/lit/ - Literature

>disagrees completely with postmodernism, nihilism, subjectivity, relativism

Explain.

St. Thomas Aquinas

>>2810097
Well if they don't believe in ethics or morals then they shouldn't cry and act like babies wanting "justice" when someone kills a "loved" one of theirs (just for fun, nothing wrong with that right? fuck morals and ethics hurr)

>>2810099
>>postmodernism, subjectivity, relativism, evolutionary psychology, diogenes, and eastern philosophers
>>don't believe in ethics or morals

maybe you should something about postmodernism, subjectivity, relativism, evolutionary psychology, diogenes, or eastern philosophers.

Something that doesn't deal with postmodernism, nihilism, subjectivity, relativism, evolutionary psychology, diogenes, and eastern philosophers.

duh

Haha. You're an idiot.

the bible
not kidding

>>2810110
BIOTRUTHS! BIOTRUTHS!

>>2810099
I think you completely fail to understand the difference between morals and ethics.
Given the things you grossly group together in your list you seem to completely fail at understanding the things you claim to disagree with.
so here's a hint:
morals claim there are unique, universal transcendent moral absolutes such as Good and Evil. Ethics more modestly claims to be an immanent "science of good life" as Spinoza would put it.
One refuses plurality, claiming there can only be one Good or one Truth (see Plato, Idealism, Kant and monotheistic religions). The other accepts that different people can hold different ethic codes and that several different codes or several different views can be good or right at the same time.
you can be a relativist and have ethics, you can be a relativist and still think killing someone is bad (yet not evil).

>>2810127
Looks like I'm a little too GENUINE and INTENSE for you "ethical" hippies.

>>2810148
The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of On Grammatology. He stormed out of the room crying those ironic post-modern crocodile tears. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, Michel Foucault, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than an AIDS ridden sadomasochist interested in fisting. He wished so much that he had some kind of truth to hold on to, but he himself had written to disprove it!

The students applauded and all rolled into American universities that day and accepted Wittgenstein as the end of philosophy. An eagle named “Formal logic” flew into the room and perched atop the copy of "Principa Mathematica" and shed a tear on the hardcover. The last sentence of "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" was read several times, and Karl Popper himself showed up and demonstrated how dialectics is nothing but a means of justifying contradictions.

The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of the gay plague AIDS and his "books" were disregarded for all eternity.

A marxist post-structuralist continental Ecole Normale Supérieure professor and feminist activist was teaching a class on Martin Heidegger, known hermeneuticist.

”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Nietzsche and accept that his genealogical method was the most highly-evolved theory the continent has ever known, even greater than Hegel's dialectics!”

At this moment, a brave, rational, positivist analytic philosopher who had read more than 15000 pages of Popper and Wittgenstein and understood the raison d'être of empiricism and fully supported all modern hard sciences stood up and held up the constitution.

”How universal is this text, frenchfag?"

The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied “It's not universal at all, fucking positivist, its 'truth' is rooted in our shared understandings about culture, the subject and the nexus of power and knowledge”

”Wrong. It’s been 225 years since human reason created it. If it was not universal, and post-modern relativism, as you say, is real… then it should be regarded as a myth now”

>>2810127
thats a really reductive and inaccurate description imo

and there are good reasons to be skeptical about the idea that "different people can hold different ethic codes and that several different codes or several different views can be good or right at the same time"

for instance, the fact that it is functionally equivalent to nihilism

>>2810152
De Sade was a nihilist?

>>2810153
"functionally equivalent" =! "totally interchangeable and identical"

>>2810159
Define both.

>>2810162
"functionally equivalent" means that, in use, they will behave the same and create the same outcomes. especially in the most important situations. "identical and interchangeable" means they are exactly the same in every respect.

so, in this case, de sade's (or whoever's) believes may not have been identical to nihilism - he probably believed a great many things, and did not call himself a nihilist. i don't know much about desade, or whether he's even a good example. you chose him. but my point is that, if his beliefs were of the kind you outlined, then they were functionally equivalent to nihilsm - that is, whatever he believed and said, his beliefs would ultimately produce results difficult to distinguish from nihilism in important respects. those beliefs end up at nihilism.

>>2810167
>>2810162
>>2810159
>>2810153
>>2810152

can't tell if samefag or full retard.
it would pain me to know there is more than one person as retarded as OP wandering the world right now.

>>2810152
>and there are good reasons to be skeptical about the idea that "different people can hold different ethic codes and that several different codes or several different views can be good or right at the same time"

you're right because they are all wrong at all times.

>>2810188
fuck off sociopath

moral relativism is the morality of sociopaths

MUH SPOOKS FUCK MORALS NO GOD I DO WHAT I WANT MUH SPOOKS

>>2810189
> people that don't agree with my morals are sociopaths.
> sociopaths are bad (so my morals tell me)
> therefore my morals are good
circular reasoning much?

>>2810189
>moral relativism is the morality of sociopaths

god, what a bad thread
delete it op please

Relativism has been empirically demonstrated, though. GPS units have to correct for it.

>>2810215
/lit/ is really this retarded, huh? No wonder you guys take >postmodernism, nihilism, subjectivity, relativism, evolutionary psychology, diogenes, and eastern philosophers seriously.

>>2810094
Scholastic philosophy sounds just like what OP is looking for, in fact..

>>2810127
>One refuses plurality, claiming there can only be one Good or one Truth (see Plato, Idealism, Kant and monotheistic religions).

Yeah, this is what I'm talking about

>>2810264
Uh, especially the monotheistic religions part

Or you could read Wittgenstein, who, if you understand him, is the perfect antidote to all of that stuff

Just ask onionring

>>2810270

How so?

>>2810092
I totally agree with you, but how do you feel about male models?

What's going on in this thread, guys?

>>2810285
>Ghostbusters armband

>morality is absolute
>morality has any meaning
>2012

Meaning is a problem for psychologists. God can't give you absolute morals. Nothing is true.

choose one and write about it? Also, why do you hate nihilism? I believe that everything and nothing exists on the basis that it's true when its proven and that we will never know the answers of life, hence I'm religious, non religious, believe in science, math, hope and everything, and because that they all contradict another I find peace in that, but why do you hate that belief? I mean, like, what is there to hate, we all find our solidarity in something. :S

Wait, isn't ethics the one logically infered, the absolutely correct way of behaving (which is BS), and morals just the result of culture and humans romantism?

The other guy confused me.

>>2810950
in a philosophical sense you could say quite schematically:
- ethics are logically (empirically) deduced, there's no need to refer to anything metaphysical.
- some moral rules can be logically deduced but in the end will always refer to an absolute transcendent axiom (see categorical imperative, moral law, transcendental subject for Kant. All of which are not actually demonstrated but dogmatically asserted and form the basis of his supposedly universal morals)
- mores are the product of culture (i.e. in japan rape is like saying hello, while it is a crime in 'murika)

protip: just because morals refer to a supposedly absolute truth does not mean that there is a universal moral system. you can shit out a moral system every morning for breakfast by just asserting that this or that is bad. There are tons of philosophers that argue against relativism and for "morals" yet they can't even argue with each other on what an absolute Good would be.

>>2810285
I'm new and just heard of Stirner today. Now I see this.
>Didn't even havta use mah AK

wot

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww