/lit/ - Literature

>>13219310
I love the Matrix

>>13219333
/thread

>>13219333
>333
Sweet trinity

>>13219310
sounds real cool if you lived in an action movie world, but you just like sit inside and then go to work so idk. i guess you can be immoral in line at the store. life is mundane and so are your petty attempts to be unique

>>13219342
Or I could cheat on every women I date.

>>13219344
yea you could buts thats all short term gratification so you probably wont be fulfilled, but if thats a hobby youre interested in go ahead i guess. might as well try

>>13219310
>There is no objective morals

without god, yes

>>13219362
Which god?

>>13219362
>debate me
have sex

>>13219344
We both know that's never going to happen

>>13219364
any that issues morals

>>13219365
>Statement = debate

>>13219364
>>13219364
whatever you wanna believe in breh

>>13219310
human beings are not necessarily predators when the potential to move beyond that state exists

why do people think that no morals = egoism?

>>13219379
educate yourself on what egoism is

>>13219379
I am mostly saying that most values are not your own. That is an idea egoist all know.

>>13219333
fpbp

>>13219380
I think the other anon has a point. Nietzsche says somewhere that actual egoism is very rare and difficult to reach since people just don't know what they want or what's good for them. That's roughly said of course.

>>13219333
Op here is it worth watching?

human morals are grounded in human self-interest. Self-interest is dependent on environment, therefore so is morality. Since humans share environments, we share morals with our neighbors. Just accept my logic, im a fucking galaxy brain

>>13219310
Morality is just the maximization of self-benefit. Immoral people are simply those who are too ignorant to do that which truly benefits them. In a perfect world, everyone would perfectly benefit himself.

>>13219390
no it hasnt aged well, but its popculture canon so you prolly should

>>13219388
well egoism is nothing to do with what's good for you.

and neitszsche is an idiot, firstly because even if you didn't know what was really good for you and were just doing what you thought you wanted it would still be egoism, and secondly because anyone who is unspooked would be able to figure out what they *really* want

>>13219393

>>13219432
Not an argument

>>13219310
Morals are like colors. Sure they exist, but so what? Do what you will with them, right.

>>13219434
>morality is what I say it means because I said so

you can't just make up random definitions retard

>>13219440
Morality concerns what we should do. We should always try to benefit ourselves as much as possible. Benefiting others is just an indirect method of benefiting ourselves. As social creatures, we thrive when we create good connections with others. You have already tried to ridicule me, so you’re not willing to accept my logic, but you can’t argue against me. You’re dealing with someone with at least 15 IQ points more than yourself

>>13219429
>well egoism is nothing to do with what's good for you.
I can agree with this. The only issue is that it kinda ruins egoism, but after all, why not. Anyway, what Nietzsche meant by 'egoism' is something higher. Let's say: I have an exam tomorrow but I'm afraid, so I just stay home. Is that egoist? Seems that you would say yes. Nietzsche would say no.

>neitszsche is an idiot
Nietzsche isn't.

>if you didn't know what was really good for you and were just doing what you thought you wanted it would still be egoism
Alright. I'm afraid of the examn, I stay home. Egoism. Alright.

>anyone who is unspooked would be able to figure out what they *really* want
I agree completely. However most people are not unspooked at all.

What it all implies is that you have to distinguish between what you 'think you want' (or let's say, what you're attracted to: stay home instead of passing the examn, eating pizzas all the time and raping your ex) and what you actually want (which doesn't have to be related to the moral good; let's rather say: what you actually want is what you would want if you were unspooked).

Philosophically speaking you always have to distinguish between at least two points of view inside the 'self'. The meaning of 'egoism' can be related to a weak point of view (doing what I wanna do, while being an idiot or a dog), or it can be related to the stronger point of view (doing what I want, while being unspooked).

I'm afraid there's a contradiction when you say both
>egoism is nothing to do with what's good for you
and
>anyone who is unspooked would be able to figure what they *really* want
Or do you mean that what you *really* want has nothing to do with what is good for you?

>>13219310
agreed, moral is something that is created by each individuals
and because it's vary between each individual, societies invented some kind of standards so everyone can simply follow it without the need to think about it beforehand
but even if moral is objective, one shouldn't stop finding for morals

>>13219310
Dumb frogposter

>>13219310
Sorry, but there is an evolutionary basis because there is a selection effect.
Consider two group of animals/cavemen etc. One has the habit of eating its own offspring, the other not. Which one do you think will be around in a generation ? Or take sexual morals. If somebody is fucking around the tribe, the males could never be sure that they invest in their own offspring (which for humans is considerable). The females on the other hand can't accept promiscuous male behavior because promiscuous males will invest in multiple other families. Thus it hurts tribal cohesion, thus long-term survival.

Even hunter gatherers had to cooperate. At our current level of interconnectedness, it's hard to conceive of looking at the problems of an individual without it being at the same time deeply societal. We have common law to protect ourselves from violence to ourselves and property, among other things. We engage in democratic processes in which the opinions of society have direct impact on us. We gather in large cities so we can better organize production and so we can use the wages earned from specialized labor to purchase goods we never have to make ourselves.
Being so collectivized, the rights taken from one person are rights that can be taken from you. An attack on your country is an attack on your physical security. A recession of the economy at large is a threat to your job security. Lobbyists who obscure the will of the people obscure your will by extension. As you regularly have to consider the well being of others as an extension of your own with respect to multiple issues, it becomes natural that your sphere of concern expands and that more generally, the interests of others become your own. And on the whole, everyone being concerned for the well being of the collective, genuinely, and not just cynically so one may take advantage, is a benefit to the common good, and therefore to the individual, so that caring for others is natural.

>>13219563
A lot of it comes from long generation cycles and the heavy investment into offspring together with complex nervous systems. Primates need to protect their offspring for years. All higher animals have some kind of social behavior, even solitary species. Ritualized fighting for instance to avoid killing your species, suppressed aggression to kids etc. If you're a fish you just pop out 50000 larvae and eat half of them, nothing bad will happen.

>>13219557
Funny how all you evolutionary psychology types just intuit how ancient societies worked on the basis of no research whatsoever, and it just happens to confirm whatever you already believed. Not that structuring a society, let alone a mortal system, around how people happened to live at a fairly arbitrary point in human development is a good idea to begin with, but there's plenty of reason to believe that no one gave a shit about paternity until the invention of agriculture, lots of hunter gatherer societies were basically matriarchal, and everyone just fucked whoever and whatever kids came out of it were raised by the collective. But sure, go off.

>>13219310
Levinas BTFO'd egoism forever.

>>13219372
What if there's more than one?

>>13219310
Sounds lonely anon

under the current assumption that humans are the only meaningfully sapient beings and that many other known species are sentient or near-sapient, and under the axiom that consciousness is a good thing, morality is that which preserves sapient beings first, sentient beings second
furthermore, if a consciousness's subjective experience is negative, then its existence is devalued, so the being is not being encouraged to preserve itself
following from this, anything that hurts another human being is immoral, with the exception where hurting that person will stop them from hurting another person, in addition to anything putting the species in danger being immoral. these rules also apply (but less strictly) to sentient animals and non-sentient life that sentient animals rely on
this explains most of morality. murder does not preserve consciousness. theft, rape, torture, etc devalue the existence of a consciousness by making it less enjoyable to experience. atheism does not hurt anyone, and neither does theism, so neither are immoral. same goes for any sex acts between people who understand and appreciate what they're doing and fully consent, since you can't be directly hurt by something you want
other things become more sketchy and debatable. you could argue that homosexuality is immoral because it threatens the species (gay people can't naturally reproduce), but we've reached the point in population size where 5% of people not reproducing isn't going to be an issue. abortion could alternatively be seen as the unforgivable destruction of human life or as the situation-specifically justified destruction of barely sentient non-sapient life. piracy does not revoke the original owner's ability to sell a specific instance of a thing, so it isn't theft. every moral is a question of "does this hurt someone unnecessarily"

>>13219586
Smaller tribes can be more collective. If everybody cares for the offspring of everybody else it will work. Not so in agrarian societies with urban centers where cohesion is low. Lots of anonymous people around, you may end up caring for the offspring of somebody who has no part in your group. The limit seems to be at around 150 people, still used in the military for unit cohesion.

>>13219310
The misconcenption here is, that your life would be happier or more fulfilled. But it wont. It will be ultimately just lonely. If you like that, and some people do, hell, might as well do it this way.

>>13219393
morality is about good and evil, doesn't matter if you gain something out of it or not

>>13219530
frog website

>>13219669
What he probably meant is the absence of real selflessness in nature. In the long term morality profits the individual and that's the reason it exists.

>>13219344
You would need to find a woman first, you could cheat on and that doesn't seem very likely

>>13219672
for me the benefits which came out of morality is merely coincidence or unintended
if you only think about benefit then it doesn't matter what you're doing to gain what you wanted

>>13219606
Sorry I thought we were talking about "animals/cavemen"? Or should we just keep moving arbitrary historical periods until you find the one that best aligns with the point you're trying to make? If you're taking about evolution then anything after the invention of agriculture is evolutionary negligible, so don't even bother. If you're making any other augment, then modern life is obviously so incomparably different from a primitive agricultural society that I don't see why we should emulate one - whether you like it or not, contraception has fundementally changed how heterosexual sex works and the social forms that it implies.

>>13219684
maybe you can teach me lel guess not.

>>13219310
I don't see your point

That we have free will has been known for quite long, as ordained by God

>>13219310
you have to be over 18 to use this website

>>13219755
>13219755
>>13219755
My point is in a nihilistic world. Why care about societies ways of pushing it's morals on you? I mean why not be selfish when it benefits you?Because feewings? What if I don't feel bad for example cheating or pirating? Should I refrain? What if I don't care to be virtuous this doesn't mean shortsighted or rash btw. If you don't care than most these arguments like empathy or curteousy don't work.
>>13219757
Just because you posted this I will post on /lit/ a lot more.

>>13219699
The point is that if your selfish actions are dictated by long-term benefit not only do they start to look like morality, they are actually moral. For social animals, long-term benefit for the individual is the same as group benefit. That's why biologists say there is no "pure" altruism can exist for an extended period because it is selected out by the evolutionary process. Even if somebody sacrifices himself, the driving force is still caused by the selfish gene wanting to protect the group (aka it's own copies).

>>13219310
Ego pill is a true red pill, but you have NO NATURE: you are the creative nothing. If you want to know what Good means, do it like Aristotle: The purpose of an action is a good. This would have no end/meaning if there weren't actions good in and for themselves. The only thing really applying to this (end in itself) is LIFE. What does that mean to humans? Surely not what it means for plants or animals, because their form of life is simply different. YOU on the other hand live and act with an understanding of yourself/your act/your life: you live with logos. Those who do this best, are best (= more good): same as every other action can be done more or less excellent. Doing/Being good means being one with yourself (=being the Owner of yourself) and enjoying the highest pleasure, because being good feels fucking good (it feels godly even). Morality and big Aristotelian (NE book 9, chapter 4)/Stirnerian egoism do not contradict each other. Don't fall for those who preach "objective moral standpoints" or "criteria", there are no criteria or standpoints one could reasonably express, but it doesn't make it any less true that you are JUDGED by every rational being (with regard to good and bad) AND every one of us intuitively KNOWS what it means to be good. There is NO EXCUSE for not being good!

>>13219355
everybody does it so no big deal

>>13220000
>everybody

I’m not so I guess you’re wrong

>>13219310
nice book, faggot

>>13220018
what do you mean?

>>13219808
My issue with this is what constitutes the logos? Do we derive a rational principle like the Categorical Imperative? Or is there some other principle that Is sufficient? Because if one lives a purely rational life, they will have no guiding principles. And if we are living according to deductive reasoning, we need something to deduce from

>>13220015
sorry to break it to you, but sucking dick does count as cheating

>>13219750
Weak comeback. Also I'm no the one bragging on an anonymous basket weaving forum about how many women I can get.

>>13220023
/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/. Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.

>>13220034
Have sex

>>13219362
no power over unbelievers though

>>13220000
If you actually believe this you're a sad soul and I pity you. I hope someday you'll find somebody who loves you and helps you overcome your trust issues and let's you see the value of an individual human being. Until then, I pray for you

>>13220036
Easier said than done

>>13220044
Spoken like a true npc.

>>13220049
>he thinks he's something special because he posts on 4channel
YIKES stop being such an edgy cunt and comeback when you turned 18

>not logically concluding your objective morality based purely on a priori transcendental pure reasoning

Pathetic naturalists...

>>13220091
This, but the categorical imperative needs work

>>13220091
tfw when I don't understand Kant so I can't respond to this post

Throw away holiness and wisdom,
and people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice,
and people will do the right thing.

>>13220104
You dont even read to read Kant beyond his book titles to respond by saying pure reason is incapable of legislating, and that the moral law is the domain of practical reason

>>13220112
The problem is applying normative ethics to non-humans (aka people driven by emotions). In fact, there is no normative system, only descriptive, meaning just people act just and so on

>>13220122
There is no normative system indeed, that's why 90% of religious values should be thrown away as they are as hollow as their followers.

>>13220145
Well, you used "should" where "could" would be more accurate. But yes, I agree

>>13219333
Based and bluepilled

>>13220188
>bluepilled
*redpilled

>>13220118
Clearly youve never read Kant, pure reason is the foundation which allows the possibility of practical reason, and through the former we reach the latter. The moral law is held by a priori axioms, as Kant writes, there is no moral action, only moral intention.

>>13220246
What is Kant's process for arriving at the characteristics of necessity and universality? I think I under the concepts, but am interested in where they are derived from? I am pretty sure it's from logical rules, but I am un-versed in logic beyond bare necessities. Could other logic(s) provide different characteristics of the a priori axioms/categorical imperative? I would assume so, but that obviously leads to further discussion

>>13219749
2deep4me I guess. I thought selection processes are not necessarily biological, but you're right of course. Post-agriculture there is no selection of anything, and any decision we may or may not make does not have any effect on us or the society we live in. That's why Africa is a paradise, although their political decisions have been crap forever.

>>13220027
How can I tell you what it *is*? When asking and reading you already are using its criteria of meaning, otherwise you wouldn't understand neither speech nor anything else. It's uncircumventable (and therefore marvellous, it leaves us to wonder). Only by employing the logos we can feel its existence (same as with [the thing we mean by] freedom).

I don't think it's reasonable to deduce your decisions from the CI, there are cases where it's just strange to do so. "Deduce" from the undeterminable inside. The undeterminable "I" is "nothing" in the sense of a creative self determining completion that keeps becoming (Fichte's "Tat-Handlung": end AND process), it is not "nothing" in the sense of deficit and voidness. There is no principle of morality external from the conscious experience of being and acting: you already are a rational being (with logos) by being able to utter the word "I", by being (self-)conscious. A position external to that is not understandable.

Good is understood - by everyone who thinks and acts according to ends set by themselves - due to the mere fact that they think and act. We call these beings rational. Trying to understand what you already "know" in the sense that it's not an immediately "given" thing, can lead to confusion.

Whether you take Stirner or Aristotle (or some other suitable author) to better understand "yourself" and clear up confusion is unimportant. Kant's Groundwork for example starts by stating the very same stuff as Aristotle. What is right, will be found again and again. Aristotle says Good is absolute: it is the highest value, it is not depending on other things, it is good by itself - every other thing is gets it's value from it.

Living good gives you joy, because you will act out the highest value, feel one with yourself, free of cognitive dissonance: you will feel good in your own skin. It enhances your being instead of tearing you apart and making you less.

You set your own ends (this can only happen with logos) and act them out doing your fucking best, all the while never stopping to reflect on what you do ("Is it still a good idea to do X?"). Stick to what you know/feel is right, there is no more to it. "What is right" is yours to judge. But since we all share our rational life form with logos, we can convince each other of better arguments and (as it often happens) find consensus (e.g. rape is not good).

I suggest Sebastian Rödl for further Kantian-Aristotelian Absolute Idealism, he's the shit.

>>13220286
Sorry for the late reply, I had to walk my dog. This is a good question, though Kant would refer to neccesity (that is, the neccesity to strive to be moral) as duty and it is probably the most contentious part of his entire system.

The reason that Kant gives for why every "rational" being has a duty to be moral (the CI) is due to their autonomy, AKA, Free will. Effectively, if, through the sensible world (phenomena) we are bound by causal determinism (every cause must have an effect) then there is no free will, but as Kant lays out in the CPR, through the intelligible world (Noumena) there exists a priori principles which require an agent to be able to act without prior governance of cause. Therefore, if one was, as Kant did, extrapolate morality from a purely intelligible standpoint (that is, through metaphysical intention, which is why it must be universal, for if there exists a moral maxim which is determined good a priori, it must be good in all situations) one would be able to conclude an objective morality which you are bound by your own autonomy to follow. In short, as Kant says, if free will exists as noumena, than it is the duty of the agent to follow a categorical imperative. this is perfectly analagous to how our experience and understanding relies on A priori categories to function, just in this case it is that for us to have free will or autonomy, there must also be an objective a priori moral category.

In terms of wether different logics could provide different axioms for the CI, I think Kant would say no, since as rational agents, we cannot know anything about noumenal reality, there cannot exist a logical system other than the one which we determine via transcendental methodology. I hope this helped answer your question, if you would like me to explain it more simply let me know, though it seems from your replies that you had read enough Kant to understand what I mean.

Pic related for when garbage naturalists like J.S Mill critiqued Kant for using weak utilitarian logic to derive his concept of absolute duty.

>>13219770
>My point is in a nihilistic world. Why care about societies ways of pushing it's morals on you? I mean why not be selfish when it benefits you?Because feewings? What if I don't feel bad for example cheating or pirating? Should I refrain? What if I don't care to be virtuous this doesn't mean shortsighted or rash btw. If you don't care than most these arguments like empathy or curteousy don't work.

Because you bear responsibility for the society you live in, what you bring to it and how the people around you feel on your behalf.

Secondly, you may go ahead and try a life of evil but I'd advise you not to for your own good. You might think you're above it, human, but you'll sooner or later find out you're not. What goes around, comes around. You can run, but you can't hide. Trust me on this.

Sadly, being city-dwellers and all it's kind of hard to get these points across as the idea that "I can do whenever I want until I get caught" seems to become more and more tempting the more systems of justice, etc, becomes detached from local and daily life. I guess that's what the story of Babylon is about.

>>13219362
Not necessarily...

http://politicallyincorrectdharma.blogspot.com/2019/05/on-the-atheist-morals-of-buddhism.html

>>13219310
>he hasn't read Kant

>>13221102Thanks so much, and don't worry about the delay; I was out doing chores. I appreciate the response and think I get it.I am working my way through CPR by myself right now, but read Groundwork during college. It didn't strike me immediately and ultimately find virtue ethics more tenable, I think I will eventually try to make the CI more palatable if I ever have the chance to do so.Once again, thanksAnd if this is you too >>13220474 thanks as well. As I said, I was away and couldn't respond. I'll look into that guy

>>13219364
Up for debate; a god nonetheless. Without a "god" or a highest value, a moral structure can't aim itself towards "good" because there's essentially no more up or down.

>>13219448
You're just severely retarded. How can a system of morals funded in the premise of helping the less fortunate be the most efficient way to derive benefit for ourselfs? You can't be inmoral in every situation, cause you are going to get stigmatized. But, you can be inmoral in certain circumstances and derive higher profits from it.

>>13219390
Ignore other poster it's still a good movie and you'll never be able to fully appreciate your reaction image until you do.

>>13219310

>>13219390
It's the epitome of everything that was considered cool in the early 2000's. Seeing as the trend now is a new wave of post postmodernism where everything is a joke and you're not supposed to take anything seriously because that's edgy and childish, you might find it a bit cringe and dated of you're that type of guy. I think it's fucking awesome. And the philosophical point of the movie is still interesting. Plus as other anon has said it's pop culture so you should watch it anyways.

>>13219795
Obtaining benefit out of non-arbitrary decisions isn't the same as a system of morals. For some social animals, but not for us, cause we render our sociological-structure based on abstract notions, like, of course, morality.
Having a static system opens the door for explotation. Our system is morality. It derives quasi-equal profit for individuals being part of it. Nonetheless, going against the herd in a set of circumstances, will, inevitably, lead to higher profit for those that took the chance.

>>13221330
>How can a system of morals funded in the premise of helping the less fortunate be the most efficient way to derive benefit for ourselves?
I never said such a thing. What is commonly called “moral” usually indicates the good treatment of others. But being good to others is only moral because it ultimately benefits the one who is doing the good. There are some cases when the most moral thing to do is to harm others, though the possible existence of an afterlife complicates our decisions. If I knew that there were no punishments in the afterlife, and that I could get away with my crimes in this world, then I could benefit myself the most by stealing, killing, etc. to get whatever it is that I want. But it’s not proven that the afterlife doesn’t exist, and it’s very difficult to get away with crimes. Therefore it is immoral to commit a crime when there are other paths that offer benefits as well, but without possible punishment. To live in such a way that you have the least chance of being punished, and the greatest chance of being rewarded, is to be moral.

>>13221257
No worries at all, id reread the full metaphysics of morals or his lectures on ethics once you feel really confident with his main metaphysical system outlined in the CPR, it will make a ton more sense after you get that.