[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 38 KB, 500x375, picture-of-alice-in-wonderland-which-way-signs-photo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20383666 No.20383666 [Reply] [Original]

Is good philosophy the kind that has a nuanced view of life, as opposed to a flat, one-sided view?
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Every bad philosophy I've ever read had really faulty, one-sided truth claims that didn't account for how nuanced issues of life actually are. But the more comprehensive and full a philosophy was, I tended to agree with it more and see their reasoning.

Self-help books are guilty of this a lot, like, "if you just do x, all your problems will go away!" They don't explain their reasoning why doing x is the best choice, nor do they give a complete picture as to why.

Whereas a good philosophy would say, "Let us first establish why you would want to do x in the first place. Then let us also consider what other options there are besides doing x. After consideration of the other options, and seeing if x is the most superior, we can now go forward and assume that x is the best choice going forward, and etc."

>> No.20383708

>>20383666
Simple philosophies can be nuanced

>> No.20383714

>>20383666
>Whereas a good philosophy would say, "Let us first establish why you would want to do x in the first place."
And the best philosophy realizes there can be no end to asking why and that no action can be justified.

>> No.20383715

>>20383708
You're absolutely right, and I don't mean to say that philosophy can't be simple and nuanced. There's plenty of bad philosophies that are long convoluted word-vomit. I just mean that bad truth-claims are one-sided and overly-simplistic.

>> No.20383718

>>20383666
A good philosophy is a first principle which accounts for all diversity by extrapolation from the principle. The practical goal of life is direct intellectual intuition (as opposed to discursive thought) of the first and final principles.

>> No.20383732

>>20383714
>no action can be justified.

What do you mean?

>> No.20383744
File: 383 KB, 420x610, pyrrho.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20383744

>>20383714
IT'S OVER, ANAKIN. BARON MUNCHAUSEN HAS THE HIGH GROUND BY PULLING HIMSELF OUT OF THE QUICKSAND USING HIS OWN HAIR.

>> No.20383745

>>20383718
That explains why philosophies have so many different "starting points." It sounds like the first principal is crucial in laying the groundwork for everything else; so if you have a faulty first-principal, the whole thing falls apart?

>> No.20383751

>>20383718
Also, first and final principal sounds like the difference between means-to-an-end and end-in-itself

>> No.20383753
File: 274 KB, 1002x1600, munchhausen.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20383753

>>20383732
>>20383745

>> No.20383779

>>20383753
Thanks I just reattached my penis and became a theist

>> No.20383922

>>20383753
So is the goal then to justify an action as far as you possibly can? Or to justify no actions at all?

>> No.20383968

>>20383753
>>20383922
All actions are as justifiable as the action to eat or sleep is justifiable. It is beyond reason entirely. If there is an axiom or circular reasoning here, it is something like this:
>I should do what I prefer because I prefer it
And there is no need to explain this, because why should you? Why explain why you prefer to have a full stomach instead of being hungry? So this is the basis of morality, if there is one. The only thing that ultimately matters is the individual’s preference. The rational aspect of morality is trying to figure out how to satisfy preference in the long term, as opposed to simply doing whatever you prefer in the moment, which is actually what we already do.

>> No.20383991

>>20383968
>The rational aspect of morality is trying to figure out how to satisfy preference in the long term, as opposed to simply doing whatever you prefer in the moment, which is actually what we already do.
This is assuming that you care what happens in the future. If you're time preference is really high it's perfectly rational to act only for the moment.

>> No.20384008

>>20383991
the overall goal is to achieve a preferable life, or life + afterlife, or multiple lives, etc. That is, if you had to choose among all the possible lives to live, produced from all the possible choices you could have made, whatever life is the most preferable overall is the most moral one. Whatever life you would choose to live infinitely many times (as opposed to living the others) is the most preferable life. It doesn’t matter what your morals are, if you believe in deontological ethics or Christianity or utilitarianism, it makes no sense to choose the less preferable outcome for yourself, because by definition it is less preferable. To choose the less preferable is a contradiction in terms, or a misunderstanding of your own preferences (ignorance).

Of course you can transcend all of this through certain paradigm about desire, free will, etc. One can posit that everything is perfect as it is, that life happens as it should, or that we can only really be content by transcending our preferences altogether. Anyone who has experienced loss of preference can no longer be attached to such a state, and wouldn’t even choose to repeat such an experience. All things are equally preferable.

>> No.20384036

>>20383666
digits

Yes I think nuance and multi-dimensional thinking are required features. A map without nuance is simply lacking in detail, which might be good enough or it might be fatally lacking. Multi-dimensional thinking is a sign of maturity since it shows you are not placing one idea entirely above others, but rather championing the entire environment. It shows a willingness to look for other perspectives.

>> No.20384672

This thread was moved to >>>/his/13337928