[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 82 KB, 343x427, thinking_man.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1342956 No.1342956 [Reply] [Original]

I don't see rightness or wrongness in anything. Only things that are object are the things we can sense. Sure that guy was murdered, but I don't see any wrongness in his murder. Only his cold, empty flesh.

Am I a sociopath?

Or simply a philosopher?

>> No.1342972

nah, you're just a teenage faggot.


Enough philosophers and scientists have proven that the senses aren't always trustworthy, too.

>> No.1342973

You are a famous 'intro to philosophy' student argument

you can't see 'wrong', so you question its existence

>> No.1342978

You're a person who tries to use philosophy to justify your own feelings. Thus, you are Ayn Rand.

But hey, at least you're a logically consistent person who doesn't believe in anything metaphysical.

>> No.1342988

CONGRATULATIONS

YOU ARE A META-ETHICAL NIHILIST, JUST LIKE ME

We're pretty cool, you'll like it, I promise.

>> No.1342992

>>1342956
>I don't see any wrongness in his murder

You have a position but not an argument to support it. That makes you a D+ philosopher. C- if you summarize something well.

>> No.1342998

>>1342988
but it's pretty hard to be cool when you're 16 years old.

>> No.1343000

>>1342992
He's just being modern. Backing statements with argumentation is very 19th-century.

>> No.1343003

Yeah, i mean, fuck empathy right? Metaphysics is useless anyways, serves no practicality at all

>> No.1343006
File: 63 KB, 468x240, 1041_11.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1343006

Nah, you just believe in evolution. Pic related

>> No.1343008
File: 833 KB, 350x197, 1290739096599.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1343008

>>1342998

>> No.1343012
File: 37 KB, 468x240, 1041_12.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1343012

>>1343006
and this one

>> No.1343015

Maybe you just didn't like the guy who was murdered.

>> No.1343016

>>1343000
You're thinking of postmodern

>> No.1343017

>>1343003
Empathy is distinct from inherent wrongness. I have empathy for a lot of people, but there are some people I hate and would genuinely not mind seeing die.

I agree with OP. I certainly have feelings for people and opinions about things, but they're arbitrary values I place on things, not remotely empirical.

>> No.1343020

>>1342973
>>1342978
>>1342992
I mean, we can only be sure things that exist because we perceive them, right? How can we see wrongness?

>> No.1343021

>>1343006

I just died a little inside

>> No.1343024

>>1343020

With the intellect

>> No.1343028

>>1343024
Elaborate.

>> No.1343029

>>1343024
What is intellect?

>> No.1343030

>>1343006
>>1343012
Jack Chick?

>> No.1343031

>>1343020
People often experience a visceral revulsion to "wrong" acts and a "warm" feeling with good acts. This could be construed as a perception of right and wrong, depending on your ethical theory.

>> No.1343034

>>1343031
Or it could be conditioning.

>> No.1343036

I think if we go way back we can see why we evolved this way. People who went on killing each other did not survive, while those that worked together and helped each other out did.

>> No.1343037

>>1343028
>I mean, we can only be sure things that exist because we perceive them, right

I was speaking loosely and the problem is here. I know electrons exist, but I've never perceived them. I defer to experts. I know the center of mass of the solar system exists, but I've never bothered to calculate it. This sort of thinking is what I meant by perceiving with the intellect. It's not actual perception, though. It's another method of knowing which things exist and which don't.

The same sort of thing will get you the moral law. I leave it as an exercise for the reader.

>> No.1343039

>>1343031
Here, however, morals are subject to one's personal feelings, and universal morals are an absolute impossibility, unless there's something else underlying what's right and wrong.

>> No.1343040
File: 67 KB, 468x240, 1041_13.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1343040

>>1343030
Yes. I was thinking of trolling /sci/ with this.

>> No.1343042

>>1343029
>>1343028
The reasoning faculty of man through which he can gain insight, and which allows him to categorize objects into classes. "big and small" "round and not-round" etc etc. We can, if we so choose, assign "right and wrong" as categories assigned by the intellect as well, though we still have not settled on the criteria for each category.

>> No.1343046

>>1343040
They're so hilarious. I love how he always makes those who aren't Christians into huge dicks.

>> No.1343051

>>1343037
>>the same sort of thing will get you the moral law.

Certainly not! Imperceptible particles such as electrons have an impact on the real, physical world which is measurable. Morality, if they are imperceptible in the same way, would have to somehow aggregate into something measurable!

>> No.1343052

>>1343039
Unless we claim some underlying reason for the revulsion and "warm" feelings which can be generalized sufficiently, such that only a relatively small minority dissent and we can disregard them as outliers ie "insane".

Second even if it were subjective that doesn't mean the morality doesn't exist, just that what we believe is wrong is a personal question. We can still fight for what's "good" and oppose "evil" so long as we take personal responsibility for it. It even allows for system of moral argumentation based on visceral reaction instead of a ridiculous deductive reasoning basis.

>> No.1343054

>>1343051
>Imperceptible particles such as electrons have an impact on the real, physical world which is measurable.

Oh, you prick. The intellect is what figures out true mathematical expressions, then. These are abstract objects. The same sort of thing will get you the moral law. I leave it as an exercise for the reader.

>> No.1343058

>>1343051
Of course morality does, just declare that which is wrong that which moves the populace to oppose it, and that which is good that which moves the populace to celebrate it.

Note this criteria is not based on some stated opinion, but on actually being moved to act.

Of course relativism still holds, but morality becomes a measurable force.

>> No.1343059

>>1343054
I'm a prick? Particles have an impact on the physical world, "morals" do not. So how do we perceive morals?

>> No.1343061

>>1343059

I just told you. With the same faculty that perceives mathematical objects, which have no impact on the world.

>> No.1343062

>>1343052
So you would just say OP is "insane", then?

>> No.1343063

>>1343054
Scientists all agree on the existence of electrons, however. There is enormous dissent among moral law, no consensus. Shouldn't that indicate that the two examples are dissimilar?

>> No.1343064

>>1343058
This isn't really helpful to your cause. I certainly believe that people have morals and act on them, but that is purely speculative and their own opinion--it does not demonstrate any kind of inherent rightness or wrongness in any action beyond what the actor feels. If you agree, we have nothing to discuss.

>> No.1343065

>>1343051
>Morality, if they are imperceptible in the same way, would have to somehow aggregate into something measurable!

Precisely. But why do only things measurable in that way exist or have objective reality?

Have you ever read Kant?

>> No.1343067

>>1343059
Actually he does have a point, all perception of atoms and subatomic particles is done within a mathematical schema. Positing the existence of the objects based on the mathematical language-game is really a metaphysical leap of faith, well not a leap, but a hop. Its a useful little assumption to make, unlike other matters of faith.

>> No.1343068

>>1343031
I like how non-christian don't know ANYTHING about christian stuff. "What is this "Jesus" you're talking about?"

So, actually adding something...
>>1343051
Then what do you call the civil code? The penal system? Lawyers? those are measurable producto of our morality system. What separates kids form men is the belief that construed equals fake. It's not, and if you don't realize that, then you have a serious case of the Snowflake Syndrome.

>> No.1343071

OP here, this was meant to be a troll thread.

Oh well

>> No.1343072

>>1343071

lol

>> No.1343073

>>1343061
Mathematics is a logical necessity. Are you claiming that the inherent rightness and wrongness are logical necessities?

>> No.1343074

>>1343017

The good and bad is difficult to balance isn't it.

>> No.1343076

>>1343073

Yes (duh)

>> No.1343078

>>1343071
probably not OP

>> No.1343079
File: 130 KB, 464x995, evolution.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1343079

>>1343071
I just wanted to Chickspam (that should totally be a thing) but got interested. Oh well.

>> No.1343084

>>1343076
Present a logical proof proving whether any situation of your choice is inherently right or wrong. If you can do that, I'll drop my ideas on the spot.

>> No.1343087

>>1343084

Sure thing, boss. It'll be ready in 10 minutes or so.

>> No.1343089

>>1343079

But... I thought the artist was a white supremacist?

>> No.1343091

>>1343087
I am a patient motherfucker, so you better not be trollin me

>> No.1343093

I see a bunch of totalizing queefs 'round here.


Read some Levinas, bros.

>> No.1343094

I always liked the ethical theory that
"X is bad" is something akin to saying "I dislike X and you should too". Not just an expression of distaste, but one that carries coercive force by means of the inherent social instincts of man (the same instincts that lead to the awesomeness of peer pressure). Because of that coercive part, there is an aspect of morality that is dependent upon social interaction, and which is dynamic, as though it should be able to, in a vacuum, come to some equilibrium state.

>> No.1343096

>>1343078
I actually am OP, my Intro to Ethics class is wrapping up and I felt like trolling.

Do you think saying: "Or simply a philosopher" is anything but a troll post?

>> No.1343098

>>1343094
That is exactly how I view it too.

>> No.1343099

>>1343096
Thought it was supposed to be ironic.

>> No.1343107

Where other men blindly follow the truth, remember - nothing is true.

Where other men are limited by morality or law, remember - everthing is permitted.

>> No.1343108

>>1343096
You should realize we do like talking about shit like this... Now troll /sci/ about proving morality with science, that's fun.

>> No.1343109

>>1343089
You're fine as long as you side with Protestant God
He hates spics cuz they're catholics, not their skin. You CHOOSE to be a heathen.

>> No.1343117

BEHOLD. A simple, logical proof that murder, killing and suicide are Wrong.
===
going fast, so some of my (from x,y,z) might be off
===
0. I can conceive of an infinitely perfect being (God)
1. It has every perfection
2. Existence is a perfection
3. God exists (from 1, 2, 3)
===
4. Omnibenevolence and omnipotence and omniscience are perfections
5. God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent and omniscient (from 1,2,4)
6. If God were omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he would only create the best of all possible worlds.
7. This is the best of all possible worlds (from 3,6)
===
8. The best world is the one which yields the greatest variety of phenomena governed by the simplest set of laws.
9. An agent perceiving a phenomenon is in itself another phenomenon. An abundance of agents is a simple way to maximize phenomena.
10. Suicide, murder and killing lower the number of phenomena that exist.
11. Suicide, murder and killing are the opposite of God's will, which is to maximize phenomena (from 8).
12. God is omniscient and omnibenevolent and omnipotent (from 5), so he would only will what is Good.
13. Something contrary to God's will is the opposite of Good, that is, Evil or Wrong.
14. Suicide, murder and killing have an affect that is contrary to God's will (from 11)
15. Suicide, murder and killing are wrong (from 13,14)

>> No.1343121

>>1343094
emotivism is I believe the term you are looking for

>> No.1343124

>>1343117
>1. It has every perfection
>2. Existence is a perfection
stoppedreadingthere.jpg

>> No.1343125

>>1343117
first part fails existence is not a predicate

second part fails omnipotence is logically inconsistent

third part fails for assuming agency is something meaningful in itself and not just a mechanistic epiphenomenon of a complex system.

>> No.1343126

>>1343117
>>Premises 0-3

I seriously cannot believe I waited that long for that garbage. I realize you're a troll, but I have to do this.

1. You can conceive of God
2. It has every perfection
3. Existence is a perfection
4. Therefore, I can conceive of a being that exists with every perfection, not THIS BEING EXISTS BECAUSE I CONCEIVE OF IT!!!! LOL

>> No.1343127

>>1343117
Descartes
Leibniz
Divine Command Theory

I'm not sure using a list of rationalist arguments is going to cut it with this crowd, but good progression

If they weren't just going to stubbornly deny the things you can't empirically prove I'd say you're on a good track

>> No.1343128

>>1343117
>4. Omnibenevolence and omnipotence and omniscience are perfections
>5. God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent and omniscient (from 1,2,4)
>6. If God were omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he would only create the best of all possible worlds.
>7. This is the best of all possible worlds (from 3,6)

Panglossfag detected

>> No.1343129

>>1343127
nice try, samefag

>> No.1343130

>>1343108
there was a NPR special on that a couple weeks ago

>> No.1343131

>>1343126
You cannot conceive of a nonexistent existent thing, anymore than a round square.

>> No.1343133

>>1343109

But Protestants are heretics who make shit up as they go along... they're practically liberals.

>> No.1343134

>>1343129
Why would I point out where all the arguments came from if I were talking about something "I" was supposed to have come up with myself
Damn you people think it's so impossible that other people see things differently from you when you're only just scratching the surface of ethical theories

>> No.1343138

>>1343127

Thank you for realizing and appreciating :3.

>>1343128

Deal with it.

>>1343126

Existence is special. If you can realize intellectually that something necessarily exists, then it does exist. This is different from conceiving that if something existed, it would be blue.

>>1343125

Existence is a predicate. In some contexts it gets type shifted to be a second order property, but it seems fairly clear to me that in simple contexts it acts as a first order property:

That man runs
That man exists

Omnipotence is logically consistent if God is prior to the eternal truths.

Agency is above mechanism because this increases the number of phenomena. Actually, my argument still runs if experience is an epiphenomena.

>> No.1343139

>>1343131
I was being generous and granting him that "perfection" is both non-arbitrary and non-contradictory. There isn't enough time in the year to point out everything wrong with this argument.

>> No.1343140
File: 15 KB, 441x227, 0082_17.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1343140

>>1343133
Mr. Chick begs to differ

>> No.1343141

>>1343138
>>Existence is special. If you can realize intellectually that something necessarily exists, then it does exist. This is different from conceiving that if something existed, it would be blue.

But you didn't prove something NECESSARILY existed, your first premise was you could CONCEIVE of it. Because you can conceive of it does not NECESSITATE it.

>> No.1343143

>>1343139
Actually you can do it pretty quickly, just cite all the analysis done on the ontological proof over the last millennium or so.

>> No.1343146

>>1343141

Yes, my conception does necessitate it. Evidently you missed premise (1).

0. I can conceive of an infinitely perfect being (God)
***1. It has every perfection***
2. Existence is a perfection

1 & 2 get us: it exists.

>> No.1343150 [DELETED] 

>>1343127
hideous, hideous samefag

Just because can perceive a perfect being, doesn't mean it exists. If so, the perfect being I conceive gives me ice cream every night.

I just got trolled.

>>1343134
nice try

>> No.1343152
File: 34 KB, 290x400, Leibniz_4..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1343152

btw

>mfw modern philistines can't grasp basic logic and vocabulary

>> No.1343153

>You cannot conceive of a nonexistent existent thing, anymore than a round square.

Who needs to conceive something if you can just put into writing? Let some other asshole think about it. And hey, if he succeeds, we will become a Bodhisattva.

>> No.1343154

>>1343146
1. I can conceive of it.
2. It has every perfection (in my conception of it.)

How does your conception suddenly translate into reality?

>> No.1343156
File: 20 KB, 343x400, descartes_003.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1343156

Smug and brilliant rationalists all up in this bitch

>> No.1343157

>>1343154

Because the conception leads to the realization that the object has the property of existing.

Oh, you guise. You're only going to refute the ontological argument once you actually understand it.

>> No.1343158
File: 44 KB, 350x432, perception-descartes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1343158

>fuckin' miracles

>> No.1343160

If we can never fully glimpse a true form because our senses are flawed, then why observe at all?

>> No.1343161
File: 35 KB, 418x442, Descartes-reflex.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1343161

>your face when God gave us sensory perception because He wants us to live long, healthy lives

>> No.1343163

>>1343157
I understand it fine.

>>Because the conception leads to the realization that the object has the property of existing.

But remember, these perfections are hypotheticals that exist in your conception. Now, I'll agree with the logic that if something is perfect, and existence is a perfection, then it exists. However, if you conceive of such a thing, and you prove existence is a perfection, you still have to prove that your ORIGINAL conception is a reflection of reality. Otherwise, I could use this argument.

1. I am imagining a thing.
2. By a being a thing, it is not nothing.
3. Therefore, in my conception, it must exist.
4. It really exists.

>> No.1343164

1 - God exits (from 2)
2 - God exits (from 1)
Therefore I fucked you're mother.

>> No.1343165

>>1343160

You've got a good point. The intellect is a more reliable way to get at eternal truth. Disembodied thought sounds like a good way to go! However, keep in mind the simple, logical proof that suicide is wrong (earlier in thread). Also, you can use your time here on Earth to prepare your mind's ability to contemplate a priori truth (once you'r disembodied you can't communicate with any agent other than God).

>> No.1343167
File: 135 KB, 660x523, Ant_head_closeup.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1343167

>>1343161
>my face when organisms developed sensory perception because they were constantly being bombarded with waves and particles.

>> No.1343171

>>1343164
>God exits
wat

>> No.1343172

>>1343163

Parody proof? It's shit.

(4) seems to be implicitly saying "it exists outside of my conception", but you have no reason to say this. All you've got is (3).

>you still have to prove that your ORIGINAL conception is a reflection of reality.

No, this appears nowhere in the argument and is not what conception is. Conception in this case is just grasping a concept and realizing that there is no contradiction in it. It's all a priori, broheim.

>> No.1343173

>>1343164
It's okay if you fuck her mother. Remember, this is the best of all possible worlds

>> No.1343175
File: 57 KB, 478x373, refract.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1343175

>>1343167
>mfw the Brutes don't have minds and thus don't have sense perception strictly speaking

>> No.1343176

>>1343173

Thank you! You're the quickest student itt.

>> No.1343178

>>1343172
>>) seems to be implicitly saying "it exists outside of my conception", but you have no reason to say this. All you've got is (3).

That is exactly what I'm saying, because your argument takes the same form. I know you'll resist this, but consider:

I imagine an object with property A. I realize that property A would necessitate existence. Therefore, I realize that this object with property A exists. However, I still have to show there IS an object with property A to begin with, otherwise you only have a hypothetical.

>> No.1343179

>>1343175

Your definition of a mind is far too discriminatory.

>> No.1343184

>>1343178
>Therefore, I realize that this object with property A exists

This doesn't follow. You need to conceive that A exists rather than A would have a property that requires existence. I'll show you an argument where the conclusion follows from the premises (consider it a worked example):

0. I can conceive of an infinitely perfect being (God)
1. It has every perfection
2. Existence is a perfection
3. God exists (from 1, 2, 3)

>> No.1343187

>>1343179

Nah bro. Something has a mind iff its physical body is unified with an indivisible bit of the immaterial substance. ants don't got this.

>> No.1343189

If God is perfect and He created all of existence, He must have caused the Big Bang. Thus all resulting atomic and chemical reactions that follow are bound by the laws of physics He designed and are fulfilling His will by their natural continuation through time.

Therefore suicide is not a sin, because God willed it by setting all the necessary elements in place through the chain of events He initiated. Everything you think and feel are extensions of His vision, including your ability to conceive Him, yourself and your complete lack of agency.

Do it. Do it now.

>> No.1343194

>>1343189
>Therefore suicide is not a sin, because God willed it by setting all the necessary elements in place through the chain of events He initiated. Everything you think and feel are extensions of His vision, including your ability to conceive Him, yourself and your complete lack of agency.

Close, but no cigar. God gave us an infinitely free will that allows us to overcome mechanical causes. Part of the best possible world is that it is one where people can have the ability to make good choices and be rewarded for them in Heaven.

>> No.1343197

>>1343189
That assumes the nonexistence of some transcendental moral substance that is the soul, capable of acting with purpose but outside of causality. But if we allow this thing, this soul, to have some existence and to work its subtle magic upon those physical and chemical processes, then well all sorts of craziness breaks forth.

>> No.1343200

>>1343184
>>This doesn't follow. You need to conceive that A exists rather than A would have a property that requires existence.

Your property is perfection and it requires existence. You're using the same form as me, just lumping "perfect being" as one thing and claiming it's not a property.

>> No.1343206
File: 10 KB, 122x127, yay.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1343206

>MFW my fiancee was raped and disemboweled, then was enslaved and got butt-ugly doing menial work, but this still is the best of all possible worlds

>> No.1343209 [DELETED] 

>>1343197

It operates on the assumption that humans have no soul. If there is any soul, it is God's and His is the only soul in existence. The self-aware man is merely a mechanism.

>> No.1343216 [DELETED] 

>>1343209
why? if you assume the existence of an omnipotent god, we may as well just go all the way to Berkleyan idealism, and be thoughts in the mind of god. As thoughts in the mind of God there is no reason why we couldn't have free will.

>> No.1343218

>>1343206
Just imagine how much worse it could be. Like all that could have happened, and you could have stubbed your toe.

>> No.1343221

>>1343216

How could a thought operate independently of the consciousness, unless God were schizophrenic, and that would be an imperfection.

>> No.1343224

it's not a fundamental quality, but that doesn't make right and wrong meaningless. even his body isn't *fundamentally* real, only the quarks are, but that doesn't mean the word body is meaningless

>> No.1343226

>>1343200
I'll take the silence as meaning I just shut him down.

>> No.1343227

>>1343206

Don't forget the sliced-off ass cheek.

>> No.1343237

>>1343227
That was somebody else

>> No.1343271

>>1342956
a stupid atheist who has no morals
go have a gorilla rape you