/lit/ - Literature

>>14265554
>Can you really experience anything objectively?
No, including and especially these questions posed, and there is therefore no value to be gained by discussing the answers and their reasonings.

>>14265554
Numbers are an attempt to quantify things that we've conceptualized and defined against a background?

>>14265554
God.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Islamic ethics.
We define zero to be the empty set, i.e. 0 ={} = O; the natural numbers are then defined recursively such that n + 1 = n U {n} for every natural number n.

>>14265554
Tolma, Agnosis, Ananke
Apparently real.
Every living being has the free will to do what their physical vessel allows to manifest.
Theos is real, Zeus as an actual quasi spiritual-physical entity is unreal.
Not all living beings have the true knowledge to escape metempsychosis.
Objective reality is objectified experienced by the nonobjective subject.
Morals only exists when your own kind interacts with you, so localism is the best moral system.
Numbers before Aristotle were a tool to convey the mysteries of the forms through proportion, the knowledge that is known without language while numbers after Aristotle were stripped of their theological, metaphysical implications.

>>14265554

imagine caring about any of this shit lol

>>14265674
Ok boomer

>>14265554
Truth necessarily exists
The universe is real, either in my mind or without it
We are bound by causality, but we’re effectively free whenever we do what’s good for us.
Yes.
Yes, with or without souls.
How would I know?
Christianity.
Numbers are adjectives.

>>14265554
>Is our universe real?
All perception is perception of something. Even if all perception is faked by a malicious daemon, that still means that the daemon is real.
Is the universe exactly as it seems? Of course not.
>Do we have free will?
This can only be a semantic discussion. You are your body, which is in and of the world; your brain is part of your body, and it can be physically influenced and damaged. Does this refute free will? Only if you want it to.
>Does God exist?
If God exists, then he's a terrible, unimaginative creator.
>Is there life after death?
No, you are your body.
>Can you really experience anything objectively?
Of course not. "Objective" means "independent of observer," and it's impossible to observe independent of observers.
>What are numbers?
Discrete math is another way of talking about our perception of objects. Numbers are quantity, magnitude, and ratio. All that shit about recursive set embedding is just mathematicians' gambit to sever numbers from perception, that is, to establish math as a sort of secular religion.

>>14265554
God willed it
In the mind of God
Insofar as we follow God
Yes
Yes
Yes
The New Testament
Categories

>>14265554
>wear

>>14265674
You had it right until Islamic ethics.

>>14265554
1 youre retarded if you dont think nothing exists
2 duh
3 duh
4 duh
5 ofc not, if there were life after death then there death wouldnt be a thing
6 im experiencing the stupidity of these questions objectively
7 solipsism
8 words

>>14265554
God
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Catholicism

>>14265554
No, and I don't care

>>14265554
No, and I care (about the first one, everything else trivial follows)

>>14266114
Based

>>14266006
not him but since you've brought it up, what are the differences between Islamic ethics and Christian ethics?

>>14265554
>Why is there something rather than nothing
Dunno and don't care.
>Is our universe real?
Probably
>Do we have free will?
No
>Does god exist?
No
>Is there life after death
No
>Can you experience really anything objectively
No
>What is the best moral system?
I dunno, Whichever aligns the most with my interests
>What are numbers
Wikipedia it.

>>14265554
>thermodynamics
>no
>only from a very strict point of view
>yes
>no
>yes
>the law of the jungle
>theoretical partitions/counters

>>14265554
1. Incomprehensible question. (Why question necessitates contextual framework).
2. Incomprehensible question. Real is defined within the context of our universe. Therefore our universe cannot be real or unreal.
3. Incomprehensible question. The definition of “free will” is contingent on the definition of self, for example if we include the deterministic aspects of our biology or of reality itself within the self then it would constitute free will. If however you arbitrarily demarcate the self as some central cognitive process then you could argue we don’t, but such a demarcation is arbitrary and the self is impossible to define.
4. Yes
5. Incomprehensible question. “Life” is what you refer to as the experience before dying. What is meant by “life” after dying?
6. Incomprehensible question. Definition of experience is incomplete.
7. Whichever one is closest to God’s will.
8. This one I actually don’t know the answer to.
So three valid questions of which I knew the answer to two of them. Feels good.

>>14266682
Does the frog have something to say?

>Why is there something rather than nothing
Out of nothingness, everything comes into existence. A seed can grow forests. What inside the seed? Nothing. It's hard to grasp and we need rationalizations on everything
>Is the universe real
I feel like there are different types of reality. But yeah, kick your foot into a wall, its real.
>Do we have free will
We don't have free will and we are not slaves. Everything is deeply interrelated
>Does god exist
Yes but not in a religious sense. Existence is god itself
>Is there life after death?
What's the opposite of death?
>Can you experience anything objectively
No, unless you kill your mind.
>What is the best moral system
A loving heart. Sympathy, empathy and compassion. No system. Morality should be a relaxed thing like your shadow
>What are numbers
A game

>>14265554
>Why is there something rather than nothing
Quantum fluctuations. Even in a complete void there is a vacuum energy, which is subject to the uncertainty principle. Particles can pop out of empty space. It is plausible that over an eternity A fluctuation occurred that initiated a chain reaction or singularity that gave rise to the universe

>Is our universe real
Applying the pragmatic criterion of truth it is. It is real to us, and that is all that matters. And even if it were a simulation, it would still be real in the sense that it is a simulation powerful enough to support consciousness.

>Do we have free will
What we do have is the ability to represent alternative states of the world, weight them in terms of value to us, and pursue the best course of action according to our goals. Rationality is the freest we become. Instinctual drives are not free. However we have no freedom to be subject to this process of simulating alternatives and acting upon them.

>Does God exist?
Depends on the definition. God is a "floating signifier" that can mean anything to anyone.

>Is there life after death?
Probably not.

>Can you really experience anything objectively?
Mathematics and quantification is arguably the best objective perception available to us. However the only thing that we experience objectively is our own subjectivity. Self-awareness is objective in that there is no second subjectivity behind the being of subjectivity.

>What is the best moral system
Morality is not a system. It is a set of implicit and tacit sociobiological intuitions that are subject to "variations within boundaries" through a given culture. The best morality would depend on what a culture values. But reasoning about fairness, etc, is hardcoded. So the best moral system wouldn't matter because we have one inbuilt.

>What are numbers
Representations of distinct quantities. A numeral is a sign for that representation. A number is a schema (generic conceptual form) that represents any quantity of entities equal to it, including mathematical objects.

>>14266635
christianity - forgiveness, mercy, charity, "turning the other cheek", ethics of the priestly class
islam - power, obligation, discipline, subservience to Allah, ethics of the warrior class
this is why nietzsche favored Islam

Because I so desire
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Mine
Check these.

>Why is there something rather than nothing
this question is better when asked in reverse
>Is the universe real
for now
>Do we have free will
sometimes, and only for a few, and even then only in rare and precious episodes
>Does god exist
hard to say
>Is there life after death?
just try to have life before it
>Can you experience anything objectively
math is hard
>What is the best moral system
the kind you can't talk about
>What are numbers
the other way to language

1. What a stupid fucking question
2. ? What
3. Yes, filling this out is excruciating
4. He would have to
5. Obviously,
6. Sure
7. The one that helps you be moral
8. Notions

That’s it?

>>14265554
>Because God exists
>Yes
>Yes
>Yes
>Yes
>Yes
>The one that is part of Gods nature
>Numbers are immaterial and universal objects.

There, answered all your questions.

>>14265554
These are confounding to anybody who hasen’t taken PHI 101. This shit is pretty boring when you get into the literature.

>>14266827
The five pillars of Islam are about submitting (to God) and charity. Islam does give a lot less shits about having a priest class.

8 mysteries of philosophy.
Goin' for the guyt.

>What are numbers?

By Stalinarian metaphysical terms, the positionalate of the conceptual exuburential meta-political debate as to the grandeur-esguational ethos-emplesarionic construe the articulational of 2+2=5; en-retrospectal common integers progress in value: 0,1,2,3,5,4,6,7,etc.

Point place doctrine ad virtuos of highest Trotskyism en Lenin Traditionalis indicate that search&seizure of all numeral-adquivacator Luddite "magic mirrors" and "pornographic-teletube numerical boards" must be in full force implemented.

Guy, you really should have taken this question to Science & Math - /sci/

They're the experts on these types of questions.

I subscribe to the Hindu-Arabic systems. That is why I believe that there is no god(s) other than Allah-Dzeus Maximus. In Praise of God-Allah, Amen.

That, my friend, is what a number is ###

>>14265554
>Why is there something rather than nothing?
Depends on what you mean by "something" and "nothing".
>Is the universe real?
Depends on what you mean by "universe" and "real".
>Do we have free will?
Depends on what you mean by "we" and "free will".
>Does God exist?
Depends on what you mean by "God".
>Is there life after death?
Depends on what you mean by "life" and "death".
>Can you experience anything objectively?
Depends on what you mean by "experience", "anything", and "objectively".
>What is the best moral system?
Depends on what you mean by "best" and "moral system".
>What are numbers?
Depends on what you mean by "are" and "numbers".

>>14265554
I can answer by using one premisse: God created the Universe.
>God wanted to make it, for himself. God is the only real Creator. Only God could do such thing. There's no way that something could come out of nowhere without will, the Will of God.
>Yes. If reality is matter, and if our actions matter, it's is.
>No, if God created the Universe with a purpose, he created History. The implication that God created the Universe, is that he created the History of the Universe. God lives outside time, and he couldn't create something that had time in it, but only the beginning. Doesn't make sense. Although inside the Universe experiment free will, in the ultimate reality, the Reality, we don't.
>Yes
>Yes, if the purpose of God was experiment what's the absence of God in small doses in the experience with sin, he probably did it so we could understand how great after life is going to be.
>Maybe, what's objectively? You can't experience earth objectively, but you can experience a time in moment in a place with circumstances and judge it by your life experiences objectively.
>The one based on God. If God created the world, he is the moral. His characteristics are objectively the good, and the opposite the bad.
>It's a language to describe math, the consistency/logic inside our Universe.

>>14265582
By admitting that nothing can be experienced objectively, including these questions, you invalidate your own answer.

>>14267763
it is quite paradoxical, isnt it

>>14265554
Because something wants there to be something
Yes
Who cares?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Morals I believe in
A coping mechanism

>>14265554
>Why is there something rather than nothing?
Because our notion of causality only exists within our "reality." It is a limited subsection of a higher world in which the problem of something rather than nothing does not exist.

>Is our universe real
Depends what you mean by real. I take a very Platonic view of the world, and believe that the physical world is downstream from the world of Being. However, one might argue that there is still a genuine ontological reality to the world of Becoming, on the grounds that one can infer metaphysical things from the physical.

>Do we have free will?
Some people do, the enlightened do. Most are simply driven by external influences and biological desires.

>Does God exist?
Yes.

>Is there life after death?
There will be life on earth after you die. This is true for virtually everyone, except the very last creature in existence. (assuming such a thing exists) But if the world is infinite then you would be able to rely on Eternal Recurrence for a future incarnation. I, personally, believe that some people achieve an immortal life after death, some live temporarily before being reborn, and some are simply destroyed.

>Can you really experience anything objectively?
You can't experience anything objectively. Everything we see is an imperfect shape, representing some Form in the material world. Because these things are inherently imperfect, you have to rely on subjective interpretation when experiencing them.

>What is the best moral system?
Nietzsche.

>What are numbers?
Read Pythagoras.

>>14265674
Based Muslim

>>14266006
Cringe christkek

>>14266635
Almost nothing morally speaking. The main difference is Worshipping Jesus as God + Trinity


>>14266827
Islam values all of those things you just said retard
>forgiveness, mercy, charity, "turning the other cheek"

All are core concepts in Islam. Muslims just arent absolute cucks about it.

Thanks for confirming that you have never read the Quran and/or listened to some retarded Salafi tell you what it Means to be a Muslim

>>14267838
>forgiveness
Apostates get murdered
>mercy
No mercy to gays or women when they are stoned to death
>charity
Only for fellow Muslims
>"turning the other cheek"
Like when Muslims blow themselves up while killing others

>>14267856
Btw, those concepts in all religions have always only applied to fellow disciples of that religion.

Thats why the Christian Church tortured and killed everyone who wouldnt accept Jesus as their lord and saviour you fucking retard

>>14267856
Of course modern liberal christkeks will say its fine to forgive everyone, even atheists. but when Jesus speaks in the gospel, of his "brothers and sisters" he is referring specifically to fellow disciples of his religion. Check the footnotes of the NIV

>>14267863
>STOP POINTING OUT THE UNETHICAL PRACTICES OF MUSLIMS OR I'LL BRING UP STUFF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DID 1000 YEARS AGO

>>14267875
>Its okay when Christians do it

>>14267875
>NOOOOO STOP POINTING OUT THE UNETHICAL PRACTICES SOME CHRISTIANS DID JUST BECAUSE I POINTED OUT UNETHICAL PRACTICES THAT SOME MUSLIMS DID

>>14267882
>le Shrek

>>14267890
>WE HAVE AN EXCUSE TO SUICIDE BOMB AND KILL INNOCENTS BECAUSE THE CHURCH BURNED PEOPLE 1000 YEARS AGO

>>14267856
Atheist here, why does Jesus only tell people to forgive "fellow disciples" and not everyone?

>>14267903
>1000 years ago

cope harder

Fuck the retarded christians in this thread make me want to convert to Islam just out of spite

>>14267903
Hes clearly not saying that suicide bombing is acceptable in Islam. Just that there are retards in both religions who do stupid shit that make their entire religion look bad

>>14265554
No idea, but if there was nothing then we couldnt be talking about it
No idea
No
Probably not but if yes then not in the way that theists describe it
No idea
You can experience your thoughts objectively
Whatever makes humanity live the longest
Representations of the universe that our puny brains can understand and rationalize

>>14267931
same desu

Depends on what you mean by numbers, but they are easily definable. The naturals are a trivial consequence of the axioms of set theory, and anyone who has taken an undergraduate analysis course will have defined the superseding sets of numbers.

>>14267931
go with paganism instead bro

>>14265554
1) Because a state of nothingness doesn't exist and probably hasn't existed in the entire history of the universe.

2) Define real.

3) No. Not only are we humans slaves to our urgres, feeling and desires, but we're also making decisions subconsciousnessly before we think that we came to a logical decision.

4) Define god.

5) Our bodies' energy and cells will be reused, so technically yes.

6) No, because we percieve things through our limited bodies and brain.

7) Depends entirely on the circumstances.

8) A tool to make calculations.

>>14265554
blocks you're path

>>14265554
happenstance/entropy
yes
no
no
depends how you experience time
we have already experienced everything
see the answer to free will
human equivalence

>>14267905
Because you can't read Greek

>>14266752
>quantum fluctuations
Statistically likelier to yield a single floating brain rather than an entire universe. Nice to know that scientifically speaking evolution is all just a coincidence.

>>14268533
Actually its in greek that the word means "fellow disciple" although it can also be translated as "brother or sister"

>>14268054
I would go with Paganism if there was actually a chance for it to have a resurgence as a mainstream religious tradition. But the way its going at the moment it looks like Christianity is going to get replaced by Islam in the same way Christianity replaced European Paganism

Hegel
Hegel
Hegel
Georg Hegel
Hegel
Hegel
Hegel
Hegel
this post is not spam it is valuable

>>14265554

1)Something exists because nothing is not a thing that exists in the universe, it's manmade word. This is a cycle, there was no beginning

2) Yes it is. Just the fact that someone made it doesn't make it fake

3) Yes, relatively, but obviously influenced about 99.9%

4) Yes, everywhere. It's not a person

5) Yes.

6) No.

7) There isn't one.

8) Code

>>14266682
>4. Yes
Based frogposter.

>>14265554
>why is there something rather than nothing?
this isn't a legit question. it's a false problem. the question holds a presupposition that there COULD be non-being as an alternative to being, that being and non-being are opposed and that non-being can be supplanted by being. the question doesn't posit anything - all the lifting has been done. the terms of the debate have already been made. it isn't even a question, it's just disguised as one. and if you do entertain the question, you've tacitly agreed to the terms of the question, which limits your possible responses, so you get retards that just answer with "god", like a smug repressed housewife. yuck.

>>14268789
hegel's a meme

1. Nothing is not and can not "be"
2. The Universe is and is thus Real.
3. Humans have a free will; though they are also driven by biological determinism. See Kant's epistemology.
4. God does exist as the supreme divine force that sustains the Universe. God created the Universe he is infinite, omniscient and omnipresent. God acts in History.
5. There is life after death. But only as the Self dissipates into the Absolute.
6. You can experience yourself objectively and recursively know the absolute. Knowledge of other things in themselves is not possible outside of a phenomenological framework.
7. The best moral system is the one God gave us. Morality is based on transgression against the Divine Will.
8. Numbers are symbolic and immaterial forms which constitute quantitative absolutes.

>>14266004
this is the only correct answer

>>14265554
I'd answer all these questions but 4chan's system thinks my post is spam, but no amount of reformating will fix it.

>>14265674
And why is there God rather than no God?

>>14265554
1. Nothing is the opposite of something, but describing a nothing creates something. This creates what seems like a paradox, but instead is easily solved, not because there is "nothing" but because there is the unknown.
2. The Universe to us exists, but where the Universe exists is questionable.
3. Free will exists, though there are subtle factors involved.
4. The existence of God cannot be proved, but it cannot be disproved either. Therefore, we must believe that God does not exist until it can be proved he does.
5. There is no life after death. Positing that there is life after death is either a thought experiment and something to play around with, or it is a coping mechanism to bend the truth.
6. Nothing can be experienced with true objectivity, but a collective can reach near objectivity.
7. There is no true moral system; morals were originally a base form of pragmatism, and evolved into a form of idealism. Thus, we cannot conclude that there is a true moral system.
8. Numbers are the nearest we can reach to objectivity, and define the Universe. 0 is the absence of numbers, but it is also the foundation on which numbers build.

>>14269221
How can we know Gods Will? Only through divine revelation? Or do I have to trust other people‘s opinion about God?

>>14269790
We cannot know Divine Will as it is completely outside of Phenomena and the Knowing Self. Divine Revelation might be one way to receive command (distinct from pure will). We can only know moral law negatively, through command which can be given. Morality in this sense is not grounded in either an a priori idea or experience of the divine but rather as the imprinted negative of Divine Will on man as he is a free actor within the Universe who knows his own Self.

>>14265554
1: A necessary being.
2: Yes.
3: Yes.
4: No.
5: No.
6: Kantianism.
7: Aids

>>14265554
Kant already solved questions number 2,3,6,7 and 8

>>14265973
>If God exists, then he's a terrible, unimaginative creator

What a retarded take

1.-7. No one knows.
8. Abstractions.

>>14270075
What does good-in-itself mean?

>>14265554
Something is that which is, and nothing is that which is not.
Probably.
Our will is heavily limited by a number of factors, even if we accept that consciousness is independent of the physical. So no.
Questions about the nature of God are more interesting than the one of his existence.
Maybe.
Most things no, some things, that only exist in the mind, yes.
Numbers are fundamental and more real than our universe. Pi defines motion itself.

>>14265818
go back to raddit

>>14270091
Something that's not just contingently good, and also not just a means to an end.

>>14270108
But how do we know it’s good?

>>14265554
"What are numbers" has been solved for a very long time.

>>14270113
Well, according to Kant, an action is good if it adheres to the categorical imperative. However, when it comes to the good-in-itself, Kant considered only the good will alone to be such a thing, if I remember correctly.

>>14270128
So why does adhering to the categorical imperative qualify it as good in itself? Isn’t the point of the CI to improve society? So what’s the need of the words “in itself” ?

>>14265973
>sever numbers from perception
Yes, because "empirical mathematics" is the dumbest thing imaginable and every mathematician wants to avoid that ever happening again.

>If God exists, then he's a terrible, unimaginative creator.
I can't imagine something more breathtakingly imaginative then the universe.

>>14265638
> numbers
> quantify
They’re the same thing. Your definition is circular.

>>14265674
> islamic ethics
cringe

>>14270137
>So why does adhering to the categorical imperative qualify it as good in itself?
I tried to imply that it doesn't, not according to Kant anyway. The *only* thing that is an actual good-in-itself is the good will all by itself, not any kind of *expression* of this good will.

>Isn’t the point of the CI to improve society?
Not really. Kant proposed it as a reason-based approach to establishing moral truths. Of course the implication is that society would improve if people acted upon the CI, but it wasn't devised as a tool towards this specific end. The CI isn't a utilitarian/consequentialist rule. Kant even said that the ultimate consequences are irrelevant, what matters is the "good will", i.e. the intent to behave in accordance with the CI.

>So what’s the need of the words “in itself” ?
Not sure what you mean by "need". Kant's point (again, just from my recollection) was just to establish what could conceivably called an actual, undeniable, universal, non-contingent and therefore absolute good/virtue, which he simply referred to as a good in itself.

>>14267587
This, but unironically

>Tolma, Agnosis, Ananke
>Apparently real.
>Every living being has the free will to do what their physical vessel allows to manifest.
>Theos is real, Zeus as an actual quasi spiritual-physical entity is unreal.
>Not all living beings have the true knowledge to escape metempsychosis.
>Objective reality is objectified experienced by the nonobjective subject.
>Morals only exists when your own kind interacts with you, so localism is the best moral system.
>Numbers before Aristotle were a tool to convey the mysteries of the forms through proportion, the gas the kikes that is known without language while numbers after Aristotle were stripped of their theological, metaphysical implications.

>>14267587
>>14270197
Philosophy is based.

>>14270190
But what is it that qualifies the CI as the basis for morality? Why not simply use the golden rule? Or Christian law? Or simply your country’s law? Could you set up any basis for morality and adhere to it, saying that your will is good in itself? But I still don’t see the need to say “good in itself,” when you can simply call the will good and good alone. But what even is a good will, according to Kant, if the consequences do not matter? This all seems like mentally gymnastics to avoid consequentialism. Why SHOULD we adhere to the category’s imperative?

>>14267361
In Islam charity is an obligation and an act of power. I already mentioned submission to Allah, that's what the word "Islam" means.

>>14267774
It seems tautological, if anything. All experiences are subjective -- but compared to what?

>>14267838
I am a Muslim you retard. I've read the Qur'an and memorized more parts of it than you ever will. Allah is all-forgiving, all-merciful, etc. but the Qur'an is more focused on the values I mentioned about Islam. Charity is an obligation. Forgiveness is optional. Only Allah is all-merciful.

>>14265554
Here's two questions that obsolesce all of those:
How do we know definitions to be valid? Should such generalizations really be trusted?
The answer to the first is that we can't. The answer to the second is "No."

> Because there couldn’t be nothing without a contrasting something. “No-thing” requires first a “thing”.
> Real enough for our purposes.
> Our will is free enough for our purposes and designs.
> God exists to us insofar as we believe in Him (Although I believe he is ultimately real).
> Bad question; If there is life after death, it isn’t really death.
> No, you cannot experience anything objectively, and such a thing as “objectivity” renders the thing in question entirely irrelevant.
> The best moral system produces the best results when contrasted with other moral systems. Thus, when done CORRECTLY, it is to operate as a citizen of God’s Kingdom.
> Merely language, dear boy.

>>14270219
Man, that's asking a lot from my fragmented memories. Maybe someone else can chime in, too. I'll respond to the few things I know for sure.

>But what is it that qualifies the CI as the basis for morality?
Kant's justification is multi-faceted and complicated, but a huge portion of it revolves around the idea that the CI can illustrate which moral rules are workable and which ones would lead to self-contradiction or straight up incoherence. You have to keep in mind that Kant thought moral truths were something to be discovered by reason alone, by mindful contemplation; that's what his concept of "synthetic a priori" judgments entails.

>Could you set up any basis for morality and adhere to it, saying that your will is good in itself?
No, because not all systems conceptualize "good will" the way Kant would deem appropriate (a utilitarian ethicist would declare the will to bring about positive outcomes to be the good will; Kant absolutely wouldn't). Kant's good will and the CI are interlocked, really. His line of reasoning wouldn't allow for *his* concept of good will to be properly expressed through different moral rules, because one characteristic of his good will is the willingness to act according to the CI.

>Why SHOULD we adhere to the category’s imperative?
There are multiple reasons given by Kant, but the one I remember the most vividly is that Kant stipulated that *any* human action that is *not* in accordance with the CI is an "unfree" action. According to him, a person can only express their own free will through CI-compliant behavior. This may sound retardedly self-contradictory ("you're only free if you follow the rule"), but Kant's justification for this was that the CI forbids giving in to your base, potentially self-destructive instincts; it basically "frees" you from the shackles of animalistic nature by showing you a way paved by pure reason.

>This all seems like mentally gymnastics to avoid consequentialism.
Welcome to deontological ethics, teeheehee.

But seriously, welcome to deontological ethics.

>>14265554
>Hard problem of consciousness not listed
cringe

>>14270330
is qualias reelz?

>>14266747
>What inside the seed? Nothing.
Objectively wrong, and you're an idiot for saying so.

>>14270318
Let’s say I’m about to do an action. First I consider whether or not this action should be universally willed or not. But how do I determine this without appealing to the consequences of such a thing? I know that a world full of murderers tends to chaos and danger, while the opposite is safer. Hence I should not murder. But this is all totally dependent on consequences, right? How could it be otherwise? I’m not sure why one should follow the categorical imperative rather than simply following an individualist approach. For example, I shouldn’t steal because the risk is much larger than the reward, and I cannot guarantee that I won’t be caught. This is much less complicated, more intuitive, and aligned with the logic of consequentialism. Is Kant an ethics retard or what?

>>14270399
The CI is not simply looking for a universal rule. First off you really just need to read the groundwork if you want a full explanation, it's only 150 pages or so. Kant defines the CI as that which dictates the maxim of my action as that through which I should will (see part I on the good will) that my maxim become a universal law.

>>14270431
I couldn’t get through the first few pages. It all seems like autistic nonsense to me. He strikes me as someone who really wants himself to believe that consequences don’t matter, but doesn’t have the reason capable to prove it. He’s overeducated in the realm of ethics, but he doesn’t have real intellect. If you tried to simplify his paragraphs into coherent logical progressions, you would realize he has no idea what he’s talking about. He’s making leaps of logic everywhere and he’s trying to take you along with him.

>>14270468
He really isn't but it's understandable someone might assume that. Kant isn't really someone who can be read isolated, you need to know the backdrop of his philosophy and that includes the Critiques. I recommend getting a commentary if you really struggle with the groundwork and maybe reading the Prolegomena and a summary/commentary of CoPR to fully get an idea for what Kant is doing with his ethics. If you still don't agree then that's perfectly fine, but dont dismiss Kant as incoherent or illogical unless you have the full picture.

>>14265582
ok wittgenstoomer

>>14270468
>He’s making leaps of logic
Such as?

>>14270497
Doing with his philosophical system not just Ethics*

>>14265674
based and redpilled

>>14270505
>What makes a good will good? It isn’t what it brings about, its usefulness in achieving some intended end. Rather, good will is good because of how it wills—i.e. it is good in itself. Taken just in itself it is to be valued incomparably more highly than anything that could be brought about by it in the satisfaction of some preference—or, if you like, the sum total of all preferences!
He never explains his reasoning here. He just goes on in the next few paragraphs talking of how reason is not a proper tool for achieving happiness and contentment, and that we would be better off with instincts alone, therefore we should use reason to achieve some sort of will that’s “good in itself,” which is an embarrassing argument altogether. Perhaps nature’s goal wasn’t to make us happy, but to preserve us, in which case it would make sense that reason would help the species survive. Even when the sun dies, humans may exist in other parts of the galaxy, due to reason, not instinct. But anyway, how does he justify the separation of the good will from the consequences that the good will produces? What makes it good, if not for the consequences?

>>14270575
That's not a leap as much as it is his basic axiology. It's been mentioned before, but one reason why he considered the "good" in "good will" to be independent from any consequences is that he wanted to distill values and virtues down to the one universal "core of goodness", if you will, which he stipulated to be something that's not contingent on anything else, nor something employed as a mere means to an end. The good will's autarchy is one of the things that make it good. Everything else is dependent on something else; the good will is not.

If this helps at all, compare Kant's good will analysis to Aristotle's concept of eudaimonia; Aristo tried to establish the ultimate "motivation", the ultimate driving force behind any and all human action, and Kant tried to do the same with moral value.

>>14270690
Sure, any moral system ends up being axiomatic at its core, but nothing can be more axiomatic than that I should do what I prefer to do, or that I should bring about what I prefer to experience. The experience itself is irrational, so we can’t exactly use reason to defend such a groundwork, but we can use reason to satisfy our irrational preferences. Kant is trying to inject reason where it doesn’t belong, trying to rid consequences and personal experience which are the proper heart of morality.

>>14270741
>German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel presented two main criticisms of Kantian ethics. He first argued that Kantian ethics provides no specific information about what people should do because Kant’s moral law is solely a principle of non-contradiction.[2] He argued that Kant’s ethics lack any content and so cannot constitute a supreme principle of morality. To illustrate this point, Hegel and his followers have presented a number of cases in which the Formula of Universal Law either provides no meaningful answer or gives an obviously wrong answer. Hegel used Kant’s example of being trusted with another man’s money to argue that Kant’s Formula of Universal Law cannot determine whether a social system of property is a morally good thing, because either answer can entail contradictions. He also used the example of helping the poor: if everyone helped the poor, there would be no poor left to help, so beneficence would be impossible if universalised, making it immoral according to Kant’s model.[52] Hegel’s second criticism was that Kant’s ethics forces humans into an internal conflict between reason and desire. For Hegel, it is unnatural for humans to suppress their desire and subordinate it to reason. This means that, by not addressing the tension between self-interest and morality, Kant’s ethics cannot give humans any reason to be moral.[53]
This is basically what I was attempting to put into words

>>14265554
E.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Mine.
1, 2, 7, etc.

>>14265554
I know that I know nothing. "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written: I will catch the wise in their own craftiness."

>>14266665
This is the most based answer.

>>14266061
aaaaaaaaaand its based

>>14265674
0 literally doesn't exist cuz

>>14265554
*Akira
*To be percieved is to be real
*No
*An omnicient force exists, yes
*Can't answer this one. People can visit after death
*In a heightened state of conciousness, yes
*One where self-control is made paramount
*Representation of Akira, leylines of universal power. Zero is not a number.

>is our universe real?

>>14270142
You don’t get it anon, people die in like wars and stuff and other people are like disabled, so the universe is totally lame.

>>14270575
how are consequences knowable?

>>14270297
Based and William Jamespilled

>>14271543
Not always knowable, but consequences are why you do anything. You thought that by pressing a button, your post would submit, and it did. We’re not perfect creatures but we have guiding principles based on our past experiences, instincts, and reason

Why do none of the free will proles read up on compatibilsm? It resolves pretty much everything yet brainlets expect to be able to conceptualize linear time on God's scale.

>>14265794
Yeah these are brainlet questions that aren't even relevant because they were framed by long dead ideas that haven't gone anywhere.

One of the biggest giveaways that someone is a pseud is how much they obsess over "having the right answers" as opposed to actually engaging and understanding whatever they pretend to be concerned about. Their goal is to convince others and "appear smart."

>>14271535
This, what a stupid and nonsensical question.

>>14265554
>Can you really experience anything objectively?
No, experience is categorically subjective.
>What are numbers?
Abstract particulars.

>>14265554
Not even a challenge.
1. Nothing (not existing) is nothing (not existing), therefore there never could be nothing and their only could be something.
2. Something exists, therefore our universe is real.
3. We can make choices to determine the future, which shows free will, but everything is neccessary when looking back after it has passed, which shows determinism.
4. Yes, I am right here.
5. Eternal reoccurrence. Yes.
6. You can experience your will objectively, since every object is just a manifestation of the will. This is the thing-in-itself. Thank Schopenhauer for this answer.
7. Nietzschean affirmation
8. An abstraction of quantity.

>>14265554
1. Beyond the Big Bang, we don’t know and that’s ok.
2. I don’t know
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
7. Love everyone
8. Symbols that represent quantity

Holy shit look at all these religious retards ITT

>>14265554
>Do we have free will?
That is for (You) to decide.

>>14265554
1. Nothing does not exist; something has always been and always will be. There is no "why", existence itself is causeless.
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. No.
5. No.
6. No.
7. Two-level utilitarianism
8. Symbols

>>14265554
The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a priori and can't be applied to something outside human understanding
The material environment we live in does objectively exist, but its name and its qualities are human supplied
We have free will, we just don't have any choice
God exists for someone who believes He exists
Ask someone who believes there is life after death and he will say yes
Absolutely not, simply take the Western concept of causality, where event B always follows event A, and contrast it with the Chinese, where event B springs from the same source as event A, even the basic way the human mind thinks of the world is not objective
Depends who you ask

>>14267587
t.Jordan Peterson

>>14270197
same, but it's still an incredibly lame response to give.

>>14265554
1
>i only know that i don't know
2
>i only know that i don't know
3
>i only know that i don't know
4
>i only know that i don't know
5
>i only know that i don't know
6
>i only know that i don't know
7
>i only know that i don't know
8
>i only know that i don't know
this is not a spam

/his/ is retarded

>>14265554
God, but it is futile for a human mind to think up some reason for his creation. Only God in His infinite wisdom knows why things are as He has made them.
The universe is real as a dream is real.
We only have free will if we escape the chains of biological determinism by transcendence of the flesh and the desires of the flesh.
Yes.
Yes.
As long as there is an experienced separation between yourself and that which is being experienced, you cannot experience objectively. In order to experience objectively this barrier must be overcome, however most people never accomplish this in their lifetimes.
Catholicism.
Numbers are the symbols humans use to understand God's creation and to discern the divine patterns threaded through it.

>>14265674
Last two answers are max cringe, but everything else is good.

>God
>Yes, but this material world is sinful and corrupted.
>Probably, but it is also routinely sublimated to forces outside the self and manipulated for various reasons.
>Absolutely. God is omnibenevolent and omniscient, but sadly not omnipotent. God will prevail over evil, though, and we will all be saved just as His messengers have taught us.
>Absolutely. We will all be saved from this material world and purified. Purification will be harder for some than others, but we will all be reborn in Heaven/Pure Land.
>Yes.
>Following Christ's example, with a determination to do what is just and of God no matter what stands against your doing so
>How many fingers am I holding up?

>>14271472
Get off my board Quentin

>>14265770

>Why is there something rather than nothing
define why
>Is our universe real?
define real
>Do we have free will?
define free
>Does god exist?
define god
>Is there life after death
define life
>Can you experience really anything objectively
define objectively
>What is the best moral system?
define best
>What are numbers
wikipedia

>>14267587
>Does God exist?
Depends on what you mean by "God".
Wouldn't it also HEAVILY depend on what you mean by exist?

>Why is there something rather than nothing
Doesn't matter
>Is our universe real?
It appears to be, so that's good enough for me
>Do we have free will?
Probably not, but the illusion is good enough that it's best to treat it as though we do
>Does god exist?
Doesn't really matter
>Is there life after death
Only one way to find out
>Can you experience really anything objectively
Doesn't matter, your experiences feel real and objective enough to yourself and that should be good enough for anyone
>What is the best moral system?
Thinking about and coming to individual conclusions on any given issue and scenario.
>What are numbers
Things we use to measure an amount of something

>>14265554
numbers are records of counting
all math can be reduced to counting, abstractly or otherwise

>>14269139
Let’s rephrase the question in thermodynamic terms to illustrate its validity. Time and entropy are corollary properties, neither causes the other by their are intrinsically linked, entropy increases as a direct result of causality and this creates the perception of time. The fact that all reactivity “moves” towards a given direction implies there is a more “stable” state than another, e.g hot items emit thermal energy to stabilise their temperature in regards to their surrounding. The existence of “something” is predicated on a resistance to “nothing”, “something” is bounded and finite, “nothing” is unbounded and infinite. If you were to disperse all matter and energy perfectly evenly then nothing would ever happen again. So I’m the micro we can state that the Big Bang, reversal of entropy, negative time, quantum fluctuation, blah blah blah I’ve read all the major papers on this.
However as a conceptual thought experiment it is quite clear that if you were to have a state of “nothing” it would last forever, where any and all states of “something” are finite. So the question is more probabilistically, given an infinite series of states of nothing, with nothing being an absence of something, and a finite series of states of something, how can we be in a state of something.
If you wish to negate nothing conceptually then this is illogical, I can imagine an object being hot and then imagine it’s heat dissipating to its surroundings, so nothing exists as the extrapolation of all unstable phenomenological properties that cause motion to all things. If you unironically answer quantum fluctuation then you basically de facto have to accept the Boltzmann brain hypothesis.

>>14265554
>What are numbers
Sets of sets.
>What are sets
Collections with additionl imposed axioms
>What are collections
Things.
>What are things
This is the real question you mean to ask.

>>14274634
Wrong.

>>14266006
lol. seethe harder christcucks

>>14267931
i dont like either but prefer islam, simply because its unapologetic about its existence, unlike christians who constantly try and find reasons or define why they are good.

>>14265554
Assuming this book is right it has most of those answers.

>>14265554
1.Ayy LMAO
2.Yes, duh
3.>He has to ask himself if he has a free will. Top KEK
4.>Deny existence of God, still talk about him as some entity that the religious believe exists AYY LMAO
5.There better be LMAO
6.>Not objectively experiencing your subjectivity
7. The one where you leave me the fuck alone. Kek, we cool tho.
8.Things that describe quantities, magnitudes, and ordering. Look I used numbers to ordinate my answers to the OP LMAO.

>>14272912
>Reads Socrates literally once.
>Decides to stop engaging in dialectic and insist that he's mentally deficient
Drink some Hemlock.