/lit/ - Literature

Never actually read Kant but the greentext alone enduced some rage...

>>3473192
Nothing has ever put me off from a subject for so long like studying Kant in school did.

>criticizing Kant without having read the three Critiques

>>3473203
This.

Fuck off OP

haroldbloom.jpg

>>3473192
>xD if an assassin asks you for the target's name you must give it 2 him
Kant said you could deceive. One famous example was the assassin standing on your doorstep, asking if the target was inside. Kant said it's wrong to 'lie' and say he's not inside if he was, but you could say "I'm not sure where he is at this very moment." As long as you mentally believe that to be the truth (You are not exactly sure; he could be in a few different rooms).

>xD if an assassin asks you for the target's name you must give it 2 him because otherwise u would b justifying lying and lying is wrong xD

False. According to Kant, nothing morally obligates you to actually tell the assassin anything.

>>3473203
>>3473205
I'm guessing neither of you actually read the three Critiques if you think reading them would in any way change OP's views on Kant.

>>3473212
Oops, beat me to it

>>3473212
>Kant said it's wrong to 'lie' and say he's not inside if he was, but you could say "I'm not sure where he is at this very moment." As long as you mentally believe that to be the truth

>>3473212
>>3473216
So it's morally acceptable to possibly endanger the victim's life by giving a less persuasive answer because 'lying is bad xD'


>autism

>>3473236
>lying is bad

Lying is immoral.

>>3473236
>"endangering the victim's life"
>not telling the assassin anything that would actually lead the victim to harm

okay

>>3473247

>>3473236
>by giving a less persuasive answer

>>3473240
This kind of clunky hamfisted map of morals is immoral.

If you knew anything about Kant then you'd realize the first example you use is by no means clear cut. Many modern Kantians argue that the obligation is to tell the assassin the truth that you have an obligtion to protect the potential vitim and thus not epose his location.

I'm no Kantian but it's not as easy as that to dimiss faggot

Also for me it's Kierkegaard for being so goddamn abstruse

>>3473254
You don't even have to give the assassin a less persuasive answer. You don't have to tell him anything. In fact, nothing stops you from slamming the door in his face and calling the police right there.

the categorical imperative is utter madness. in the real world hard deontology is more terrifying than hard act utilitarianism

>>3473212
But that's retarded. It achieves the same thing in the end, and maybe even less believably so. It's like saying you can't say anything that's not true, regardless of the reason. Novels, jokes, metaphors, anything that's not true facts are technically lies with that view in mind.

>>3473267
I don't think any moral system defined as 'hard' is acceptable. Even 'hard' golden rule or 'hard' compassion seem sinister

>>3473260
I'm reading Kant now, but I found Kierkegaard much easier actually.

>"He isn't a preference utilitarian!"

Kant is neckbeard patient zero.
I still can't understand why guys like Ricoeur are treated like a joke in academics, while Kant is given more than a single second of attention.

>>3473277
Saying you found something easier to read than Kant isn't saying much at all.

people seem to never remember the first critique when reading the second one

>>3473281
Modern philosophers are a risk to teach in university. It's safer to teach a philosopher who has a shitload of secondary writing written about him than a relatively modern philosopher whose ideas haven't settled into a consensus of general understanding

Ayn Rand is a big piece of shit. Anytime anyone tells me they like Ayn Rand I know immediately that they think they are better than me and they feel justified in any petty thing that pops into their head.

>>3473281
Kant's given attention because he's basically the first guy that got sick of grey area, wishy-washy morality and did something about it. So his ethics have really clear right and wrong. Don't get me wrong though, Kant is still a shit-tier writer and his philosophy is totally impracticable. But that's why.

So this is the level of intellect one can expect from a philosophy thread on /lit/? I had heard great things about your philosophy threads. "The board's beyond repair," they said "but the philosophy discussions are good." I shan't be returning to this board again.

>>3473297
Ayn Rand was a scared, bitter human being with little capacity to empthize with others. That's why her books are popular among CEOs and so on. She justifies the basest of instincts and promotes them as virtues.

>>3473300
>His philosophy is totally impracticable

I hope you're referring to his moral philosophy here, not his philoopshy in general

>>3473302
Good riddance niggerdicks, back to r/philosophy on your knees

>Scalonian Contractualism

>>3473306
Just wondering, but if these people are actually psychopaths like you seem to be implying, then why would they need to be told or even care if what they're doing is virtuous?

All of them. Honestly, I have really tried to get into philosophy but I feel like all philosophy--except for ones with real world applications, like Marx--are a meaningless, waste of time. They are just word games, "Free Play", as Derrida would call it. I agree with Derrida when he said that "philosophy died yesterday".

>you will never live in the Kingdom of Ends with your fellow higher men, admiring the noumenal realm and pursuing the summum bonum

>>3473311
Yup. Just discussing ethics.

>>3473302
>I shan't be returning to this board again.


You forgot some 'indeed' and 'good sir'.

Pic related is you.

>>3473319
Being a psychopath doesn't entail not wanting the approval of others.

>>3473319
Because I doubt they are all born psychopaths, many are conditioned to supresss their innate empathy, however strong that faculty is. Hence why Atlas Shrugged is among the most popular/favourite books of students at top colleges who go on to high paying jobs in the busines world

>>3473316
"However, Scanlon's contractualism has Kantian elements, as it seeks a free agreement that elucidates both freedom and equality. We might say that contractualism gives expression to ideas latent in Kant's discussions of the Categorical Imperative (especially in the Formula of Humanity and the Formula of the Kingdom of Ends, rather than the more familiar Formula of Universal Law). Indeed, as we shall see in section 4, Derek Parfit argues that, despite their differences, contractualism does coincide with the best interpretation of Kant's moral theory."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ntractualism/

It's Kantian without all the fucking retardation and I think it comes the closest to describing moral phenomena.

>>3473323
Babby can't into philosophy?

Wasn't it Kant who came up with that twaddle about nominal and phenomenal?

>>3473340
Noumena and phenomena

Noumenal realm is that of which we can say nothing (God, free will, true nature of objects), phenomenal is the realm of experience which we all experience and can analyse and so forth

>>3473338
What have you gained from philosophy? I have read countless works and gained nothing, just a bunch of displays of giant towers of cards, massive word games. That's all philosophy is: a giant structure with great architecture. And architecture can be marvelous. But enter the great Tower of Philosophy, and you will find it empty.

>>3473328
Neither does Egoism.

>>3473331
So.. they are psychotic by choice and by conditioning?

>>3473343
Depression, a tendency to resort to nihilism, a sense of inflated importance and worth.

You jelly?

>>3473343
What have I gained from reading your post? Derrida is fucking nonsensical.

>>3473344
I'm guessing you think that successful people are psychotic due to that one book some hack wrote about CEO's being psychopaths or whatever? Step back and realize that the term "psychopath" is just a name for a set of symptoms. "Psychopathy" is a problem when someone becomes violent because of it, but none of the non-violent "symptoms" are bad at all. Those are just qualities encouraged in capitalist society.

>>3473344
I'm not saying they're all psychopaths (although many undoubtedly are, see Mark Ronson's The Psychopath Test for pretty up to date evidence)

Rand offers a cure for any guilt, shame or internal dilemmas for those who think their actions are wrong, and gives younger people a view of the world in which the masses are disgusting, bothersome plebs who are fit for nothing but to be swindled out of the money which they can't spend in any rational way

>>3473352
Ok, I'm just responding to the person who mentioned psychopathy. Sociopathy would be more apt, but it doesn't haev the same bite

>>3473351
Derrida is anti-philosophy, philosophy being an inflation of language, a massive balloon ready to pop at any moment. He is against the idea that there is a transcendental signified---in case you haven't read much philosophy, a transcendental signified is something such considered to be a "great truth", such as there being a proper definition of "being", such as there being a proper definition of "reason", etc. The main point Derrida wants you to understand is this: THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT CANNOT AND NEVER WILL BE LAID OUT AND CAPTURED IN WORDS. You can play with words, as a child plays with a pile of toys, but one pile of toys is no better than any other. But Derrida is not Nihilistic---toys are fun. That's what most of Derrida's work is, after all. Just some fun.

>>3473357
Psychology is an incredibly pseudo-scientific field. There are people who are manipulative, people who can read emotions, and people who are violent--the three are not necessarily related at all.

>>3473371
plasticbagblownaroundbythewind.gif

>>3473352
>"psychopath" is just a name for a set of symptoms.
Not necessarily. If we break down its meaning in Greek, it pretty much just means brain problems. If we look at its historical meaning, it means someone who has some kind of mental problem that falls outside of diagnosis (i.e. they appear normal superficially, but arguably have some kind of mental illness). If we look at its common meaning, we're in the land of cold blooded but friendly faced killers. If we look at the current DSM definition, it specifically avoids subjective judgement, and in giving objective "symptoms", goes against the previous two defs. As far as psych terms go, it's a pain in the ass.

>>3473382
A wonderfully Foucaultian response to a Derrida fanboy. Kudos.

>>3473316

You go to Arizona State University.

>>3473324

hahaha 20/20

>>3473382
Jon Ronson is the guy I think you must be referring to. If Ronson actually read the DSM, he would notice that catatonia is a REQUIRED symptom of psychosis. I don't know how many CEO's lay in their office rigid like a statue, or on the opposite side of the spectrum, waving their limbs around endlessly until they collapse from exhaustion. Psychology is a field with problems, and these problems are slowly being improved--but made worse by these horrid pop science writers.

>>3473297
>Becoming upset that someone how a conflicting philosophy with you

It's good, because in the same way, they instantly know how unreasonable and most likely unintelligent you are as an individual.

>>3473297
>>3473306

You know nothing.

>>3473414
>>3473297

Both of you, deconstruct selfishness and altruism and tell me what the results are.

>>3473414
That would put them in pretty good company.

>>3473409
>Jon Ronson is the guy I think you must be referring to.
Do you often not read a comment and just reply to what you would like to be there instead?
>If Ronson actually read the DSM
DSM can only take you so far. What's given in the DSM isn't compatible with the def given in the Mask of Sanity for example.

>>3473385
You wouldn't believe how many BDSM dungeons one has to visit to write like that.

>Ayn Rand

It's easy to hate Rand because she justifies "self-interest" which may seem very holier-than-thou and uncaring, but all of her literature is very inspirational and motivating, and she has a lot of great thought provoking ideas. Her ideas are for the every man, based on strength, based on passion, based on vigor. It wasn't written to make CEOs out to be heroes, but to make intellectuals and people who contribute to the world as heroes.

Basically give back, instead of just taking and living off others.

My only critique with her as a human being is her supreme intolerance of anyone who disagrees with her, or believes differently than she does.

>>3473431
I've seen Jonson in a number of conferences and he always managed to bring up "DID YOU KNOW THAT CEOS ARE ALL PSYCHOPATH???" in some way or shape in conversation, and idiots listen to him because they think he is some kind of authority. I don't know anyone else so obsessed with calling CEO's psychopaths, so maybe you can introduce me to someone new.

>>3473434
This.

It's about your worth as an individual over the needs of everyone else. That's why it works as "Capitalist" writing, because Communism forces you to be a slave to everyone else and give up all of your earnings to a soulless system.

>>3473431
I've seen Ronson in a number of conferences and he always managed to bring up "DID YOU KNOW THAT CEOS ARE ALL PSYCHOPATH???" in some way or shape in conversation, and idiots listen to him because they think he is some kind of authority. I don't know anyone else so obsessed with calling CEO's psychopaths, so the guy I'm replying to has definitely read Ronson's "great book" or someone influenced by him.

>>3473439
>Capitalism
>not an equally soulless system as Communism

Just kidding. Either one is good. They are both just ways of playing with trading.

>>3473438
>Derrida the Pimp !!uRgT+t+LIRT

Whoops, wrong tripcode there, that's me.

>>3473434
She just took some of Nietzsche's ideas and tried to call her mixed view of life an Objective truth.

She wrote her characters, who barely resemble humans, as an impossible and somewhat reckless ideal that she desperately wanted for herself but knew she could never reach.
By the end of her life, she resorted to using government services due to health reasons. Sad that the woman who wrote "The Fountainhead" would do this

>>3473192
You are right. Fuck Kant. He was a necessary evil though, led to all kind of wonderful things. Just like Hegel.

>>3473438
I never read Ronson, sorry. Or any other book about ceo's being psychopaths.

>>3473439
Out of interest, have you ever read the works of Socialists?

>>3473441
You have to take into account that this was written at a time when communism was still popular.
It is partially response to the communist manifesto. Her whole thing about human relationships just being about your own self intrest is ment to counter the communist argument that landlords and capitalist exploit other people. It doesn't have to be rigorous because it is countering something that is just as flimsy.

>>3473447
I've always found the ideas of Stirner to be a bit more stimulating. I mean, Rand's philosophy could be called a more reserved version of his (I know, I've set up a landmine for myself)

>>3473371
Can you post more? Or make a thread exposing your thoughts and your descriptions of Derrida's work?
I REALLY like your posts.

>>3473454
Stirnerism can't be reserved, it loses it's whole point then. The idea behind it is utterly consequential and needs to be so to make sense. Rand isn't Stirnerist as all since she is spook riddled to hell and back.

>>3473382

>>3473385

Not really Foucaultion other than history, social construction, yadda yadda yadda.

A truly Foucaultion repose would focus on knowledge/power in the construction of mental illness and uncovering the pseudo-science of much of psychology.

lol at the rand haters

"i misinterpretted her work. she a bitch"

"she just selfish and no care for others. others more important than individual"

"she write only for selfish. no want geef money to needy"

>>3473481
I also assume everyone I disagree with has a silly accent. Yours was dutch.

>>3473441
>Implying I'm praising her writing style or use of pulp fiction over her philosophy

No doubt she garnished popularity for fringe reasons like being a woman and escaping soviet Russia.

Her work in terms of fiction is romantic and unrealistic, but everyone knows this. It's just the canvas for her ideas. It's the stage for her philosophy, and it works well in pointing out the flaws inherent in Communism, and how "equality" has to cripple everyone else down to the level of the heathen, just so everyone can live the same as the lowest slave, thus sparring the slaves feelings, but restricting everyone else.

In terms of Nietzsche, it matters little. I'm not one to give credit for an entire philosophy to just one man. Everyone who ever has an idea has come to it themselves, or by standing on the shoulders of other men's ideas.

If I came up with a completely unique idea myself, there is a high probability someone, somewhere, has already thought of it, regardless of if I know about them.

>By the end of her life, she resorted to using government services due to health reasons

So you're attacking her person as opposed to her ideas? That's almost the entire point she wrote about.

Economically though, In her mind, she had contributed enough money into the system (Social Security) that all the benefits she received were hers by right, but the reality of that, is subjective.

>>3473481
She was a terribly hypocritical woman with a persecution complex, and her writing is pretty terrible.

>>3473481

just fuck off and die

>>3473435
It sounds more like your knowledge of the term only goes as far as the DSM-IV and Jonson. What I'm saying is that the term can mean almost anything, so to say Jonson has used it incorrectly somehow doesn't make sense, at least not in the terms given above. And then to say that some of the traits are positive so everything is good neglects that, if someone is a psychopath, it necessarily isn't a good thing. Personally, I find Jonson extremely bland, his conclusions are not particularly deep or far reaching, but I think he's set himself too hard a challenge for his talent. Whenever you're talking about "psychopath", you have to be careful, because of the history and meaning of the term, you're not simply saying "those people are weird and I don't like their lifestyle, so they're insane", which causes things like the DSM and people like Jonson to favour checklists and objective symptoms to try and remove personal judgement. And on the other hand, if you favour things like case studies, you're probably leaning towards some kind of criticism of psychological diagnosis and treatment in general and can't so easily target a group like CEOs. As far as pop-pseudo-sci books go, Affluenza was done better.

>>3473371
>There is no such thing as reason, just different opinions!

Derrida confirmed for complete idiot, and possibly liberal dumbass.

>"Writing is like toys! All of our toys are the same!"

Confirmed for blatant stupidity. Some ideas are just better than others. There is truth in the world. The sky is blue.

>Derrida is anti-philosophy
>Writes a shit ton of preachy anti-philosophy that is itself it's own philosophy

Nothing better than a pleby 15 year old anarchist.

>>3473471
Bachelardian is probably closer to the mark, but that's not a million miles off Foucauldian to be fair.

>>3473490
I can't understand the hate for Rand. She wrote a code of ethics that justifies capitalism and champions the individual. It was written simply so that average people could understand it. Of course her writing is dry. She isn't a philosopher from academia. She saw something wrong with altruism and wrote huge books showing why it was bad.

>>3473490
>Hypocritical

List how.

>Persecution complex

Explain.

>Writing is terrible

Give reasons.

>>3473504
>I can't understand the hate for Rand. She wrote a code of ethics that justifies capitalism and champions the individual. It was written simply so that average people could understand it. Of course her writing is dry. She isn't a philosopher from academia. She saw something wrong with altruism and wrote huge books showing why it was bad.
Yes, idiots are known to do dumb things.

It's actually rather liberating knowing that some of the most powerful minds in history, e.g.: Kant, could be say things so fucking stupid.

>>3473488
>just so everyone can live the same as the lowest slave, thus sparring the slaves feelings, but restricting everyone else

Basically what liberals are trying to do to everyone right now.

>>3473487
>>3473490
>>3473491

Guys, don't fall for it.

>>3473500
Sorry, but you have missed the point of my metaphors, especially the toy one. I'll at least explain that one to you:

Words are constructions. Just as a spider makes a web, bees make a hive, and men make a home, words are just something built up. They are a bunch of little pieces that can be rearranged. You seem to be disillusioned that something called "an idea" exists. There are plans for the future, altering the future: altering a physical piece of the world, changing some atoms around. That's it. You can only change physical construction or the construction of words, and its all freeplay. An ape who grunts in new ways is no better than other apes. The other apes will stare, and say "Why, it SOUNDS like he is saying something significant!" And that is your reaction to philosophy. You read the idea; the SOUND of it, the concept, sounds great! But you don't make the next step and attempt to bring this concept to fruition in reality.

>>3473490
you are as horrible as the people who hate her because shes against justifying weakness, and you dislike it because you are weak, and shes against you

just fuck off you entitled welfare queen, nobody owes you shit

>Rand wanted the hero of her novel to be "A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."[4] Rand scholars Chris Matthew Sciabarra and Jennifer Burns both interpret Rand's interest in Hickman as a sign of her early admiration of the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche, especially since she several times referred to Danny (the character which Hickman 'suggested' to her) as a "Superman" (in the Nietzschean sense).

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

>>3473521


>>3473487 here

Please don't lump me with the ones who "fell" for it.

>>3473327
Wow. I would love to punch that guy's face.

>>3473510
>Hurdur she dumb

You might as well call her ugly too and start the ad hominem.

>>3473500
I don't even like Derrida but this is all clearly over your head. I suggest a dignified retreat.

>>3473528

(CONTINUED)

But there is nothing wrong with reading philosophy for fun, as one LISTENS to the SOUND of music for fun, you like to LISTEN to the SOUND of philosophy for its "ideas". You are a hedonist, just like the rest of us, but your hedonism has been disguised by a massive, massive tower of words. When a group of ants swarms up, it looks like menacing, black cloud of evil, something incomprehensible. Take your favorite philosopher, and look at the little ants. You've got ants in your pants.

>>3473487
>>3473490
>>3473491

"i disagree wif her. i no like her ideas. she wrong"

and yet loads of people agree with her, and somehow they end up rich or at least well-off. the people that agree with her are strong indivduals.

so she must be doing something right.

inb4 - "her writing dry, she no haf gud ideas, she wrong and selfish"
ill debate this shit all day. her writing was bad and she was a little self righteous, but her core concepts are about real happiness and in my eyes, anthem should be required reading.
but it isnt because it promotes individualism and can cause disturbances. gotta keep them servants in check.

>criticizing Kant in internet memes and emoticons

>>3473527
True, forgive my error.

Still, feeding trolls, etc.

>>3473510
>Of course her writing is dry. She isn't a philosopher from academia.
Just pointing this gem out.

>>3473525
As a person on welfare I am entertained by this. Nobody owes me shit, but everyone keeps giving me money. Toil on, Don Draper, my rent's coming up soon.

Posted from my iPhone 5.

>>3473539
"she arent no philosopher from grad school, her opinions dont matter"

carry on drone. carry on.

>>3473563
My point was obviously that associating dry writing with things decidedly not academic is funny.

Take your life.

>>3473547
>Cheap >$400 electronics is the epitome of high living! Lel!
>Keep paying for my measily $800 welfare check,, LEEEELL!!

My baby niece has it better off than you.

Even though you are cancer, I am not bothered by you.

I own stock in Apple, and you supporting the company that pays me dividends, and you giving it positive advertising ends up with me profiting again in the end.

Check Mate, occupier scum.

>>3473599
>owns stock in Apple
>thinks he's fiscally secure in any way shape or form

Have you looked at your portfolio at all in the last six months, chap? Apple is going down the shitter faster than you can say "outdated modes of production."

>>3473545

This seems perfectly appropriate, since Kant's thought was on the level of the average poster on /b/

>>3473371
Derrida's philosophy makes sense when you factor in his Judaism.

The Jewish God is entirely unknowable and transcendent, hence the Derridean transcendental signifier is totally unknowable. It's an attack on western metaphysics and christian religion, he denies we can know what God/Being is. He isn't just some relativist who says we can't know anything.

>>3473192
>xD if an assassin asks you for the target's name you must give it 2 him because otherwise u would b justifying lying and lying is wrong xD
Kant never thought about this but should have:
If you don't want to tell a thief the wrong information, you don't tell him anything at all.

>sex is bad because when you feel attraction u just want to use the other person [as a means to personal pleasure]
This is true. It's bad for girls to be slutty as means to get a promotion, a job, etc. It's also bad for men to use women as a means of expressing a beast's ego.

Whatever the case, Kant should have recognized sex is performed for mutual pleasure between 2 beings, preferably a couple in a monogamist relationship

>>3473650
That said, Kant's contribution to philosophy is not merely moral philosophy but formalizing epistemology and metaphysics. You can criticize him on his ethics, but his formalisms are still respected today

i like how hedonistic egoism is generally looked down upon unless it's given a shot of randian gusto. just goes to show what can be accomplished with a bit of vindictiveness and unflinching contrarianism.

>>3473650
>mutual pleasure
socioeconomic advancement and expressing one's ego are both typically pleasurable. just because sexual pleasure is exchanged for platonic doesn't mean it's not mutual pleasure.

>>3473599
>I own stock in Apple
jokes on u

Keep sending out the free money, labourer.

>>3473212
But thats just " sophism " isn't it ?
And following that thought you could just lie without restrictions because you can't truly know anything . All of the things are just assumptions.

>>3473212
Good lord I'm raging alright. Fucking Kant.

>>3473192
>2013
>reading Kant for his ethics

this faggot right here

>>3473713
I've gotten more in dividends out of it than I paid for the stock.

I get $45,000 every 3 months for my shares that I paid $1,000 for years ago.

Yes, the joke is on me.

>>3473192

What does Kant mean to you? If something other than the clarification of analytic and synthetic reasoning strategies then you need to look at him again.

>>3473733
Are you kidding? I have his history of western philosophy. The audiobook of him reading it puts me to sleep faster than any pill ever made.

>>3473754
Shiteating ethics.

>>3473781

The propositions of ethics along with mathematics are synthetic a priori propositions. If one is to accept the methodology of empricism which presupposes both synthetic a priori and synthetic a posteriori propositions to be true then ethics must be considered along with mathematics.

Kant's ethics may seem bullshit but his reason for thinking them to be necessary is essential. The sticking point is, how do we validate ethical propositions.

>>3473785

>>3473790
i was literally just dancing to music in the mirror admiring how beautiful i am

>>3473240
>Lying is immoral.

Really? Why? I thought lying was only immoral if the lie harms someone or is intended to harm someone.

>>3473790

sure looking at the A/S distinction is sniffing my own farts. enjoy being marginal to all of mainstream philosophy faggot.

Want to read Quine. Kant

Want to read Kripke. Kant.

Fuck you!

>>3473798
it violates the second formulation of the categorical imperative obviously.

Can you suppose that lying is maxim? huh?

>>3473798
because you shall only act as you would want everyone to act.

And if everyone lied then communication is impossible.

hey, would any of you guys like to try some consequentialism?

>>3473858
Not necessarily, it would just be harder.

Descartes every time. I want to punch him through the pages.

the gubmint is tryin a kill me /lit. HELP.

>>3473909
Is this a materialist raeg?

Since everyone is hating on each others philosophers, I was wondering what good philosophers are out there. Could some of you list them and their most significant works?

>>3473983
i dont even know hwo to respond to this shit anymore

>>3473983
My dear anon, every philosopher is bad, every scientist is a hack, every writer sucks, every movie is shit, every country is full of crap, every religion is bullshit, every life is miserable, every poster dumb, every every board horrible, every thought dead, every person ugly, every day awful, all is bad and you should hate it and that won't make your hate the best thing to do, you have to hate the hate itself and nothing will ever be good and death is much worse and all that there is or that there isn't, all under the sun ought to be hated and mocked.

Didn't you get this yet? How is like being 8 years old, dummy? Are you some kind of faggot? Ah well, aren't we all.

>>3473998
>My dear anon, every philosopher is bad, every scientist is a hack, every writer sucks, every movie is shit, every country is full of crap, every religion is bullshit, every life is miserable, every poster dumb, every every board horrible, every thought dead, every person ugly, every day awful, all is bad and you should hate it and that won't make your hate the best thing to do, you have to hate the hate itself and nothing will ever be good and death is much worse and all that there is or that there isn't, all under the sun ought to be hated and mocked.
My head just exploded.

>>3473998
You forgot to mention our mockery should be mocked just as our hate should be hated and our hate of our hate be mocked to then further be hated as the mockery of our hate as much as any mockery. You're pathetic and so am I, no that I feel any compassion for you and I, dumbass.

>>3474005
Please stop. I'm too drunk for this shit.
Reading this is making my nose bleed.

>>3473998
So edgy, man.

I feel dirty just typing that word.

descartes is pretty rageworthy. i never read that much kant but he's probably up there, though he has one side of the coin pretty ok

>>3474008
You nosebleeding is laughable, not as in happily and healthily laughing at something with friends (cause what kind of faggot has friend anyway ? oh, yeah, any of us since we are all despicable friends-craving scums), but rather as derisively, cruelly and helplessly laughing at something in despair and contempt, despair of what you witness, and contempt of your own despair. Also, getting drunk sucks, albeit probably not as much as not getting drunk. I wish you a good day, that is to say, this mediocre parody of degenerated rythm we have the stupidity of calling "day".

Captcha: you airdsd. Shit board indeed.

>>3473300
>Kant's given attention because he's basically the first guy that got sick of grey area, wishy-washy morality and did something about it.

Ahem. Hammurabi? The writers of the OT? Muhammed?

>>3473998
how edgeful

>>3473300
>grey area, wishy-washy morality
>implying this is a bad thing, as bad as deontology

>>3473998
>every philosopher is bad
kant hume hegel locke husserl sartre schopenhauer aquinas derrida foucault aurelius spinoza heidegger kiekegaard etc are all good but there are some bad ones too do you even know how to read

>every scientist is a hack
there are good scientists too

>every writer sucks
wrong

>every movie is shit
most

>every country is full of crap
i heard sweden or the netherlands was cool or something

>every religion is bullshit
pretty much

>every life is miserable
not really but kind of

>every board horrible
yes

>every thought dead
no

>every person ugly
i'm beautiful

>every day awful
yesterday was great

>all is bad and you should hate it and that won't make your hate the best thing to do, you have to hate the hate itself and nothing will ever be good and death is much worse and all that there is or that there isn't, all under the sun ought to be hated and mocked.
2edgyforme

>>3473352
>"Psychopathy" is a problem when someone becomes violent because of it, but none of the non-violent "symptoms" are bad at all. Those are just qualities encouraged in capitalist society.

Monetary harm is physical harm.

Our current societies seem to have drawn a line between the two, as if one is totally disconnected from the other--because one is against the law and the other isn't always. Such societies come up with their own complex and labyrinthine conceptions of how exactly you're "allowed" to monetarily harm someone else and how you're not "allowed" to do so. But de facto, there is no difference if a starving man starves because someone took his money legally or illegally.

If you have less money, you may lose health coverage or have to skimp on treatments you otherwise need; it will be harder for you to maintain adequate levels of nutrition; you will have to buy cheaper, shoddier foods which will cause harm to you with cumulative consumption; you may do tasks around your dwelling which are somewhat dangerous--like repairing your own roof--or tasks that put a strain on your body when you otherwise might've been able to hire professionals to undertake these tasks--and for older people this may be physically detrimental; it will be harder to wear adequately warm clothing on a cold day or keep your thermostat set to a temperature that keeps you from feeling physical discomfort or reduces the likelihood of you getting sick.

By harming you economically, the rich psychopathic CEO is also harming you physically.

>>3474059
The darkness will come back and eat you. Don't say we didn't warn you when They start running after you.

>>3473858
>>3473826
Who said I would want other people to always tell the truth? In some cases I'd want them to lie and in others I'd want them to tell the truth.

>>3474059
>>3474031
>>3474011
>>3474001
Hah! Losers! I was just trolling. I actually love you.

I have a deep cosmological hunch that all is alright.

The only people I see shitting on Kant in real life are usually Randians.

Says all you need to know, I suppose.

Derrida makes me rage fairly hard. Then again, he was a performance artists not a philosopher.

>>3474075
I, however, was dead serious. The darkness are still there, faggots. They're waiting for you all, cause they suck too.

>>3474078
And they are many philosophers who deserve to be shit n much more than Kant. Starting with Rand, I guess.

I love him, because he's interesting

I hate him, because he's him and makes up words for no apparent reason.

Also, I hate anyone who basically defines something as subjective and calls it objective because subjective is a dirty word...

But I also love them....I have a weird taste in philosophy.

>>3473434
>It's easy to hate Rand because she justifies "self-interest"

>Basically give back, instead of just taking and living off others.

Pretty sure that's the opposite of self-interest. Self-interest means to just keep taking whatever you can get and live off others if you can and give as little as possible.

>>3473192

The Transcendental Aesthetic alone is worth more than the combined efforts of everyone who has ever used the internet for any purpose whatever.

You gnats can buzz all you want, you will never be of any significance. Get fucked.

>>3473528

I'm sorry, I haven't been to /lit/ in a few weeks. Is this the new monsieur guy/Essex de Vere type troll?

>>3473441
>By the end of her life, she resorted to using government services due to health reasons. Sad that the woman who wrote "The Fountainhead" would do this

You don't fully understand the end result of her philosophy if you find that surprising. When you are supremely self-interested, you will do anything to benefit yourself, even compromise your "philosophy" or become a hypocrite.

>>3473212

>getting shit completely wrong

Here's a better example:

Say a friend of yours went running by your house and told you he was being chased by a murderer, and would be seeking shelter at a nearby gymnasium. He then departs.

Now the murderer arrives and demands to know where your friend is. Not wanting to expose him to the harm, you lie and say he has gone to the markets to hide.

In the meanwhile, your friend has made it to the gymnasium, only to find it locked tight. Seeing no other option, he flees to the markets and attempts to hide.

The murderer, on your information, goes to the markets looking for your friend, finds him there, and kills him.

Thus does the lie extend responsibility for this evil, in absolute terms, onto you.

>discussing philosophy on /lit/
>coming to /lit/ in the first place

>>3473192

The retards who wrote the secret, op

>ever taking a philosopher or what he says seriously at all

Hobbes

biggest bootlicking fuck ever

>People can't be trusted
>thats why we should trust the governing of our lives to one very easily corruptable person who is brought up spoiled by granduar and developing a god complex

>also you can't question what the leader does ever hurrr durr

>also without our glorious leader everything will IMMEDIATELY fall apart and everybody will kill each other (this is logically fallacious btw)

>>3474115

>The Secret
>Philosophy

>>3474124

You should read yourself some Nietzsche

One of his books literally begins "Don't trust philosophers, they're all bullshit fucking douchebags, and anyone who claims to have a philosophy others should learn about should go die in a ditch........now lemme tell you about my philosophy"

>>3474109
Then, why are you here?

rand is not a philosopher. don't bring her up

>>3474130
Maybe it's a kind of "person who plays games" vs "gamer" thing? "Don't trust philosophers, but you can trust people who have philosophies"

>>3474157
>Ayn Rand (pron.: /ˈaJn ˈrænd/;[1] born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was a Russian-American novelist, philosopher,[2] playwright, and screenwriter.
>Russian-American novelist, philosopher,[2] playwright, and screenwriter.
>philosopher,[2] playwright,
>philosopher,[2]

>2 ^ Den Uyl & Rasmussen 1986, p. x; Sciabarra 1995, pp. 1–2; Kukathas 1998, p. 55; Badhwar & Long 2010.

>Den Uyl, Douglas & Rasmussen, Douglas, eds. (1986) [1984]. The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand (paperback ed.). Chicago: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0-252-01407-3. OCLC 15669115.

I agree she was horrible though.

>>3473785
>The sticking point is, how do we validate ethical propositions.
We don't. We choose them and enforce them with sheer willpower. All argument is an appeal to one stick or another.

>>3474130
The Secret is extremely watered down Western Hermeticism which is, whether you like it or not, a philosophy.

camus because every pleb circle jerks their faggotry cocks over the myth of sisycunt when this stankbitch clearly didn't know jack about suicide, romantizing the act and simulteaneosly claiming that almost every suicide is an impulse act that not even the suicidee knows is coming.

seriously fuck this cunt and anyone who like his stupid shit about some cunt killing a dunecoon then almost goes christain but then omghe doesn't wowow so deeeeep life is soo trippppppaaaaay!!!!!1 XD

Also I totally agree with the OP. Kant was an aspie virgin faggot who would be lurking /r9k/, too pathetic to even post, if he part of our generation.

Also the buddha because reincarnation and karma is an absolute load of shit.

Nietzche sucked too and sartres nausea is literally the most boring book I've ever read. Arthur soapandshower also deserves a mention, for being a whiny little attention whoring shit who should of killed himselfbefore his 15th birthday. Save us the trouble of having to hear the sound of people mutually masturbating to his whiny 'essays' on how his life sucks but he's too scared to suicide.

>>3474658
tell us who you like

Kant wasn't radical enough.

i fucking hate clitgenstein

>>3474668
thomas metzinger
david hume

>>3474658
>soapandshower

>>3474691
Kant wasn't categorically imperative enough.

>>3474129

>That file name.

Also the Leviathan as the unconditional document of modern IR is everything that is wrong with modern IR

>>3474129
>also without our glorious leader everything will IMMEDIATELY fall apart and everybody will kill each other
this is exactly what happened in yugoslavia. tito was not that bad either, the yugonostalgic movement is a testament to that.
>one very easily corruptable person who is brought up spoiled by granduar and developing a god complex
someone else is being logically fallacious here

>Descartés
>"animal spirits"
i lost it.

Descartes and Kant.

Favourites are Hume and Spinoza.

>>3475897
You may have lost it faggot, but you can't, and you never will, prove him wrong, faggot.

>>3475924
Does he have to? Descartes has to prove animals have spirits

>>3476497

wat?

Doesn't Descartes say animals ain't got no soul?

>>3473759
>The audiobook of him reading it puts me to sleep faster than any pill ever made

Is that suppose to be a good thing?

>Secondly, Descartes thought that the pineal gland is full of animal spirits, brought to it by many small arteries which surround it.

What the shit? I guess it qualifies as animal juice since humans are animals, but spirits?

>>3473371
oh and somehow science is oh so amazing and objective and the key to understanding reality

go back to /sci/ fuck science

in reality, science is philosophy’s bitch

>>3473528
fuck you and your physicalism, reductionism, and nihilism

i have precognitive dreams and that's it, you cant convince me otherwise

humans above god, humans above biology

fuck you hippie nihilist

human constructions are the truly only objective thing
because i said so

>>3475843
>slavs are humans
k buddy

have you even read gun, germs, and steel?

>>3474167
not a philosopher

>>3474129
this guy is a douche too. thank god i didn't have to read him

>>3476548

unironically 10/10 post

>>3476569
B-b-ut there's a citation!

>>3473371
being and reason are axioms

>>3476633
free will is also axiomatic

>>3473371
>thinks philosophy is still about GRAND METAPHYSICAL TRUTHS
this is not the 1800's anymore.

murray rothbard
he's not a philosopher, but his political ideology is rand tier retarded
also rand

>>3476638
Is it? I think it's more of a non-issue. What difference does it make if free will doesn't exist?

>>3476667
Well existentialists hold it to be axiomatic.

>>3476664
fuck off, i am not going to let science over take us in that department

physicalism must fall

>>3476664
>philosophy doesn't care about metaphysics

I don't think so

>>3476698
not that i like metaphysics as it is done now, but the way it is done now is not about finding any transcendental truth. it's more about modality and problems around realism.

classic problemsl like free will etc, i've a rather low opinion of. not genuine metaphysical problems

>>3476707
are you implying there is no transcendetal truth?

>>3476708
ever wonder where your concept of a transcendental truth comes from? try to pull yourself up from that bootstrap

>>3476711
what are your credentials?

>>3476684

>free will
>axiomatic

A free will would be one determined by nothing

>Kant
>Morals

>>3476719
>implying there is such a thing as no-thing

MUH DAWKINS
MUH SCIENCE

>>3476715
the flag bearer of naturalism on roids

>>3476722

The fuck are you talking about kid? Have you not heard of the principle of sufficient reason or what?

>>3476722

Nigger don't make me post that nasty ass letter I sent to Scientific American Mind when they printed that horseshit article on free will

There's only one answer.

>>3476725
>naturalism
now that explains why you are retarded

HURR EVERYTHING IS AN ILLUSION EXCEPT BIOLOGY AND PHYSICS

>>3476726
>>3476729
oh go shoot up a school you fucking moral nihilists

hurr it's all determined it's all meaningless
science has explained everything! MUH DAWKINS

>>3473547
I am a mighty enough man to not be bothered by parasites feeding off of my greatness and hardwork. I have enough power to not notice the flies that may find sustenance from the fruits of my labor.

What you know about Nietzsche?

>>3476736
"Ironic" shitposting is still shitposting, in fact it's the worst kind of shitposting.

>>3476736

Dawkins is a hack lapdog of scientific claptrap.

You don't understand a word of what you're talking about, and you should stop posting now. Seriously.

>>3476732
not an illusion, mind you, just not in conflict, and of a lower order of description, from physics. illusion is a charge invented by guys like you

>>3476736
>oh go shoot up a school you fucking moral nihilists
I swear, I'll never understand why people say this. It must be a religious holdover.

>>3476745
whahhh fuck morals
wahhh fuck free will
wahhhh fuck philosophy
wahh fuck metaphysics

muh science
MUH SCIENCE

look at me being so edgy "i'm just a primate!"

hurr chemical reactions lel

>>3476746
>>3476749
why would you even want to deny free will?

>>3476747

Go back to /sci/, why are you even on here?
>muh "scientific" opinions are fact

>>3476752

Because in the eyes of a friend of truth, any fraud, howsoever pious, is still a fraud.

Do you know why the problem of free will was unknown amongst the ancients? It is an invention of the scripture.

>>3476664
This isn't the 1930s anymore. Metaphysics are back in you twit.

>>3476729
>>3476726
>>3476719
>Had never actually taken any of the hard sciences.

It's weird having a BS in biology and working in a lab for so many years. One forgets the fundamental difference between "scientists" and "scientific advocates". With the latter being moronic twits like these cunts, and the legions of faggots on le redddit

>>3476755
>thinks the best philosophy rejects science rather than try to preserve human potential in a natural world
leave the hard work to me, silly anon

>>3476758
Truth is then no longer a virtue as virtue no longer exists.

>>3476759
i know it's back, but it's still not good. to get more serious i'm in the penelope maddy kind of mood when it comes to metaphysics

>>3476758
>It is an invention of the scripture.

what do you know? where are your credentials other than wikipedia articles of schop and niet

>>3476759

You seriously have not the first idea what you're talking about. You're trying to make a cheap strawman and completing failing to do so.

Stay in school. You really need it.

>>3476768
according to your beliefs, there is no such thing as "good"

you just don't realize that

>>3476766
I am poking fun and the radical materialist position being purported. It is a philosophical trend bolstered by the soft sciences, not a scientific one.

>>3476770
>needs a transcendental GOOD
i guess you also need a complete proof of maths consistency to do maths

>>3476752

The error of free will.-- Today we no longer have any tolerance for the idea of "free will": we see it only too clearly for what it really is — the foulest of all theological fictions, intended to make mankind "responsible" in a religious sense — that is, dependent upon priests. Here I simply analyze the psychological assumptions behind any attempt at "making responsible."
Whenever responsibility is assigned, it is usually so that judgment and punishment may follow. Becoming has been deprived of its innocence when any acting-the-way-you-did is traced back to will, to motives, to responsible choices: the doctrine of the will has been invented essentially to justify punishment through the pretext of assigning guilt. All primitive psychology, the psychology of will, arises from the fact that its interpreters, the priests at the head of ancient communities, wanted to create for themselves the right to punish — or wanted to create this right for their God. Men were considered "free" only so that they might be considered guilty — could be judged and punished: consequently, every act had to be considered as willed, and the origin of every act had to be considered as lying within the consciousness (and thus the most fundamental psychological deception was made the principle of psychology itself).
Today, we immoralists have embarked on a counter movement and are trying with all our strength to take the concepts of guilt and punishment out of the world — to cleanse psychology, history, nature, and social institutions and sanctions of these ideas. And there is in our eyes no more radical opposition than that of the theologians, who continue to infect the innocence of becoming by means of the concepts of a "moral world-order," "guilt," and "punishment." Christianity is a hangman's metaphysics.

>>3476750
You should consider stop posting.
You went from amusing to pathetic.

>>3476769

This is a simple fact. I defy you to find even one mention of the question before the rise of Christianity.

>>3476774

And you think I am a crass materialist? Are you only capable of binary thinking?

>>3476765
Virtue always remains, life always cretes them, now, if they are going depreciate life or have mean because of life is a complete different thing. Truth remains exactly because of that, not in absolute, but as individual meaning.

>>3476780
Maybe.

>>3476752

>The error of free will.-- Today we no longer have any tolerance for the idea of "free will": we see it only too clearly for what it really is — the foulest of all theological fictions, intended to make mankind "responsible" in a religious sense — that is, dependent upon priests. Here I simply analyze the psychological assumptions behind any attempt at "making responsible."

>Whenever responsibility is assigned, it is usually so that judgment and punishment may follow. Becoming has been deprived of its innocence when any acting-the-way-you-did is traced back to will, to motives, to responsible choices: the doctrine of the will has been invented essentially to justify punishment through the pretext of assigning guilt. All primitive psychology, the psychology of will, arises from the fact that its interpreters, the priests at the head of ancient communities, wanted to create for themselves the right to punish — or wanted to create this right for their God. Men were considered "free" only so that they might be considered guilty — could be judged and punished: consequently, every act had to be considered as willed, and the origin of every act had to be considered as lying within the consciousness (and thus the most fundamental psychological deception was made the principle of psychology itself).

>Today, we immoralists have embarked on a counter movement and are trying with all our strength to take the concepts of guilt and punishment out of the world — to cleanse psychology, history, nature, and social institutions and sanctions of these ideas. And there is in our eyes no more radical opposition than that of the theologians, who continue to infect the innocence of becoming by means of the concepts of a "moral world-order," "guilt," and "punishment." Christianity is a hangman's metaphysics.

>>3476785

>Crass materialism is a kind of subsidence into which one sinks from a protracted lethargy in thinking. ‘Everything is explained from the position and constitution of atoms throughout space, together and in accordance with the immutable laws of the universe’ — there is a fine case of the intellect devalued and swept low in its own estimation of things. Man is truly in a bad way when he aspires to abstract himself altogether from the account of being, as though this ‘abstracting away’ did not presuppose some other consciousness from which one subtracts himself as a spurious aberration, a precipitate which remains over after the solution is distilled, further referencing a special datum which can be reduced to obtain the ultimate kernel of all explanation in itself. But here again is the old routine of undertaking to finish things ‘at one blow’ and have done; as always, the attempt does not come off as one had hoped. Quite the reverse in fact: with materialism one is always put back where one started, wondering after the essential composition of matter, the invariance of cosmological laws and constants, the interference and distorting effect of the observer; so on and on. For the materialist there is no hope; but the sensitive and more spiritual mind that sometimes has dread to think, ‘suppose in the end we are, all in all, no more than chemicals and their manifold reactions?’ should not despair on account of this. It is, as we have said, a postural slouch that the intellect is known to slip or relax occasionally, and a good night of sleep followed by a few brisk morning gymnastics will be enough to recover one’s better form.

>>3476765
Who cares? We still like truth and we strive to reach as close we can to it.

truth, reality, goodness etc are okay and proper to have. but there is no need to worship these as concepts. a gyroscope does not know of its own balance, so to speak.

>>3476792
You are never going to convince me of determinism.

"truth" can go fuck itself

human feelings above all

>>3476787
>>3476791
go shoot up a school already

this sounds like something that james holmes would believe

>>3476809
>baww reality hurts my feelings, naturalism is false!

Nobody cares if you are going to be convinced of anything, you are just deluded.

>>3476813

Who?

>>3476816
says you.

hard determinism is not a fact and free will has not been destroyed yet, you only think it has based on popular opinion of nobodies.

>>3476787
>mommy didn't let me burn the family cat alive so fuck morals

>>3476816
>no free will
>no such thing as right or wrong
>implying i am going to care of being deluded then

enjoy your hypocrisy

maybe you would think more carefully if you actually lived the philosophies you believe

>>3476818

Obviously that went way over your head, as is, I would wager, all of philosophy.

>>3476823
wahh fuck christianity and everything it stands for and everything that is related to it


blah blah have you even read nitshit in german?

>>3476818
>free will has not been destroyed yet

Libertarian free will is so fringe in the philosophical world that's largely considered as a dead position, not to mention libertarians haven't brought any argument whatsoever.
Face it, free will is dead.

>>3476825

Seeing as you can't even handle the English, I hardly see how that matters.

You're at the level of an average /lit/ poster, which is to say, pretty fucking pitiful, and I'm getting bored entertaining your shitposting.

>>3476834
>>3476835
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiOiV1MU8

>>3476821
>>implying i am going to care of being deluded then

I didn't impliy that. If you want to be a deluded retard who is afraid of reality, go for it! There's nothing wrong with it!

>>3476834
bullshit, what are your credentials? how do you know?

i bet you think you're some sort of sociopath too, ever done any crimes?

>>3476841

>implying I'm even going to open that

Keep trying faggot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApI3r3Jvc

>>3476841
Was that supposed to be funny or you just misquoted?

>>3476842
>>/sci/

where is that nobel prize? you got it all figured out!

now go attempt to rape a girl and fail at it and get raped in prison by bubba

>>3476846
>likes lil wayne

So how's that low IQ? BUT BUT I CANT CHOOSE WHAT I LIKE MUH DETERMINISM

>>3476845
>well mr. judge free will does not exist and blah blah blah blah blah

>life in prison
>raped until you die
>justice is served

where is your moral nihilism now?

>>3476729
>Scientific American Mind

MUH POP-SCI

why the fuck are you people on /lit/?

>>3476797
>>3476797

i was always right along with ontollogically unloaded, down to earth emotivistprojectivist naturalist materialist blablabla interpretations until, after tearing down all metaphysical basis for universal oughts, after wiping away all epistemic ground for natural law, some of these folk still tried to offer a normativity of their own...based on a crude kind of pragmatism, a two-faced ethics of the particular which seeks to universalize on basis of a majority rule...you simply can't have the cake and eat it too

>>3476834

we all have free will. you do what you want to do, unless youre in jail. you cannot do anything but what you want to do. free will (as a misinterpreted philosophical clusterfuck) is an incoherent and uninteresting topic when you realize that all doubt comes from internal and hidden dualist preconceptions, which is very ironical given that it is materialists which have raised these doubts to begin with. there is no other "you" being held hostage by the "determined you", which is why a notion of non-freedom is incoherent. free will is literally the most idiotic debate in all of phil

>>3476850
>>3476845

Are you underage or something?

>>3476860
(●＾o＾●)

>>3476856

Sorry, the article was so offensive I had to retort in some fashion. I read it standing in an airport food stand.

>>3476856
>hey guys I don't have reading comprehension

>>3476863
You don't have free will, morals are an illusion, and everything is meaningless.

Now support science!! yay science!!!!

>>3476865
>>3476866
bite it, you scum

>>3476856

>he thinks the average /lit/ poster is not kill yourself tier intelligence

>>3476860

It is the most idiotic debate, but it's funny that you have not a clue as to why

>>3476872
LEL
EPIC MAYMAY

REACTION FACE ;D

>>3476874
Some small-time neuroscience experiments are not going to disprove free will.

>mfw bitches still don't understand the difference between DOING what you will and CHOOSING what you will

>>3476874

haha shut the fuck up, this is big boy discussion

>>3476867
>baww if there's no free will and objective value and morality I will kill myself :( the world is so mean :,(

>>3476880

>disprove

Sorry, I wasn't aware of it having been proven in the first place

>>3476883
i choose to fuck u up the ass u little balding midget

>>3476884

Doesn't sound like it from where I'm sitting buddy. You guys are pretty sad.

>>3476887
axiomatic.

eitherway, if it is wrong then you cant have your precious existentialism (muh sartre) and are only left with nihilism

enjoy your giving into the peer pressure (muh science)

>>3476885
you have crippled emotions and are autistic, i now see why the thought does not bother you

>>3476891
oh who cares it's all meaningless hurr no right or wrong hurrr

go actually live your beliefs and kill somebody (just to see what it feels since you're so edgy), get caught, and then hopefully electrocuted

>>3476895

You are so under-educated for this discussion.

>axiomatic

Sounds like god principles to me.

Please give me a concise definition of freedom so I can expose how great your ignorance is.

>>3476864
what's this face. seems happy
>>3476860

>after tearing down all metaphysical basis for universal oughts, after wiping away all epistemic ground for natural law, some of these folk still tried to offer a normativity of their own...based on a crude kind of pragmatism, a two-faced ethics of the particular which seeks to universalize on basis of a majority rule...you simply can't have the cake and eat it too
i don't think pragmatists restrict themselves to a thin moral vocabulary. it's just that we understand ethics is performed, not found.

>>3476895
>if you are not a superstitious whiny baby you are autistic

This level of argumentation belongs on /pol/, not here.

>>3476880

the point is that they never needed to be done in the first place. we dont have free will (as the ability to do otherwise). but that conception of free will is flawed...so i essence i am agreeing with this fucking retard>>3476874 who has the reading comprehension of a blind toddler with severe brain trauma...it's just that that kind of free will comes only from dualist pre conceptions, and is thus incoherent.

>>3476901
new-atheist detected

who gives a shit, i will burn all your precious books and papers because you convince me of no morals

so much for pragmatism

>>3476905
>superstitious

oh boy, i bet you think sentience or sapience are untestable bullshit

>>3476906

>so i essence i am agreeing with this fucking retard who has the reading comprehension of a blind toddler with severe brain trauma

So what does that make you?

>>3476911
LE EPIC REACTION FACE

MAYMAYS LEL

honestly the reading comprehension of this board is steadily declining the more you people read...and i thought this only happened to sunhawk

>>3476906
>we dont have free will (as the ability to do otherwise).

you're a faggot too then

I HAVE PRECOGNITIVE DREAMS and no one will evre convince me other wise

i am looking forward to invoking demons

I love these threads. I feel like Lebron playing pickup ball with a bunch of kids.

>>3476909
I don't think I fit in your distorted idea of what a naturalist is.

>>3473192
You, not 'you' the person. 'You' as in general; you as in the general population.
Because you haven't stated your Philosophy, yet you have a Philosophy and say everything's subjective and all Philosophies matter, yet you've neither invented your own Language Game for more conversations nor have you made many phenomenal hypothesizes to at least one theory.

>>3476920
You aren't too bright as well.

>>3476920

youre honestly one of the biggest retards ive ever seen. if you were my son id put you through years of physical and sexual abuse

>>3476916

literally no one cares

>>3476930

Who do you think you are? I am Dr. Evil.

You are no match for me, mortal.

>>3476930

Filtered for great taste. Have a nice day shittrip

>>3476929

Well like Lebron, I'm hardly even playing at the moment.

>>3476939
Oh yes, doesn't believe in free will, morals, or meaning, and thinks hitler is cool.

your edgy is beyond space and time

>>3476939
>lil wayne
>lebron
you have shit taste in everything, do you even have a degree in philosophy?

>>3476941

>your edgy

Whatever fucks I gave about your ideas have now left the building.

>>3476942

I just like posting annoying pictures. Seems to be working so far.

>>3476944
I meant as in you own the edgy, your edgy, not you are edgy or you're.

did you not understand "is beyond space and time"


so where's that philosophy degree? wikipedia genius

i can't tell who's on my side anymore. you guys should adopt names

>>3476948

And I meant it as in you're seriously employing the word 'edgy' to prop up your argument.

And anyone who is seriously about philosophy today knows well enough to stay far away from the universities. Far, far, FAR away.

>>3476950
fuck you nihilist

>>3476953

>appended for your pleasure

>>3476953
Rebellious against universities but not rebellious against science?

so much for being a misunderstood genius that has it all figured out

>>3476958

When did I say I was pro-science? You're confusing me with another poster buddy.

Oh god you're not that faggot from earlier are you? The guy that thinks like a computer?

>>3476935

bawwww did i offend your Victorian sensibilites?well if it makes you feel better im not at all attracted to little boys, id just force myself to go out of my comfort zone were i to be blessed with such a braindead monkey for a son

>>3476932

disgraceful

>>3476965
you're the free will denier

>>3476968

Can't deny something that doesn't exist. None of my grounds are scientific in nature. Empirical, yes. But science has got beyond the empirical spirit of investigation today.

Do not confound me for what I am not.

>>3476950

i'm the only one you need onion.
also please post a pic, as i've convinced myself that you're sasha grey sex-philosophrix, i just need confirmation

>>3476973
>Can't deny something that doesn't exist

Says you.

>>3476984

Well seeing as there can be no evidence of something that does not exist, I'm pretty sure there's nothing to deny either.

>>3476989
Evidence is as much as a social construct or human abstraction as free will is.

where is your god now?

limiting yourself to only the things you can see through your eyes, why would you do that?

>>3476995

Because otherwise I am putting stock in fantastic things, and that is a foolish vice.

Every concept is first introduced to us through experience. Deviating from experience, allowing the concept spheres to be inflated without just cause, is what has brought philosophy to the lamentable condition of today.

>>3477005
oh wow

have you even lsd?

>>3477011

Sorry, find me one serious philosopher who has ever trusted drugs to contribute to their understanding of human existence

>>3477023
Sartre was a fan of the shrooms

>>3477095

And accordingly, he was a very poor example of a philosopher.

Try finding someone pre-1900.

>>3477099
Kant was a big fan of the LSD

>>3477112

I think not, LSD was first synthesized in 1938

>>3477126
Did I say Kant? Damn, I meant G.E. Moore.