/lit/ - Literature

>>18288472
*ACTUALLY solves Is–ought problem* Heh, nothing personal kid

>>18288494
He did it...

*personnel you faggots

>>18288494
Lol

>>18288494
Are people like Harris/dennett respected in academia?

>>18288494
Someone should tell Sam to google the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives, this is getting tiresome

>>18288472
I refuse to believe this man has read Kant

>>18288472
Except hoppe's derivation of property rights from self-ownership isn't original, it literally comes from john locke

>>18288494
Bros how do we synthesize Sam Harris (PBUH) and the Intellectual Dark Web (PBUT) with HHH (gigaPBUH)

>>18288494
Are you guys actually being serious?

>>18288837
About as serious as saying God can give objective morality and solve is-ought.

>>18288893
"God don't real because hot stove make ouchy!"

This is what atheists actually believe.

>>18288472
How so?

>>18288494
Jewish, so I’ll assume it’s lies/subversion

>>18288943
It's what the guy who came up with the is-ought problem believes.

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and ESTABLISHES THE BEING OF A GOD, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.

Read Hume

you IS all virgins and you OUGHT to get to some pussy

>>18288967
>came up with the is-ought problem
...

I can give is a ride, you ought to take it.

>>18288982
So Hume didn't come up with the is-ought problem? Who did?

>>18288494
>gets a jewish slave to solve a meta-physical problem
isn't this more like a riddle??
IF it is a puzzle then you OUGHT to solve it
>the fact of perceiving the existence of the puzzle creates the self-nature of being irritated by not knowing the solution, leading to solution-findinig behavior

>>18288494
>avoid what sucks
if you have a prior commitment to the existence of suffering, doesn't that make you a crypto-Buddhist??
anti-Buddhist hedonists reject suffering
who controls the switch, the switch that determines whether or not you suffer??
suffering is just meta-physics!!
there is no evidence of your suffering!!

>>18288494
Basically his ‘ought’ is the “reduction of suffering of conscious beings” (5/). He justifies this by an appeal to intuition and then builds around this a consequentialist quasi-utilitarian framework.
That’s basically Moore’s naturalistic fallacy (not to be confused with appeal to nature fallacies) and taking an intuitionist stand as a solution. Nothing of that is new or original. He is just obfuscating because he doesn’t want to admit or is unaware of all of his premises.

>>18288959
By choosing to engage in argumentation, you presuppose the property rights of your interlocutor (otherwise you would just attack/rob him without a word). Thus to argue against private property rights is to engage in a performative contradiction.

>>18288591
Dennett is somewhat respected among analytic autists. Harris is not respected, at least in public.

>>18288591
dennett is pretty much the king of sophistry. john searle btfos him without even trying here
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/12/21/the-mystery-of-consciousness-an-exchange/

>>18288494
I can't believe people respect this man as an intellectual

>>18289140
>By choosing to engage in argumentation, you presuppose the property rights of your interlocutor (otherwise you would just attack/rob him without a word)

lol

I could just as well have said

>By choosing to engage in argumentation without retorting to call your interlocutor a fag, you presuppose his property rights (otherwise you would have called him a fag)

What a stupid fucking idea. It makes me angry that you think this shitty argument bears any weight at all.

>>18288591
Comparing Dennett to Harris is unfair to Dennett.

>>18288494
Utilitarian ethics is the worst kind of ethics.