/lit/ - Literature

essentially, this is what the world would be like. Philosophy is fun, but it isn't important. Also, probably Nazi Germany wouldn't have happened.

The only way there would be no philosophy is if we were significantly different creatures.

That makes it hard to determine what we'd be like without it.

Without specific philosophers like, say, Kant it's also very hard to say. We probably wouldn't be in the democratic, capitalist property based system we are in today that's for sure.

No hipsters.

>>765656
>Philosophy doesn't do anything important
>Except the Nazis

well..philosophy is basically a path of thinking.
so.. without philosophy, we would be mindless robots...but then it would be our philosophy...

One must ask himself "did these great men anticipate cultural trends, or did they create them".

No communists.
No humanists.
No utilitarians.
No anarchists.

HEAVEN ON EARTH.

>>765682
actually more like all anarchists.

>>765689
Humans are herd creatures by nature. We love authority and will follow it whenever given a chance.

we wouldn't have philosophy majors

so yeah, the world would be a better place

>>765693
so says you

>>765698
So says history.

>>765702
so says your reading of history.

>>765703
So says everyone's reading of history.

>>765710
not mine, not foucualt's (for instance but there are many others.

>>765720
*foucault

Anarchism is cool when you're a college sophomore who wants to be politically radical

>>765720
Are you familiar with the concept of "Doing it wrong"?

>>765730
yeah, i think your doing it wrong.

>>765735
*you're

>>765735
How very witty of you. Come up with that by yourself?

>>765728
Anarchism is a treacherous word, and a detriment to anarchists.

>>765741
Seriously, I don't see the history of power relations as prima facie proof of a human tendency towards subjugation, nor do I see any evidence of a ''human nature''. In fact the concept ''human'' is late in coming and soon to demise. I think essentially, people are inherently bent towards anarchy, yet there are those who are controlled by the death drive who tend to be more organized, more aggressive (these qualities lend themselves to the mindset even as they emerge from the mindset) so they tend to be effective. But essentially, people are anarchistic.

>>765693
We're not herd creatures. There's never been a herd of monkeys.

>>765753
>people are anarchistic
>99% of the human population lives in ordered societies with ridgid power structures

>>765763
And it's all thanks to PHILOSOPHY

>>765763
Yet 99% do not follow the laws 100% of the time. Seriously, the power structures are imposed, not assumed. Every liberation urge is effectively reassimilated into the power structure, but their is a liberation urge. Power structures are just, well, powerful.

>>765768
Nope. Philosophy has been working since the time of Socrates to challenge the social order and question people's beliefs and values.

>>765771
*there (seriously, my spelling is bad today. insomnia)

>>765771
Power structures are only as powerful as people let them be. They're pretty fucking powerful.

>>765775
Have you never heard of coercion? The idea that power structures are given a mandate by the people is a (relatively) newly-minted fiction, a piece of effective propaghanda.

Don't you have some CrimethInc manuals to be distributing?

>>765778
Crimethinc. is an excellent outlet, and I unashamedly read it. I don't subscribe to the womb like coaxings of elitism.

>>765777
Coercion doesn't work unless people buy into it. People let themselves be ordered around because that's what comes naturally to them.

>>765784
So, what's it like being an idiot?

>>765789
i don't know you'd have to tell me, son. You obviously don't have anything to say, so you commence with the name calling

>>765800
Name calling is something to say. It's a way of pointing out the inherent stupidity of your beliefs.

>>765785
No coercion, especially police force is particularly effective with or without consent. Don't believe me, try to resist arrest. Coercion works just fine w/o complicity of the people, although there is plenty of that. The problem is that it takes a greater, opposite force to dispell power, which is pretty unfortunate considering anarchism (not in the popular, idealogical sense but in an intuitive, real sense) is not a force. It is a vote of no-confidence. It doesn't engage power, it betrays power and tries its best to avoid power.

>>765810
well, faggot, it doesn't point out anything inherent, it just covers for the fact that you can't compute what i'm saying.

>>765813
The government requires the support of the police to have the police act as a coercive force for them. Try again.

>>765815
What you're saying can't be computed because it runs contrary to logic. Fact: People behave in a manner that suggests herd instinct, bowing to authority and following orders. Claim: People are inherently anarchistic. The claim runs contrary to reality. Does not compute.

>>765821
um how bout you, because i'm not simplifying this to terms like ''government'' or ''state'', and this is intentional. The power structure employs many things, government just one of them. Also, just because the police force are people, does not mean that all people support the government, that is so dumb it's obvious. The police are a select group of individuals who are indoctrinated, conditioned with fear responses, selected for certain tendencies, armed and set loose like a gang onto the rest of the population.

>>765825
You made an assertion, it isn't supported by empirical reality but by an interpretation of history, which is just an interpretation. Logic has not been introduced into this at all, I started off by saying ''so says you'' which implies the relativity of these kinds of arguments. I do believe I am correct, and I'm sure you do as well.

>>765830
Police follow rules set out by superiors, are instructed to use force as a last resort, and willingly choose to do what they do. The society supports and encourages them to do their job of hunting down and eliminating disruptive elements. If the government didn't fund a police force, militias would organize and administer justice on their own. Humans hate deviance and require conformity.

>>765836
You are delusional. I'd suggest you get some kind of medication for that.

>>765840
This is just unsupportable, the existence of armed thug police proves that people aren't inherently conformist. People only vaguely support the police in abstract cases, which means until it is they who are being harrassed and arrested. A powerstructure offers a modicum of comfort and stability and this is something that people tend towards, but the powerstructure dominates the people wherever possible. The people don't support the police, they tolerate them because well what choice do they really have? And honestly, given the choice most people break at least some laws regulary (parking, speeding, etc.) Manufactured instabilities in the distribution of resources creates inequalities which are enforced by the police, what people get in return are some of the resources which have been pilfered and hoarded by a small class of individuals. Even the police are coerced into what they do by this situation.

>>765843
I suppose you have a degree in psychology now? seriously, fuck off chap I know you are either fourteen or a slave-minded hack who's heart has stopped beating.

>>765850
People support the police, just as they support the government. And a small minority of people do deviate from conformity. Either they become leaders, or problems. Problems have to be eliminated to preserve order, and leaders are the ones who instruct people to do this. Social order is preserved because people want it, so they offer full support to the people who provide it.

>>765859
>I'm cool and edgy and better than everyone else at my school, including the teachers.

Grow up and join the real world, kid.

>>765870
That's the thing, I have grown up. I've formed my own opinions. I have worked, and I've seen what work is and that informed my opinions. Reality testing is a two way street, and you obviously haven't done much critical thinking in your life.

>>765877
Extensive studies of history and philosophy, minor studies of biology and psychology. Humans are idiots who do what they're told because they're incapable of coming up with solutions themselves. They always have been.

>>765693

I don't think you know all humans to make such a judgement.

>>765885
Once you know one human, you know about 99% of them.

>>765868
Social order is not an analogue of power, it is one thing that power structures employ (either by securing it or threatening it willfully) to coerce people into a power relation. It isn't a small number that deviates, it is very many people, people who ''fake sick'' to skip work or school, people who speed, people who use recreational drugs, people who simply aren't targeted by the police but regularly break laws. The power relation of citizen and government is not what creates social stability, human relations between people create that. Attributing social stability to the government is laughable. People like you have bought into this narrative, which is not a first principle of society mind you but something which developed during the past 400 years (the enlightenment era specifically). You shouldn't stop reading at Hobbes, seriously.

>>765891
>Social order is not an analogue of power

Yes it is.

>>765652

Leave here heretic!

>>765884
This judgement is neither scientific nor is it philisophical. It is simply antisocial which is really a laugh because you are defending strict power structures. I bet you are a fucking cop or a cop wannabe. You probably have daddy-issues.

>>765894
prove it, without employing the narratives of power. you can't

>>765889

Again, in order for you to cast such a judgement you would have to know 99% of humans in order to know that "Once you have met one you have met 99%".

>>765897
>ad hominem
>gives no reason why it is neither scientific nor philosophical

Cool story, bro.

>>765884

>Implying you are not human.

>>765900
you were the one tauting your ''studies'', bro so ad hominem is in order. you gave no implications of philosophy or science, just that you had studied these things. Saying that people are inherently slave-minded is not proven by any science, i know of a few psych and sociology studies but these studies were unethical and scientifically poor. Misanthropy isn't philisophical.

>>765906
Ethics hold people back in research. The best discoveries on the nature of human beings were made before research ethics were instituted. Like studies on conditioning children to fear certain stimuli. Or studies about what would make humans more productive. Did you know that just by being watched people in a factory will increase productivity? Quite fascinating stuff, really.

People live in communities.

Eventually some decision will have to be made about something that affects all of that community.

This decision will have to be enforced somehow.

Rinse and repeat. You just got government.

I just showed how anarchy is impossible.

>>765919
Thank you for stating something that should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. A tip my hat to you.

>>765914
ethics and scientific rigour are what makes it science, instead of just manipulation.

>>765932
You can't do proper science without manipulating a variable.

>>765919
The decision enforced ''somehow'' disproves anarchism? That is poor. The ''somehow'' is the integral part. Also, implying ''force'' is inherent to decision making, betrays a mindset incapable of detaching from given narratives.

>>765934
true, but there must be some structure to it and ethics are a part of the structure. I agree that ethics can hold someone back, but in some cases the unethical decision is also an unscientific decision.

I doubt we'd even have an America without John Locke

>>765935
Enforcing means that it is being forced upon people. Which means anarchy isn't happening because people have to do things they might not want to. Face it, your belief system is INCORRECT, and you should abandon it for one that actually works.

>>765919

>Eventually some decision will have to be made about something that affects all of that community.

>Implying people can't move.

>I just showed how anarchy is impossible.

If people can't move, which people can.

>>765937
It is only unscientific if you're altering the data you record. Testing a hypothesis by changing something and recording the results is always science, regardless of ethics.

>>765942
>people can move
>to another community where exactly the same thing is happening

Cool story, bro.

>>765945

>Implying people can't go live in the woods.

>>765940
No, and it isn't a belief system either, I have abandoned the linear and static mindset which is so inherent to people such as yourself who claim the status quo is mandated. Commands are enforced, communal decisions are agreed upon. Power is really just an illusion that must be broken for many people, it is not real in any sense. Mankind is inherently free.

>>765948
>Mankind is inherently free.

Laws of physics, bitch.

>>765947
As hermits, yes. But as soon as a community forms in said wood, the same thing happens.

>>765947
>implying a social creature, humans, would want to live in the woods by themselves when they could live with other humans

>>765943
Well that is fair, I suppose. ethics aren't the most important thing to science, but then again I really liked ''Splice'' so, there's that.

>>765919

>People live in communities.

Do they?

>Eventually some decision will have to be made about something that affects all of that community.

Really?

>This decision will have to be enforced somehow.

Really?

>I just showed how anarchy is impossible.

Based upon conjecture and vague assumptions.

Bool cory sro!

>>765948
>communal decisions are agreed upon.

You see, unless you're arguing for a consensus democracy (a highly complicated, slow system for the amount of decisions a community must take), this simply isn't true. At all.

>>765955
If you doubt that humans live in communities, you are beyond intellectual redemption.

>>765952

>Social creature

>Implying people don't live in the woods.

>>765952
>implying that men don't.

sure is teenager ITT.

>>765959
>>765960

>implying the majority of humans live by themselves in shacks

>>765919
>Implying Anarchism is anti-authority, as opposed to just anti-state.

>>765956
Consensus democracy, wouldn't be slow, it would just require less decisions to be made, it would not entail the complications which are necessitated by an enforced power structure (bread, circuses,etc.). A consensus democracy takes in any group, at any time. A powerstructure can't take this form because it requires coercion.

>>765968
>implying anarchists can agree on what the fuck it is they believe in, instead of just bickering like school children over who has a larger penis

>>765958
Forget it bro, let's drink.

>>765969
Democracy is the worst form of government because it lets people who don't know anything about management (the majority) decide how things should be run.

>>765969
>Consensus democracy, wouldn't be slow,

In a tribe with a handful of people, perhaps.

In a city with a few million inhabitants, on the other hand...

>>765971
man that wouldn't hurt so much if it weren't so true. but honestly, ideology is a red herring. There is a liberating urge, and a death urge. The idea is to indulge in the liberating urge and fight for it to remain unassimilated from a power structure. Politics have progressed since the 1800's, but most people (anarchists, communists, statists) haven't noticed.

>>765975
It's still better than a minority imposing it's will onto a majority.

The more concentrated power is, the more it corrupts.

>>765976
as if a city would ever exist without a coercive power structure. we can't take the status quo as the determined, prima facie nature of human relations. What society looks like today has been a development, and the current state was never inevitable.

>>765978
There are no urges for liberation in the majority of the population. Only the freaks don't want to be part of the existing social order.

>>765984
At least the minority knows what they fuck they're doing.

>>765992
Until we get a Caligula, that is.

>>765987
>as if a city would ever exist without a coercive power structure.
>power structure is inevitable in human society
>anarchy is impossible

I'm okay with this.

>>765993
He still did a better job of running things than most people would have.

Philosophy has helped the world about as much as anyone in this thread has convinced anyone else in this thread of anything.

>>766003
The anarchists in this thread have convinced me to never support anything as retarded as anaarchy.

>>765994
w/e i'm just saying the city motif, the image and the narrative around it, are employed by power, a power relationship which people are in through coercion (and at times, complicity) but which they are not predisposed to. A few men, weaker in mind spirit and body than most, have said many fine words in defense of this, out of their own fear and ignorance of self. States are so dysfunctional, that they will inevitably fall. Perhaps new power relations will develop, but awareness will help them dissolve. A consensus, society and stability all can be had without a power realtionship. In fact they would actually exist, once power relationships are not coerced. (I realize some people are Sado-masochistic, but that is something I won't get into)

>>766011
>w/e i'm just saying the city motif, the image and the narrative around it

This definitely sounds like a teenager trying to be deep or something.

>>766007
your thought is the definition of retarded, and you just don't understand but instead of asking questions, you front by saying ''hurr durr thats reetawded i so smart''

>>766014
no it sounds like something you don't understand, but you can't admit that you don't so you attack it with ad hominem.

>>766017
>>766016
Either troll or aspergers.

>>766011
States don't fail because they're unstable, they fail because they resist change. Humans resist change because different is always bad. Like natural selection, new states are produced which are better able to deal with the technology and economies of the world, but people remain the same. They support states, refuse to embrace change, and do what they're told. It's in their nature.

>>766017
you ad homenim right back.

>>766020
Well at least trolls are real, so that narrows it down.

>>766016
Anarchy is a bad idea. It doesn't work because people don't work that way.
>>766017
Nothing to understand. It makes no sense.

>>766024
ever hear of two wrongs making a right, buddy?

>>766027

>Implying you don't live in anarchy everyday.

>>766032
>implying the universe permits anarchy

Imposed order is everywhere, and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

>>766011
>But.. but... I'm right! You're just too conformist! You're trained to be servile! The state will fall just like Jesus is coming.

You used a lot of words to basically say this. Cool intellectual bankruptcy bro.

>>766035

>Implying anarchy is against order and not the state.

Did you need to wait for a call from a government official in order to wake up today?

>>766039
>implying the function of the state is not to impose order

>>766036
No state lasts forever, and I'm don't think the state is even relevant at this point. lrn2international politics. Also, yes, your ignorance and conformity are pretty apparent and they are unfortunate for you.
>>766035
>implying that the universe is ordered
Determinism is just one hypothesis of many, man.

>>765652
Imagine there's no Plato
No Descartes, Locke, or Kant
Or life after life
For philo only 4Chan

Inbefore WhatDoYouMeanThisIsn't/mu?

>>766041

>Implying the function of the state is to impose order.

>>766047
>implying that order is what the state is enforcing and not their own ends to which they employ disorder just as often as order.

>>766045
Determinism is correct. See: Laws of Physics, Causality.
>>766047
Name another function.

>>766045
>No state lasts forever

This is true. However - the idea of a state (the area where community-encompassing decisions are enforced) is pretty much eternal.

People need to differ between "modern state" and "state".

>>766050

>Determinism is correct

laughinggirls.jpeg

>>766049
>the NEW WORLD ORDER is monitering my mind and following me with BLACK HELICOPTERS! LIZARD ALIENS SOMEHOW RESPONSIBLE!

>>766050

>Name another function.

The barrel of a gun.

aww yerrr

>>766050
determinism is only correct insofar as we can observe, which reflects the thought from which the sciences were born and informed (that is the emergent philosophies of the enlightenment of which the state and scientific progress are both projects)

>>766052
>free will exists

laughinggaymen.jpg

Determinism is the closest thing to being correct, although the random motion of quantum particles is distressing.

>>766055
It isn't a conspiracy, they do it quite openly. Or are wars not a function of the state?

>>766058

>Determinism
>quantum particles

laughingniggers.jpeg

>>766056
Not a function. An object. Try again, Billy.

To the other non-anarchist anon, we should go out to drink one of these days.

>>766063

The gun performs a function.

The same way people perform functions.

It's fuck or walk kid.

>>766061
>everything is planned to KEEP ME DOWN! I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN SEE
>>766062
>the mind of a human being determines how quantum pariticles influence the universe, thus enabling us to have free will in a universe where none exists. WE'RE SPECIAL!

>>766058
Behavioral free will exists, and even though it may be influenced entirely by biological processes, there is enough deviation that no mean can be reached.

>>766066
A gun is not a state. This is about the functions states perform. Really, do you ride the short bus or something?

>>766067

I was agreeing.

( . .)

>>766039
>>766039
not the guy you are 'debating' with, but haha wut? I woke up when my alarm went off, an alarm bearing CE, UL, and ROHS markings, drawing power from a municipal utility grid connected to my home by a licensed electrician. I set it to sound at the time it did, and not any other time, because I have a pretty good estimation on how long it will take me to eat my FDA-approved breakfast, drive my EPA and DOT regulated vehicle down public roads to perpetuate the employment contract undertaken by myself and my employer, so that they may (on a rigorously regulated schedule), issue me some of the local flavor of fiat currency, so that I may participate in taxed transactions to buy more fine products deemed safe for my possession.

The only way to live free from governmental meddling would be to live as a basement-dwelling slob with no ambition or industry...

Oh my god, I'm so sorry, I didn't realize that YOU-

bitcheslaughing.jpeg

>>766067
your implications are petty at best. It isn't implicit that any of this ''keeps me down'' i'm arguing that none of it can keep me down and that power structures only exist through coercion. As long as I can get away with breaking laws, I'm okay. It would be a far better thing, though, if I didn't have to be so careful about it. (perhaps, allthough aesthetically perhaps not)

>>766069
>Behavioral free will exists

Physics. Your argument is invalid.

>>766072

>A gun is not a state.

But it performs a function, which was the original contention.

>This is about the functions states perform.

Indeed it is, The state uses the gun to boss people around, nothing more nothing less.

>Really, do you ride the short bus or something?

I will take this as a sign of your low intellectual esteem on the subject.

>>766074
well, i have no ambition or industry but i don't live in a basement. I take the heroin addict, schizoid willfully deluded way out. Don't knock it til you tried it. Also, you made life sound pretty bad there.

>>766075
Power structures exist because people let them. if everyone was like you, they wouldn't exist, because the force of everyone going against the powerful would be greater than their coercive force. People support the state. They like being ruled. Deal with it.

>>766074

>I lack reading comprehension.

The brain is just a clock, comprised of so many parts we can't yet bootleg the blueprints.

>>766084
Man, that must be rough for you

>>766077
Physics can't even develop a unified theory of itself, how could it possibly be relevant to socio-psychology?

>>766083

>They like being ruled. Deal with it.

I don't.

Your argument is invalid.

>>766080
States use guns to kill people who pose a threat to the continued stability of society. You know, dangerous idiots. People like yourself, except they're an actual threat instead of an internet tough guy.

>>766087

I know you are but what am I....

>>766090
You are a deviant, part of the minority. And minorities lack power in any society, democratic or otherwise.

>>766083
I don't think that they do like it. I think that they hate it, and are constantly drugging themselves or otherwise escaping from their horrific lives. I think consumer culture is a powerful narcotic, but there are ''moments of clarity'' as we addicts say, where people can't help but to realize that life is hell, and they are being pimped.

>>766092

>continued stability of society

>2 wars
>Recession
>Aggressive foreign policy
>Massive Bailouts

>You know, dangerous idiots

I do, it's pretty obvious you don't.

>Except they're an actual threat instead of an internet tough guy.

u mad?

Damn minorities! They ruin the homogeneity of our society and thus the aesthetic qualities of the body politic.

>>766092
right, they also use tazers to kill mentally retarded people. Police employ nothing but measured, prescribed methods to assure social stability and in no way contribute to social dischord. hm...

>>766098
They love it. You don't, and you project your feelings onto the world around you.

>>766097
Apartheid-era South Africa disagrees

>>766101
>using the example of the United States to say that states are inherently bad.

This is like saying black people are evil because one of them robbed you.

>>766108
christ, you are probably right, friend. I don't want to accept it, though. Do you? Why have you accepted it?

>>766112
US is bad as opposed to what? Europe is guilty of most everything that anon mentioned.

>>766113
Honest question, it's the internet and you are anonymous. How old are you?

>>766101
And society marches on, every day, like nothing is even happening. Stable.
>>766107
Killing deviants creates stability by eliminating people who differ from the majority.

>>766116
21

>>766113
I accept because there is no alternative.

>>766117
what standards are you using for stability? An artifice?

>>766112

>Implying all black people are not the same.

>>766124
Things not devolving into a Hobbsian clusterfuck.

>>766122
idealism is an alternative, it may not be rigorously reality-tested, but it works. Anyway, this betrays the fact that I tend towards opiates and really don't wish to engage with reality.

>>766112

But it's not.

>lol9/11stablility

>>766128
Ugh, wow, you've read Hobbes. Congratulations, buddy what is that year 1 debate? Anyway, there are other perspectives on just how ''stable'' society is.

>>766118
The prosecution rests.

>>766129
I can't live in a fantasy world. I'll dream when I sleep, the rest of the time I'm going to be realistic.

/r9k/ would be much less active, that's for sure. Oh, and science probably never would have happened, so we'd still be praising Tefnut every time we spit.

>>766134
Society works: Stable.
Hobbsian Clusterfuck: Unstable
Current Status: Society works.

>>766135
you know, many men live their entire lives in ignorance? advanced age does not imply advanced knowledge or wisdom. It does usually imply crushed hopes, increased fears and weariness.
>>766137
I can respect that, although I don't think I can live that way.

>>765652

OP's question is stupid, there's no way to approach it...

>>766108

>>766129
Idealists, Naturalists, Rationalists, you all knights of the spirit are dumb, you can't talk about reality without explaining what's a res, you can't divide the res, there's no cogitatio or extensio if the res, the base of all that thought is wrong and infected of the eleatic thought of the greeks

>>766142
I don't think it works, but that could be because it doesn't work for me.

>>765955

This is the worst rebuttal I've ever seen, and I've watched the Republican primaries :-(

>>766142
yeah sure

bloomberg.com

look at that, yeah, sure it works

>>766151
Fortunately for society, it doesn't care about what you think of it.

>>766154

It's not a rebuttal it was questions to your supposed rebuttal.

Feel free to answer.

>>766101
Understand, what you're arguing for is a reform in the modern state. It's abolishment (if we define a state as "an area where community-influencing decisions are made and enforced") is pretty much impossible.

>>766108

>They love it

Who is they?

>>766156
Change the definition of "works" and you can criticize it just fine. But, really, you just look like a douche when you base your argument around the meanings of terms.

>>766163
The majority of the population. You know, the ones who watch the Idol shows and never question why things are the way they are.

>>766161

>what you're arguing for is a reform in the modern state

no, you understand the states are inherently violent institutions and can not be reformed.

>It's abolishment (if we define a state as "an area where community-influencing decisions are made and enforced") is pretty much impossible.

No, it's a group of people with the ability initiating force to achieve there own ends.

Nothing more nothing less.

>>766172

>That States.

>With the ability to initiate force.

oh me.

>>766172
>No, it's a group of people with the ability initiating force to achieve there own ends.
>It's abolishment

>>766166

>you just look like a douche when you base your argument around the meanings of terms.

Like dogs in the windows with cars from the moon.

>>766177

eh?

>>766172
>the states are inherently violent institutions

Well duh. Good luck trying to uphold a decision, be it made through direct democracy, by a dictator or a representative, without coercion of some sort.

>>766180
Allow me to rephrase.

>you just look like a douche when you base your argument exclusively around the meanings of terms.

>>766185

Car boot english red monitor carpet.

told

>>766188
>I'm a jackass

>>766159

Another glorious attempt! Notice how I said nothing about society in my post.

Now get on with the ad hominems and reductio ad Hitlerums. I know you have it in you!

>>766184

"Good luck trying to uphold a decision"

I make many decisions a day, many that didn't involve the use of a group of violent bureaucrats.

People trade and interact voluntarily everyday.

>>766194

Oops, wrong post. Disregard pl0x.

>>766196
>I make many decisions a day

Heh, you just ignored the "community-influencing" bit, didn't you.

>>766196
Good luck maintaining markets without a state-provided form of currency.

>>766202
Oh, and not to mention that you tried to paint me as a "you need the state to do EVERYTHING!" sort of person, man, talk about intellectual dishonesty.

>>766160

Okay, I'll answer.

Yes.
Yep.
Yeah.

Differentfag, btw.

>>766206

>I don't know how money works

>>766196
The contents of your post make me deduce you're an anarcho-capitalist.

Oh well. Enjoy your feudalism.

>>766214

Haters are going to hate

Hayek out bitches.

>>766212
haha, how has non-centrally regulated money worked out for you? Historical examples? I'm curious on this one.

>>766212
Like I said, good luck trading without a state to mint the money and decide what value the coins represent.

Philosophy is the logical consequence of our higher level of thinking. Without it we'd be animals just like any other.

>>766219

The same way it works now...

> I'm alone all of the time
> Therefore humans cannot be social creatures.
> I am philosoph.

>>766220

>Still doesn't understand how money works.

>>766223

>>766218
>implying Hayek was an ancap

>"I am the last person to deny that increased wealth and the increased density of population have enlarged the number of collective needs which government can and should statisfy."
-Hayek, New Studies

>>766226
Explain it, then. How is money not a symbolic representations of work that is exchanged for goods and services, with the value set and the creation of the tokens regualted by the state?

>>766233
Gold standard.

Yeah, they are crazy.

>>766237
And who sets and decides the standard? Hmmm?

>>766233

>How is money not a symbolic representations of work that is exchanged for goods and services.

It is.

> with the value set and the creation of the tokens regualted by the state?

>regualted by the state?

>Doesn't understand the market

>>766239
I don't think you understand how the gold standard works.

But it's ok, because the only people who want to go back to it are austrian school retards, and nobody takes them seriously.

>>766250

>Argumentum ad populum.

>>766246
>creation of tokens representing wealth is NOT regulated by the state

So, private businesses are minting their own coins now?

>>766239
IMO, competing private companies
that way the most stable currency is used, creating a stable currency is incentivized etc.

>>765652
Pretty sure all self awareness is a form of philosophy, and without it we would likely still be hunter-gatherers. Perhasp a better question might be "what would our world be like if philosophers never published?"

I'm thinking there would be a lot more wars based on conquest, as people would either be looking out for themselves, or simply doing as they're told.

>>766265
So, employers set the value on the money they pay their workers, and no state exists to prevent them from screwing people over.

Fucking brilliant.

States are only violent because they're threatened by other states. If we had a single world-government, things might be different.

>>766275
>derp

>>766275
suure, 1984 amirite?

>>766275
I believe a world government is inevitable. As the world grows closer and closer, I can't see how everything won't be a superstate in some 400-500 years or so.

>>766275

Without competition the state and economy become stagnant.

>>766294
Look as an anarchist, I don't really care about the government, it only effects me insofar as I engage with it in an oppositional way. There is fight and there is flight, you know. I don't see anarchists don't seem to get this. Why play a game where the rules make you lose instantly?

>>766310
Lose quietly now or lose painfully later. YOU MAKE THE CALL.

>>766314
why play at all? you don't have to play. You can play your own games. Situationism ftw.

>>766318
>You can play your own games

Not if I have anything to say about it.

>>766302

>Without competition the state and economy become stagnant.

>Without competition the state

How does the State become stagnant exactly?

and you did it again...

the most stupid thread-premise got a 200+ comment thread...

Son, I am dissapoint.

>>766323
Becomes less active. No war means decreased military, less interest in developing new technology, less interest in making their country better than every other country, ect. Doesn't disappear, just doesn't do as much.

>>766328

More like "Son, I am proud"

>>766331
Of course, by the time we reach world government, we should be pretty advanced.

>>766333
>Son, I am PRIDE

Do if right.

>>766320
you don't scare me buddy, and don't take your shirt off, either.

>>766328
This thread isn't about fantasy or science fiction books

>>766338
ooh all colored in.
thanks.

>>766342
>you don't scare me buddy

Cool story, bro.

>>766342

Fine, you can take yours off.

>>766331

Oh, So me raping people is okay, because well it increases competition, makes me stronger, keeps me fit.

So it's all fine.

>>766350
that's how putin reproduces.

sage

>>766360

Are you saying you have a moral objection to rape? Cause I'm pretty sure I can blow that shit outta the water.

>>766360
Works for Japan.

>>766360

To be fair, that was the done thing in the ages where we were little more than hairless apes with over-large heads, and a penchant for walking on our hind legs.

That, and whacking women over the head with clubs before dragging them back to your home to have your way with them.

However, we are now in a polite, advanced society where such things are frowned upon.

>>766385

Please do.

>>766385

Define "Moral" first.

>>766404
>>766399

"Moral" as in "normative" or pertaining to the moral "ought." IE, "people ought not to rape other people or animals."

To make any such claim, it is first necessary to prove that such statements pertain in a meaningful way to the real world, that the object of the statement (moral judgment) exists independently of my opinions. In other words, that making such a statement is different from simply expressing an opinion. Such statements are normally clearly understood, which indicates a common framework of understanding for contextualising moral claims. But there is no observation or logical deduction from which I can prove that moral claims are objectively true or false. I can say that they're true according to a particular society's ethical framework, but that still doesn't get me where I need to go. What if we postulate a society in which people believe that rape only happens because "she/it was asking for it"? What basis do I have to say that my view on rape is more true than theirs?

What distinguishes the claim of "rape is wrong" from just saying "rape" in a disapproving tone of voice? I can't see anything.

>>766451

Logical proofs seem to get us closer, but I've never come across one that doesn't include an assumption I don't agree with. The issue goes all the way back to Hume's is/ought distinction, for which there's never been a watertight rebuttal.

>>766451

>>766466

>>766480

>>766451

That's why we should believe in God, so we don't get raped!

>>766451

>But there is no observation or logical deduction from which I can prove that moral claims are objectively true or false.

If you try to breath underwater you will choke and drown, so you should not try to breath underwater.

If you put your hand in a fire, it will burn, so you ought not to put your hand in the fire.

If jump in front of a very fast moving train, you will be either seriously hurt or may die, so you ought not to jump in front of trains.

>>766451

>But there is no observation or logical deduction from which I can prove that moral claims are objectively true or false.

oh u

>>766534
None of those are moral claims, idjit.

>>766542

No they are.

"concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct"

They are objective moral absolutes.

>>766554
They're objective statements of fact. They have nothing to do with human morality, which is entirely subjective. Try harder.

>>766557

No, they are actions that when taken will have consequences that will occur regardless of your feelings or opinions on the matter.

So me saying, if you wish to stay alive, it would do you well not to jump in front of high speed trains.

Thus objective moral truths.

>>766569
They're based on the assumption that the person performing the actions wants to stay alive. They give no reason to want to. Therefore, they don't tell me what I should do, just what will happen if I do it.

>>766534

>"concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct"

Right and wrong as in morality, not correctness. How could you provide evidence that it's wrong to jump in front of a moving train, anyway? Dumb, yes.

There's an implied assumption in all your examples, anyway. If you're trying to say "you ought not jump in front of trains," you're implying something like, "you ought not do things which will seriously hurt or kill you." What if I'm suicidal? In that case I can accept the truth of your first claim without concluding the second.

>>766575

"Objectivity: judgement based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices"

> They give no reason to want to.

>I don't understand objectivity

>based on the assumption that the person performing the actions wants to stay alive

No, the ultimate choice being left to the agent, but the action when taken will have consequences that will occur regardless of opinion on the matter.

There really is nothing esoteric about it.

>>766593
But there is nothing that says that it is incorrect to perform those actions. It is simply a statement of cause and effect, not about correctness or incorrectness of action. Did your mother smoke during pregnancy or something?

>>766582

>Right and wrong as in morality, not correctness. How could you provide evidence that it's wrong to jump in front of a moving train, anyway? Dumb, yes.

That is up to the agent, but if he jumps in front of the high speed train he will suffer the consequences of his actions.

>There's an implied assumption in all your examples, anyway. If you're trying to say "you ought not jump in front of trains," you're implying something like, "you ought not do things which will seriously hurt or kill you." What if I'm suicidal? In that case I can accept the truth of your first claim without concluding the second

Again, it is up to the agent taking the course of action, but the consequences of his actions will occur if taken.

Those are all under the assumption that keeping one's life is the correct choice/morally right. Prove this.

>>766611

>there is nothing that says that it is incorrect to perform those actions. It is simply a statement of cause and effect,

That is all morality is.

The value judgement is placed upon the observer.

Whether he values his life or not.

>>766613
But the statements don't say anything about what the person should or shouldn't do, just what will happen if they do something. This is meaningless as anything other than a statement of fact. It has nothing to do with telling people how they should act.

>>766534
see
>>766616

>>766622
If the value judgement is placed on the observer then morality is subjective and there is no grounds on which to judge actions as right or wrong other than desire to perfrom an action. It makes morality arbitrary and meaningless.

>>766626

>But the statements don't say anything about what the person should or shouldn't do

That is up to the observer, but the action when taken what ever may be, will have consequences that occur objectively.

So if he values his life, he will not jump, if he does not, he will jump.

>>766643
A subjective morality is meaningless.

>>766648

Define meaningless.

>>766651
>I am an asshat

>>766656

No seriously, am genuinely interested, it just helps when we are trying to establish common ground.

>>766662
Meaningless: Having no meaning.

And, without a meaning, it is not something that can be discussed seriously.

>>766622
>>766613

Oh, dear. I don't think you understand my initial post. The examples you(?) provided don't contain any moral statements. They could be rephrased to say, "any person who wants to stay alive should not jump in front of a moving train." There's no moral judgment being made there.

If, on the other hand, I said, "human beings ought not jump in front of moving trains," I'm saying that there's something morally wrong about it, aside from self-preservation.

>>766668

Well, give me a example of "Meaning".

>>766671
Confirmed as asshat.

>>766679

Haters gonna hate.

But ill take your constant need to insult as your intellectual bankruptcy on the subject.

Thanks for playing.

>>766670

>"any person who wants to stay alive should not jump in front of a moving train." There's no moral judgment being made there.

If man values his life he will not jump, if he does, then he wont.

How he gets that value is up to him.

>>766670

FUCKING TROLLED

>>766685
I deal with your kind all the time. You think you're fucking brilliant asking for meanings. Language is a set of symbols for objects and concepts. Individually, words lack representative power, and only gain meaning when combined with other words. Anyone who fails to understand this doesn't deserve an answer to their questions.

>>766696
Subjectivity = meaningless.

are gangsters anarchists

>>766701

>You think you're fucking brilliant asking for meanings.

You sound mad, don't be mad.

It's fuck or walk kid.

>>766711
>It's fuck or walk kid.

Speak proper english or don't speak at all.

>>766705

Well to the agent it would have meaning.

>>766696

And I can as easily not value not raping people, and you can't say anything to show me I'm wrong.

Enjoy that nice, comfy bed...

>>766719
So, if it meant something to me, I could push you in front of a train and it would be right? Okay.

>>766716

Haterz still hating.

Haven't you left already?

>>766720

Indeed, but you would suffer the objective consequences of such a action.

Enjoy your cold showers.

>>766724

define "right"

Congrats guys, thread derailed.

>>766726
I'll take your lack of a proper responses and refusal to participate in this debate in a non-retarded manner as a sign that you dropped out of high school.

>>766737

>My face when you keep replying cos u mad.

>>766729

*sigh*

>>766729
Consequences? Like what? Having a parade thrown for me for ridding the world of your stupidity?

>>766744
You're an unfunny faggot? Huh. No surprise there.

>>766748

Haterz still hating.

>>766757
Derp. Hate is a great emotion to feel. Reminds you of how much the rest of the world deserves to be lit of fire.

>>766720

Titler approves of this post.

>>766753

>>766734

How about you inform yourself about the basic nomenclature before joining the debate motherfucker? That's someone who fucks their own mother, by the way.

>>766787
Brofist.

>>766787

How about you define your parameters before postulate such dribble.

>>766806
How about you learn what you're talking about before you start pretending to be an expert on the subject matter?

>>766815

>Can't refute a position.
>Be mad.
>Stay mad.

>>766734

It is not our job to help you understand 1-syllable words, nor their (truly obvious) connotative meanings in a particular context.

>>766819
>can't present a position to refute
>pretend to be an expert to mask own incompetence
>cry while masturbating
>drink own semen

This thread is shit and everyone in it is shit.

>>766832
Welcome to 4chan.

>>766826

>Hasn't read the thread properly.
>Can't refute the position that morality is subjective.
>Instead of disagreeing and moving on.
>Be mad.
>Stay mad.

>>766842
>continue responding to someone who you disagree with for no reason than because you want people to think you're smarter than someone else
>whine over the internet
>fail to understand basic concepts due to having dropped out of public school
>live in mom's basement until you're 46

>>766842
>>766826
>>766819

>use greentext to make snide and blatantly ad hominem attacks appear clever

>>766850

>>766853
>think you're witty for pointing out the obvious

>>766861

>obviously

>>766859

>>766870

>>766874

>>766884

>>766894

What's this? Did you two finally shut the fuck up? Or are you just out of witless retorts and funny pictures?

>>766932