/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11815601]

Why do people still discuss ethics when he solved it 2500 years ago?

[Anonymous No.11815635]

The game gets boring after awhile

[Anonymous No.11815643]

desire for knowledge

[Anonymous No.11815654]

>>11815601
ethics are clearly a meme, we have feelings like empathy and fairness and purpose and etc. we evolved these for various reasons. In practice these impulses will contradict each other. YOu cant elaborate them out into a system, they are just a set of impulses that explain our behavior and why we feel how we do. At present it is too complicated to make sense of everything going on in this subject, but to deny that this is how it works is to be a Creationist of some sort, or to meme about free will, the transcendent, God, etc.

[Anonymous No.11815674]

>>11815654

[Anonymous No.11815710]

>>11815654
science is clearly a meme, we have observations like sight and sound and proprioception and etc. we evolved these for various reasons. In practice these impulses will contradict each other. YOu cant elaborate them out into a system, they are just a set of impulses that explain our behavior and why we feel how we do. At present it is too complicated to make sense of everything going on in this subject, but to deny that this is how it works is to be a Creationist of some sort, or to meme about free will, the transcendent, God, etc.

[Anonymous No.11815727]

>>11815710
Yeah we can go further if we like 'we dont know if we know anything'. That is the most rigorous formulation.

If we accept that the outside world has laws, which is indeed an arbitrarily reached assumption, then the perspective I outline there is the most accurate one.

also your analogy works only in the first sentence, and then doesnt make any sense after that.

inb4 a bunch of deranged Hegelians and post-structuralists come in and blather actual schizophrenia while accusing me of being babby's first

[Anonymous No.11815750]

>>11815601
what is a virtue?

[Anonymous No.11815834]

>>11815654
>At present it is too complicated to make sense of everything going on in this subject, but to deny that this is how it works is to be a Creationist of some sort, or to meme about free will, the transcendent, God, etc.

[Anonymous No.11815842]

>>11815654
this is correct, yudkowsky is correct

[Anonymous No.11815843]

>>11815654

[Anonymous No.11815854]

>>11815674
>>11815834
>>11815843
i like the absolute lack of ability to argue with the post

[Anonymous No.11815873]

>>11815854
It’s because it’s been done before

[Anonymous No.11815882]

>>11815873
I have never seen anybody refute that without going into extremely tangled systems of idealism with absolutely no justification for themselves, just wildly asserting that things are the case, that structures of reality exist, etc. A lot of very intelligent people have done this so dumbasses affect some kind of association to Heidegger or Deleuze or someone because they think it gives them cultural capital.

I understand the impulse to bring back the old absolute categories, but the only justifiable way to do it is through revealed religion, that is to say faith. That is consistent, it's not trying to reason into what cannot be reasoned into, it just says this has been handed down, and the world remains mysterious but these are the precepts given to us.

[Anonymous No.11816202]

>>11815882
>I had nevurrrr seen anyone do dis unless <insert name here>.

Fuck off namedropper. Some of us don’t read philosophy and don’t take it as seriously as you do

[Anonymous No.11816212]

>>11815727
You have to overcome nihilism. Become a nietzschean

[Anonymous No.11816215]

>>11815601
>dude just do the thing you would do if you were they type of person who did the right thing lmao

[Anonymous No.11816220]

>>11815654
And yet to discount them may be anti-evolutionary and catastrophic

[Anonymous No.11816227]

>>11816202
This really isnt helping your argument bud

[Anonymous No.11817428]

>>11815654
A highly rational being decides to torture you because they feel like it. Is there anything true you could say to convince them to stop? If not, then why should they stop?

[Anonymous No.11817527]

>>11815654
>We don't have the answers yet
>Therefore we should rule out all attempts to address the problem

[Anonymous No.11817823]

>>11815854
>>11815882
>>11816227
>>11815654
>reality is just a bunch of substrates bumping into each other all the time lmao

[Anonymous No.11817830]

Why do people still discuss ethics when it's already solved?

[Anonymous No.11818154]

>>11815727
Accepting that the outside world has laws isn't arbitrary.
You don't understand the analogy because you don't understand how science develops and how, without appeal to some kind of benefit, there's no reason to do it.
By throwing out free will, you also toss out the ability to choose to do science or to choose a hypothesis to pursue. Talk of method becomes meaningless because it's a naturally arising result of physical processes with no room for goal-directed behavior.

[Anonymous No.11818175]

>>11815654
What makes us feel certain emotions is dependant on our values.

[Anonymous No.11818192]

>>11815882
>through revealed religion, that is to say faith
>implying God's existence is a matter of faith, not of fact

[Anonymous No.11818317]

>>11815654
>evolutionary psychology