/lit/ - Literature

>>1754933
>everything is just little particles interacting

I sense you are very young.

You don't get past it, you realize it and then can ignore 90% of philosophy.

But also realize that all these particles are arranged in complex ways. Certain arrangements have emergent properties of their own. Combinations of those give rise to even more emergent properties. This continues until you have things like morality and desires and such. These things do exist.

>>1754940
What? How is that statement not accurate? How is it not relevant to philosophy?

Not Op, by the way

>>1754946
yeah they do exist but whenever i'm reading old time stuff about morality or philosophy or whatever these dudes think it's fucking magic everywhere and all this dumb shit that makes no sense today

>>1754948
It's a childish way to look at things. It can't see the forest for the trees.

>>1754971

I make vague statements that let me condescend without answer the question. I'm on /lit/

>>1754933

waves, not particles.

But I see your point

>>1754971

>>1754971
It's not childish, you're abusing the term. Looking at the trees is a good first step to really seeing the forest for what it is. Don't use your intellect like a weapon.

>>1754933
>>1754933
>>1754933

I need you to run me through where the existence of matter negates morality. I honestly don't see where you're coming from

>>1754985

>intellect

>>1754933

You deal with the fact that Hume put an end to the search for a natural ethics or objective knowledge more than 300 years ago, proceed through postmodernism, and finally arrive at a point where you can deal with constructs like morality or philosophy or whatever both socially (as the result of the interaction of thinking beings) and naturalistically (as the result of complex chemical machines).

Also: read 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding', it is seriously great, and also kind of funny.

herpaderp i'm trying to enjoy this book but all it is is a bunch of letters.

it's just a bunch of letters. 26 of them, repeated over and over. how do i enjoy this book knowing it's just letters on paper??????????????????????

>>1754988
Laugh all you want, your one-ups-manship doesn't impress me in the slightest. I don't think you know how it actually makes you look. If you did you would change in a heartbeat. The guy clearly has an intellect, as I'm sure you do. Using it to cut other people down and try to prove your worth is pointless and wasteful.

>>1754933

Sounds like you elect to have morals because you enjoy them.

HEDONISM FTW

>>1754982

Waves *and* particles, at the same time, but also neither. There's no true analogy for that stuff at the macro level.

>>1754988
it doesn't negate morality
morality is in your automatically and that's just how humans work i specifically mentioned this
but when you try to have some philosophy argument about what is the true morality or whatever how does that work when nothing really means anything "objectively"

>>1754997

That was an intense piece of writing. I will sit and reflect on it and myself and synthesise the two to become a more enlightened human being.

And using flattery to disarm belligerence doesn't work.

>>1754993
you don't get what i'm saying
all this shit exists in "reality" to humans because the mind works that way right but when you're philosophizing people want to find out the truth or whatever objectively yeah well how can you do that when there is no value to anything and it's just a bunch of crazy shit happening for no reason forever
you feel me

like say you're in a room or whatever the room exists in the human head only doesn't it? it's "real" and the way its conceived matters a lot but it's not really real because it's really just some walls you know it's not really separate from anything but that's how people see it

>>1755013

>how can you do that when there is no value to anything and it's just a bunch of crazy shit happening for no reason forever

It is all just a bunch of crazy shit happening.
For no reason.
Forever.

>>1755013
>>1754988

We don't have access to an objective truth. We cannot derive moral propositions exclusively from natural propositions. Let's shake on it and move on.

>>1755012
Do you realize how flimsy your sarcasm is? People use sarcasm because they are afraid of being sincere. Dismiss that if you want but it is probably the most profound statement you'll find on here. Have you ever really thought about WHY you are sarcastic and belligerent? It's a behavior that comes naturally under a specific set of circumstances. It's just a behavior to defend your ego.

The compliment was part of an attempt to disarm you, but I did mean it. I also meant it when I said not to use your intellect like a weapon, as you have chosen to do.

People think they can hide who they are on the internet. But who they are comes through with every thing they say, to anyone aware of others enough to see it.

>>1754933
Because we're a long, long, long way away from going from the movement of waves to explaining/predicting/reproducing individual human thought and behaviour with them, and then it's another long, long way to social behaviour. The humanities and social sciences might be running against the clock, but the clock is moving very slowly indeed.