/lit/ - Literature

>demolish nihilism

>>2872556

right up your alley, OP

>>2872586
>>2872616
>nihilist "logic"

Dude Lebowski does not approve of nihilists

What exactly do you mean by Nihilism? The idea that life has no intrinsic value, or objective meaning?

Oh wow, OP. It's rare to see a case of cognitive dissonance this pathetic.

>>2872706
>The idea that life has no intrinsic value, or objective meaning?
Yeah that.

>>2872709
nihilism is baby first philosophy hurr fuck jesus

>>2872726
how do blind believers even get here? I can understand if you used to be christian, questioned your faith and then went back with a new found self awareness, or if you never went back, but not even questioning it is just lazy. How does it even happen?

>>2872726

You sure are cocky for someone unable to find arguments against Nihilism for himself. Good luck with your climb towards maturity.

>>2872726
>babby's first
It doesn't matter if it's entry-level or not. Remember that you can't think of any arguments against it. I'm not even a nihilist, I just think you're pathetic.

>>2872556
The only way to do away with nothingness is to create something that fills the void.

Do you feel how deep that is, bro?

>>2872556
what do you mean by "reductionism"? this is simply a claim that there is something more than whatever is being accused. mad lazy argumentation.

nihilism can't be refuted, you can only come up with something to comfort yourself (as you should of course)

Reductionism is fairly common but the exact way it comes out determines how you have to respond to it. I would suggest posting the exact form of reductionism you intend to dispute so that it's possible to see if it should be disputed.

Nihilism as well, depending on how it is framed, may or may not be possible to refute. You'll have to simply give us an idea of what formulation you actually mean before anything useful can come from this.

>>2872891

>claim can't be refuted
>THAT MUST MEAN ITS TRUE!

>>2873008
If someone accuses another of reductionism, it's referring to a form of ad hominem or map is not the territory. It's not unusual at all to use that kind of shorthand. That's what the guy needs to look at really.

Well op you are screwed since things have no meaning and no value.

And if you say they have I'm either waiting till you die or just ignore you so things will still have no meaning or value.

>>2873022

I wont ever die, motherfuckah

>>2873019
>If someone accuses another of reductionism, it's referring to a form of ad hominem or map is not the territory
I've never witnessed anyone use the word 'reductionism' in that way. I was under the impression it was the philosophical enterprise of reducing complex things to the interactions of their parts.

>>2872726
>nihilism is baby first philosophy
>needs random authors to disprove it

>>2873022
>Well op you are screwed since things have no meaning and no value
Happiness is valuable, and evolved organisms have purposes. Prove me wrong.

>>2873037
value is subjective and organisms exist and do stuff but we don't know why. if you think we do know why than do tell.

>>2873037

>"nihilism is baby first philosophy"
>demonstrates that he has no understanding of nihilism

>>2873049
>value is subjective
1) Is there any reason to believe this?
2) How is this relevant? Nihilism is the position that things have no value of any kind, not that they have subjective value.

>organisms exist and do stuff but we don't know why. if you think we do know why than do tell
They do the things they do in order to survive long enough to reproduce. Buy a reputable book on evolutionary biology if you would like to learn more.

>>2873046
>knows nothing

Socrates reference.

>>2873062

Things have no INTRINSIC value. And organisms are driven by instinct to survive and reproduce, but this says nothing about the purpose or meaning of life.

>>2873062
> Is there any reason to believe this?

Show me objective value.

>>They do the things they do in order to survive long enough to reproduce.

if that were true, they'd stop trying to survive after reproducing. but they still defend themselves after

>>2873062

This what happens when you don't teach history of philosophy in high school, you get a world of philosophically illiterate people.

1) The study of value is called axiology. The study of value starts from the study of order of things according to their goodness. This goodness can be absolute only in the presence of God (that is he is the maximum goodness and what he says it's good is good). In the absence of God you are left with the question "good for who?" An you are left with an unsolvable problem where you cannot decide whether my goodness or your goodness are more important.

In reality nihilism does not lead to the subjectivity of values but to trasymachus championing power. What is good is what people in power believe it's good.

Now you may not believe that power is always right. After all Plato replies that even powerful people sometimes act against their good. But then we are left with nothing. Plato invented the Ideas, to guide our thought in the recognition of goodness and values, but that wen badly. We in our turn have nothing to guide us.

2) That's not a good argument. Because then I ask you "What are they reproducing for?" and you either answer "they reproduce to reproduce" which is circular logic, or you tell me "they do it for x" and I ask you "what are they doing x for?" again for as long as you feel coming up for reasons.

>>2873091
>And organisms are driven by instinct to survive and reproduce, but this says nothing about the purpose or meaning of life
Not by itself, but along with the fact that all the abilities and parts organisms have have been selected via evolution for their facility in keeping the organism alive long enough to reproduce, this says the purpose of organisms is to survive and reproduce.

>>2872726
Nihilism is the only option if there is matter is the only thing that exists.

Making up your own values like Nietzsche is just delusion.

>>2873109

You're really dumb. Like for real.

I'm not even in this discussion, but I saw your post and I just had to say. Goddamn.

>>2873093
>Show me objective value
Happiness. Now would you answer my question? Is there any reason to believe value is subjective?
>if that were true, they'd stop trying to survive after reproducing
No, that doesn't follow at all.

>>2873110
delusion is reality.

>>2873116
Happiness is not objective.

There are many examples of forms of life when it is not valued and values as propriety, family, pride, duty, fame, money, power and so on are much morevalued than happiness

>>2873112
Thanks for that pointless contribution to this discussion. If I'm so dumb, it should not take much of your intellectual energy to refute what I'm saying, yes? So why not have a go?
(I'm not dumb, jut fyi, but obviously you won't believe me)

>>2873116
show happiness independent of humans

and so why do organisms continue to survive even though they achieved their aim?

>>2873119
>Happiness is not objective
Yes it is. Happiness exists in the world. It is as objective as anything can be.

>There are many examples of forms of life when it is not valued
Well let's see them then, along with an explanation of why they're relevant to the present discussion.

>values as propriety, family, pride, duty, fame, money, power and so on are much morevalued than happiness
Is this relevant to what I've been saying?

>>2873123

Nah, you can't actually refute positions like that. It's a matter of belief. I don't waste my time arguing stuff like that.

But yeah, you're really dumb.

>>2873079


Really? Holy fuck, you just blew my fucking mind.

>>2873128
>show happiness independent of humans
What do you mean? Like other organisms experiencing happiness? How about a dog eating meat?

>so why do organisms continue to survive even though they achieved their aim?
Because there was no evolutionary advantage in selecting them to stop, and presumably the same genetic information that causes organisms to survive pre-reproduction causes them to survive post-reproduction.

>>2873133
>Nah, you can't actually refute positions like that. It's a matter of belief. I don't waste my time arguing stuff like that.
>But yeah, you're really dumb.

So based on my adherence to a position that cannot be refuted, you have concluded that I'm dumb. Does that not strike you as a bit... oh, I dunno... dumb?

>>2873132
Ah you mean objective as in "it's an object" well it's not even that because we have no way to determining identity for happiness.

I may be talking about happiness and meaning x you may say happiness and meaning y but we may never know that we are talking about two different objects.
And if we did we may never determine whether x or y or an unmentioned z is the realy happiness and the other a misunderstanding of happiness because we don't have a text-book definition of happiness but various theories of happiness.

So happiness is not an object.

What I was pointing out that different way of living have different values and as such value is relative.

Now go back to this post and read why value relativism leads to nihilism:

>>2873103

>>2873109

I'm not talking about purpose at the individual level, but the purpose of life itself.

>>2873142
>Like other organisms experiencing happiness? How about a dog eating meat?

How could you possibly know they're happy?

>>the same genetic information that causes organisms to survive pre-reproduction causes them to survive post-reproduction.
so the aim is survival, not reproduction
basically, the purpose of life is to life until you die.
intelligent insight

>>2873146

I can't refute creationism either but I still think it's pretty dumb.

>>2873103
>This goodness can be absolute only in the presence of God
Is there any reason to believe that?
> In the absence of God you are left with the question "good for who?"
No you aren't, because the notion of 'good for who?' already implies that goodness is subjective. Objective goodness requires no submission to the tastes or dispositions of any subject.
>What is good is what people in power believe it's good
Is there any reason to believe this?

>That's not a good argument
It's not an argument at all.
>then I ask you "What are they reproducing for?" and you either answer "they reproduce to reproduce" which is circular logic, or you tell me "they do it for x" and I ask you "what are they doing x for?" again for as long as you feel coming up for reasons
I don't think you understand what a purpose is. A purpose is what an organism does something for. So when I say the purpose of an organism is to reproduce, for you to then ask "what does an organism reproduce for?" is to implicitly contradict what I've just said. Reproduction IS the purpose, and what it means for something to be a purpose is for it to be the reason things are done. An organism reproduces because that is its purpose. Do you understand?

>>2873154
Yes, but creationism is not intuitively correct. So the burden of proof is on creationists. Whereas that certain things are meaningful and valuable strikes people in their pre-philosophical state as intuitively true, much as how it strikes one as intuitively true that trees exist and that the sky is blue. It that case the burden of proof is on people who argue AGAINST it. In the absence of justification from either side, it is nihilism that is dumb here, not realism.

>>2873153
>How could you possibly know they're happy?
From observing their behaviour.
>so the aim is survival, not reproduction
No, the aim is to survive in order to reproduce, in order for the species, or for the genes, to endure. As such, one reason why organisms don't die as soon as they reproduce is in order to look after the offspring.

>Life has no objective value
Very true but there's subjective value
>Life has no meaning
I never understood this one. Purpose? Life has whatever purpose you give it

Read some Sartre OP. That should hold you off until you're older and are ready for actual philosophy.

>>2873184

You are claiming that things have meaning and value, the burden of proof is on you. You still haven't demonstrated that life has any meaning, or that anything has objective value (as in existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality).

>>2873149
>we have no way to determining identity for happiness
What does that even mean?
>And if we did we may never determine whether x or y or an unmentioned z is the realy happiness and the other a misunderstanding of happiness because we don't have a text-book definition of happiness but various theories of happiness
Oh, I think we can be pretty confident we're talking about more or less the same thing.
>So happiness is not an object
I never said it was, I just said it exists in the world. But just so you know, you haven't argued for this proposition at all.
>different way of living have different values and as such value is relative
That is not valid.
>Now go back to this post and read why value relativism leads to nihilism
I did. That post neither gives any reason to believe value is relative nor gives any reason to think relativism leads to nihilism.

>>2873184
>>2873184

It could be intuitively true for the creationists

>>2873037
Why does happiness have value? Why is this our purpose?

Infinite regression etc.

Also, if there's no God (Nihilism) then evolution (x) and the purpose of man (y) have no relation

>>2873216
>You are claiming that things have meaning and value, the burden of proof is on you. You still haven't demonstrated that life has any meaning, or that anything has objective value
I've already given an example of something that is meaningful (the lives of evolved organisms) and something that is valuable (happiness). As I said, that happiness is valuable and that life has meaning are pre-philosophically intuitive propositions, so the burden of proof is on those who wish to deny them. The burden of proof is not on us to justify whether trees really do exist. The burden of proof is on the crazy people who say they don't. Same with value and meaning (although I won't go so far as to say nihilists are crazy!).

>>2873227
>Why does happiness have value? Why is this our purpose?
>Infinite regression etc.
No, there's no infinite regression. These are ill-formed questions. If happiness is valuable then it is the ANSWER to questions about why we should do things. Asking why happiness is valuable is like asking why a vacuum has no mass, or why photons are light.

>>2873226
Well supposing it is, why do you consider them to be dumb, then?

>>2873227
>if there's no God (Nihilism) then evolution (x) and the purpose of man (y) have no relation
Oops didn't notice this. I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record at this point, but is there any reason to believe this? What reason is there to think God should have anything to do with whether or not humans have a purpose?

>>2873229

You have given examples of things that are meaningful to you. You have given examples of things you value. You have not demonstrated that these things have meaning or value independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. And the burden of proof is on the person making a claim. I don't give a fuck what you think is most intuitive.

>>2873229
FUCK I'D RATHER HAVE PURPOSELESS THAN THAT KIND OF PURPOSE FUCK EVOLUTION TOO CRUEL AND FUCK LIFE

>>2873109
>this says the purpose of organisms is to survive and reproduce.

You dun goof'd. Science answers "how" questions, not "why." Evolutions explains HOW organisms change over time, and HOW we come to observed diversity of life on Earth. Evolution does not say life has a purpose.

Ultimately your position cooks down to "Life lives to live." Which is tautology.

>>2873265
>You have not demonstrated that these things have meaning or value independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
Yes I have, in the same way that a man has demonstrated that a tree exists by pointing to it. It is not the fault of such a man if some stubborn sceptic comes along and insists the tree's existence has not been conclusively proven.
>And the burden of proof is on the person making a claim. I don't give a fuck what you think is most intuitive.
Well I'm sorry, but that's just not sensible. Ultimately nothing can be proven in the sense of being undeniable to any logical person, because people can be as sceptical as they like, and scepticism is a coherent position. You can even prove that 5+5=10, because a sceptic can always come along and doubt our intellectual ability to do maths, or raise the possibility that an evil demon comes along and messes with our brains mid-calculation. You have to rely on the notion of intuition to avoid this.

>>2873293
whoops, meant to say "You CANNOT even prove that 5+5=10"

>>2873268
>Science answers "how" questions, not "why."
I would be willing to bet good money you haven't any good reason for believing this.
>Evolution does not say life has a purpose
Yes it does. It says the purpose of organisms is to survive and reproduce in order to perpetuate their genes.
>Ultimately your position cooks down to "Life lives to live." Which is tautology
No, that isn't a tautology.

>>2873293

>>2873307
>the purpose of organisms is to survive and reproduce in order to perpetuate their genes.
That seriously is horrible, just fuck that.
fuck genes

>>2873308
Ok, seeing as you've had enough, let me summarise what I've been doing in this thread. It's called the "companions in guilt" argument. It's an argument against nihilism/anti-realism. It says that the arguments nihilists/antirealists have for not believing in morals/value/purpose are just as suitable for arguing against the existence of pretty much anything - physical objects, laws of nature, etc. So it's effectively a reductio ad absurdum. I had hoped at some point a nihilist would actually give me some reasons for not believing in value/purpose at some point, which I could then use to argue against more mundane things that they would be uncomfortable with, but unfortunately none of them gave any arguments (good old /lit/!), so I just had to keep pointing out they weren't giving me any arguments.
Anyway, look up the companions in guilt argument some time if you're interested.

>>2873132

I think you think subjective means "doesn't exist."

>>2873256

I'm not the same poster of the dumb comment.

>>2873348
No, I think 'subjective' means metaphysically dependent on a subject's beliefs/tastes/desires. How much happiness some organism is feeling is not metaphysically dependent on any subject's beliefs/tastes/desires. Causally dependent but not metaphysically dependent. How much happiness an organism feels is [presumably] dependent on his/her brain state. Of course, if an organism has different beliefs/desires/tastes their brain state will change, but that isn't what subjectivism means by dependence. Subjectivism means it in a sense that renders the dependent quality extrinsic to the entity thought to possess it, like the subjective value of some delicious cake is supposed to be extrinsic to the cake. Happiness is still intrinsic to the brain.

>>2873032
Not to be crass, but you'll see it in research papers and criticisms in general from all fields. The only times I've seen it used in the sense you're talking about without consideration of it limitations is in certain models of computation, like neural networks or game of life.

>>2873307
These articles are by no means complete, I reference them nonetheless for your own reviewing purposes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution

If you read the article on evolution carefully, you'll notice that the theory explains HOW organic life changes over time, and the mechanisms underlying this process, but it does not assign a purpose for existence. Life just exists, as a coincidence, as a contingency, an accident.

>in order to perpetuate their genes

But evolution is not driven by genes, it is driven by environment. Genes do not have intrinsic value. Any value that may be spoken of is completely dependent on environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life

Look in particular at the subsection on "mass extinction."

As far as tautology, I suggest reviewing this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

Wittgenstein's "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" is also a nice read on this topic. The statement "Life lives to live." is tautological because its reasoning is circular, self-justifying.

>>2873383
>Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

You do know he pretty much destroyed that in philosophical investigations?

try a funny book, or a deadpool comic... nihilism is what you inevitably turn to when you read page after page of terribly convoluted philosophy. i mean, it's good stuff, but it makes you think nothing has a purpose. but you don't ask what the purpose is when you are laughing or having a good time, so i'd say probably no book is going to demolish nihilism, but there are plenty of activities that would - riding a bicycle, playing with a puppy, scuba diving, having sex with a girl u love...

>>2873399
Only if you're reading it as a logical positivist. Get your head out of Russell's ass and try again.

>>2873399
What he "destroyed" involved interpretation and the nature of language. What he formalized about propositions and positive logic still holds.

>>2873427

Lol wut. Have you even read the book?

The whole thing is a rejection of the idea that propositions have logical forms.
The whole book is born out of Sraffa's criticism of the idea.
Propositions now can be interpreted only inside a form of life. What Wittgenstein becomes in the Philosophical Investigation is basically a relativistic pragmatist like Rorty.

>>2873383
>Life just exists, as a coincidence, as a contingency, an accident.

>implying

>>2873383
>it does not assign a purpose for existence
Yes it does. It assigns the purpose of perpetuating genes. Please be less lazy than simply linking to wikipedia articles.
>evolution is not driven by genes, it is driven by environment
That's right. Evolution occurs when a species has to adapt to a changing environment in order to continue to propagate its genes.
>Genes do not have intrinsic value
I never said they did.
>As far as tautology, I suggest reviewing this article
Why? I know what a tautology is.
>The statement "Life lives to live." is tautological because its reasoning is circular, self-justifying.
No, "Life lives to live" is not tautological, and it is a proposition, not an argument, so there is no reasoning in it, circular or otherwise.

>>2873497
>. It assigns the purpose of perpetuating gene
I refuse to and will work towards the destruction of the species and all life.

>>2873497
>Yes it does. It assigns the purpose of perpetuating genes.
You're ignoring the problem of consciousness.

>>2873418
This is a bad argument for a couple of reasons.
While it is true that while you have "a good time" you don't ask for meaning this argument ignores 2 factors:

1) That pleasure itself is not sufficient because we are animals of memory (as nietzsche puts its). That is all our experiences are always situated ina context. Pleasure in itself is not enough for us, or we would spend all our time making money just to spend them on heroin and coke. We need our pleasurable experiences to be situated in a context that makes them meaningful. And in order to make them meanignful it needs to be justified. Even Kant realized that our aesthetic appreciation of an object is not a pleasure in itself, but it is a commemoration of an original community that is no more.

2) All pleasure is a mixed bag. All pleasure comes with pain. You may not ask the reason for the one night stand you are having but that pleasure always comes with strings attached.
Maybe the experience of having sex with a stranger is humiliating, embarrassing. Or maybe the pleasure you get it's not worth the hustle of going out to bars and talk to strangers.
This is schopenhauer's argument, which states that sure there are pleasures in life but those pleasures are not enough to redeem the quantity of pain that living requires.
So in order to justify living as meaningful due to the pleasure you may find you have to at least argument why you believe that the pleasure we get is always superior to the unhappiness that comes with it.

>>2873525
I love you.

>>2873533
just a chemical
not good enough

this is the problem of materialism

>>2873545

I don't see any problem at all.

>>2873526
I'm not aware of any good arguments for consciousness being a problem for evolutionists. Evolutionary theory does not entail that every feature of an organism has been evolutionarily selected for, after all. I'm also not aware of any good arguments for consciousness being unnecessary for survival.

>>2873548
Because you're just a typical undersensitive drone.

>>2873557
You remind me of those characters in the recognitions that claim to be observant catholics just to show everyone how sensitive they are, when in reality they were just trying to be cool and fuck girls.

Also romantics in Stendhal's books.

>>2873545
Science doesn't limit emotion to chemical reactions in the brain, just that that is one part of them. There could be 4 dimensional being or something of that kind manipulating our brains unseen.

And if chemicals aren't good enough for you, what exactly is it that you want?

>>2873578
Sorry that I naturally have strong ethics and a natural defiant will that does not accept even if it leads to self-destruction.

>>2873588
>And if chemicals aren't good enough for you, what exactly is it that you want?

Meaning and purpose (objective kind)

>>2873607
>objective
>purpose

Pick one.

>>2873599
You are just a hipster.

>>2873497
Yes it does. It assigns the purpose of perpetuating genes.

And how is this purpose assigned? By whom? For what reason, to what end? What is the goal?

There is no goal, because living has no purpose. You have given me an argument about how things come to exist, but not why. The difference here is subtle, but it's huge, and you're still not comprehending it.

>That's right. Evolution occurs when a species has to adapt to a changing environment in order to continue to propagate its genes.

If you decided to read the article I linked, especially the "mass extinction" part which I said you should, you'd know that evolution has occurred most rapidly and dramatically with catastrophic environmental change. This has been the source for most of the change in organic life on earth. Evolution is not progressive, this is the important part I hope you understand.

>No, "Life lives to live" is not tautological, and it is a proposition, not an argument, so there is no reasoning in it, circular or otherwise.

So ultimately you see how you don't even have an argument. You haven't shown me that life has a purpose.

>but... but, reproduction!

Reproduction is HOW life continues to exist, not why.

>>2873618
fuck off sociopath

>>2873706
I'm a working law abiding citizen, that regularly writes and has a girlfriend.
How am I a sociopath?

You shouldn't be using words you don't know the meaning of anon.

>>2873721
well you don't have strong emotions that's for sue

>>2873726
for sure*

jesus christ there are some stupid motherfuckers here
idealists, idealists everywhere

>>2873726
>judging a person for not being buttflustered by something some moron said on /lit/
haha oh wow

>>2873706
so·ci·o·path/ˈsōsēōˌpaTH/
Noun:
A person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

an·ti·so·cial/ˌantēˈsōSHəl/
Adjective:

Contrary to the laws and customs of society; devoid of or antagonistic to sociable instincts or practices.
Not sociable; not wanting the company of others.

con·science/ˈkänCHəns/
Noun:
An inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.


So basically what you're saying is that he is immoral?
I define immoral as actions that are bad for the species done by individuals, but maybe you could explain to me how him not indulging your insane ideas for utopia are sociopathic?

>>2873732
>hating on idealism

did /sci/ invade recently?

>>2873735
>done for the species
too cold, makes me not think of humanity to feel anything towards and basically too reductive and reduces everything down to just hurr animals hurr animal feelings.

>>2873743
So what you want is god? Then say so and don't be such a bitch about it. If you have some empirical evidence, or some good reasoning as to why I should believe, then please illuminate me.

>>2873759
Why aren't you on /sci/?

>>2873765
Why aren't you on /b/?

>>2873772
>implying they aren't even more of full on empiricist tard nihilists

I don't like to debate idealists even if I think they're stupid. The world is better off for us with them, especially the moralists. We should keep them around and make them our friends. For our own benefit.

>>2873798
>/b/

>>2873811
>>>/z/

>demolishing nihilism

lmao. this is basically what everyone has been trying to do since the 18th century dude.

>reductionism

it's like it's really the 20th century

>>2873815
kill all sociopaths

I know your little games, you cant hide from me and justify it all with bullshit such as "philosophy" or "science"

>>2873530
that's cool. i mean i think what i said stills stands though. if you get really abstract about life, you won't enjoy life, because life is not an abstract thing.

YOLO

>>2874348
except the real hell is on earth and it's the other people whose judgements prevent you from doing any of that shit

>>2874348
What is this yolo I keep hearing about?

>>2874356

your opinion. the poster is from a baww thread that has kinda motivated me to improve my life so I that it was related to op's question

>>2874357
YOLO- you only live once

Alot of people don't like it saying its "carpri deim" for stupid people becuase it was popularized by a rapper....so I say it to troll

Is it just coincidence that the people who understand the issue most, and study it most lean towards moral realism?

That there is right and wrong, good and bad.

One study found that most philosophers today accept or lean towards moral realism, as do most meta-ethicists, and twice as many philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism as accept or lean towards moral anti-realism.[2] Some examples of robust moral realists include David Brink, John McDowell, Peter Railton,[3] Geoffrey Sayre-McCord,[4] Michael Smith, Terence Cuneo,[5] Russ Shafer-Landau,[6] G.E. Moore,[7] John Finnis, Richard Boyd, Nicholas Sturgeon,[8] Thomas Nagel, and Plato. Norman Geras has argued that Karl Marx was a moral realist.[9]

And most of you who think this is wrong, aren't well educated in the field.

Like someone who doesn't know a lot about evolution, yet arguing against it.

>>2874348
>Why didn't I shave and put a tie on today?!

>>2874594
That's only in the US and the basic argument for moral realism is that it's "the intuitive position so it does not need to be argumented by only defended".

What it ignores is that moral realism is actually a very minoritarian opinion, even among non-philosophers, in Europe.

>>2874594
>Like someone who doesn't know a lot about evolution, yet arguing against it.

It doesn't change the fact that evolution is just a theory, at least for now.

>>2874373
>a simple picture with a stupid quotation motivated me to change my life

>Can you guys recommend some books, papers, etc, that demolish reductionism and nihilism?
So you didn't get the memo. You cannot "demolish" people's beliefs, even if you have all the proof you want. The power of stubborness and "conviction"... you know.

Example: There are still people who believes that the earth is flat. http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
No kidding, they really exist.

>Can you guys recommend some books, papers, etc, that demolish reductionism and nihilism?
So you didn't get the memo. You cannot "demolish" people's beliefs, even if you have all the proof you want. The power of stubborness and "conviction"... you know.

There's even some guys who believe the earth is flat as loli's chest.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
No kidding, they really exist.

>>2873046
You don't know everything, admitting this is important. Instead of THINKING that you know everything, admit that you don't and try to fill the areas where you lack.

>>2874601
What do you mean by "just a theory"? Do you mean an explanation not backed by evidence?

>>2874625


engaging total retards

he's either troll, or lost beyond hope

>>2874594
Where did this anon disappear? I wanted to talk with him.

>>2873688
[1/2]
>And how is this purpose assigned?
By the relation of assignment
>By whom?
Evolution
>For what reason, to what end?
These aren't valid questions. See latter part of >>2873174
>What is the goal?
The propagation of genes.
There is no goal, because living has no purpose. >You have given me an argument about how things come to exist, but not why
Yes I have. They come to exist in order to propagate the genes of their parents.
>The difference here is subtle, but it's huge, and you're still not comprehending it
Yes I am.
>If you decided to read the article I linked, especially the "mass extinction" part which I said you should, you'd know that evolution has occurred most rapidly and dramatically with catastrophic environmental change. This has been the source for most of the change in organic life on earth. Evolution is not progressive, this is the important part I hope you understand
What is the relevance of any of this to our discussion?

>>2873688
[2/2]
>So ultimately you see how you don't even have an argument. You haven't shown me that life has a purpose
Yes I have. I have shown you that life has the purpose of propagating genes by evolution. The argument, if one is needed, is an inductive one from the facts of evolutionary history. And if you wish to assess those I can only really point you in the direction of a textbook on evolutionary biology. Evolutionary history shows that all of our faculties/abilities/organs have been selected for in virtue of their facility in allowing us to survive in order to pass on our genes. The purpose of our faculties/abilities/organs is to help us pass on our genes. It is the reason they are the way they are. Therefore our purpose is to pass on our genes. It is the reason we are the way we are.
>Reproduction is HOW life continues to exist, not why
Agreed. Reproduction is the how. Propagation of genes is the why.

>>2876776
fucked up the goddamn greentext. here is how it was meant to look:
>You have given me an argument about how things come to exist, but not why
Yes I have. They come to exist in order to propagate the genes of their parents.

>>2873688
[1/2]
>And how is this purpose assigned?
By the relation of assignment
>By whom?
Evolution
>For what reason, to what end?
These aren't valid questions. See latter part of >>2873174
>What is the goal?
The propagation of genes.
>You have given me an argument about how things come to exist, but not why
Yes I have. They come to exist in order to propagate the genes of their parents.
>The difference here is subtle, but it's huge, and you're still not comprehending it
Yes I am.
>If you decided to read the article I linked, especially the "mass extinction" part which I said you should, you'd know that evolution has occurred most rapidly and dramatically with catastrophic environmental change. This has been the source for most of the change in organic life on earth. Evolution is not progressive, this is the important part I hope you understand
What is the relevance of any of this to our discussion?

>>2873688
[2/2]
>So ultimately you see how you don't even have an argument. You haven't shown me that life has a purpose
Yes I have. I have shown you that life has the purpose of propagating genes by reproduction. The argument, if one is needed, is an inductive one from the facts of evolutionary history. And if you wish to assess those I can only really point you in the direction of a textbook on evolutionary biology. Evolutionary history shows that all of our faculties/abilities/organs have been selected for in virtue of their facility in allowing us to survive in order to pass on our genes. The purpose of our faculties/abilities/organs is to help us pass on our genes. It is the reason they are the way they are. Therefore our purpose is to pass on our genes. It is the reason we are the way we are.
>Reproduction is HOW life continues to exist, not why
Agreed. Reproduction is the how. Propagation of genes is the why.

>>2876802
You haven't shown why people SHOULD do those things, though. Claims of purpose require subjective application of value.

I can't reasonably say that you're wrong because you don't want kids.

>>2874600
great, so most people are sociopaths i cant trust? fuck you faggot

that whole gene thing is bullshit pop-sci that was disproved awhile ago.

dawkins is retarded

>>2874600
>What it ignores is that moral realism is actually a very minoritarian opinion, even among non-philosophers, in Europe.

Sorry, the french aren't relevant anymore.

>even among non-philosophers, in Europe.
Yes most people are naturally shit and when they have nothing holding them back anymore (atheism) they will believe in shit things

>>2876808
>You haven't shown why people SHOULD do those things
Do I need to do that? Is it not a valid reason for doing something that it is one's purpose, anyway? Incidentally, as you reach the age of 25-35 you probably will (it is statistically likely) develop the desire to have children, due of course to the hand of evolution, so perhaps that is also an answer - you should do it because [in time] you are constructed to want to do it.

>Claims of purpose require subjective application of value
I don't think they do. I think that applies only to subjective purposes. But I've been arguing in this thread that propagation of genes is the objective purpose of homo sapiens; i.e. our purpose regardless of what opinions we have about it.

>>2876836
No, I might just do something drastic to rebel.

fuck you and your depressing beliefs, fuck evolution too
fuck statics as well

your beliefs will be the end of you, i'll make sure of it

>>2876836
No, due to your depressing faggot beliefs I'll be too depressed to want any.

>biological determinism
>practical in any way

>>2874594
>>2874600
>>2876831

You're using democratic/elitist reasoning on the claim that there is good and there is evil. The irony is thicker than blood.

The Selfish Gene hypothesis is the worst kind of nonsensical pseudo-science, nothing more than a bunch of Just So Stories.

The book is purporting to prove the theory of blind genetic control over animal behavior, the first thing the reader expects is a discussion of genetic mechanisms and the biochemical interaction between said genes and behavior. To this point, I find it odd that only in the first chapter, and only over several paragraphs at that, does Dawkins discuss the A,C,G,T mainframe and protein synthesis.

From what I can tell, Dawkins suffers from the basest of Philosophical mistakes - he uses a certain pre-supposition to advance a theory without ever PROVING the pre-supposition at hand. In this case, Dawkins argues that the Gene's desire to replicate is the answer behind evolution...unfortunately he fails to realize THIS IS WHAT HE MUST PROVE! Rather than laying out the direct scientific links between individual genes and their related behaviors, Dawkins speaks only of the later behaviors never once proving that Genes had anything to do with them.

In a nut-shell, had this book been entitled "The Evolution of Behavior" I could have accepted it - unfortunately, as it stands, this book attempts to prove a Genetic theory it never once even considers.

Don't be fooled - to prove the existence of a certain behavior and later attribute it to genetic coding is no different than to prove the existance of the same behavior and later attribute it to the will of God. In each case a point is made, but the underlying supposition is never proven.

Guys, guys, guys, you can't derive an ought from an is, y'all know that if you've read Hume.
It isn't contrary to reason to wish the destruction of the world over scratching your finger.

TL;DR if there is no God, all is permitted. Obviously, however, evolution has provided us with pseudo- morals and purposes which act so as to propagate our species. That does not mean that there are either an OBJECTIVE morality or purpose

Nihilism is basically an answer to the question "what is the meaning of life?" It states that life arose out of random chance, and therefore has no intended purpose. Why this is considered controversial, I have no idea.

>>2876836
>is = ought
HAHAHA

>>2876940
I'll use your logic against you and kill you and not even feel a thing.

>>2876972
*yawn*
http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Searle-How-to-Derive-Ought-from-Is.pdf

>>2876977

I cannot say that that idea isn't valid, you're right.

>>2876988
>i didn't ask for this

>>2876940
>Guys, guys, guys, you can't derive an ought from an is, y'all know that if you've read Hume
Guys, guys, guys, you can derive an ought from an is, y'all know that if you've read Searle.

>>2876980
Part of the way through this. You still have to prove that by promising something a person has put himself or herself under any kind of obligation. It requires that everyone in the discussion agree that a promise holds weight.

But beyond that, you're not saying "if Bill promises to pay Bob $10, Bill ought to give Bob $10." The claim that because we evolved in such a way as to make reproduction biologically important automatically makes it somehow ethically important, is to claim "Bill has a natural tendency toward giving Bob $10, so Bill ought to give Bob $10."

Please note that the PDF to which you linked at least made an argument showing step by step how it got from an "is" to an "ought," rather than just saying "everything that is, also ought to be."

If you can't make a step by step argument then you're not deriving an ought from an is, but simply saying that because we do something, we automatically ought to.

>>2876997
please see
>>2877017

Even if you can derive an ought from an is, you still have to put effort into showing how the ought derives from the is.

>>2876980
>All promises are acts of placing oneself under (undertaking) an obligation to do the thing promised.
No. It's an act of telling those who hear you say it that you're under an obligation to do the thing promised. While I would agree with the assertion that someone who makes a promise is under an obligation to keep it, I realize that this is due to the ethical views I accept, and not some truth inherent in reality. Thus, at this point an evaluative statement is added.

>>2877027
>you still have to put effort into showing how the ought derives from the is
Ok then:
1) The purpose of homo sapiens is to propagate their genes (argued for earlier in this thread), which they do by reproduction.
2) If the purpose of some object O is to cause state of affairs S, and in order to cause state of affairs S it must perform action A, then O ought to perform action A.
3) Therefore, homo sapiens ought to reproduce.

I submit that premise 2 is intuitively true. As for premise 1, which many people will no doubt contest, I invite them to study evolutionary biology.

>>2877057
read

>>2876853

This is a clear example of no one winning on the internet

I refuse to pass on parasites (genes).

I'll make myself infertile.

I am the rebel.

>>2877075
Why? Not once did I make an appeal to the authority of Dawkins' book.

At any rate, to take up this argumentative tangent, that anon fundamentally misunderstands Dawkins' project:

>Dawkins argues that the Gene's desire to replicate is the answer behind evolution
This is incorrect. Dawkins is in fact laboriously explicit about this in the book's introduction.
>Dawkins speaks only of the later behaviors never once proving that Genes had anything to do with them
1) This has nothing to do with whether the propagation of genes is the principal consequence of evolution; with whether the crux of gene propagation is the reason why organisms evolve, and it is this that supports premise 1 in my argument.
2) The fact that certain types of behaviour are recurrent in a certain types of animal despite the heterogeneity of said animal type's environment (it's nurture) is itself an argument for said behaviour being the result of genetic code (nature). It doesn't need to be stated in every individual case.

>>2877057
>1) The purpose of homo sapiens is to propagate their genes

just because it happens that doesn't mean it is the purpose or a purpose exists.

stop anthropomorphizing evolution

>>2877800
>just because it happens that doesn't mean it is the purpose or a purpose exists
No, but the fact that we have evolved to be the way we are in virtue of our ability to propagate our genes does. We were selected to propagate our genes. We have strong muscles and sturdy bones and reflexive joints and keen intelligences and eyes and ears and so and and so on because they enable us to propagate our genes. So if you want to know why we exist at all, why there are homo sapiens walking around, then the answer is to propagate our genes. It is quite literally the reason we exist.

>>2877818
I want to see you dead.