/lit/ - Literature

>>7287382
because for many rationalist, objective means universal agreement from all of what they judge as humans. since humans are born and die each day, you seek a human trait not depending on time and space. to the rationalist, this stuff transcending time and space is the reason.

but since the rationalist refuses to acknowledge that the reason is a subpart of the imagination and that any production of of the imagination is bound to be cast in terms of space and time, since space and time is just what the imagination produces, since it is the job of the mind/imagination to categorize and hierarchize the perceptions, the rationalist can never escape the statements in terms of space and time. Since the scientific activity is nothing but one of the use of the imagination/mind, science is disconnected from the praxis/life.


Only what you are concious of once you make your mind cease brings you to truth, since precisely you shut off the stuff that makes you believe in space and time, in categories like self, like necessity, like ontology, like objectivity and so on. So once you connect to life, once that you stop thinking, you reach knowledge which is, for once, not analytical, contrary to the productions of the mind which is nothing but speculation. The mind is nihilist, but once you go full praxis, you discover that the mind is a cross to bear and leads you nowhere.

>>7287454
what is that pic from?

>>7287454
good post relativists btfo

>>7287454

Could you simplify for a lit noob like myself?

But btw thank you for your great post, I think I shall stay on this board more so than any other now. I've learnt more on this board in 2 weeks than I have doing everything else for 3 years :)

While good and evil can very well exist conceptually, the problem is that they inevitably end up being applied to real human beings. The unfortunate circumstance, is that human nature does not produce such binary outcomes.

Good and evil are much like the perfect spheres of Ptolemy. They can be defined, they can be beautiful, but they cannot be found in nature. Humans are a part of nature.

Humans are needless to say, notoriously poor at distinguishing the various personality types that are supposed to exist. Take for example guilt. Guilt is a corollary of evil, as is commonly defined. But how to recognize guilt?

>Studies on dogs reveal that behaviors and affect considered to personify "a guilty look," by 4/5ths majority of human participants, are in fact displays of submission. Human beings prove incapable of distinguishing the two demeanors by simple observation, although they tend to overwhelmingly believe otherwise. Dogs, on the other hand, have no concept of guilt, but speech in an accusatory tone, will be interpreted as an act of dominance, which only submission or rebellion may answer.

>Dogs cannot distinguish accusation from dominance, but neither can humans tell the difference between guilt and submission. Which then posesses the superior faculty? Are dogs in the possession of some primordial truth, which mankind has euphemistically defined? Or are submissive individuals simply perfidious by nature, and suppositions about them inherently justified? Needless to say, when it comes to picking a jury, you are probably better off stocking it with scooby doo than your next door neighbor.

What the distinction between good and evil really does, is give an excuse for aggression. Guilt will inevitably be ascribed to the weak. It's a nice concept and all that, but we as a species cannot have nice things.

>>7287382
The only objective morality is based on power and domination. Concepts like Good or Evil are purely imaginary, embraced by the feeble and the fearful, while power is not only real but is that which creates reality. Modern Western society worships weakness, disease and perversion. Our heroes are cripples, faggots, criminals, suicides, and grotesques... Strength, beauty, vitality and power on the other hand are treated as marks of evil, things to be feared and shamed. I am at heart a humanist, I believe in man's capacity to survive and transcend its shackles. That is why I hope to live to see the inevitable downfall of the current order, regardless of wether it is replaced by a fourth reich, a world spanning caliphate or something yet more terrible and glorious

>>7287382

Just because one is quite sure that vehicles ought to obey the road rules does not mean that car accidents will cease.

How does one determine what is right and what is wrong? Is there a criteria for this?

>>7287713
So you're Dorian Gray?

>people will never just read Hegel and be done with this pointless subject forever

>>7287720
Intuition

>>7287738
>morality
>pointless

Do enlighten us, fam

>>7287747
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phc2ca.htm

>>7287741
Like how Hitler just knew he had to kill the Jews? Was he morally justified because his intuition told him to.

>>7287720
There is no criteria, you need to make up your own, or follow an established one

>>7287770
>marxists.org

>>7287747
It is pretty pointless vis-a-vis the real, actual world where abstractions such as 'good' and 'bad' have little influence on what the individual chooses to do.


>>7287790
You'll find Hegel's complete body of work there.

>>7287789
I think it's just easier to follow what your superiors believe. If you disagree with them too much they might punish you.

>>7287772
Are you really conflating whatever compelled Hitler to do what he did with actual honest to god intuition? Even then letting outliers dictate morality is stupid

>>7287814
So morality is determined by consensus? It's determined by the whim of the majority?

>tfw Nietzsche won and Kant lost
God fucking dammit.

>>7287826
Yes.

>>7287772
>going full Godwins law
Holocaust never happened get over it faggot.

>>7287840
No philosopher actually believe in the Holocaust. It's a made up thing that makes for good thought experiments like aliens, zombies and trolleys.

>>7287839
you're an idiot for even wanting an opinion from this

>>7287826

idiot

>>7287846
>waaaah your a stoopid head
>my morality is the only trooo morality
>Hitler was wrong because I say so!!
Listen, kiddo, there's no objectivity in morality. Morality is just a personal preference, like a preference for certain foods.

I more-or-less agree with Aristotle that debating morality with young people is pointless. It seems so curmudgeonly, but I think you need to accumulate some proper moral regret before you start to see the point. Your conscience mostly doesn't care about your personal philosophy.

>>7287856
Pretty funny how 99% of people have the same preference in thinking murder is wrong then bro

Morality is not nearly so arbitrary as you're making it out be , for reasons of biology, psychology, maybe even physics, which suggests it is hard coded in the laws of nature and thus the divine

>>7287856

I just came here to call you an idiot. My work is done. Goodnight, idiot. Have fun waking up in your little tiny idiot world tomorrow.

>>7287856
>there is no objectivity in morality
I detest. While there is no concrete objectivity there is a idea of objective morality.
I don't know why you would deny it?

>>7287856
While you're not wrong, I'd go a little further: the more someone try to postulate some kind of highest good and abstract morals apart from reality the worse it's going to fail and the more individualistic this person is.

A nation's ideology comes from everyone's individual and contingent acts together and not words.

Read Sidgwick to discover that utilitarianism is objectively true. Singer's Point of View of the Universe is also good. Both hold that certain moral claims are self evident, much like mathematical claims, and one can build up a morality of utilitarianism from these statements.

>>7287886

Would you care to clarify the difference between objective truth and non-objective truth? I'm pretty sure you're using it in a tautological sense here.

>>7287886
in b4 you defend Parfit's On What Matters
HURRDURR REASONS ARE JUST REASONS THEY'RE UNANALYZABLE AND JUST INTUITIVELY PROVE THE VALIDITY OF MY ARGUMENT

>>7287886
I dislike Util args very much, I think they lack many essential aspects of the spirituality of men and don't actually fully expect utility from those moral arguments?
I guess?
My English is not very good to express it.
>>7287892
The objective truth is the one that takes into account all actions and everything, not that of the propaganda and the emotion?
Non objective truth would be the skew, like the gender pay gap, not wholly true, but true to an extent.

>>7287892
A subjectivist could say that a given moral statement is true for the subject, because she believes it to be so, but not true from an impersonal, subject independent perspective.

>>7287910
>subject independent perspective
>morality


Unless you're one of those evolutionary psychology crazy people, this is absurd.

>>7287923
Read Sidgwick, The Point of View of The Universe, and other arguments for moral realism, like the SEP, for more info.

>>7287713
Try harder, Rush Limbaugh.

Bad english friend here, does anyone have any good moralistic writings from Jung? I recently got to him and am enjoying him a lot. His symbolism is great (?).

>>7287936
I'd rather not to, sounds like bullshit.

>>7287909

Do you not consider "propoganda and the emotions" a subset of "actions and everything" ?

I mean, I get it, we're caught up in this empiricist tidal-wave and everyone wants some cold hard facts to back up their ideas, but come on guys, objective vs. subjective truth?

Wouldn't it be better to say "empirical/inductive vs. deductive argument" ?

>>7287959
> The great nineteenth-century utilitarian Henry Sidgwick used this metaphor to present what he took to be a self-evident moral truth: the good of one individual is of no more importance than the good of any other. Ethical judgments, he held, are objective truths that we can know by reason. The ethical axioms he took to be self-evident provide a foundation for utilitarianism. He supplements this foundation with an argument that nothing except states of consciousness have ultimate value, which led him to hold that pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically good.


Yep, it's bullshit.

>>7287966
No it isn't. You're just acting like le edgy moral nihilist, and refusing to reason.

>>7287962
But I feel if there has been a long denial of Objectivity in life. Since the 60s and 70s everything has been about subjectivness.
I desire the fullest extent of the objective of man.(?)
It's hard to describe, but there has been a subjective societal form that gives no solid base for many things from Gender to Racial theory to anything.

>>7287966
Besides he explains why he thinks that, he doesn't hold those statements themselves to be self-evident.

>>7287948
Don't you think society is overly fixated on weakness and deviancy? Is there any other basis for morality other than power? Ultimately all moral systems are imposed by the powerful, they are justifications for power

>>7287973
>refusing to reason.


That's the whole problem, I disagree with you and I refuse reason? Do you think your personal law is better other people's? You moralist faggots are so shut up in your petty abstractions of what is good you can't see how, at the moment you postulate your false idol as some kind of objective being, the individual who is submerged in his contingent and particular situations can cast off this dead skin and do exactly the opposite. I refuse myself this prison of legalism, for a better one: love and forgiveness.

>>7287996
Right...

How do we know what is right?
>You just know, bro. Intuition, man.
Is X right? I feel it to be.
>No, dude, it's not right.
Is X right? I feel it to be.
>No, homeslice, it's not right.
So intuition doesn't determine what is right?
>No! Your intuition is wrong!
How do you know when intuition is right?
>When MY intuition says so!

Morality is subjective. Only the individual can say what THEY believe to be right. There is no right or wrong answer in morality.

>>7288064
How do you know?

>>7288064
I disagree still.
It may not be intuition but a greater moral conscience that spans a civilization. Usually it is based off a higher being like God.

>>7288082
grow some moral balls you fucking edgy nihilist shiteating nonrationalist

>>7287974

No, it's not hard to describe. You haven't been reading very much in your life and so you've bit the "cultural marxism" meme hook and all.

God what a fucking moron. Is this what you people think? That statements like "since the 60s and 70s everything is about subjectiveness" are convincing?

>>7288092
I am not a Nhilistic... I find great perpose in the world...
I feel mistaken for someone else.
I believe a higher morality is that of a collective conscience, it has some holes and buffers in it but is overall contiguous around a core ideal.
The will of a nation, the power of a God, or the simple drive of survival.

>>7287454
why this image?

>>7288109
Kulture marx?
What is this idea? I don't think marx formulated a cultural theory.
Many communists came to the US education system and my own country and messed a lot of things up.
There was a big change in the world after the unity era, TV played a big propenet in it too.

>>7288082
So might makes right?

Think about all the pre-human ancestors that our fore-fathers murdered. All those poor Neanderthals. Was it "morally right" that our ancestors killed them and become the dominate species? This is why objective morality is totally bananas.

>>7288125
Not in all cases, in many cases it does. But there is a competition here; might implies only a measure of strength, while we know that is not true. There are other aspects. A thousand small men can topple a giant, but does that make the thousand small better? No. It leaves a lot to be questioned.
As I hate to use example like this, Nazi Germany had some of the most refined and coordinated fighting units and we're heavily underprepared for a global war. However took on the entire world and almost won... they had strong moralistic and racial principals and we're very strong but also outnumbered.
There is a combination here maybe of aspects of versitility, might, and a greater ethos that is hard to define. Not even Socrates or any of the greatest known thinkers could define "What does it mean for a man to be good?" But it's more of a presence of that good.

>>7287995
>Buddhist monks just want power you guise

Literally rpg villain-tier arguments itt

>>7288148
That's not even an argument. And most philosophers are moral realists, and they're an epistemic authority on the matter.

>>7288148
Well, do we know if those neanderthal were attacking us or not? Did we have an evolved conscience for morality of such? I think this is where the competition of morality or survival comes into play. It's not wholly subjective, it can be different, but there seems to be some underlying unity of objective morality.
I was wondering early about Jung? Anyone know if he speaks or writes on morality specifically?

>>7288148
What who said that?

>>7288164
Pretty much this.

As a moral realist, I do believe morality is a bit like a preference for certain foods, in that there's a ton of room to like this or that, but at the end of the day you wouldn't eat shit and rocks. In the same way, we can disagree about tipping a delivery driver but can agree that rape is unequivocally wrong.

And Nah, 'ancient humans used to rape and pillage to sustain their population!' Isn't an argument at all

>>7288153
You don't know what might means, you fucking moron. The thousand men are mightier than the giant, they proved it by defeating him.

>>7288187
Rape isn't wrong. Go back to tumblr.

>>7288196
You're so cool and dark, do you have a blog

>>7288192
But is that an objective comparison? The mighty giant can stand strong againts a hundred, two hundred, three hundred men. But if the onslaught never ceases was the Giant given the just chance? Of course, life never just.
Might doesn't make right, but there is no singular "definition" for that of objective morality.
Does objectivness have to be static? No, maybe not? This might be an important thing.
There is a combination here but men do not sit down and decree the morality for nothing, and men do not declare what men do for nothing, there is some greater essence there that influences their moral spectrum on an underlying scale.
Maybe morality survival? Or morality competition?
You're leaving many of my questions unanswered and I'm clicking my tounge.

>>7288202

(he's actually just a bad troll)

>>7288202
It's actually some idea you can discuss.
Was it wrong for Romulus to command the rape of the Sabine women?
>>7288187
I don't think rape is unequivocally wrong on all levels? Maybe in a survival situation.
Women are the key to a future and if they are refusing they are commiting a moral grevience to life itself. That underlying connection begins to decay if the deny it.

>>7287713
I think this is the most autistic thing I have ever read.

Elliot?

You know Rorschach was satire right?

Utilitarianism is best ethic tbh.

>>7288223
Someone made a funny joke about this in thread somewhere else.
>http://www.theinterim.com/issues/human-rights/transableism-seeking-to-become-disabled-is-an-actual-thing/
>2015
>being a util
Anyway, Util leaves a lot of spirituality and extensivness out.
I feel like it might imply that knowledge of the Utility is perfect (?). Is like those silly socialists using perfect market prediction theories.

I feel like I am being Autistic.
I may leave.
Sorry burgerfriends.

>>7288216
Rape is not wrong in context. It is wrong by its very nature. Raping this woman would be preferable compared to letting the human race die out, but it would still be messed up.

>>7287454
And how do you "go full praxis"? That's like going to church when you know there's no God.

>>7288244
This is a different discussion all togeather on levels of consent and the object of the female and stuff that is much harder to argue.
Rape is violent.
I don't think it is nessicsrily /wrong/.

Why does nobody here know Jung.
Upset.

>>7288244
What makes it wrong, slut?

>>7288294
Not him/her, but it's wrong because it increase the total suffering of the universe.

>>7288216
I don't know whether it would be right to rape in this scenario, but it doesn't pose a problem to moral objectivity since objectivity doesn't require absolutism.

>>7288308
Why is that 'wrong'?

>>7288311
The ethics of rape are very difficult to discuss and is a long conversation about consent and many other factors that are ill defined for this conversation.

>>7288308
>Total suffering

kek

>>7288308
>>7288313
Oh god I dislike this argument very bad, it seems to think suffering is bad, and the objective is to reduce all suffering.
But to me that kills everything.
Not to sound nihilist but existence IS suffering, so to prevent suffering we might as well kill ourselves.
There is also a denial that that rape could have a net increase of non-suffering? Or what the fuck.
I hate this argument.
Make no sense.

>>7288313
Because suffering as a conscious state is intrinsically bad, it cannot be denied by a rational being, while suffering that it isn't bad. If you disagree, we could arrange to have you tortured to see how long you hold that opinion.

>>7288308
Killing every black and Indian would decrease suffering, as they are the vast majority of rapists. Should we kill them all to decrease total suffering.

>>7288318
???

>>7288323
Just because it's bad for people doesn't mean it's "wrong" and "should not be done".

>>7288323
Suffering is not intrinsically bad, and you cannot use directive of force arguments (?) To say so.
You are denying all discussion of the good or bad of suffering, I don't know what ass pulling you do to have to say "ONLY GOAL IS TO REDUCE SUFFERING, SUFFERING BAD, ONLY BAD LET ME TORTURE YOU TO PROVE".
It implies only one type of suffering.

>>7288323
What makes it bad? What if people enjoy pain? Is everyone who disagrees with you anti-rationalist?

>>7288324
thats a very sensible idea actually.

>>7288324
If it had the best overall consequences for the greatest number, then yes, but that seems implausible given the number of people you're killing versus the amount of rape you would prevent by doing so.

>>7288324
I like you shitposter.
Stay.
Have rare Hitler (^:

>>7288336
Killing doesn't imply suffering.

>>7288327
I think it is self-evident that what is bad should not be done.

>>7288336
Again with perfect predictions and perfect knowledge.
You are more silly than a socialist. You can not quantitatively calculate the suffering, or the one specific suffering, you just say it generally.
You're not trying to argue, you're trying to TRUMP card (tm)

>>7288222
it may be, but it isn't wrong. I'm not an edgy nihilist or whatever you think I am. I love humanity and that's precisely why I can't stand seeing it held back by the weak. That which is powerful remains and expands, that which is weak withers and perishes. That is the only truth in the universe. There is no OUGHT only an eternal IS, which you can either accept or deny.

>>7288343
It usually does, unless you can find a way of killing millions of people painlessly, without them ever knowing about it.

>>7288344
Are bad and wrong the same?
You refuse to answer basic moralistic answer.
Is suffering bad or wrong?
No, not nessicsrily.
Almost all human advancement is because of suffering.
Is there one type of suffering? Is our only goal to prevent suffering? No.
You silly socialist arguing.

>>7288348
Nuclear bombs.
You still refuse to answer basic question.
What is even suffering?

>>7288332
Pain, and suffering are different, suffering is defined as an undesirable mental state, if a person truly enjoys pain they are not suffering.

>>7288357
Then there is no way to define or prevent suffering, nor is it a reasonable goal. Why is suffering bad?
This is most important question.
EXISTENCE ITSELF IS SUFFERING YES?
THEN WHY DON'T WE JUST FUCKING ALL KILL OURSELVES.
PULL A UBER-MALTHUS OR SOMESHIT!

>>7288350
Suffering is in itself bad, that doesn't mean it can't sometimes have good consequences. And as I've said I think it is self-evident that to increase the bad is to do wrong.

>mfw there is no strong positive argument for moral realism

>>7288354
Suffering is an undesirable mental state.

>>7288370
Why is suffering bad?
Why is this intrinsic?
You use silly torture table argument, what if I no suffer?
What is the perpose of the suffering argument? How do you define the "good" and the "bad"?
If I die while preventing my suffering is that bad? What is this.
Make no sense.
It makes more sense to all gather in one corner of world and drop nuke.

>>7288370
What makes it bad?

>>7288373
Then suffering is completely undefined, unpreventable, and gives justficiation to us all offing ourselves.
There is no basis for this "LE SUFFERING XD :DDDD BAD! YOU GET TORTURE TABLE IF YOU DISAGREE XXDDDDDR" argument

>>7288363
Suffering is easily defined as an undesirable mental state, also there are ways of preventing suffering, I could abstain from hitting someone for example. Suffering is bad because it is valued as such by any entity that experiences it. Also I think you're ignoring the happiness in the world, that's why it would be wrong to destroy it, because we can hope there is more happiness than suffering, if there was not, then destroying the world would be for the best.

>>7288375
>>7288377
>>7288379
As I've already said suffering is defined as an undesirable mental state, it is intrinsically bad, because in itself it is valued as such by a conscious entity. If I burned you, for example, this would produce a conscious state that you would view as intrinsically bad, and wish to stop.

>>7288383
Destroying the world destroys all possibilities for happiness or a gain of happiness from suffering.
You're Absolutly fucking retarded and are arguing from a perfect knowledge perfect prediction standpoint.
No.
Basis.
In.
Reality.
At any point there is always a net *suffering* so yes let's all kill ourselves, you can start.

>>7288388
I like to have pain inflicted on me
You cannot cause me suffering.
Argument invalidated.

>>7288370
That sort of thinking is precisely what's killing us. People don't want to suffer, existence implies suffering and discomfort, in order to avoid suffering our civilization is collectively easing itself into non-existence. The self is suffering, to escape pain completely one must become a non-entity. Utilitarianism is the ideology of the last men tbh

>>7288389
What evidence do you have that there is always a net suffering? Also it's clear English isn't your first language, it's hard to know what exactly you're arguing.

>>7288390
Now you're just lying.

>>7288393
yeah...

>>7288395
I am arguing you are dumb.
The essence of existence of self and life is a state of suffering, that specific suffering is the drive towards "happiness"; the problem here is you want to "prevent" all suffering and not "strive towards" happiness (?), you would rather kill everything and everyone to prevent a molocule of suffering now than possibility of not later.
You cannot escape suffering, and suffering is then not intrinsically bad, you are advocating for the destruction of all discussion at all.

Anyway, your point assumes that we can even KNOW when suffering. Or how suffering. Or how to stop suffering other than sleep forever. It is a "perfect knowledge" standpoint. Makes no sense (it's exactly how socialists argue with Austrians and it makes me mad). You just want to kill all competition in everything.

>>7288393

hehe, we can imagine humanity situated in a bunch of tubes, like the Matrix, with a bunch of penis pumpers, automatic dildos, Oculus Rifts and IVs with drugs. All knowledge of aging and death are carefully controlled.

==UTILITARIANISM ACHIEVED==
==GOTOMA BUDDHA BTFO==

>>7288410
You obviously have some paranoia concerning socialists, when we're not even discussing socialism. And no, I want to maximise happiness over suffering, not merely end suffering, you've been misunderstanding me. The rest, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

>>7288419
That seems like a good state of affairs to me.

>>7288388
Anything can be called suffering, then. I could say the Jewish mindset causes Jews suffering and I'll kill them for the net benefit of the universe.

>>7288403
No, am not lying.
Simply invalidating your argument.
But try different example.
>>7288423
Paranoia? Maybe. You are arguing very much like one.
What would /pol/ say? Semit Ursprungs? SEIG haha.
But the problem is you assume there is anyway to escape suffering or maximize happiness, or that the maximization of happiness only come as a result of the prevention of suffering.

From early example, women gets rape; is suffering? Maybe, maybe not. Let's say yes, but now has children and husband to take care of her? Maybe, maybe not. Let's say yes again. She is happy now after suffering.

>>7288437
>>7288439
>both mention jews
Meta...

>>7288437
You'd have to take their probably greater happiness into account.

>>7287382
>Can't we just simply say these people are just ignorant of what is right?
that's what they say to undergrads everyday

>>7288441
My happiness without Jews would be greater than their total happiness.

>>7288441
There is no quantitative measure to measure that.
See?
>>7288450
You can simply declare the suffering greater.
You're completely irrational.

I feel like at least one person should be defending Kantianism in this thread. Any idiot can grasp and espouse amoralism or utilitarianism, but it takes a dedicated idiot to really get Kant.

>>7287870
I don't think this 99% figure is accurate. maybe murder is illegal where you live so in your circle everyone frowns on it because they are scared of being punished but murder happens everyday and not everybody feels bad about it.

>>7287835
Explain plz

>>7288452
Because you can't measure suffering, moron.

>>7288425

Shulgin's scale, from Wiki from Pihkal:

PLUS FOUR, n. (++++) A rare and precious transcendental state, which has been called a "peak experience," a "religious experience," "divine transformation," a "state of Samadhi" and many other names in other cultures. It is not connected to the +1, +2, and +3 of the measuring of a drug's intensity. It is a state of bliss, a participation mystique, a connectedness with both the interior and exterior universes, which has come about after the ingestion of a psychedelic drug, but which is not necessarily repeatable with a subsequent ingestion of that same drug. If a drug (or technique or process) were ever to be discovered which would consistently produce a plus four experience in all human beings, it is conceivable that it would signal the ultimate evolution, and perhaps the end, of the human experiment."

That last line is pretty intense.

Mind you I think Brave New World portrayed a terrible future. I also think Houllebecq (Atomised) was incorrect in choosing the discovery of biological immortality as signaling the "metaphysical mutation" ending the modern period .

Suffering is the problem, and being is suffering, pneumatic tubes or no (they will fail, the computers will glitch, the tanks will spill, the pleasure will stop for a moment, the neurons will exhaust, the drugs will induce madness, the penises will become chaffed and bloody after constant fucking, the brain will grow armor towards every repeated sensation you give it, chemistry and biology have limitations which are insurmountable given other limitations in chemistry and biology)

>>7288441
>Uses empircial evidence to back up a primary principle
>Thinks he can then make normative claims
Heh

>>7288466
Then you cannot measure happiness or suffering or any kind of moral principality of good bad success failure right wrong on your arbitrary concepts.
There is no reasoning or rationality behind it...
Make no sense.
Dirt monkey socialist go away.

>>7288452
There isn't yet, but we can make rough judgements, it seems plausible that hitting someone is better than setting them on fire for example. One day we may be able to quantify it, neuroscience might offer some answers.

>>7288473
But what if there is a justification for lighting someone on fire? Maybe they had the plague, and passed out. Mistaken for dead they were lit on fire and died but stopped from death others.
While the punch knocked someone out and they suffered from migraines.

You're argument make no sense.
It implies perfect knowledge and perfect prediction.
It make no sense it has no basis in reality.
>there is no measure now
>but we can get a roughness
But that IS subjective, we're looking for objective morality no?
Socialist dirt monkey go

>>7288482
The statement obviously implied both people were in a fairly typical state.

As far as I know, psychologists usually quantify happiness by asking people to rate how happy they are, or something makes them, on some numerical scale. Not a perfect measure, of course, but you also can't perfectly measure the length of a coast (or really anything), so what do you do?

>>7288482
Also your statements make little sense, and have little relevance to what has actually been said. Please learn English, and then we can have a real discussion.

>>7288492
As I've said I think the study of the brain might allow us to more accurately quantify suffering, and happiness in the future.

>>7288489
>EVERYTHING IS IN THE WORLD OF IMPLICATIONS
I may not be great at english. But at least I am not 15.
For the most part this thread was okay, but no sense dirty socialists show up and ruin everything with their backward unequivocal feelings logic.
You are arguing for a feel based morality. Hilarious.

Motorola is a smug anime girl 4u

>>7288498
Your "arguments" are unintelligible.

>>7288500
Look, even Givi calls you a stupid socialists monkey.
Haha.
Dance.

>>7288357
>>Pain, and suffering are different,
pain is just a sensation
suffering is the identification of the self with the pain (once you believe in self)

it is a choice to suffer from your pains..
same thing with joy and pleasures. Joy is the identification of the self with the pleasures.

>>7288216
>I don't think rape is unequivocally wrong on all levels? Maybe in a survival situation.
How does secular morality manage to be so bankrupt?

>>7288264
>And how do you "go full praxis"? That's like going to church when you know there's no God.
if you do not believe in god, you can only become a phenomenologist. Stop seeking answers outside of what you think is your self (that is to say, in the reality as the rationalist puts it) and analyse your sensations with equanimity, that is to say without any aversion nor avidity, without discursive thoughts.

the whole point, in religions at least for the few who practice, instead of only going to mass once in a while, is to make the equanimity part of you, until you no longer think of being nothing else than equanimous in daily life, towards what you feel inside, what others make you feel and what others do. the highest moral virtue is equanimity and all other virtues follow from this 9ex: charity or no-lying). Christians have there ways to contemplate and seek this equanimity. Sufis too, even jews. they typically contemplate equanimously the breath and seek the tranquility of the mind. or they pray invoking the love of their god, until they abandon their selves to it.
the buddhist use this too, but they say that once the mind is calmed, there remains only conciousness (= the stuff who knows of something) and you must must use the tranquility to analyse what you see as your self (a fundamental barrier between you and the reality) and see if it still makes sense.

Going back to phenomenology, this is the what the buddhists (secular or not) do. they have various meditations to analyse what goes on inside what you think is the self : at the end, you break down your sensations into different concepts (typically it is contact with an object, sensation (pleasing, neutral, painful) , consciousness of the object + mind stuff (labelling of the contact (=perceptions) + other discursive thoughts about the future and the past)).

The point is to see what goes on once that the mind is no longer here and then you understand that to be concious is really the three parts above : you cannot separate the conciousness of the object from the object itself, nor even from the sensation (pleasing, neutral, painful). these three different aspects of a phenomenon are not separable, they are really the same thing. At the end, the buddhists say that you halt the conciousness too and you attain a unconscious state of nirvana.

equanimity permits us to reach this direct knowledge and this direct knowledge consolidates the equanimity.

Phenomenology has been trendy now, but many philosophers remain realist-rationalist form the onset, especially when they apply it to social sciences where the discipline becomes hermeneutics. they still wish to use what they call reason in order to systematize, to put into a structure the experience of the contemplation.

>>7288883
Oh look, more posts from the autistic "counterculture" christian namefag.

>>7287558
it's anti-intellectual pseudo-Buddhist clap trap. nothing of value there.

>>7288932
Do you actually think you could ever "justify" rape? is that actually a thing posters in this thread think, or is it just a joke?

>>7288964
It's just kids and/or rapists being edgy.

>>7288964
This is the place to have stupid discussions. I think its more a issue of people not being convinced you cant.

For example as punishment. Why is rape not acceptable to punish a rapist?

>hurr durr, it makes you as bad as them.

No really.

>>7288991
I'd say really. Rapists often tend to justify what they do to themselves as punishment for this-or-that.

>>7288999
If someone locked someone up for no reason for 20 years in prison conditions it would be a fucking nightmare crime.

Locking someone up for 20 years because he murdered someone is not a nightmare crime and maybe more time is justified.


Why is an action not "just as bad" in such a case, but raping a rapist as punishment is not?

Even in your case where the rapist is justifying his own actions the purpose of the punishment is to show him the injustice he is inflicting himself.

>>7288991
Well, first off, all punishment except from God is about revenge, not justice.

>>7288462
try reading like, three Wikipedia articles. christ you are abominable

>>7289014
Victims of sexual abuse are more likely to commit sexual abuse, so any excuse of showing people the error of their ways is outlandish. As far as the justice system in general is concerned, I don't really agree with the status quo, so I won't defend it.

>>7289020
Weather or not they re-offend is a separate issue. we are talking about it being justified to rape a rapist or not.

In my mind someone who has committed a rape could be raped and killed after and i don't think much offense has been committed at all.

>>7289034
>weather
Whether*

dyslexia kicking in yo.

>>7289034
>In my mind someone who has committed a rape could be raped and killed after and i don't think much offense has been committed at all.
That's because you don't believe in the soul, so you think committing a crime can make someone an unperson.

>>7289034
Almost everyone justifies the crimes they commit on moral grounds, so you would probably be in the majority in that regards.

>>7288886
just to add, conciousness in Buddhist sense is always process. it is not thus some stuff floating around and doing other stuff whenever it likes.


to be explicit, the phenomenology begins with Husserl and his épochè.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/husserl/#PheEpo

husserl leans towards Kant once he talks about noema, because precisely it introduces the divide object-subject. he also uses the word objectivity a lot, and of course he has no idea what it means. Same thing with the word inter-subjectivity and other realist terms.

The buddhists and asians, that is to say those who practise the contemplation, are more phenomenologist than Husserl. Especially since they lay out detailed instruction on how to study the sensations.

The whole purpose is to detach yourself from the sensations and avoid putting words on the sensations, even though the first step is really to say short words such as ''hearing, hearing hearing''' when a sound is heard (it is better to use verbs than nouns). the whole point is to understand first the body as a lived body. for instance to understand the touch not from some realist terms, but as the sensations. same with the walking, the standing, the lying, the moving of the hand (these are various meditation that the buddhist call vipassana).

even for the occidental phenomenologist, the great terror is that once you become what he calls a mystic, you can no longer communicate through the natural language your knowledge. you reach, according to him, a dangerous sterility since the natural language is not adapted to the phenomenogly (the language is really realist ans so far, nobody has any idea how to connect the abstractions, of the sensations, produced by the mind with the sensations again: it is the usual question of the meaning.)
Of course, since the contemporary philosopher is now, at best, a thinker, it is detrimental to him that the language is abandoned, even though he acknowledges his inability to give us a semantics for the natural language. (he is even paid for this)

to finish, the transcendental ego by husserl is the ego which permits the separation subject-object. by definition, this special ego which is not the casual ego is the condition of the separation from and of the knowledge of the world. this ego is not in the world, it is a stuff which permits the transcendence of the world, the conciousness of what is beyond the usual ego.

>>7289162

Husserl speaks thus in realist terms and a priori, he does not give a manual on how to apply all this.

husserl speaks of the detached spectator, the zuschauer, which seem to correspond to the unconditional equanimity sought by the buddhist (those who contemplate, let's be clear). this guy is the guy who left the cave by Plato and then see the things for what they are.

=>all of this to say that buddhists are better phrenologists than the philosophers, precisely because those latter dwells in their imagination and still connect as long as they can to the discourse full of realist terms. the philosophers have lost their praxis a few centuries ago.

>>7287382
>objective morality is disproven by the fact there are people/cultures that believe some universal good is in fact wrong?
Some people believe the world is flat; others think the universe is no more than about 6,000 years old.
Does this mean objective reality is disproven?
Of course not. People making errors about objective facts does not disprove those facts, it simply demonstrates errors are possible.

>>7288964
No, not possible to justify rape on a personal and social level, but on morality of survival? Maybe. As the example I gave, rape of the Sabine women, maybe not such a great and moral act, but it gave spawn to greatest civilization known to man. Was that rape a suffering of sacrafice for Rome? Yes I think so. It was just, otherwise Rome certainly would never have been.
I am not a "secularist", Orthodoxy is best and I suspect you are a filthy protestant.
>>7288990
I only so edgy as to cut you.
>>7288999
I am not a rapist inverse satan.
>>7289015
I think this is not a good detention, I do not see all punishment as revenge "except from God"; punishment could be about Justice or could be Self inflicted as man described before. Why does punishment have to be about revenge? It seems to be impossible to justify revenge in many cases.
>>7289188
I read more about this "Kulture marx" stuff someone said earlier and it *apperently* seeks the destruction of Objectivness and the denial of it in many fourms.
I still think the best answer is it is that it is a large combination of things ranging from might is right, survival, competition, a greater underlying connectivity and some other things.
Is early, let me wake up first.
Maybe shot of Vodka or Burbon wake me up.

>>7287382
You don't need to choose between unjustifiable moral realism and bullshit nihilism and relativism. You can take a position of ethic subjectivism and scepticism, and be agnostic towards the existence of moral truth while living your life making the irrefutable assumption that your preferred system of ethics is correct.

>>7289510
Pffft.
Natural Law. Pull out the Summa and relax.

>>7289529
>inherent values
>inherent RIGHTS

Haha haha it really says something about the intellectual merit of relativists it when they really think moral realism is debunked because WELLL WHAT IF I LIKE IT WHEN I STUB MY TOE CHECKMATE OBJECTIVE MORALITY

Look up suffering in the dictionary you doofs

>>7289704
ITT I can't argue.