeneutics. Even angloscum is preferable to hundreds of pages trying to dig out something profound from banal everyday shit.

>>12545464
>t. Never read Kant

Hegel

Leibniz

>a thing that is identical must be identical

wow, so smart!

>>12545350
butler

Though I'm tempted to name an ancient for seniority's sake, there's a whole branch of "philosophy" that's so bad it got its own name to separate it. Any and all theologians but chiefly Aquinas

>>12545350
Aristotle

Every english liberal.

>>12545723
>chiefly Aquinas
Except literally all modern philosophers owe itself to Aquinas.

>>12545745
Sell it.

>>12545678
Brains aren’t minds. Deal with it.

camus

>>12545350
Whats /lit/s opinion on the philosophy of Emil Cioran?

>>12545781
I haven't studied him in like a decade but from what I read he was crucial in innovating new christian thought at the time. I have no doubt that laid the ground work for any philosophy afterward - either directly, via reading the source material, or indirectly via reading the works of people that developed from the principles aquinas made.

It's very easy to condemn him as irrelevant in retrospect, but that's because you already have newer thoughts at your disposal. Aquinas didn't, he had sweet fuck all to work with and was generally forced by the church and state to play nice with them. I'm surprised the church was even lenient enough to listen to new ideas at that stage.

>>12545819
This is a longer version of what you already said. If it doesn't come to mind because of the passage of time maybe it wasn't much at all. Maybe, as you seem to say, he only paved the way for other theologians to dance around the conclusions they start with.

>>12545782
lol, what exactly is your 'mind' then genius

>>12545569
t. butthurt Spinoza fag

>>12545851
>If it doesn't come to mind because of the passage of time maybe it wasn't much at all.
Well considering he brought the ideas of a ancient greek "pagan babarian" to a church that at the time would behead most people who brought such similar ideas from similar sorts of people, I'd say he must have single handedly paved the way for the renaissance.

>>12545802
Read On The Heights of Despair and Tears and Saints. It was ok, nothing special. The first one had chapters about love or about women that I found really interesting, but other than that, it's was a man talking about how unhappy and envious (in a good way) of people who were happy. Also you can interpret it as someone trying to figure out himself. The second one were really short aphorisms.

>>12545484
>>12545355
You guys are retarded. This is just the stupid people negation of stupider people's uncritical admiration of Sartre.

>>12545464
Good Bait

>>12545851
I'd urge you to read Aquinas, or if you're not capable of that to read Jacques Maritain.

>>12545355
You misspelled Camus.

>>12545569
Case in point.

>>12545355
Are you retarded?

>>12545355

sartre is receiving a renaissance right now in continental philosophy of mind. it's patently wrong to say no one considers him a philosopher.

>>12545493
kill yourself

>>12546138
camus' writings on political philosophy are head and shoulders above what most other existentialists were writing at the time.
correct answer is karl popper

Descartes

>>12545355
>He's a novelist who puts some philosophical ideas into his works,


Therefore is a philosopher by definition

>>12546096
>I urge you to read Aquinas
You guys aren’t doing a very good job of selling this

>>12545501
It's not that innovative. Philosophers like Plato were riffing on dualism and limited perception long before Kant, and I'm sure it was a common theme before Plato as well.

Pseuds love him because he was an empiricist reaching for transcendental explanations, so they can have their cake and eat it too. To be fair, his explication of space/time/causality being necessary forms of experience (whatever else they may or may not be) is excellent, and deserving of praise. That certainty does not necessarily lead to the speculative conclusions Kant followed it with, however.

There are many philosophers inferior to Kant, but the sheer amount of elevation he receives for postulates he did not certainly establish makes him the most overrated.

It's either the Stoics, Nietzsche, or Plato/Aristotle.

>>12546302
>sartre is receiving a renaissance right now in continental philosophy of mind. it's patently wrong to say no one considers him a philosopher.

god, why?

>>12546747
>muh innovation
if your cutoff line for quality philosophy is "wasn't already thought about by the greeks first" then you'll end up with few enough names to count with your fingers

>>12546747
yeah but his work is very valuable the fact that he has bad fans doesn't take away from his greatness, his epistemology logic ethics and metaphysics were some of the best of their time and paved the way for Einstein and modern science to set the stage in the 20th centuary as the most well established philosophical system to explain reality with which was a major change.
Kant was an important stepping stone in the development of human thought.

Marx by a wide margin, runner up is Nietzsche followed by Plato.

@12546992
retard

>>12547003
Not an argument

>>12545350
>Sartre
I mean... Look at his face, he's a walking meme.

>>12545723
You only say Aquinas because you hate God.

>>12547083
I oppose theism, it poisons people. There is no god to hate.

>>12546962
I'd argue that Kant's calcification of the forms of experience and his dimuntion of the possibility of ontological knowledge may have inhibited scientific inquiry. Einstein didn't agree with Kant's dichotomies, he thought them arbitrary.

Ayn Rand probably

>>12545781
read it and like it, or eat this bullet, tripfag
come here and eat your veggies, you scumsucking freak

>>12547536
Is sooner drink Coke Zero.
I guess no one here actually reads the guy.

>>12547282
incredible that this was not the first post

>>12547547
To be fair, she isn’t really a philosopher

>>12545350
Hard to decide between Deleuze and Foucault, but if I had to pick one it'd be the former.

>>12547547
She's not overrated. No one who's read more that one book on philosophy takes her seriously

>>12547282
Everyone trashes her constantly though, when have you ever met someone that identified as an objectivist

>>12546747
The first Critique may be Kant's most influential work, but the second and third Critiques are what make him dope.

>>12546747

>Philosophers like Plato were riffing on dualism

kant is not a dualist

>limited perception long before Kant

kant revolutionized perception in modern philosophy by arguing that perception is clear and distinct, not confused and second-order

> he was an empiricist reaching for transcendental explanations

what in the world are you talking about. what is a 'transcendental explanation'? an explanation for what?

> space/time/causality being necessary forms of experience

causality is not a necessary form of experience, it's a category of experience, and the first two are forms of intuition

you need to read more

>>12546893
well, bad faith and self-deception are hot topics de jour right now, and early sartre was indeed concerned with topics like non-empirical intuition and what he called pure reflection, etc.

>>12545723
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Sfs9h3bIDg

>>12545355
You clearly have little exposure to academic philospphy in Europe if you think that's the case.

Philippa Foot
John Rawls
Giorgio Agamben

Russell

Popper

Derrida

I'd say a lot of philosophers are overrated by laymen not well versed in the language of philosophy who read Hegel or Kant and think oh man this is hard he must be a genius beyond my cognitive capabilities when really if one trains oneself in literary comprehension the vernacular becomes as easy to grasp as common talk and the mystified image of the deep ponderous thinker so divorced from the average mind disappears.

>>12548088
>Hegel or Kant
>"literary comprehension"
Nigger, these philosophers can't be comprehended as "common talk", but only subject to readingS which converge and differ.

This board is too elitist for the principle founder Existentialism and yet they clamour to fashionable pseuds like Peterson, Zizek, and Land.

Very cool, very cool.

>>12547604
He's not a dualist, but it does tend to creep in with his asserted concrete dichotomies like that between matter and form.

So perception is clear and first-order, but the ontological is surely inaccessible? I'm not sure how you square that circle.

His philosophy is transcendental (or 'transcendent' as he designated it himself) because all explanations under it become epistemological, and the possibility of ontological knowledge is denied. This is not something he certainly established... That we are limited to our perspective does not demand that nothing ontological is conveyed. He did the same with his system of ethics, wherein that epistemological bias was required to propose universal morality.

Space/time/causality are the form of our experience, you can apply whatever nomenclature you wish -- it changes nothing.

"But I understand under the transcendental idealism of all appearances the doctrine according to which they are all together to be regarded as mere representations, and not as things in themselves, and accordingly that space and time are only sensible forms of our intuition, but not determinations given for themselves, or conditions of objects as things in themselves." -Kant

You need to brush up yourself.

>>12545355
>shitposts with 'being and nothingness' directly displayed beside his post
0/10

>>12545723
You have the worst posts

>>12545355
>He's a novelist who puts some philosophical ideas into his works, like Dostoevsky.
The best kind.

>>12545723
Cringe and bluepilled

>>12546740
>hurr durr sell it
There's no point in doing that if you had already closed your mind with your blind hate on religion. Just a reminder, no one fucking owes you here.

>>12547973
no

>>12546893
>>12547604

There's also a movement in analytic philosophy to talk about value theory in connection with perception. Affective perception is getting to be a hot property and people have been using Sartre to bridge the gap with neuroscience and/or contemporary analytic philosophy of mind.

It's an easy and lazy meme to dismiss Sartre's work because people, especially in undergraduate settings, rarely read more than Nausea, Existentialism and Humanism, and the same keyhole slices of Being and Nothingness.
It's also rare for undergrads to know Husserl or Kant well and be able to understand how Sartre builds on them and is worth reading.

I would bet my bottom dollar most people posting criticism of Sartre on /lit/ are undergrads who at most have taken one course on him/a survey course which includes his work. This means they have literally never read him on presence, temporality, other-relations except that bit about the pervert on the stairs, or embodiment, nor have they related him adequately to Husserl.

>>12548579
I've asked for proponents to make his contributions clear. Not asking you to sway me. I am not close minded either. I was a Christian and I extracted myself from it slowly and methodically. All I've heard of Aquinas is unconvincing. So I ask 'did I miss something?' 'care to back up that claim?'
But no one here has read him, so my original post stands.

>>12545350
Of those which are held in serious acclaim by respected intellectuals, Nietzsche or Descartes

>>12548722
Do you tripfag because you feel it would be a waste of time to post so consistently yet not build any sort of reputation?

>>12548722
Christian theology and its connection to Aristotelian metaphysics is interesting, and understanding philosophy from a Christian perspective some would argue is essential to understanding western thought. but you have already decided you don’t think it’s interesting so what’s the point.
>”all I’ve heard is unconvincing”
Wtf are you trying to find in your reading? One guy isn’t going to have the objective truth about everything in the universe. You read to get different perspectives and Aquinas is the quintessential Christian perspective. people respond to your posts with dumb shit because no one gives a rats cunt whether you read something or not.

>>12548726

Descartes is the correct answer here. Hundreds of years of false problems because of dualism, massively overrated methodological impact on the field. Descartes wasn't even particularly regarded as revolutionary at the time.

>>12545350
Any guy in philosophy of AI

>>12545782
based, btfo physicalists

>>12547159
Yeah, it didn't birth modern science, philosophy, medicine, for sure. It also doesn't bring deep meaning to millions of people. Such a poison.

>>12548785
>Wtf are you trying to find in your reading?
Once; ways to salvage and reasons to believe what I had been told
After that all seemed exhausted, it dawned on me that I ought to give up the ghost. Then I read that line of Epicurus and reconnected with my childhood epiphany about the meaning of life.
Decent answer though, anon.

>>12545723
Can we ban namefags forever?

>>12545350
Quine

>>12548993
Hah, massively underrated more like.

>>12545350
Kant. Some people go batshit about him.

>>12545723
No one likes you

>>12549006
quine is legit sam harris tier

>>12546138
Camus >>> Sartre

>>12548993
Definitely this. He is the ultimate pseud
His ideas especially about language are beyond retarded

>>12548993
>>12549357
Damn, I forgot he was a mathematical realist too. Truly the most embarrassing set of beliefs

>>12548852
hey, me too!

>>12547604
>causality is not a necessary form of experience, it's a category of experience, and the first two are forms of intuition

you know exactly what he's trying to say, all 3 are the transcendental conditions for intelligible experience, don't be pendant

>>12549357
never read him, what ideas did he have about language that were retarded?

>>12549357
his theory of definitions?

>>12545350
Aristotle or Camus (though I cannot stress the fact that no one takes the latter seriously in academic philosophy). Other contenders: Locke (I go back and forth on this), Wittgenstein, OPs pic related (though I suspect many people haven’t actually read his serious work), Foucault, Badiou. At least canonically speaking. I don’t think people actually care about Berkeley anymore but he’s a waste of time. I’d throw Russell into the mix but honestly he barely passes as a philosopher next to these other names. None of his projects were successful/have that much influence today so that takes him out of the running him.

>>12549593
interesting. got an underrated list?

>>12549157
Sure, but to deny his influence and lasting power is ludicrous. Maybe in his day he was overrated, but he has firmly found his place in the canon and rightfully so. The man literally took down two major currents in the discipline in less than ten pages of eloquent prose. It may seem like the cult that sprang up around him is ridiculous now, but those dumbasses had legit never thought of philosophy beyond binary terms.

Jordan Peterson.

>>12549602
Not really. I can rattle off names but really these are just gaps in my own knowledge as much as they are anyone else’s. Max Scheler needs to be studied more. The right people need to study Nietzsche and Schopenhaur more (neither of which are underrated though). Same could be said of both Benjamin and Adorno. I think there’s more to Descartes than anyone other than a few late dualists are willing to wrestle with; this is consistently true of Leibniz. I think someone needs to bark up the same tree Heidegger did at the end of his life and look at the ontological implications of Augustine’s views. Husserl and Merlau-Ponty need a look over (though the latter is tainted by people like Judith Butler). Idk a lot of stuff is pretty well covered by at least somebody.

>>12549646
Oh and unironically somebody other than Saul fucking Kripke needs to give J.S. Mill’s work on logic a fair shake. We all got sidetracked by the Frege-Russell developments (and of course the continental divide) but this motherfucker had some influence in his day and age. Why does Russell just get to make a few misguided disparaging remarks and count him out?

>>12549608
I don't deny his influence or the lasting power of his ideas. But he's just emblematic of science encroaching on philosophy's territory. Naturalised epistemology is an oxymoron.

>>12549636
>philosopher

>>12549703
Yeah but the same could be said of any of the positivists who came before him, or any of the pragmatists who came after him. Why single him out when he has legitimate canonical clout?

I'm inclined to say Descartes.

He was an exemplary mathematician, but his philosophy was a bit off. "Let's say that we're just a brain in a tank being manipulated by an evil demon into thinking this is all real". No null hypothesis.

I think Marx, if you count him as a philosopher, may be the most overrated.

Nietzsche is overrated, but not incredibly so.

I think Machiavelli would be one of the most underrated. I don't think he was actually "machiavellian". I don't think he was saying you ought to violently and ruthlessly step on people. I think he thought that solely in the context of politics because he realized that politics is just a fancy word for violence. I think he realized the violent nature of politics long before others and just thought, "if you're going to engage in politics, you can't half ass it."

>>12549608
I mean, Muhammad had a lot of lasting influence and the dude was an illiterate mong.

>>12549761
Yes, but he made a “legit” contribution to world religions, hence why I wouldn’t call him overrated. I don’t even know if that anology holds because from what I know about them both, Quine had a more substantive contribution to his field lol.

>>12545721
Literally the first one that came to mind.

>>12549428
>>12549430
He was a big proponent of semantic holism. Essentially, the idea that words (as sound or image) don't have meaning by themselves, but get there meaning from the superstructure of the language they're part of.

Honestly I made it sound smarter than it really is. Basically it means if I taught you what a "perro" was, you wouldn't truly understand it until you became fluent in Spanish. "Perro" isn't just a verbal representation of the idea of a dog. It has an ethereal "meaning" that's off somewhere in a Platonic netherrealm that is part of the lingual superstructure of Spanish.

It runs into big problems when it tries to explain:
- how someone can learn a new language, or a baby can learn a language in the first place
- how animals can learn and understand words without learning said language
- how languages which are a combination of other, older languages (ie every language on the planet) could even exist

Basically it's just Anglo autism trying to make something as simple as a word, a visual or phonetic representation of an idea, into something far more complicated so they can feel smart for finding out a "logical" and "mathematical" system.

I'm not a big analytical tradition hater or anything but stuff like this is why I look down on it as a whole, even though I don't like to generalize philosophers together based on their tradition.

>>12549593
>Aristotle
I definitely agree with this.
Although he is mostly renowned because of his influence, not because people today really agree with him too much (other than Thomists, kinda)

>>12549859
Wow your big takedown of one of the most novel accounts of pragmatism is with pragmatic skepticism? You know his theory can literally adjust to meet the needs of your problems right? It’s built into the holism. Now, if you want a real critique, see Naming and Necessity. The answer to “why not just science?” is not “better science.”

>>12549703
This comment is emblematic of the problem with philosophy. Philosophy is a kind of science. Logic is empirical -- observation, abstraction, prediction.

Naturalized epistemology may appear circular, but what alternative to empiricism is actually available to us? The problem of induction isn't really a problem... It's just a prescription to keep an open mind, while proceeding to investigate in the only way we can. Knowledge doesn't have to be complete/perfect to be knowledge.

>>12549918
Idk Transcendental idealism and mind-body dualism both seem to work better

>>12549918
I have nothing against looking for empirical data to prove or disprove philosophical conclusions. But naturalised epistemology completely abandons any attempt at normative standards and is basically a kind of psychology. In my opinion epistemology must be normative, and Quine's epistemology doesn't do that.

>>12549859
No you pseud. You've skipped the most important thing which is the notion of collateral knowledge. What actually gives meaning to words is the knowledge associated with them that is shared by the speakers. You and I know what a dog is not from the word itself, but because when we were taught the word it was associated with a dog or the likeness of one. In more complex instances this can lead to words having meaning that is more specific to a given collective based upon their shared experiences.

>>12545464
>Kant by a country mile. Good astronomer though.
>>12546747
>There are many philosophers inferior to Kant, but the sheer amount of elevation he receives for postulates he did not certainly establish makes him the most overrated.
These two are the only non-pseuds in this thread.

>>12549945
How do you get normative without descriptive? If there is intent behind a normative statement (a preferred outcome), then a normative statement is actually a 'stealth' descriptive statement; it is recommending an ostensibly effective means to an end (effectiveness which can be evaluated empircally).

>>12549906
The only way his theory makes sense is I'd you change it to mean
> syntax gets its meaning from grammar
which is a basically "all bachelors are unmarried" level worthless observation.

I'm not arguing against pragmatic skepticism; I'm arguing against semantic holism.

>>12549978
>it is recommending an ostensibly effective means to an end (effectiveness which can be evaluated empircally).
No it isn't. Recommending an effective means to an end is a stealth normative statement making the entirely normative claim that that end should be reached.

>>12549772
Yeah but my point was that I wouldnt call Muhammad a philosopher. A warlord who devised a religious political system, sure, and a very influential and successful one at that, but not a philosopher.

>>12549999
Really... So your preference is evidence of normativity? We can't say descriptively that your preference leads to your normative claim, implicit to which is descriptive knowledge about what means are effective to what ends? Anon I...

>>12549946
a) That's not what semantic holism claims, what you're talking about is a different argument altogether.

b) I looked up "notion of collateral knowledge" and "notion of collateral knowledge analytical philosophy" because I had never heard of it, and got zero topical results. Great. But let's look at what you're saying.
> You and I know what a dog is not from the word itself, but because when we were taught the word it was associated with a dog or the likeness of one.
This is so obvious of a statement it's absolutely worthless. Has anyone on the entire history of philosophy or linguistics ever argued that words have inherent, a priori meaning that can be deduced via analytical reasoning???
The fact that you think that was worthwhile to write out simply shocks me.

>>12550016
> ethic naturalist doesn't understand basic logic
Shocking

>>12550065
>poseur doesn't even bother refuting with logic
Shocking

>>12550058
Sorry, Quine calls it 'collateral information', and it's key to understanding how he views meaning in language. It's relevant because meaning isn't off in some 'ephermeral world of forms', but it's contingent upon a network of shared experience, from which a network of meaning in words which reference eachother follows. This results in sitautions such as a foreigner not appreciating the nuances of meaning associated with a word from the mere translation alone.

Debate against it if you would, but your initial off-handed dismissal of the idea belies a shallow understanding of the discussion.

>>12550016
>your preference is evidence of normativity?
Exactly right, but a preference does not lead to a normative claim, a preference IS a normative claim. Any moral judgement you make is contingent on a value which determines what is moral and what isn't. Preferences are in the exact same circumstance, and both of them are normative claims in the same way.

Saying "this thing is good" (general moral claim) is the exact same thing (in regards to their normativity) as saying "I prefer this thing" or "I desire that thing".

>>12549999
Nice quads

>>12545723
All butterfly fags belong on the cross

>>12547973
No one likes him so how can he be overrated?

>>12548851
>It also brings deep meaning to millions of people
So does fucking Jimmy neutron.

>>12550346
Is Jimmy Neutron a poison?

>>12545464
His books are a slog to get through, but he influenced many philosophers who were greater than him.

>>12550352
Yes. Yes it is.

>>12550346
>>12550352
>Realizing he would never be a 'normal boy', Jimmy, with tears in his eyes, said "brain blast" one final time as his lips curled around the barrel of a shotgun

>>12550194
>It's relevant because meaning isn't off in some 'ephermeral world of forms'
I'm sorry, that was a bad way to describe it. I was trying to compare the conventional knowledge of the meaning of words
> a representation of a specific idea
with semantic holism, which you provided a good definition of. Semantic holism requires the superstructure of a language to be a "real" thing that affects the meaning of words
> This results in sitautions such as a foreigner not appreciating the nuances of meaning associated with a word from the mere translation alone.
Again, I don't think this is evidence for a linguistic superstructure that specifically alters the meaning behind words. It's simply that some languages have specific words for ideas, while other languages do not. When translating from one language to another, it sometimes requires a short explanation of the idea, rather than a specific, equivalent word. Oftentimes people want a word for word translation and don't understand why that's not possible.
My point here is that it's wrong to think of it as two equivalent words, slightly different because of the way they have had their meaning "affected" by the language superstructure. It's much more accurate to think of it simply as two separate, but similar, ideas.

>>12550322
I agree, my umbrage is with the argument for the existence of a parallel category of knowledge (normative), when both preferences and the reasoning/actions we take in service to them can be explained descriptively. The normative statement is implicitly descriptive. It's a false dichotomy.

>>12545872
The brain is a bic lighter, the mind is the flame it produces. there is no flame without the lighter, but the lighter is not the flame itself and vice versa.

>>12550430
>when both preferences and the reasoning/actions we take in service to them can be explained descriptively
Can you give me some examples?

>>12546740
Look up Edward Feser he makes Aquinas dirt simple
>explains the fives ways
>goes through logic and faith
>takes you through the Suma Theologica

>>12550450
Sure.

"You should eat your vegetables."
Implicit:
>vegetables are beneficial for your heatlh
>preference for good health is my nature as a non-maladaptive organism
>eating vegetables is an effective means of benefiting health

"Honesty is a virtue."
Implicit:
>honesty is an effective cooperative strategy and also promotes discovery
>preference for general cooperation as a social animal and discovery as a curious/optimizing one
>honesty is an ideal behaviour because of the benefits it provides

>>12550509
>"You should eat your vegetables"
Your descriptive statements here are all based on the normative statement "You should improve your health" and "You should follow your natural instinct"

>"Honesty is a virtue"
Your first two statements are based on the normative statements of "You should cooperate effectively and promote discovery" and "You should value those because it's natural"
>>honesty is an ideal behaviour because of the benefits it provides
Literally a normative statement, looks like you just gave up at this point. You're assuming ideal behaviors are ones that provide benefits. They are ideal behaviors FOR providing their benefits but they are ideal behaviors in and of themselves. At that point we see that, behind this, you have the normative statement "We should behave in ways that provide benefits to society."

Stop trying to think of normative statements as a "parallel category of knowledge" as you said earlier. Normative statements are by definition neither true nor false.
And stop trying to convince people your normative statements are "objectively right" by attempting to obfuscate the fact that your "proof" is based on obvious fallacies.

>>12550591
>but they are ideal behaviors in and of themselves
*but they are NOT ideal behaviors in and of themselves

>>12550591
No, the 'should' follows from our nature. When I recommend valuing your health it is because I know our natures are quite similar in that regard. There is no universal judgement if you fail to do so, it's just that if your preferences don't align with your nature you won't exist for long.

Again, cooperation and discovery are essential aspects to our success as a species. The preferences are built into our nature.

You're caught up in the abstraction of this category 'normative'. I haven't claimed that normative statements can be universal (they can be objectively non-universal). Really I'm arguing that the entire notion of normative is an abstract figment -- a false dichotomy. If you have an argument that addresses the root logic here, please substitute it for your finger-wagging.

>>12550619
So, you're saying that I should make sacrifices so I live longer in my old age. And I should sacrifice my own self-interest for the benefit of society as a whole.
These are by definition normative statements. They are unfalsifiable, and also impossible to prove correct. That's what makes them a normative statement.

You're argument is basically "normative statements aren't real because you can support them with facts." You are unconsciously jumping from a positive to a normative statement when you say "you should do this" because "fact." Your entire argument is based completely on the is/ought fallacy and the appeal to nature fallacy. Just because you're too big of a moron to understand your obvious logical flaws doesn't mean that "dur hur normative statements aren't real, my opinions are objectively correct lmao"

Your only evidence and support for this theory – that all normative statements are really positive statements – is your pitiful attempt to bridge the is/ought gap by invoking the fallacy of appealing to nature. You desperately hope no one sees through your shoddy facade of sophistry, so you can continue to feel intellectually and morally superior while you peddle your worthless ideas. Sorry, but you'll need to go back to /pol/ or reddit if you want to find anyone dumb enough to believe in your Sam Harris-tier garbage.

Stop talking to the tripfaggot, they cease to exist when they get no replies.

>>12545350
Stefan Molyneux

>>12550779
you are arguing with someone that does not believe in freedom. neither a metaphysical will nor constrained choice.
questions of morality and value are moot for such a person. the software has been deloaded.
you have nothing of value to share with one another.

>>12550779
No, there is nothing that precedes preference. Your preference is the source of judgements, you need not designate a special category of knowledge (ought) to explain that, as preferences can be explained descriptively.

There is no is/ought gap, it's an imagined dichotomy. Why don't you try providing an example of a normative statement behind which there is no intent (preference of outcome) and thereforce can't be explained (not just supported) descriptively?

I don't mind a little banter, but resorting to a litany of insults and derision suggests you're merely 'triggered' and perhaps not mentally equipped to deal in logical arguments. If my logical flaws are so obvious, demonstrating those flaws logically should be trivial.

>>12551315
That's a silly over reaction, morality/value are still important tools and are inherent to our nature as valuing agents (preferences + capacity for abstracting problem solving). Free will is not required for feedback loops to happen. Of course you're not genuinely interested in the truth, you just want to dismiss me as an npc (even typical npcs are uniformly convinced of their own free will).

>>12551282
He's more self-rated than overrated, and I think we should confine the list to actual philosophers.

>>12552263
>If my logical flaws are so obvious, demonstrating those flaws logically should be trivial.
I have already done that multiple times. Your argument is literally the naturalistic fallacy: "We should do things that benefit our natural propensities"
This is a normative statement. You cannot say whether this is true or false. It's just an opinion.
Let me break this down Barney-style for you. I think I know where you're getting confused. You can say, of course, that "if we do x, then it will have y consequence." But the fact that you can predict facts based on the outcome of a normative statement does not mean that it is a positive statement. You are still implicitly making a normative statement that "we should work for y consequence." Every single one of your "proofs" for your theory has fallen into this trap. You say that a "should" statement is falsifiable or prove able because you can predict whether its outcome is good according to your standard of what's good. But that standard itself is a normative statement.
Let's look at your "proof" again:
1) You should eat vegetables
2) This is true because vegetables are healthy and good for you
3) Therefore, "you should eat vegetables" is not a normative statement, it is a factual one
What you can't understand is that the normative statement "you should perform actions that better your health" is still implicitly on your argument. Asserting that this normative statement is factually true is the nature of the naturalistic fallacy. You can't escape the normativity of a statement by attempting to use facts to support it; you simply continue to find yourself mired in a different normative statement.
If you say "x" statement can be determined to be true or false because of its effectiveness of bringing about effect "y," you are still making a normative statement that you should bring about effect "y"

The fact that you still can't seem to understand this baffles me. Stop listening to idiots like Sam Harris. I know exactly 0 people with any more education than an Associate's degree that put any faith in his moronic sophistry. He's the kind of guy that's only listened to by dumb people; stop embarrassing yourself.

>>12552263
> is/ought gap is imanigary
> prescriptive morality is possible without free will
> finishing off with the NPC meme

>>12553193
No, you're injecting 'should' from the start. It's simply that we indeed do things because of our nature. Nothing precedes our nature. Values do not precede valuing agents. They are tools which serve our nature, and the effect as related to the intent of a moral prescription can be evaluated empirically.

It's not that you 'should' do things that benefit your natural propensities, it's that this is exactly what you do and you can't possibly escape that causality. If you disagree with my moral presciption, it's either because you've miscalculated the benefit and/or your nature is sufficiently different from mine. When I say you should value your health, I'm not saying that there's a divine decree in the universe which mandates that value, I'm saying that "Hey, we're relatively similar lifeforms (although your unjustified arrogance is making me doubt this assumption) -- we likely have similar preferences and so I recommend valuing your health."

I understand quite well, it's not like you're the first dilettante to raise such objections. You haven't even begun to consider whether the concept of 'normative' actually describes a category of knowledge which is concretely different form the descriptive (and yes, it is claimed knowledge because there is always a preferred outcome in mind).

Hah you're Harissing me, is that the best you can do? As if he's the first or foremost person to dispute this dubious dichotomy. He's a footnote. Get serious.

>>12553227
I take it that's an accurate representation of the morphology of your skull?

>>12545493
No, not even close

>>12552263
>there is nothing that precedes preference. Your preference is the source of judgements
Reread this post >>12550322
Again, your preferences are not the source of judgments, your preferences are one particular way (of many) of asserting moral judgments. What don't you understand about this?

>there is nothing that precedes preference.
Conceive for me a preference you could have that is not preceded by a value. If you can't do this, then I have no choice but to believe that something does indeed always precede a preference.

>>12546302
What the fuck, Popper was a retard, but his works have definite value. Have you even read Popper or just "muh falsification"

>>12548330
fuck, you got me, here's your (You)

>>12553669
>It's simply that we indeed do things because of our nature. Nothing precedes our nature.
What is our nature? Also considering your posts I assume you do indeed think some things precede our nature, such as physical matter and their unconscious, mechanistic motions. Unless you think our nature precedes even the universe...
>Values do not precede valuing agents
Values must precede a valuing agent, as values must always precede valuing. Can you conceive of valuing something while also at the same time not having values? It makes no sense. Just read Euthyphro, it is a short read (<1 hour) and it will clear up a lot about what you are confused about.

>>12554251
So what is the source of judgement? Why do we reason about anything? Present me with a normative statement that does not invoke preference.

Values can't possibly precede preferences. Values are abstractions -- the abstractions of living beings with preferences (valuing agents). Preference -is- our very nature, values are abstracted tools which serve that nature. My preference for vanilla icecream is not predicated upon a valuing of vanilla icecream, it's clearly my biological preference for that flavour which results in my willingness to pay for it (value it).

>>12554380
I don't think our nature is of fundamentally different 'stuff' from the rest of what is, but in thermodynamic terms yes there is much that precedes our specific composition.

That's a bait and switch. No, I can't conceive of valuing something while not having preferences. Values are the abstracted forms of preferences. Also, that values must precede their application does not indicate that values can precede the valuing agent itself, only that the act of valuing occurs after we have synthesized values (from preferences + knowledge). Your logic here is nigh non-existent.

>>12548851
Philosophy birthed science. Theism did not birth philosophy but contrary wise.
Nor did theism birth medicine. The early church murdered women for practicing medicine on the grounds of witchcraft, actually.
>deep meaning to millions of people
Here’s the poison I mention. The deep meaning it brings is a sedative, a soothing lie to make millions obey their overlords.
But it also poisons people with stupid sectarianism... well I could go on.

>>12545350
Jeremy Bentham and Descartes

>>12554597
>Present me with a normative statement that does not invoke preference.
See this just makes me think you are not understanding what me and other anons are saying. A preference IS a normative statement.
>My preference for vanilla icecream is not predicated upon a valuing of vanilla icecream
(kek) No, that preference is predicated upon your valuing of vanilla ice cream. Tell me how you can prefer vanilla ice cream over say chocolate without *valuing* vanilla ice more than chocolate?
>it's clearly my biological preference
What isn't (within your conception)? This is such a vacuous claim. Anything you prefer will already be assumed by you to be solely preferred by biological necessity.

We already showed that your preference for vanilla ice cream over other flavors is preceded by you valuing vanilla ice cream over all other flavors, so please conceive for me another preference you could have that is not preceded by a value. If you can come up with one preference that isn't contingent on a value, then I will concede.

>>12554597
>No, I can't conceive of valuing something while not having preferences
Was this what I asked? The question was, can you conceive of valuing something while also at the same time not having values?

>>12553669
You might actually be retarded.
First you say people should do things (like eating healthy and being honest) because they improve society and your self. According to you, we can find out using "logic" whether a seemingly normative statement is true or not.
Now you're going the deterministic route and saying that normative statement are impossible because, since everything is predetermined, prescriptive statements have no meaning.
These are two extremely different and entirely exclusionary ideas. You're trying to support ethical naturalism by invoking determinism-based moral nihilism? Seriously, you don't even know what you're talking about at all.
And stop spouting off that normative statements are a separate source of knowledge from descriptive statements. Normative statements, literally by definition, have no truth or falseness in them. That's what makes a statement "normative." Saying that a normative statement is claimed knowledge because ethic naturalists like you claim them to be knowledge is an idiotic circular argument. No one else treats normative statements like this because by their very definition it's not what they are.

Your idea: We should do what's right and healthy for ourselves and society as a whole. (You then digress onto saying that you can't escape your natural propensities, so you'll naturally do what your nature does. Of course, this annihilates your position considering this means tons of people will continue to lie and eat pizza three times a day, but you quickly drop the moral nihilism when it contradicts your point and jump back to ethic naturalism.) You're making an obvious, blatant normative statement and (either unconsciously or not) using pure fallacious sophistry to "prove" your point.

So one person wants to help society, another prefers to live in a hedonistic manner. How do you say which one is "right?" No one is arguing that values exist without a valuing agent, that's a red herring. The point is that these values themselves are neither true nor false, they are normative judgements. You can descriptively say that one person has such and such values, and another has different values. You cannot make descriptive judgements on the truth or falsehood of the statements themselves, which is what you originally attempted with "Eating vegetables is good" and "Honesty is a virtue."
I showed why declaring that true or false was fallacious, and you attempted to counter that by pulling determinism out of your ass and awkwardly slapping it into your argument, claiming that people will automatically desire health and honesty because they are determined to do so. Uh oh, but then you remembered the legions of lying fatasses on the planet (possibly looking at the reflection in your computer screen) so you start backpedaling. "Er, uh, well I'd just recommend you being healthy and honest because it's good for you and society." Well, congrats, you're right back to making another normative statement.

>>12553669
>>12554705
And the fact that you were replying to that other guy with a /pol/ and /r9k/ meme tells me you really are retarded. No wonder you can't understand this, and simply resort to parroting conflicting ideas. But congratulations on having one of the most fallacy-laden and self-contradictory "theories" of morality on the planet.
Please get off my board and go back to /pol/, /r9k/, or whatever subreddit you came from, you moronic pseudointellectual. Although I guess according to you, you were "determined" to be retarded, and for that I send my condolences.

>>12554631
>Philosophy birthed the rest of science
ftfy

You have a point, but normies tend to find their sedative religion or no. The mode of religious thinking and the psychological conceits of most people are more fundamental problems than religion itself. Even if we assume normies had the capacity to logically process complex reality, it doesn't necessarily follow that this would benefit their psychological health. Would you replace one draught of poison with another yet more lethal?

>>12545728
We're all just regurgitating and rediscovering Plato and Aristotle. If you think someone made profound gains, then just read some Plato and Aristotle to realize how fucking stupid people are.

>>12552320
Disprove UPB

>Protip - you can't.

He's underrated if anything.

>>12554278
"muh falsification" is poppers only works with any value
his ethics are appalling

>>12554757
>UPB
His argument is that we should be altruistic and value utilitarian ideals because those values have helped our species progress.
He's just saying that we should value what helps our species as a whole, and then invoking the naturalistic fallacy to try to give it objective legitimacy. Hardly compelling.

>>12554676
>a preference IS a normative statement
No, it isn't. You aren't born with a normative statement that says you're going to have a sweet tooth. You're born with a biological preference to that effect. Any value of sweets is an abstraction subsequent to this preference. Are you even trying?

You haven't shown anything except the pathetic state of your logical faculty. A value (which is a thought abstraction) can't precede the preference which is what that thought is about. Ah yes, biological necessity is vacuous but you can lean on some figment you can't even define without reference to preference and that's ayyylmao-okay. You have already conceded in the weakness of your argument.

>>12554757
Ethics can't be truly universal because the agents are not. Morality is about working with overlap, not universality. Pragmatically his views are fine, but it's not a logically coherent philosophy.

>>12554856
>Pragmatically his views are fine, but it's not a logically coherent philosophy
This is my view of Molymeme

>>12554837
You are either extremely dull or baiting, the latter being more likely. I will reply again only if you illustrate with particular examples the two conceptions I asked of you. I'll restate them in case you missed them.

>Conceive for me a preference you could have that is not preceded by a value.

>Conceive for me valuing something while also at the same time not having values.

>>12554856
>Ethics can't be truly universal because the agents are not.
>he doesn't know about the immortality of the Soul
kek.

>>12554837
Not the guy you were arguing with, but I feel like you guys both have half of the truth.

One on hand I agree with you that biological preferences precede and cause values.
On the other hand you don't seem to understand that the descriptive statement
> I prefer vanilla ice cream
is very different from the normative statement
> I should eat ice cream because I like it

You seem to be trying to deconstruct a normative statement into a descriptive statement, and that's just not possible. They are two very different things.
That autist who was replying to you with page-length essays was actually right about that, if you can understand what he's saying through all those insults

>>12545350
Nietzsche. He's basically a sophist whose very fundamental concept of will to power is ironically a form of nihilism; what kind of hierarchy is the one in which the overriding principle is the subjective quality of each and every single object?

>>12545467
>>12545499
babahahahaHAHHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

>>12554927
>On one hand I agree with you that biological preferences precede and cause values.

>>Conceive for me a preference you could have that is not preceded by a value.

>>12554705
Well, at least you allow for the possibility that I might not be retarded. Thanks.

This is just an army of strawmen.

My argument has never not been deterministic. Determinism does not mean prescriptive statements have no meaning, as they themselves are part of the causal chain.

I am disputing the definition of normative statements, so invoking the mere definition of normativity as evidence of it's own validity is circular to the max. You're projecting.

Yes some people will continue to lie and eat pizza, but others will be influenced by the prescriptions of others and perhaps find that their nature is far better served with alternative behaviours.

It's a gross over-reaction to suggest that I abdicate morality simply because I see it as an evolutionary strategy that follows from our capacity for abstract problem-solving. "Oh you're amoral because only my definition of morality can possibly be valid." Morality can't be a thing unless it's universal and precedes us?

Yes we can descriptively judge the truth or falsehood of a value statement. You start with the most fundamental preferences of the agent (let's say survival + reproduction for example) and then empirically evaluate how effectively their prescriptions achieve those ends.

You keep throwing out the concept of 'normative statement' without examining what it actually attempts to describe (not the mere convention of it).

>>12554986
You are biologically programmed to eat, so you value high calorie foods.
If I'm confused, can you do me a Spinoza and define your words real quick? Like preference and value, specifically

>>12554888
>No logical demonstrating! Argue within the box of my loaded definitions!

>>12554927
>> I prefer vanilla ice cream
>> I should eat ice cream because I like it
These are both normative statements. They are both based on values which are neither true nor false. A descriptive statement would be something like "vanilla ice cream tastes like vanilla" which can be verified by tasting both the ice cream and vanilla and comparing.

>>12547633
As an American who teaches philosophy I can tell you, that Anon has no exposure to academic philosophy in this country either. There's no 101 course in the nation that doesn't feature him prominently among the contemporaries, we have an entire course dedicated to him where I work - and this is a freaking JC.

Not that the US doesn't have it's problems, but that isn't among them. (Though maybe in Texas, they ban weird stuff in Texas.)

>>12554927
Ok, what is the reality of the 'should' in that statement? The implicit descriptive statement is there is:
>eating ice cream will result in pleasure because I like ice cream
There is no futher 'you should pursue pleasure', you simply pursue certain sensations because it's your nature to do so.

>>12554947
retard

>>12555122
The fact that it correlates with the categorical imperative, which is derived from pure reason applied to practical things. This is a real part of the world, becuase it is based on the nature of morality and a moral judgments relation to the world, making morality objective and descriptive.

>>12554816
That's not the argument. The argument is that there are things universally preferable to other things.

>>12555037
>Determinism does not mean prescriptive statements have no meaning
It literally does. You might as well be creating prescriptive statements as to how negative and positive ions interact

> I am disputing the definition of normative statements, so invoking the mere definition of normativity as evidence of it's own validity is circular to the max.
Yay, the tranny argument: "If I change the definition of the word (normative statement, gender, etc), it now means something different! Gotcha!"
When I say normative statements have no truth or falsehood behind them, I'm saying that statements which have no truth or falsehood in them do, in fact, exist. I even gave examples of how your supposed "positive" statements are normative.
But now you're turning around and arguing that the word "normative" actually indicates something that can be falsified or proved. So let's go with that, and call unfalsifiable statements "Jingleheimers" and you'll remember that I already showed you that "Jingleheimers" existed. Thanks for wasting my time with shitty sophistry.

> Yes we can descriptively judge the truth or falsehood of a value statement. You start with the most fundamental preferences of the agent (let's say survival + reproduction for example) and then empirically evaluate how effectively their prescriptions achieve those ends.
I have literally explained why this is wrong four times already, and you can't understand it. I will try to be as clear as possible.
> how effectively their prescriptions achieve those ends.
> achieve those ends.
> those ends.
You see that?
> those ends.

THAT IS THE FUCKING NORMATIVE PART OF IT, YOU GIGANTIC RETARD

DECIDING TO WORK TOWARDS THAT END IS THE NORMATIVE JUDGEMENT

How do you not understand this??? I have explained this now five different times and you can't seem to make the logical connection.

/lit/ is a logical, Socratic board. Take your sophistry back to pol or r9k and go talk more about NPCs to your fellow idiots. I'm done replying, either you're baiting or you're simply too dumb to get this.

>>12554856
He didn't say that ethics are universal. He says that there are behaviors that are universally preferable to other behaviors.

All Nietzsche really does is complain a lot and sometimes he even does that wrongly by misinterpreting the philosophers he's critiquing, and the ironic grandstanding gets real old real fast. I've read almost all of his works and I took absolutely nothing from him. How people can treat him as an authority on anything is baffling.

>>12555267
They can't be, preference isn't universal. We work with overlap.

>>12555047
>preference and value
A preference is that which you prefer. If you say "I prefer tomatoes over apples", then that is a preference. A value is a that which determines what you prefer. It is the standard by which things can be considered important or unimportant, best or worst, good or bad. If you were to try and justify your statement "I prefer tomatoes over apples", you would say something along the lines of "tomatoes taste better than apples". It is then revealed that you prefer tomatoes over apples because you actually value taste enough to consider it a standard by which you judge different foods. If you think through any particular preferences one can have, you will realize that all of your preferences depend upon values which you use to judge what you do and do not prefer. For this reason, values will always precede preference, for a preference without a value does not prefer anything at all.

>>12555122
>The implicit descriptive statement is there is:
>>eating ice cream will result in pleasure because I like ice cream
That's the supposed reasoning behind why I should eat ice cream, but that statement is completely different from claiming that I should eat ice cream.
The first is a falsifiable descriptive statement, the second is prescriptive statement. Obviously a prescriptive morality requires prescriptive statements.

>you simply pursue certain sensations because it's your nature to do so.
Correct, based on a deterministic view. But that flies in the face of your idea that people should be honest and eat right you said earlier. Now you're denying the existence of morality at all.

>>12545464
t. never read Kant
This is what undergrad pseuds say whenever their ethics 101 professor talks about Kant (which posits his ethical framework as an altruistic rather than a self-interested measure), and the professors themselves usually have read other summaries of Kant, written by people who used shit-tier translations of Kant so he appears boring and very academic; the end result is a heavily bastardized conception of Kant's ideas. The Cambridge translations of Kant are a prime example of this; it's like they were translated by an underpaid brainlet with zero interest in Kant to begin with.

Don't forget too, the Kantian academics, are often goody-little-two-shoes who started from the false premises above— if they ever realize their errors, they do nothing but hate on Kant, or perhaps even worse halfheartedly pick and choose and then pontificate on how Kant was wrong about this and that. They, 110-130 IQ midwits, think they can compare to this genius of a man. "Well given the attitudes at the time"....."in his day"..."clearly, he was wrong here"......."well of course it would seem extreme to us"................"clearly racist remarks concerning"........................ etc. The so-called Kantians in mainstream Academia are a disgrace and do a major disservice to the brilliancy of that once in a thousand-year man. I used to dislike Kant considerably on the above, flawed appraisals acting only on what I learned from a brief page or two in a text book and a professors insipid remark. It was not until years later when I picked his first critique and a book on some of his lectures. What I found was beyond fascinating, and instilled such a radical change in outlook that it was nearly a religious experience. Even his trivial commentary on phenomenon like earth quakes show such a curious, unique and sagacious mind.

The inverse is true: Kant is criminally underrated, and I would go so far to say that the real Kant, is virtually unknown.

>>12555144
retard

>>12555281
which philosopher does he misinterpret and how are ER, WTP, Master-Slave morality, Dionysian-Apollonian dialectic, his analysis of Greek Tragedy, the Genealogy of Morals and Overman not additive or positive in any way?

>>12555370
should have included perspectivism, his deconstruction of logic and mechanics and equivocation of most epistemology and metaphysics with hidden moral value judgements, his discussion of the Greek philosophers, his dissection of the German state and conscience, the dissection of Christianity and his predictions for the 20th and 21st centuries. That's quite a few subjects, most of which are positive and the rest are necessarily deconstructive, he was after all mostly assailing calcified and desiccated orders of thought.

>>12555236
Prescriptive statements -- one agent influencing another -- are part of the causal chain. Why did you ignore this?

Defining your terms is crucial to logical discourse. If I dispute the conventional definition of normativity (or that the concept describes any real dichotomy with the descriptive in the first place), it is the underyling logic of the definition which must be addressed to determine validity. You're wrong, all statements are descriptive and can be evaluated for accuracy. If morality doesn't need to be true or false to be valid, then why are you arguing for the logical validity of your conception of morality?

'The ends' aren't normative speculations, they are dictated by our preferences. Do you need to justify your existence to exist?

Hahah ok, don't have an aneurysm now. Bon voyage, pseud.

>>12555236
You are wasting your time. You can explain it any amount of times and that anon will still not be able to comprehend any of it.

>>12545493
No dummy

>>12555296
How convoluted can you get. Oh you don't prefer something because of your nature! See, there's this abstraction called 'value' and even though abstractions follow from your nature (capacity for reasoning) preferences surely can't! Preferences must follow from values!

>>12555300
When I say people should be honest and eat right I'm simply saying that this behaviour will ultimately better serve their nature (a possiblity I can reliably speculate about because I share a similar nature). I'm not saying the universe will care if they don't. It is entirely coherent to view morality as a conceptual tool that reasoning beings employ in service to their nature.

>>12555451
>Preferences must follow from values!
Now you are finally beginning to understand.

>>12555409
Go back to r9k, no one's replying to your bait anymore.
You had what, three or four different anons trying to explain why you're wrong? And you ignored them and continued to spout off your fallacies and inconsistencies.

I've seen you in other threads trying to say this, and almost always get ignored. This time I tried to show you why you're wrong and I realize it's futile.

>>12555485
>numerical superiority is sufficient logic kys

>>12555476
...
I really don't know what to say. I normally like discussing stuff like this but I sincerely don't think you can understand what anyone is saying.
How can you not see how determinism negates any ability to form meaningful prescriptive statements? How do you not understand what a normative statement is?
I'm sorry anon, but I'm done. If that other anon is right and you're just baiting, then screw you.

>>12555483
Yes, if I repeat it enough times I'm sure it will become real. Thank you so much enlightened anon.

>>12555513
I'm not baiting at all. How is stating your incredulity logically supportive of the notion of a normative/descriptive dichotomy or the necessity of free will? Do you realize that randomness is no more compatible with free will than determinism? That logical discourse itself is an invocation of the consistency of determinism? You and others aren't even bothering to dig into the logic, you're just regurgitating unexamined definitions and pretending that self-referentialism is valid logical argumentation.

Don't be sorry, you were probably the most civil of my interlocutors.

>>12555555
sextuples confirm free will is a meme

>>12546740
This is the most mental midget post I've ever seen.

>>12555288
The argument is not that preference is universal, but that there are behaviors which are universally preferable. Those behaviors are not universally preferred, but they are universally preferable.

Ted Kaczynski is utter shit

>>12545464
I thought this for a long time, especially when I first started studying him. I would read a sentence and take away something totally different from what every other student did. His writing style was impenetrable. Once I got adjusted to reading philosophy and started grad school, I had avoided kant for so long and thought he wasn't that difficult in comparison with readings of hegel, but recently I picked up CPR, and it still takes a couple read throughs. he's over rated.

>>12545350
Peter Jordanson, Peter Ssinger, JS Mill, Jeremy Bentham, Ayn Rand, Bertrand Russell, Slovoj Zizek, and Nick Land are all bad but liked enough to be overrated

>>12545447
Based

>>12547282
Not a philosopher though

>>12555555
What would you accept as evidence or proof of free will? If you have no null hypothesis to your determinism, then it is invalid.

>>12555844
To claim something is universally preferable is to say it should be universally preferred, where 'should' itself is a matter of preference. So if preference isn't universal, your objection is circular.

>>12556192
You've got it tangled. 'No free will' is the null hypothesis, because it does not posit a phenomena that is claimed to exist. The null hypothesis to determinism would be randomness, and neither are compatible with free will.

>>12555999
Agreed. I'm not disputing the man's brilliance by any means, I just think he's the most overrated based on the fanboyism and dogmatic adherence vs. what he actually established. Nice double trips.

>>12545350
Ayn Rand

>>12546138
Camus didn't even like being associated with philosophers because he felt he wasn't one, iirc.

>>12556372
Universally Preferable does not mean "should be preferred universally." It means "able to be preferred universally". For example, you can't universally prefer stealing over not stealing, because if you universally prefer stealing, and so does your victim, that means that they want to be stolen from, but if they want to be stolen from, then if you take their stuff it's not stealing. Theft would then vanish as a category.

What would you accept as proof of free will?

>>12547282
>>12556414
see >>12545355

>>12556471
More semantics. Nothing is 'able to be preferred universally' because that implies that it would be possible to homogenize the preferences (nature) of all valuing agents. What one agent prefers or doesn't in a given moment is irrelevant. You can't universally prefer not stealing either, because if you don't take a weapon from an aggressor without their consent they might kill you. If you did yourself prefer not stealing in all situations, that preference would certainly not be universalizable to all other agents.

>>12556471
If someone could act in a manner that bore no apparent relation to their biological state, prior sensations or prior and present circumstances, I would accept that as proof of free will.

>>12545350
Marx of course

I've tried reading Nausea several times and it puts me to sleep every time.

>>12546302
>sartre is receiving a renaissance right now in continental philosophy of mind.
What the fuck.
you mean "philosophy of mind" as "philosophie des geistes"? or seriously that david chalmers area philosophy?

>>12545721
everyone in the thread except me and this is borderline retarded.

>>12545360
>>12545447
>>12545464
>>12545665
>>12545728
All wrong, how can you think that?

>>12546096
Is he though? Merleau-Ponty is popular but I’ve never heard people talk about Sartre in a serious way in cognitive science of Phil of Mind.

>>12547574
Not academically no, but she’s probably the most widely read “philosopher” in America. You have members of Congress mentioning her far more frequently than John Rawls or Michael Waltzer.
>>12547580
Again, you have members of Congress professing her as a major inspiration. Something that isn’t true of basically all other philosophers.

How has no one said Wittgenstein yet

>>12556976
Because he’s actually a good philosopher who deserves his fame, you’re just a dip

>>12556994
Any recommended reading?

>>12556994
I think u misunderstood me. I like Wittgenstein but hate his following. Even Wittgenstein despised his followers throughout his life, always thinking they misunderstood him

>>12545678
Underrated if anything.

>>12545802
a) Not philosophy.
b) Fucking retarded.

Žižek, but not because he’s bad, just because he is vastly more popular than his work really warrants.
He’s no Badiou, and I think he fully recognizes that. He brings together and comments on a bunch of important threads in postwar French Thought in an interesting way, but he’s far from being an original systematic philosopher of the first order.

Most people fail to recognize that his core philosophical work basically just revolves around him trying to discribe again and again a theory of subjectivity, and then dozens of pop books which are basically just extended newspaper opinion column political writing, albeit sophisticated opinion columning.

He’s a thinker I’d overall consider ‘interesting’ and ‘insightful’ but not ‘profound’ or ‘shockingly original’, which he’d have to be considering how famous he is.

>>12557052
You nailed it. I find it hilarious that he gets to write books with Butler because when you put them side by side, even Butler has vastly more original insight to offer (and I wouldn't consider Butler to be a top tier philosopher by any stretch).

>>12545474

Glad someone said it already, I was about to.

>>12545723
everyone hates you

>>12545474
Jesus was asexual.

>>12545350
pic related likes talking shit about asexuals

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVsb8kVRYeM

>>12557738

>>12555364
t. not european

In Europe - especially in Law -, everyone enjoys to give Kant head.

>>12555364
>They, 110-130 IQ midwits, think they can compare to this genius of a man
imagine worshipping a dead German goblin

>>12556628
Not assaulting people is universally preferable to assaulting people because if assaulting people were universally preferable, that would mean that you want to assault and be assaulted all the time. If you want the assault to occur and your assaulter also wants you to assault them and you do, then what you have is a fight or duel and not assault so the category of assault vanishes.

>>12556647
We do not exist in a vacuum so that burden of proof is unreasonable.

>>12559743
You're starting from the premise that some things are or can be universally preferred, which is false. You can always find a moment/situation in which something you'd think can be universally preferred (say, survival) wouldn't be preferred by a given agent. Preferences change with time and perspective... Preferring non-assault when you're the assaultee or in a given instance does not indicate this will always be your preference.

The categories of assault and theft are moral conventions, formulated by collectives of valuing agents which significant overlap in preferences. The behaviour of valuing agents who fall outside that overlap do not invalidate those categories, as they were never universals to begin with. A psychopath who could only obtain emotional satisfaction by klling others, and who would not morally condemn another for attempting to kill him, would not invalidate the moral convention of murder. Furthermore, the fact that he prefers to not be killed himself in no way necessitates that he always prefer not killing. Neither killing nor not-killing is universally preferable, because the notion of universal preference is flawed to begin with. What you're talking about is overlap... Morality is about overlap, not universality.

>>12559764
I would suggest that if proof is so hard to come by, your claim is unreasonable. Would occam's razor not indicate that free will is more likely to be a psychological conceit?

It's not really fair to make inherently vague claims and then point to their undefinability/unknowability as evidence of their truth. That's why the burden of proof is on those making positive claims, no matter how 'unreasonable'.

>>12559891
It's not really fair to demand impossible burdens of proof either. Literally everything acts in a manner relevant to present circumstances so to ask for an example of someone acting without that is like asking for an example of how someone would act in an environment entirely free of the influence of gravity.

Name an action one could take that would be free from their biological state, prior sensations, and prior or present circumstances.

>>12559860
If i prefer to be stolen from, that means I want people to take my things. If I want them to take my things, those things can't be stolen from me because stealing implies that I did not want it taken.

>>12560339
When we're exploring possibilities by means of a logical standard, the impossibility of demonstrating a particular claim with that standard is not logically supportive of the claim. Unless you reject the logical standard altogether, in which case arguing for the validity of free will (or debating in general) is nonsensical.

If you can't conceive of an action free from influences, is it more reasonable to conlude that:
a) Determinism is likely.
b) Some vague and undefineable phenomenon allows us to act in a 'free' manner despite the many demonstrable influences upon our behaviour.

>>12560355
So what? How does that establish universality?

>>12545872
Learn yourself up on dualism, blind spots, or modern biological theory, friend. Nobody really knows what a mind is yet and nobody knows if it’s even possible to define what a mind is.

>>12546992
Marx realized class theory in a big way though. It explains a lot about caste systems and social hierarchy. He also really gave birth to the labor movement with Engels. Sure communism is just some agrarian Jewish pseudobullshit, but Marx lit off a keg of social philosophical dynamite and you should just neck yourself for your presumably Hegelian beliefs

>>12547981
This nigga doesn’t even believe in modern science

>>12548330
This

>>12556927
>All wrong, how can you think that?
I understand the other ones but what's so great about Whitehead?

Jordan Peterson

>>12560567
It means that universally preferring stealing is impossible, but that universally preferring not stealing is possible.

>>12560559
I could say a person starving themselves to death simply to prove that they have the will, but you would find fault with that as he is still constrained by the external circumstance of gravity, as if that had anything to do with the will.

Also there is a distinction between "influenced by" and "determined by"

>>12561250
No, it doesn't.

You can either treat 'theft' as something conventionally defined -- as based upon overlapping preferences, or we can strictly define it as taking property without the owner's consent.

If we're going with the strict definition, then unless your thief is a mind-reader they cannot know that the owner would consent, and so theft has still occurred.

It is not possible that anything can be universally preferred, because that would necessitate homogenizing the preferences of all valuing agents -- their respsones to all possible circumstances (which means homogenizing their very nature). Your semantic games do nothing to circumvent this fact.

>>12561270
That would rather indicate that their psychological need to be 'right' was strong enough an impulse for them to starve themselves.

Please stop trying to put the ball in my court. You're the one making the positive claim, so it's up to you to clearly define your posited phenomenon. While you're at it, explain exactly what 'free' means in this context... Free from what?

>>12561390
Are you not making the positive claim that everything is determined?

>>12561347
you are the one saying universally preferred. I am saying universally preferable.

>>12561432
Sure, of which there is ample evidence and the law of thermodynamics to suport. I may not be able to assert fundamental determinism with absolute certainty, but by comparison the assertion of free will is a figment of imagination.

>>12561447
Childish semantics. Universally preferable = able to be universally preferred = false. You're not even trying now, just regurgitating your mind virus.

>>12561486
Yes, able to be universally preferred =/= universally preferred

>>12561466
Why do you act as though free will exists? What would the point in debating it be if all choices were illusory and pre-determined anyway and people would think what they would anyway?

>>12561495
Very well, if you must be a child then revisit >>12561347 you'll see that I am arguing that nothing can be universally preferred (is not able to be universally preferred), not that something in particular is or isn't universally preferred.

Are you having fun?

>>12545350
Its called a philosophical novel you fucking retard

>>12561513
Obviously because debate and one agent influencing another are part of the causal chain. I don't know the future, I have no idea what someone is going to think and so I treat myself as part of the causal chian. Isn't this obvious?

>>12561529
things are able to be universally preferred. That doesn't mean that they will be, but, they have the ability to be. It does not necessitate homogenizing the preferring agents. Making it so the thing capable of being universally preferred is universally preferred would necessitate such homogenization, but, it being universally preferable does not.

it's like water, it is all capable of being frozen, thus it is universally freezable, but, not all water is frozen at the same time, as that would necessitate homogenizing the conditions all molecules of water are currently experiencing.

>>12561548
if there is no choice then there is no agent.

>>12561702
That's a bait and switch. You're moving the locus of preference from the valuing agent to the definition of some particular value. For it to be possible for anything to be universally preferred, it would have to be possible for all valuing agents to have identical preferences -- that is the contigency. The logical sensibility of any particular value is irrelevant to whether it can be universally preferred, because nothing can be universally preferred due to variance in the nature of agents.

That's a fallacious analogy. Water is able to be frozen because of it's specific composition (its nature), not all arrangements of matter in the universe can likewise be frozen... You would have to homogenize it all into water for it to be freezable in the same way (and even then, it's disputed whether true universals exist i.e. whether all apparently similar matter/energy is actually composed of fundamentally identical units).

>>12561708
Says you. What is a choice exactly? Does it have to be 'free' or it can simply be the manifestation of impulses? You're pre-assuming your definitions are correct and demanding I argue within that box.

Fine, there's no agent. So what? The predetermined actions of one biological organism influencing another is part of the causal chain. What has changed?

>>12549216
Camus can do, but Sartre is smartre

Kóndo

>>12550489
Why can't you share a single meaningful thing from the book you're recommending?

>>12561891
TAKE IT BACK

Peter singer

Nietzsche

>>12545350

>>12561891
We have a winner

>>12562544
He'll cut you bitch

>>12562560
God damn you

>>12554744
I seek to stabilize life, allowing the vast majority to be raised in a comfortable and rational environment. The human mind is more malleable than you think.
What I’m thinking is possible, though not as likely in this late stage of things

>>12561882
Well if it is pre determined then it is no choice at all. A choice is only a choice if an alternative were equally possible.

If there is no agent then what exactly are "you" responding to?

>>12562843
It's like you're not even bothering to think, which is ironic coming from a proponent of free will (but not surprising). If that's how you want to define those terms, then fine. But understand, those assumptions are not evidence of free will... Rather you have already embedded the conclusion you want in your definitions. So you point to a person and an action and say "Behold, an agent, a choice -- therefore free will!" It's silly.

No one knows the future, and you have to take actions or cease to exist. Part of acting as a sophisticated conscious being is the capacity to abstract -- to have thoughts about sensory inputs so that you can simulate and plan ahead. Whether the micro-events that lead to your thoughts or anything else are fundamentally deterministic OR random, none the above is contingent upon a supposed phenomenon of 'free will' (which you have yet to define).

I am some kind of localization of matter/energy that can receive sensory input, abstract it, encode my abstractions in various ways, and output in various kinetic ways. So are you. Like all life, we exist in a feedback loop with our environment. Call us whatever you want.

You literally cannot escape taking action, it is essential to your nature. No alternative to action is possible... Call that whatever you want. It doesn't matter if there's no alternative to how things play out; it is pointless to second-guess about a future you can't possibly know. You are part of the causal chain, so might as well do the best you can.

Honestly, the biggest practical difference in admitting to no free will is that I am much more sensitive to how people are products. They get programmed by society and by their genes, and in thinking they have free will they relinquish what little critical perspective they could have -- they are all the more enslaved. If anything, I'm more self-aware and discriminating about what influences I expose myself to. It may not be true 'freedom' (whatever that's supposed to mean), but I am more critically aware of my participation in the feedback loop.

>>12562606
Yes, the human mind is plastic, but plasticity alone can't fully overcome capacity limitatons.

Perhaps you're right, it's just that when I look at much of what my fellow non-believers do believe, it is apparent that being free from that particular illusion has provided no immunity to others which are more urgently threatening. Then I look at the conclusions and conduct of many religious conservatives (not muslims) and often find them more amenable, even if they're wrong about the underlying mechanics.

The average human mind needs upgrading, otherwise it's pick your poison.

>>12556471
>Universally Preferable does not mean "should be preferred universally." It means "able to be preferred universally".
So, Molymeme just cribbed Kant?

>>12563520
>If anything, I'm more self-aware and discriminating about what influences I expose myself to. It may not be true 'freedom' (whatever that's supposed to mean), but I am more critically aware of my participation in the feedback loop.
If irony had a weight, this sentence could sink an oil tanker.

>>12563520
How would you distinguish with certainty between your incompatibilist determinism and hard indeterminism? How can you say definitively that certain causes have certain effects in your world of constant conjunction if there is no metaphysical first position? Would the answer to either of these questions not require a distinctly positive statement?

>>12564118
You can't even define your precious phenomenon, yet think you understand so well. The true irony is that despite your conceit of 'free will' your blinded by definitions you don't critically examine. Participation/Action = undefined freedom... Why? If your arrogance had a weight, it would halt the expansion of the universe.

>>12563694
I hear you.
I welcome the socialist catholics as all just a necessary growth.
Hey, it may look like gloomy prospects, but that's no reason to give up. No matter how dire.

>>12564219
Your statement that you Will what you are exposed to is an affirmation of agent causality. You're the one making a libertarian claim, not me. I'm a hard incompatibilst.

>>12564271
*Hard indeterminist.

>>12564161
Whether the processes which shape our universe or the cauldron of existence itself is deterministic or probabilistic, 'free will' is not indiciated, and certainly not necessitated. In either case, our self and behaviour is a manifestation of something we did not author. We are the chicken, not the egg.

I am open to soundly reasoned arguments or definition for free will (none of which have been presented, just a constant attempt to lob the same nondescript ball back into my court).

Given that causality is implicit to our entire experience, I don't see why it would be unlikely for us to also be links in a causal chain or caused bubbles in a probabilistic cauldron. Retreating into epistemological skepticism (requiring absolute certainty) doesn't support either position, so I fail to see the point in that either.

On the other hand, it seems highly unlikely that an ill-defined phenomenon grants us an equally ill-defined state of 'freedom'. It would be far more parsimonious to suppose that the notion of free will is rather the psychological conceit of ego-centric beings who like to feel in control. Parsimony is important, because the more assumptions we have to make, the more likely it is some will be wrong. You free will bois are layering assumptions like it's a metaphysical lasagna.

>>12564271
I see myself as a link the chain. There is a feedback loop whereby influences direct me towards other influences, and simply being aware of this process is one of those influences. That awareness itself has altered my preferences. I didn't say anything about will, I don't know if you're just being pedantic or what. If you want to change our conventional use of language go for it, but I think it would be more expedient to simply defuse the assumptions of will in our common language.

>>12564255
When do you plan on becoming more likeable as a person or leaving the board entirely?

>>12545464
a lot of ppl are gonna say 'LOL THIS IS WHAT PHIL 101 STUDENTS SAY' but these ppl themselves are actually just faggots speaking to some glorified academic opinion lol. they think a person who doesnt suck kant dick is a banal individual who talks in wishy washy, psychologically-motivated statements, reads kierkegaard, hegel etc... but aside from all that shit, kant just not very revolutionary at all. The idea that things are different from how we see them just plain fuckin simple. Nothing this fag says is new or even difficult - the terminology is difficult - but that's because he's german...
idk, coming from a background of medieval scholasticism and reading kant just doesnt give me the impression that hes this promethean thinker all you fucking faggots make him out to be.

>>12545723
if u an atheist thinking u get aquinas then you're wrong lol. Disprove the argument from contingency right now. Unlimited time, use whatever materials you need.

>>12564406
When you get that stick out of your ass

>>12547973
YIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKES

>>12545350
Locke