/lit/ - Literature

hoes on my dick cause I look like Jesus

>>4962108
jesus on my hoes cause i look like dick

>>4962108
I imagine no one really cares (except you obviously, OP) but above all else, assuming that all is not subjective (which if it is then who cares), I think the most important thing someone can do is to not be a hypocrite. If you believe in objective truth and want to value yourself or others, that value is destroyed by contradiction. Be a pure person. That way, whether you are good, evil, bad, righteous, irrelevant, apathetic, what the fuck ever. at least you will be SOMETHING

>>4962157
On not being a hypocrite:
The problem with that is: change. It happens like the creation of waves in the ocean: constant.
The other thing is that one would have to never tell someone what morals to act on. One would have to refrain from reaching to others about his own personal morals he thinks he himself follows. Doing these prevents any hypocrisy from being detected by those observing him.

>>4962164
>refrain from reaching
preaching*

>>4962164
>One would have to refrain from preaching
Why?
As far as change, yeah. Change sucks. But, assuming objective truth, the change of an individual has nothing to do with correct behavior. I believe that people must take responsibility for their actions, even if they no longer agree with the thought process that lead them there.

>>4962168
1. If you cannot define objective truth you cannot judge using it.
2. If someone is listening to you preach morals they could (I would argue, will or at least will very likely) see you not following them yourself in some way. This can happen with people you see in every day life. People like the Dalai Lama, in the sense that most of the public who knows what they preach do not see how they act in day to day life, are more likely to be immune to being pointed out as hypocrites by people who don't think about the question of hypocrisy when they listen to preachers.

>>4962174
>judge using it.
use it to judge*

>>4962108
I propose this:
>>4962179

>>4962225
>modularity and collaboration
Explain the definitions of these in plain English. I'm not a computer programmer.

I don't know if it's been done before. Teams like that work well when they have a physical goal to accomplish, such as inventing something to complete a specific task.

Then, if the team was created and was given the task of creating a general theory on knowledge, they would all have to agree on what they want the goal of the theory to be. People could be there for personally different reasons, and those are hard to define even for one person in their own inner space.

>>4962225
>Humberto Maturana, you shoud read his books.
Why? What did you gain from reading them?

>>4962236
>>modularity and collaboration
>Explain the definitions of these in plain English. I'm not a computer programmer.

hahahahahahha. Retard.

But seriously, the problem is that the definitions of terms are not clear enough to enable effective collaboration. You need to have very clear definitions of what is going on, and every part of the work would have to be easily evaluated according to pre-defined rules. This would be the death of philosophy, as thinkers could actually by right or wrong, instead of just disagreeing on minor bullshit parts of inconsequential topics and publishing a dozen books about it to carve out a career.

>>4962241
You're so stupid that you are responding to >>4962225 as if they didn't mention that the group would work together to agree on definitions of terms.

And you call me stupid. The trolls are out in full force tonight, aye? And now they think they have two brain cells to rub together? Cute.

>>4962108

All order, structure, organization, patterns, are illusory. Order, in any form, is inherently falling apart at the seams, in that it must be paradoxical and self-supposing in order to exist the way it assumes to.
Put simply, to exist, you inherently exist in a form that if all factors were accounted for, you would not stand up to causal reasoning to someone who had a complete understanding of the dynamics at play.

Because of this, all levels of order are permeated by a dependence upon one epistemic cause, and because of this, all causal relationships are not causal relationships. I think upon complete observation of any system, with a complete understanding of all dynamics at play, no system can stand up to the question of causal reasoning. I'll have to digress for a moment in the next half of this to lend context.

1. we can only truly trust our emotions

>>4962247


I think that the ripple of causality within structure, seems to flow from fundamental and encompassing levels of organisation to more complex ones. And this may also be illusory, but it provides the best framework from which to speculate on this point: After all of the research that's been done, pointing to the fact that consciousness, whatever form it actually takes, whatever it's functions are, if material, has a very real influence over the quantum realm, who's implications are relatively unexplored. But if the phenomena of consciousness, and it's mechanics, whatever they may be, transcend and include and account for these levels of ogranization, then I think it's a safe assumption that the brain doesn't generate, but receive consciousness. Consciousness' general momentum seems to be a wave of increasing complexity of subjective recievers through which to experience itself.

>>4962255
Cont. Part 3:
So basically I think that structure is illusory and the true nature of being is not subject to parameters or paradigms. So the point of being is just to be. If you must have direction, go with the general flow of nature. Increase in complexity. Broaden your understanding of the world. Experience new things. Share ideas and help consciousness and awareness grow in comprehension of itsself. Essentially, create god.

As far as morality, I think that comes down to the level of self-emphasis you put into any descision-making process. The more you operate with some irrational sense of self-emphasis, the more you limit your consciousness to not experience the necessary transcendence of self for higher clarity. So basically, just be straight chillin and reasonable about life. Use your brain. Always push your limits. Try to understand more, and keep yourself honest with yourself. Remember that you don't really know anything and my reality is shaped by things that don't make any sense. and it'll all change form in time. You just gotta sit back and not upset yourself about it. Which ultimately only gives you more potential to succeed in any situation.

But yeah that's my philosophy. pretty much

Life has a purpose, unknown to man. Instead, we occupy our lives with what I call "temporary purpose". For example: doing sports, playing guitar, having a hobby, looking for a date. It is all an example of temporary purpose which keeps us going in life since we cannot find real purpose- yet.
So, this "temporary purpose" is the manifestation of humans tending to a higher purpose, which is unreachable yet.

>>4962247
>self-supposing
Order is a creation. It's creator sustains it; a creation may not sustain itself [I'll have to think about that more].
In a possible situation where a creation can exist without it's initial creator, one could say the perceiver of the creation is what keeps it sustained, alive--at which point it is the perceiver's fault that the order is sustained.

>>4962247
>Put simply, to exist, you inherently exist in a form that if all factors were accounted for, you would not stand up to causal reasoning to someone who had a complete understanding of the dynamics at play.
Rephrase this or go into further detail. It's too hard to grasp as it is right now.

>>4962255
Let's not forget the role feelings, emotions play in consciousness. Forgetting to include them in your theory could lead you to a dead end or you could get stuck somewhere along the way and give up altogether. Emotions can cause consciousness; they can raise it for example, to a state at which it is able to perceive in genuinely new ways and to go further from the small details, and look at the bigger picture; seeing how small details fit together, but going beyond it; One can with sufficient, appropriate emotion, become more intelligent.
With that in mind, you can see how it seems like 'the brain'* is receiving consciousness, because as you become larger (just imagine you are an aura and you encapsulate your physical body... with more emotion, you, aka the aura, will grow in height, width and length; many strength of emotion later this aura will encapsulate the earth, sun and moon. At this point you no longer see the color of your body's head hair as being super-important, for example. What's closer to the eyes (edge) of your aura is the tip of the sun to your right and the tip of the moon to your left. You have a whole new 'creation' to look upon.

>>4962272
>As far as morality,
I like how you got into personal stuff here. Feelings are so hard to explain to others. Personally, I like to stick to simple words like sad, happy, good, fine, and okay. Clearly those words are never sufficiently descriptive of my aura but I don't usually like to get descriptive. It's so personal and I have this philosophy that no one really cares what anyone else is talking about most of the time, they just pretend to listen, and that pretending is what counts, its those people we are closest to in life and we call them our friends.


*(I don't know whether I agree that we are conscious via the physical brain)

>>4962252
so, where's 2?

>>4962301

Alright hold on.First one.
Right, what i'm saying is that the observer, the outermost level of organization, would have to be a point where something transcendent of order, peers into realms of order and illuminates and lends kineticality and dissonance to the wave-functions of being that account for most material knowledge.

Second one:
Yeah that's a big tricky one. I think that all structure in some way is incomplete, in that, in order to exist, it would exist as a segment of something infinite. And the structure it takes would not actually have any determinable substance to it's being. It's causal reasoning wouldn't hold up. It would be an integral causality in which no way of looking at ultimately has any more merit than another.

Third:

Truth cant be expressed in a logical proposition because truth is beyond the scope of linguistics

Simbolization, this is: the classification of all the elements of our Lebenswelt and the stablishment of a correspondency between Symbol and Reality, will cause the absolute collapse of our culture due to hyle

Women are addicted to emotional trauma but I cant explain why

Probability theory plus Solomonoff induction provides a full formal epistemology. Better than logical positivism, or Popper, since it's not purely about falsifiability or verificationism, but anything embedded in the casual network that is my model of the universe, it is sensible to reason about. Just because I can't run any experiments on spaceships that pass outside my time cone doesn't mean they aren't there. Local information can give me information about things I'll never directly observe for myself.

Humans are conceited apes who wear clothes, and are the most wonderful and terrible things to have existed. There's no "reason" to care about them other than the fact that I do. There's no reason for anything to care about anything except for the fact that it does. Concepts like "liberty" and "equality" and "tradition" and "rights" and "justice" are all heuristics for making good decisions, and letting heuristics overstep their bounds is dangerous. Never freedom at all costs, tradition at all costs, or equality at all costs. We want these things, but we want other things too. There are tradeoffs, and we need to find an optimum, not blindly maximise for one value or another.

Accepting we're conceited apes with the bare minimum intelligence for a technological civilisation is helpful. It let's us be skeptical of our words and the words of others if we understand where we came from, how our brains are the result of an arms race of conniving tribal politics.

Death is a pretty bad thing and I'd rather it never happened to anybody. Conversely, death now is preferable to weeks of naught but suffering, and then death. Every death is an absolute tragedy, and dementia and Alzheimer's don't reduce the tragedy, they just mean a human is watching the pieces fall away as they lose themselves day by day.

>>4962288
The problem I see there is that one is putting their heart, their aura, their energy into playing guitar. That makes playing guitar the most important, meaningful thing in the person's aura at the time they're doing it.
I feel that from a personal perspective, something is not objective if one cannot even perceive it. In order to be objective it should be overarching the activity in the person's aura; they should have knowledge of it. Even a glimpse of what it is is sufficient for it to be objective; many a person believes in something overarching that is vague such as 'everything will turn out as it should, no worries need be had'.

>>4962288
Why do you think this? What makes you think there's this higher purpose that you would trade all human joy and experience for?

>>4962301
Feelings, according to my understanding, are just realms of mechanics beyond our comprehension. They make sense to us on an intuitive and feeling-level, but once put to the dissection machine of our understanding of causality, and our pretensed conceptualizations of being. So they're kind of blurry and in the back of our awareness.

And yes, I think conscious thought restricts intuitive knowingness, which is equally valid. I think the next step in our evolution involves not restricting emotions, but by becoming more conscious of them, and what causes them, and what opinion structures and mental-programs are distorting your views in what ways, and being able to comprehend being on an empathic and less focused or self-oriented state of mind.


I like that you dig the simple philosophy part

>>4962328
>Truth can't be expressed in logical proposition because truth is beyond the scope of linguistics

What about set theory?

>ITT: Using words in a non-standard manner without defining them.

Y'all are worse than Kant at communicating.

>>4962325
>And the structure it takes would not actually have any determinable substance to it's being. It's causal reasoning wouldn't hold up. It would be an integral causality in which no way of looking at ultimately has any more merit than another.
This is something the overseer sees. We are all overseers of at least one system. As one's aura grows, one is able to recognize and memorize and possibly "understand" to some degree, each new system one perceives. Some systems one will be more knowledgeable about its intricate patterns and details, meanwhile other systems in the scope of ones awareness have only been pointed out or glanced at. With life experiences, one may go back to those less-studied systems and learn more about them as necessary. Time is a gift in this way. We get to have the experience of learning; something which a 'god' figure (if we believe a supremely intelligent overseer exists) would not get to have.

>>4962325
>Third:
Which post?

>>4962341
>in the back of our awareness.
Emotion is the one thing that escapes systems.

>>4962236
>>4962241
shit, sorry, I abandoned the thread before talking about the topic...
I'm not a programmer myself, but I can program..
modularity means that you programmers can build functional parts of a program, and combine them to create your main application. say, you have a function that prints text in the screen and another function that sums two numbers, then you can print the sum of two (or more, by applying the sum function many times) numbers in the screen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_programming
collaboration simply means that one programmer can do one thing while other programmer does a different thing and both can work on the same program. as shown in my example, one programmer can create the function to print text, and other programmer can create the function to sum numbers.

in my case, I'd apply that to, say, social problems: poverty and education, or something like that, but it could also be applied in a much more abstract way, so you could aplly it to "knowledge".

>Why? What did you gain from reading them?
it's a very cool way of thinking about beings, human beings, human societies and knowledge from a biological point of view. he really shakes your views of the world, although I think philosophers may already know such views

>>4962241
>But seriously, the problem is that the definitions of terms are not clear enough to enable effective collaboration. You need to have very clear definitions of what is going on, and every part of the work would have to be easily evaluated according to pre-defined rules. This would be the death of philosophy, as thinkers could actually by right or wrong, instead of just disagreeing on minor bullshit parts of inconsequential topics and publishing a dozen books about it to carve out a career.
(I suppose you are responding to my post >>4962225 )
that's a real problem, different fields have different concepts, and even the same concepts with different wordings, variations, branches, etc. well, I'm saying that you could actually come with something if you try do work it. I know, it would be kinda hard to have an agreement between fields of knowledge, but then... wouldn't be great to reduce the number of fields and have more generic theories?

>>4962370
>Emotion is the one thing that escapes systems.

Why? Is neurochemistry not a thing? What evidence or reasoning suggests that emotion is magic?

>>4962346
Mathematical truth is not Truth, it is simply a group of arbitrary logical simple propositions and their necesary conclusions

>>4962373
Science is a system.

>>4962372
>I'd apply that to, say, social problems: poverty and education
Do you intend to create a physical or mental product?

>>4962378
or emotional (if so how would you communicate it to those it's being made for)?

>>4962370
Well I think that god figure does exist and in the form of some infinite field of potential energy that perpeates all kineticality, and creation happens at the sub-quantum level where more bricks are getting thrown into the universal lego pile with which to construct all things. And this influences our levels of organization in collective ways. So the point of life is sort of to broaden perspective and envelop more means of reasoning until infinity comprehends itself again. Although, I also think that is the fundamental order of things, chaos to order to chaos. And this mechanism will happen regardless of what we do to make it happen. It's happening is the reason we're experiencing it happening and can speculate upon it's infinite innerworkings.

Sorry man, I know i'm making progressively less sense. I have a habit of smoking at the 4chan.

Oh, and, this post:>>4962341

>>4962384
permeates*

>>4962384
You make sense. It's hard for me to figure out what feelings you had that helped you come to those conclusions.

>>4962378
>>4962382
in that particular case, it's mostly economical solution... but my idea would be that, since you have multiple disciplinary knowledge, you could propose a set of solutions.
I don't think those people can give an actual physical solution by themselves, though.

the general idea would be to give a theory as a guidance to other people. knowledgeable people to propose solutions as generic "packages".

>>4962399
Solopsism, king-shit syndrome, delusions of grandeur, repeated paradigm-shattering and ego-dissolving experiences, a few humbling endings of friendships, incredible loneliness, and then several months of anti-social hermit behavior. When i'm not at work, I'm reading or writing or going to one of my various outlets of brain-excersize, because I became determined to be the person I pretended to be in high school. It's all big and complex and blurry at parts. It's been quite a ride though.

>>4962374
So what's this Truth-with-a-capital-T you're talking about then? If I make notches on a stick to count my sheep, there's an isomorphism between what I'm doing and a structure in set theory.

Mathematics can correlate to real-world things, and real-world things that cannot conceivably be expressed in mathematics - well, name one.

>>4962420
consciousness.
Don't give me that neuroscience nonsense. All the phenomena of consciousness are not yet accounted for by material science

>>4962375
Sure. It's a system that's getting closer and closer to being able to accurately and systematically described and quantify human emotion. Not sure how this helps your argument.

>original philosophy

Ahahahahaha. Oh, child, no.

You might as well have a thread for "original genres".

>>4962408
>in that particular case, it's mostly economical solution
Good idea for poverty/education.

>>4962408
>knowledgeable people to propose solutions as generic "packages".
I see what you mean; that's a mental solution to keep the peoples' minds occupied.
I suppose the emotional solutions which I believe are necessary, could be left to empathic, clairsentient people (they tend to be in arts). Arts are highly influential. I think if unadulterated by scientists (psychologists, power-chasers), the art could be very effective in changing the emotional seats of the people you want to help. As it is now, a lot of art that is very famous around the world has some elements that are manufactured by scientists, at least that's what I've learned. The commonality of the specific modules leaves me to think there is some truth to that rumor.

If you plan on starting such a group, good luck.

>>4962418
I see. Well, it's good there is such a wide variety of feelings to chose from the past as well as to be had in the future.

>>4962422
>The influence of animal or vegetable life on matter is infinitely beyond the range of any scientific inquiry hitherto entered on.

Just because we don't know something yet, doesn't mean it's valid to say we'll never know. We can already see the influences that various kinds of brain damage can have on people, we know our brains are composed of neurons and we know how humans behave. It's a mystery for now, but that's never been a reason to think it'll be a mystery forever. And latching on to incomplete or false answers, or finding glory in your own ignorance, is not a path that leads to joy in reality. Relish being right, relish becoming more right, relish the sense of wonder when you learn the laws of light and mechanics and biology and game theory and chemistry, how we've looked deeper and deeper into reality and as we do so it becomes more and more elegant. Consciousness being comprehensible and mathematically describable isn't something to fear.

Nature and nature's laws lay hid in night...

>>4962428
>If you plan on starting such a group, good luck.
I wish I could, I myself am poor, so I'm fucked
but if I had the money, I'd totally do it

>>4962444
Maybe someone else will get the idea.

>>4962444
>>4962462
posted it in /sci/, and as I suspected, it's already being done....
>>>/sci/6568242

cringe

I have but it's literally too deep for someone to understand, let alone explain it in a post.

>>4962375
Do you know what is a system?
Also what's up with the number of tripfags, this is not how I remember /lit/.

>>4962108

GUYS, WHAT IF- WHAT IF PEOPLE WERE BATS?

>>4962757
Go to bed Thomas Nagel.

>>4962108
If mirrors aren't real how can our eyes be real?

>>4962108
if it hasn't been said before, it's fucking wrong.

Reflective hedonism.

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

>>4963505

in short: (i am aware that this first post will most likely leave out important details of the argument)

>Value judgements can only be made in a naturalistic framework.
>We know a lot about the general preferences of human being and their consequences to both the individual and the collective.
>We are unique in our ability to make distinctions that might seem arbitrary to someone that does not put in the effort to arrive at these distinctions.
The arts, food, drink, company e.g.
>Making these distinctions only becomes meaningful once we make ourselves aware of how little they would mean if we did not put in the time, so to speak.
>Enjoying life therefore can never be blind, since in that event any distinction we make or value judgment we arrive at would be arbitrary.

>VALUEISM
the believe that every action humans make is governed by simple rules... not gonna go into detail because thats the point, theres no value for me far writing anything here ...

in a nutshell its Maslow's hierarchy infused with the simple thought that the everything people do is to survive and replicate.

but never mind really I'm just talking to myself during my once every newmoon visit to /lit/

1.The individual is the only point of refrence for his existence
11.Existence is the point of contact between the material world and the individual
111.The point of contact between the material world and the individual is interpreted by the senses, which is interpreted by the brain, and so on
112.Thus existence is as much a matter of the prespective as it is subject
1121.The individual is subject to his existence so long as he does not precive himself in relation to existence

2.On seeing something, man concives of it. Once concived, man perceives the object and subjects it. Once subjecting it, man becomes a slave to his perception and fails to see it.
21.Before seeing a rose one must first meditate on the existence of such rose
211.Through meditation man can see a rose as though he has never seen it before
212.By meditating on existence man becomes sovereign over himself

And so on and so on, I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. I'm thinking of writing a cleaned book about it with a few fairy tales and funny anecdotes thrown in. In plain engish man only interacts with the outside world through his perception of it, and through meditating one can alter his perception. Art should be devoted to altering perception, drugs and yoga should be common place, nationalism and ideology should be used by great artists to remake the outside world, there's not much difference between living and perciving, cant step in the same river twice, existence is a love story between the outside and the internal, spirituality is the greatest accomplishment of man, language needs to be defined objectively between two parties before discussion can happen, interacting with people is bad, pagan rituals are important, everything is ideology, ect. Anyone be interested in any of this?

>>4962426
Best post itt

>>4962157
>>That way, whether you are good, evil, bad, righteous, irrelevant, apathetic, what the fuck ever. at least you will be SOMETHING
>Man should live his life based on the limitations of his languages and a platonic view of definitions
It seems to me a small case of dyslexia would be all it takes for a cur to think himself a god. And heaven save us should someone make their own words.

>>4962374
>Mathematical truth is not Truth
So you ever going to get around to defining truth there big boy? Or is all you have bullshit like >>4962422?

This thread... such juvenilia

I knew kids would be here more often when school got out but I didn't expect high schoolers to be shitting this board up this early in the summer

>>4963560

So on the rare occasion that you do frequent the only literature board on this site, you choose to engage in pretentious derivative garbage like this thread?

DYER

>>4962108
>Do we have an original philosophy thread yet?

what cringeworthy retardedness am i about to find here

>>4962164
>The problem with that is: change.

No, the first problem is people forget the mistakes that they've made and/or attribute their own mistakes to others because of their forgetfulness or delusion. When that happens, those people will be trapped in an endless cycle of hypocrisy.

>>4962108
The philosophy I hold anterior to everything is really an anti-philosophy. I believe that people cannot even begin to understand the world. The cascade of different philosophies over the centuries by men who were much, much smarter than me makes it clear that, while the truth may exist, one can never find it, unless by accident.

Also why did Kanye marry Kardashian? He could have done much better.

>>4962252
lol wut? what's there to trust? emotions are so fleeting.

>>4962341
u write like shia lebeof, you poncy fag

>>4963590
>No, the first problem is people forget the mistakes that they've made and/or attribute their own mistakes to others because of their forgetfulness or delusion. When that happens, those people will be trapped in an endless cycle of hypocrisy.
Give an example of that happening.

Can someone who read all these post tl;dr's of all of them so I can scoff at how simple and plebby they all are? I would be very appreciative.

You mean Kim could have done so much better.
They won't be together for another 5 years anyways

my original philosophy(tm) :

the only reasonable meaning of life is the confrontation of the difficulty of human existence. if something does not possess a certain difficulty, then it cannot be considered worthwhile or serious so it is degenerate

>>4965038
It's diffiult for me o pretend to care what people in real life talk about.

>>4965038
You're in for a world of hurt and buttmad.

>>4964788
Fame=money. That's the only thing that goes on in their heads.

>>4965060
atomised as 'caring is difficult'
so you're not really confronting the actual difficulty

>>4962247
>>4962255
>>4962272

>All order, structure organization, patterns, are illusory

Can you explain why you think this is true?

>>4965074
why are there so many science and engeneering nerds in a philosophy thread?
speak like a philosopher not like youre in one of your college courses.

>>4965038
That really doesn't seem a difficult conclusion. Maybe you should promote your philosophy as degeneration?

my philosophy is that we, as humans and animals, should fuck as much as we want then use up the rest of our lives producing for our children so they can do the same thing.

amidoinitrite?

spoiler: I know that many of you will probably find this view anti-climatic but in all honesty that's the life that most of us will live, philosophy or no philosophy

>>4962108
A literary theory...
The way to authorship is out of autobiography.

Reposting my proof; Why a sage will have no free will:

As Epictetus will tell: Inevitables are never good nor bad, good and bad only lie in our (human) will.

As Nietzsche will tell: Only a weak man (salmon) will of made the distinctions good and bad.

A sage, not being a weak man, will enter into any given situation with no distinction for it being good nor bad. No matter the case, the sage will act to the best of his abilities in the given situation, for it is the one and only route a true sage shall take. Therefore the sage will only have one course of action in any given situation, the sage does not have free will. Will the sage need free will to respond to the situation? No, he only has one route of action. Then, is free will needed to any individual?

--Where I'm currently out with this proof:

The sage will have free will in situations where the results will be unclear, or in situations were the way to get the results wanted are unclear. A choice will have to be made, but the correct choice(the choice that will result in the most flourishing aftermath) will be unclear. Our sage shall try to the best of his abilities again, but the best thing to do in the situation will be an educated guess of which is the most just choice. Giving our sage free will in the situation to assess the just choice, these situations are the only one’s were a sage shall have free will.

>>4962108
Liberal philosophies arrest their analysis of motives at desire defining it as personal subjective preference that cannot be discussed.

For example in emotivism the like/dislike is the ultimate foundation of a person's ethics.

I disagree and I think that desire is in large part shaped by aesthetics and that aesthetics as intrinsically discursive can be analyzed and discussed.

I turn then to Kant and Hegel and their discussion of aesthetics in order to dispel two myths of the analytic tradition:

1) Aesthetics is individual.
2) Aesthetics has no cognitive content.

>>4965224
>Therefore the sage will only have one course of action in any given situation, the sage does not have free will.
you don't understand what 'free will' means

>>4962335
Eh but you don't explain how you can prove through induction and probability theory that we are conceited monkeys.

You draw very stringent boarders with your epistemology and then you overstep them by inventing the narrative that we are conceited monkey.

As long as you don't see why you can't stop at your epistemology but you have to add the other narrative you won't see the limits of your theory.

>>4965264

I'm sure you, however, can provide us all with a completely unambiguous and universally agreeable and applicable definition of free will. Since you are so clear on what it is not, and all.

>>4965224

If you define "only one course of action in any given situation" as "not free will", then nobody has free will whether they're a sage or not. People in a given situation can only take one course of action, that's just how time works. They consider alternative courses of action they could take, and afterwards they think about alternative courses of action they could have taken, but there's only ever one real way taken.

>>4965280
free will is very simple to define, and it's the ability to do what one wills. even though you will only ever make one choice, and that choice is predetermined based on a chain of causality stretching back to the beginning of existence, the fact that you willed it and were able to enact your will means that you have free will. it doesn't mean that you will do anything at any moment; i'm not going to spontaneously combust in the next few moments, but that doesn't mean i don't have the ability to go get myself a glass of water.

that man's experience is the only experience that is relevant to living a life- i.e., the only experience one will ever be conscious of- and therefore man should only care for his own experience and the pleasure he derives from it, whether pleasure comes from sensual or intellectual pursuits

that perception is truth, and what a man believes is inherently truth

that truth derives it's value from observation of the physical universe, and that all morality is derived on the same basis and therefore equally valid

that, in order to accurately observe the truth of the universe, one must first acknowledge the inherent meaninglessness of all thought, and then the meaning attached to thought by other conscious entities

that /lit/ is a shithole

Four things:

Foucault's theory of power actually provides a way to correct the errors in Habermas's theory of the public sphere and the participation of minorities in it

There are various types of rationality, and all types of rationality actually derive from different kinds of historicities+something in logic, something like Gadamer+Davidson

Viveiros de Castro has the answer for identity problems in social movements, and together with Foucault, can open up a new way for social movements (somethings that Bell hooks is doing)

We really can't escape the state of exception and Agamben is right

>>4965164
Spoken like someone who has not had a lot of sex.

>>4965311

>it's the ability to do what one wills

I don't think this is an adequate definition of free will at all, because it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not one's will is free. It's a question of whether or not one can manifest that will into action - which is a completely different problem. If I were to put you in a gag and straitjacket and bury you alive in a coffin of steel, you couldn't harness your will to get out of your desperate situation into any kind of meaningful action, you would die miserably. But your will to get out of the coffin wouldn't be constrained at all by the fact that escape was impossible. You would still want to get out. You might be able to convince yourself that there was nothing to be gained from struggling and thus not struggle (and still die miserably), but you would still have a will to get out, because you did not want to die by being buried helpless and alive. I can constrain your body from doing your will, but that wouldn't be enough to constrain your will itself. The will can certainly also be constrained, but doing so is a completely different question.

To deny free will isn't to deny that people can go get themselves a glass of water if they want, it's to deny that their wish to get themselves a glass of water was freely made. Obviously it wasn't freely made in the sense of "made ex nihilo without cause other than the will", it was made because the person in question was thirsty, or felt hot and wanted to dump it over themselves, or were being threatened with death by a masked gunman if they didn't go get a drink, or [insert causes of choice here]. One could contend that by that criterion, absolutely nothing is freely willed because of the chain of causality you mention. I would say that's a pretty acceptable assessment of how people actually behave. I don't think it makes sense however to talk about things being predetermined: it's not as if there's some dude looking ahead and smugly condemning you to get a glass of water in the immediate future, it's just that events flow causally from each other in complex ways. But still freedom of action and freedom of will are not the same thing (and neither is actually a thing that people have).