/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12934673]

Is #nameTheTrait the most profound philosophical argument of our time?

[Anonymous No.12934748]

[Anonymous No.12934755]

>>12934673
>literally the golden rule for pseuds

[Anonymous No.12934763]

>>12934673
A lot of the things they call "traits" seem to be concepts, they say "the trait of 'being or having been human.'" But being human is not a "trait" in the biological sense of the word, it's just a categorization of a certain object family that has particular traits in common. Of course "being humans" is a characteristic of humans, but can I point to a human and say "THIS, here, is this human's 'trait of humanity'"? They even recognize that they lead themselves into contradictions, so they limit their use of language to obviate this (they designate certain linguistic reconstructions of the argument that are "invalid"). People with Ph.Ds did this? Actually?

[Anonymous No.12934784]

>>12934673
Ask yourself seems to be autistically obsessed with formal logic in a way that nobody else in the field of philosophy is. The main "argument"(it's really a meaningless truism) is literally "if you believe animals have moral value you can not believe they don't have moral value without making a contradiction".
As for the actual subtantive part of the argument found in the "dialogue tree", well it's not convincing to egoists, emotivists, moral nihilists, etc.

[Anonymous No.12934807]

>>12934673
>trait-equalizable

[Anonymous No.12934829]

>>12934763
>people with phds
No, a vegan YouTube channel.
>traits
He's stated that a trait is anything true if a given being. Human essence would apply here. He's stated that if someone points to this he will "reduce them to absurdity" by doing "shell morality" and positing a nonhuman race with the same experiences as humans and asking you if it's justifiable to kill them for food.

[Anonymous No.12934847]

>>12934829
The guy has a "brain trust" of multiple PhDs and other academics. Yet he seems incapable of creating a simple argument that doesn't overcomplicate the concept of non-contradiction to the point where you need a three page pdf file to explain it.

[Anonymous No.12934851]

>>12934829
I've never starved, but I could conceive of a scenario in which I could find it justifiable to kill another human for food, so I think I could better justify killing a non-human that has human-like experiences. Would he just say I'm a psychopath, or something?

[Anonymous No.12934896]

>>12934847
Exactly. All the first argument is saying is, "if you believe animals have moral value you cannot assert that they don't without contradicting yourself". Any other philosopher would take this for a given and just get on to the actual argument. It's actually funny seeing people attack this first argument because they dont understand it which gives AY an easy time to respond to objections since it's a literal fucking truism.
This guy is the personification of analytic philosophy autism tuned up to the highest degree.

[Anonymous No.12934908]

>>12934851
Yeah, he will "reduce you to absurdity", which is to say that he will say his feelings are hurt by the logical consequence of your morality.

[Anonymous No.12934955]

>>12934673
"If you assert that trait X grants moral value, you can't deny moral value to an object that contains trait x without contradicting yourself."
This argument basically makes the same point without any autism.

[Anonymous No.12934974]

>>12934908
An obsession with formal logic (in philosophy) usually masks a reactive, emotional mindset. See: Molyneux, Rand, Hoppe, and this guy I guess. "You're being illogical" means "I disagree with you."

[Anonymous No.12935023]

>I have reduced you to absurdity because you would turn off a computer running a universe simulation containing the minds of 100 pigs with human level intelligence for the sake of making 50 humans in the real world 40% happier. This cuts against basic human level inteligence simulated pig rights. Carnism debunked!

[Anonymous No.12935024]

So why can't humans just have non-equalizable traits?

[Anonymous No.12935030]

Animals don't have souls

[Anonymous No.12935042]

>>12935024
If a trait is "anything that's true of a given being," then "being an animal" is a trait necessarily common to both humans and nonhumans. That's what he seems to be getting at behind the facade of original jargon and bad writing.

[Anonymous No.12935076]

>>12935030
Correct. And neither do humans.

[Anonymous No.12935091]

>>12935042
No, p1 is: if you turn a human being into an animal and this new being retains moral value, then you can only deny that it has moral value by contradicting.
P2: your view affirms this
P3: therefore u can only deny animals have moral value by contradicting

ALL he's saying is if u think animals have value u can only think they don't have value by contradicting yourself. The actual substance is in the dialogue tree.

[Anonymous No.12935097]

#no

[Anonymous No.12935175]

>>12935091
>if you turn a human being into an animal

[Anonymous No.12935379]

>>12934673
It's far from the most elegant.
If you thought a film of someone shitting was the most profound photograph of our time, or a few random green and brown splashes of paint on a canvass was the most profound painting of our time, you'd be an idiot. So why consider it different with philosophy?
The most profound philosophical argument of our time is Borge's Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius, not because it clearly demonstrates any particular philosophical argument, but because it does so with a sublime sort of beauty which is capable of captivating the reader for years afterwards.

[Anonymous No.12936772]

>seeing AY and NTT on/lit
what a time to be alive

[Anonymous No.12936813]

SOCIAL CONTRACT TIME MOTHERFUCKER

[Anonymous No.12936842]

>>12934673
Was more evidence really needed to justify the claim that the analytical school (and Anglos in general) were a mistake? This is pure unbridled autism

[Anonymous No.12936979]

How can seperate entities have the same traits?

[Anonymous No.12937262]

>>12934673
So the point of the argument is to establish that turning a human into an animal would make them an animal? But that's a tautology.

[Anonymous No.12937349]

>>12934673
>#namethetrait
For the sake of the argument, being human. If you're going to cut me some bullshit about 'what is a human', then I'm going to treat you like a pig and then when you tell me where to stop, THAT'S the trait.
Otherwise, enjoy being internally consistent bacon.

[Anonymous No.12937369]

>>12934673