/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15597197]

I used to like philosophy a lot but now I only can care about ethics. Gnoseology is almost completely irrelevant questions that end up being a semantic debate (specially the methaphisic part).
Methaphyisics is even worse, form the start, it allways was pointless and nonsensical retard speech.
An example of this is: Rationalists vs empiricists, subjetivism vs objetivism in gnoseology, predestination, free will, etc.
So talking about ethics: Do you think people just do what makes themselves happy, like Aristoteles said? (anglos saying his name is Aristotle, you are WRONG)

[Anonymous No.15597223]

Actually, his name is Ἀριστοτέλης, you retarded piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.15597235]

>>15597223
>Ἀριστοτέλης
Yes, exactly Aristoteles in roman letters. Fucking pleb.

[Anonymous No.15597311]

>>15597197
You should care about epistemology though as well as it ties into ethics.

[Anonymous No.15597378]

>>15597311
I used to care, but the more i went into it the less i cared. It is all discussing whether something is a belief or a reality, whether we can "falsify" or only "confirm", etc. It ends being reduced to semantics and all non-retards actully think the same deep inside (retards, on the other hand, believe in magic beliefs and fallacies).
Besides, we cant even prove logic to be right without using a circular argument.

[Anonymous No.15597434]

>>15597197
>Methaphyisics is even worse, form the start, it allways was pointless and nonsensical retard speech.
Peabrain alert

[Anonymous No.15597477]

>>15597434
Hume and all the late xix and early xx century philosophers are peabrains then, as opposed to you i am asuming... makes sense

[Anonymous No.15597498]

[Anonymous No.15597508]

>>15597498
hahaha she definitelly fucks him

[Anonymous No.15597832]

>>15597197
But anon, metaphysics is how you ground your ethical theory, unless you're a relativist or a nihilist.

[Anonymous No.15597862]

>>15597378
This. Though entertaining, most of philosophy is pure mental masturbation with no practical value.
Let's suppose that you could show that it impossible to know anything. How does that change anything? It is beyond a human's abilities to properly adapt their life to fit this new perspective. They will continue to interpret their subjective perceptions as knowledge, because humans can't function otherwise.

[Anonymous No.15597873]

>>15597477
>Hume and all the late xix and early xx century philosophers are peabrains
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15597874]

>>15597832
>unless you're a relativist or a nihilist.
Yep, I am a relativist. How could I ever get "ought" from what "is"? Definitelly not using metaphysics. You cant get any knowledge from metaphysics except if you make a religious-tier fallacy.

[Anonymous No.15597878]

>>15597197
you like to blah blah, blah blah

[Anonymous No.15597887]

>>15597873
Ok retard go read the loosers and believing in their retard fantasies then.
>>15597862
Thats my point. The "useful" part is around 15% of philosophy, and the majority is ethics, that is rather necesary to live than "useful", whatever that means, actually.

[Anonymous No.15597912]

>>15597197
Ethics is ultimately subjective, so there's no point in debating it. Metaphysics tells you about the ultimate nature of reality.

[Anonymous No.15597916]

>>15597878
>i have no clue what he said so i will write some random gibberish to show my low IQ
/lit/ in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.15597925]

>>15597862
I always thought this was a detrimental way of viewing philosophy. As simply a tool for “usefulness”. I dont necissarilly disagree, but then it is for arbitrary goals rather than any hope of universiality or perspective system building.

[Anonymous No.15597927]

>>15597912
Yes, tehre is no point in debating ethics, but ethics are useful unlike metaphisics. Therefor methaphysics cant be worth debating.

[Anonymous No.15597940]

>>15597925
How could it be detrimental? the main poitn of asking questions is getting knowledge, wich we can only get about real life. Even if you wanted to know the abstract knowledge that is not related to real life, you wouldnt be able.

[Anonymous No.15598023]

>>15597927
I find metaphysics useful because it elucidates the fundamental structure of the world we live in. That's kind of the whole point of studying philosophy in the first place.

[Anonymous No.15598065]

why is there a consensus that philosophy has ended/is exhausted? Most world-changing theories and sciences evolved out of philosophy, why should it be different in the future? You can't predict something that isn't there yet. It's like saying that most of pure mathematics or science is useless because it doesn't have any practical purpose. Metaphysics is useful in the sense that it provides different perspectives of the world from which you can extrapolate theories outside of the box of the scientific status quo.

[Anonymous No.15598107]

>>15598065
There is no such consensus, it just gets said a lot more in the 20th century by some philosophers, ones still doing philosophy, but everything always continues as it does and has in spite of that. For what it's worth there hasn't been a big shift in foundational theoretical physics since relativity and quantum, the most is string theory, while the foundations of the other sciences also haven't changed since about the turn of the 20th century, biology with Mendel and Darwin, chemistry once we discovered the form of the atom and understood chemical bonds. When people say philosophy has ended I can't see why they don't have the same feeling toward the sciences which haven't seen much change as of late either. There's always something big coming next but sometimes it takes a hundred years or more.

[Anonymous No.15598491]

>>15598023
>elucidates
does it really? you cant get to any objective conclusion, only express the way you feel about it

[Anonymous No.15598520]

>>15598065
>most of pure mathematics or science is useless because it doesn't have any practical purpose
but that's wrong. the only thing like that is quantum mechanics. And there you have the explanation

[Anonymous No.15598579]

>>15597197
Honestly ethics has always been the most fruitless part of philosophy for me. I find that ethics can only come from introspection into one's own desires and beliefs, and that any discussion comes down to a difference in pre-verbal feelings and actions. This is why abortion debates are always so boring. This is why the trolley problem is even a problem.
How do you have productive conversations about ethics? How do you even compare ethical systems without using another pre-rational ethical system? With metaphysics you can argue and refute, and while it may be in the abstract and unprovable, things can still be right and wrong if you subscribe to basic logic.

[Anonymous No.15598607]

>>15598491
No, I'm pretty sure things like spacetime and causality actually exist.

[Anonymous No.15598621]

>>15598579
Well, you can look for contradictions, and at least refute those who think their morals are objective, or that they have objective reasons to their morals (like in abortion debate). Gnoseology can do things alike, too, when having an argument in general, though, so it also has some value IF both parts agree on using logic as a basis.

[Anonymous No.15598629]

>>15598607
>causality
debunked by hume, kant, & co.
>spacetime
just a handy dimension that satisfies some physics equations. if you agree that this is real then you would have to be a modal realist, mathematical platonist, etc. but I suppose even those positions are not too "out there" for you.

[Anonymous No.15598633]

>>15598607
>I'm pretty sure
That's just a feeling, you see?
Try to define "exist". As i told you, its all retard speech and serves no pursose

[Anonymous No.15598644]

>>15598621
if a moral system has contradictions then it fails at the start. if you're pointing out contradictions in the person's words and their actions, that's hypocrisy but doesn't add to the truth/falsity of their words.
>and at least refute those who think their morals are objective, or that they have objective reasons to their morals
morality is objective, though

[Anonymous No.15598661]

>>15597874
Are you sure you care about ethics then? I think you just don't care about any philosophy. Just say that.

[Anonymous No.15598668]

>>15598644
I was talking about contradictions in words. Most people make them.
And no, morality (understood as 'was is ought to be done') cant be objective.

[Anonymous No.15598686]

>>15598661
I care about it enough to understand people's actions, refute moral speech contradictions and defend myself with arguments against those who claim to have objective morals they want to impose.

[Anonymous No.15598699]

>>15598686
What do you mean, do you stand around like a logical positivist or Wittgenstein and wait for people to say things and then you leap on them to apply therapy and tell them why their moral speech is meaningless or something?

[Anonymous No.15598716]

>>15598629
>debunked by hume, kant, & co.
Wrong. How do you even define what an "observation" is without causality?

>just a handy dimension that satisfies some physics equations. if you agree that this is real then you would have to be a modal realist, mathematical platonist, etc.
Wrong. Geometry is not arithmetic. Arithmetic is a fiction that assumes the existence of discrete, countable objects, which we have no evidence of in reality. Geometry is simply a language for describing part-whole relations, and is fully consistent with nominalism.

[Anonymous No.15598724]

>>15598607
lmao then you're not very good at metaphysics are you

[Anonymous No.15598726]

>>15598633
>Try to define "exist"
Anything that is spatiotemporally locatable.

[Anonymous No.15598738]

>>15598724
Nice projection.

[Anonymous No.15598739]

>>15598579
maybe because ethics isn't a tool to solve some banal question but actually philosophical?

[Anonymous No.15598747]

>>15598739
You're not doing ethics, you're doing 'philosophical analysis' and 'therapy' that the positivists and Wittgenstein respectively thought was the only function of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15598755]

>>15598747
that's stupid and ignores history.

[Anonymous No.15598758]

>>15598739
Ethics is not itself philosophy. Moral philosophy is the study of the grounds underlying ethical propositions.

[Anonymous No.15598793]

>>15598726
so a concept doent exist and prover yourself wrong. based

[Anonymous No.15598802]

>>15598793
Can someone translate into English?

[Anonymous No.15598876]

>>15598699
not precisely. But when they directly try to deduce thigns like "abortion good cause women die if done illegaly", i do. They are retarded enought to not see the real quetion is whether we value more the lfe of the baby or the will of the mother

[Anonymous No.15598883]

>>15598802
you cant be sure of the existance of those thing you mentioned according to your own definition of existance

[Anonymous No.15598889]

>>15598755
I agree completely, I'm not pro-positivist or pro-Wittgenstein. Just helping OP understand that they're not doing ethics.

[Anonymous No.15599011]

>>15598747>>15598889
that was not me
t. op (i was the first reply)

[Anonymous No.15599018]

>>15597197
shitty little dog

[Anonymous No.15599032]

>>15599018
stfu incel

[Anonymous No.15599040]

>>15598668
>And no, morality (understood as 'was is ought to be done') cant be objective.
This is so obviously false. You are understanding it as "what (I think) ought to be done". The ethical is by definition the universal — as in it applies to everyone everywhere — otherwise you subscribe to relativism, which isn't ethics, but a denial of it.

[Anonymous No.15599085]

>>15599032
get lost doglet

[Anonymous No.15599089]

>>15599040
Oh the methaphysical retard again. Your claims are only based in "i believe so". Go be a retard somewhere else.
I dont believe in universal ethics so i cant say peopel are wrong about their arguments? dumbass

[Anonymous No.15599092]

>>15599085
anon...

[Anonymous No.15599102]

>>15599085
she already moved to horses

[Anonymous No.15599107]

>>15599092
i like big dogs and i cannot lie

[Anonymous No.15599120]

>>15599107
you cant beat pussies tho

[Anonymous No.15599124]

>>15597508
eww

[Anonymous No.15599132]

>>15599124

[Anonymous No.15599155]

>>15599120
hmmm delicious

[Anonymous No.15599174]

>>15599120
Based

[Anonymous No.15599204]

>>15598883
Still not following you.

[Anonymous No.15599223]

>>15599089
Kek, what a maroon

[Anonymous No.15599634]

>>15597197
>a set of feelings and cultural memes that arose because they very obviously had functional value in our evolution has any philosophical value whatsoever

[Anonymous No.15599935]

>>15597862
>>15597887
>>15597925
What is practical value? What is useful?

[Anonymous No.15599974]

>>15597197
>reads philosophy a month
>thinks metaphysics and gnoseology are pseudo-questions and problems of language
>becomes a nihilist/existencialist
>becomes a stirnerite
>becomes a humean
>becomes a kantian

10 years later

>becomes a radical neo-thomist

[Anonymous No.15599989]

>>15597508

[Anonymous No.15600507]

>>15599935
evolutionary advantage
>>15599634
based. however, my question was if happiness is the (only) thing we pursuit, or if we just pursuit random things

[Anonymous No.15600512]

>>15599989
i want to be her dog :((

[Anonymous No.15600735]

>>15600512

[Anonymous No.15601228]

>>15600735
>Have you ever seen like a really good looking girl, really nicely dressed, and she’s walking down the street with her dog, right? And like her dog is … intimate with her body, and she likes him and everything. Basically, it’s the idea of I want to unite with your body. I don’t wanna talk about literature with you or judge you as a person. I wanna dog you.

[Anonymous No.15601500]

>>15601228
based ig

[Anonymous No.15602500]

>>15597874
Based and Humepilled.