/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13567274]

Is there a philosopher that either supports or is against my beliefs?
>There isn't an objective morality, but one should still try to be beneficial to the world using his logic to determine what the appropriate response is to a situation, with aim to minimize pain and maximize happiness, even though these concepts are both up for interpretation
>There is a God but no book properly shows his message
>There is a God and still no objective morality
>One has control over what they decide to experience, as long as they take up the job of constantly observing and managing their thoughts. They can't Will the world into whatever they wish, but they CAN control what they themselves feel and think, which is the entirety of their perception of reality

[Anonymous No.13567364]

spinoza maybe

[Anonymous No.13567374]

>>13567274
Shebon Obonga

[Anonymous No.13567385]

>>13567274
stoicism

[Anonymous No.13567396]

>>13567364
this was my thought as well

[Anonymous No.13567403]

>>13567396
though the first bullet sounds like r.m. hare

[Anonymous No.13567407]

Your beliefs are pleb shit

[Anonymous No.13567414]

>>13567274
Nice blog how do I unsubscribe

[Anonymous No.13567416]

>>13567274
Why would you want to minimize pain? What else can make men who they are except it?

[Anonymous No.13567417]

>>13567385
it's not stoicism dumbass memer

[Anonymous No.13567459]

>>13567364
>>13567396
Spinoza seems like a cool dude. What work of his should I start with? Just his complete works? Is Descartes necessary prelim?
>>13567374
>try looking up what the fuck you just typed
>nothing
>change it to just Shebon
>find site of experimental electronic equipment that's like fucking cyborg futurist pesudo-sexual shit like mechanical crotch buzzers that light up when aroused
It's the future.
>>13567385
Read em. Influanced my philosophy much so. Meditations was great, Enchirdion was alright, pretty good. Is Letters From A Stoic a good work to continue with?
>>13567403
R.M Hare you say? Thanks, I'll check him out.
>>13567407
Yeah, that's why I want philosophers to argue against as well as for them.
>Not working around the clock to strengthen your opponents arguments
>>13567414
Not a blog thread. To call a 4chan post a blog post implies that it's long winded and related to personal life. I'm looking for authors.
>>13567416
Pain will come naturally. It is minimized in order for it to less often become overwhelming.
>>13567417
Don't just insult people randomly.

[Anonymous No.13567471]

>>13567417
Retard BTFO by based OP
>>13567459

[Anonymous No.13567475]

>>13567274
Your views are inconsistent and don’t make sense, so it’ll probably be hard.

[Anonymous No.13567477]

>>13567459
you want to read Ethics from spinoza, it explains pretty much his entire system. however, his complete works are not very long (around 1000 pages?) so if you'd like to, go for that.

and yeah, I would read some descartes first. meditations + discourse on method, and you'll be ready to go. both pretty short too.

[Anonymous No.13567478]

>>13567459
You ever read Discourses?

[Anonymous No.13567500]

>>13567475
I recognize that my philosophical belief system needs reworking.
>>13567477
Thank's dude. I'll check Ethics and early Descartes.
>>13567478
Epictetus? No, only enchirdion. I liked it enough to want to check his other works, though. I'll check it out. Thank's anon.

[Anonymous No.13567506]

>>13567500
>Epictetus? No, only enchirdion
Yeah. It's like an expanded version of the enchiridion which developed the ideas more thoroughly in a somewhat casual conversational tone

[Anonymous No.13567535]

>>13567274
Hume, except for
>using his logic to determine what the appropriate response
His whole point is that it's not a matter of logic but sentiment

[Anonymous No.13567561]

>>13567274
Sounds like nietzsche

[Anonymous No.13568500]

Bumping for a nice ethics general thread again.

[Anonymous No.13568524]

>>13567274
Kant
>things in themselves are unknowable and a variation of categorical imperative
>more liberal but kant was liberal

That being said I think you'd get more out of existentialism, kirkegaard seems to cover bottom 3 very well

Denying an objective reality is absolute hogwash tho. You do know that anon, don't you

[Anonymous No.13568556]

>>13567274
>There isn't an objective morality
>but one should aim to maximize happiness and minimize pain
that's not how it works buddy

[Anonymous No.13568783]

>>13567535
Hume looks good. Treatise On Human Nature seems quality. Thank's, anon.
>>13567561
Is Beyond Good And Evil a good place to start?
>>13568500
I wonder if an /eth/ general would work. Perhaps we should have some general thread where people can share their beliefs and get authors that are either for or against them.
>>13568524
Objective reality? Sure, but we'll never know it for certain. Yes, there's a reality, but we're limited to interpretations. Each persons own individual mind recreates for them their own reality using the materials present within reality.
>>13568556
Why not? There isn't an objective good or evil, yet it is still in the individuals best interest to cooperate and advance his fellow beings. It's as simple as the bundle of sticks analogy, However, there is no set rules for what or how to achieve happiness or avoid pain. One must use logic to determine how to steer events towards the least damaging outcomes. But what do I mean by "damaging." ?
I mean that which consumes time or thinking space. A person in pain is likely to be distracted by that pain, which is damaging to that persons thinking.
So, I guess if morality had to be objective, it'd be something like
>Actions which provide others with ability to think clearly
and
>Actions which prevent unwanted physical or mental intrusion on others
However, these two rules are, as with all systems of morality, flawed due to the diverse possibilities of situations.
Because of how diverse the amount of situations is, there cannot be a permanent objective morality. However, there can still be general guidelines which are discovered through observation. The object of observation here is, I believe this to be self evident, the benefit which comes from cooperation among beings. That which agrees to not trample, be trampled, or let others be trampled, is less likely to be trampled.

[Anonymous No.13569068]

>>13568783
In order for anything to have some semblance of reality it needs an objective framework by default.
You're confusing relativity w subjectivity. Humans are relative in that we can't understand objective reality yet it necessarily depends on it with a range of permissible knowledge or action of or within the objective world. I'm almost entirely rather comfortable denying subjectivity exists at all.

[Anonymous No.13569075]

>>13567274
Why care about helping others for that end in itself? Morality is wholly derived from self-benefit. We help others to benefit ourselves. We don't harm others so that we aren't harmed.

[Anonymous No.13569128]

>>13569068
Are you saying that anything experienced has basis in reality? Would it be safe to say that anything experienced or thought is created in the mind of the experience, creating it in reality? I can dig that.
>>13569075
Yes, morality is an extension of logic. That's why it's best to help others. It's the logical choice, for self-preservation and self-advancement.

[Anonymous No.13569139]

>>13569128
Then morality is objective, if there exists a path that produces the most self-benefit. But we don't always know that path in any given situation. If heaven is an ultimate benefit, and we get there by following the morals God gave us, then morality is also objective. Morality is objective whether or not God exists, but theistic morality is consistent and applies in every situation

[Anonymous No.13569148]

Aristotle minus the objective morality part

[Anonymous No.13569151]

>>13568783
An ethics general sort of thread has really worked in the past. It's a great place to channel a lot of the philosophy discussion that goes on here and irritates some of the pure fiction people. If you check the archives there are at least a few ethics general sort of threads I recall. There was a decent amount of MacIntyre/Virtue Ethics posting done here in the past.

[Anonymous No.13569228]

>>13569139
Logical morality would imply instead a changing, evolving morality that differs from situation to situation. There is only the objectivity of likelihood. It is more likely to be in detriment when giving detriment to others. Perhaps, though, that as a rule does in fact imply some objectivity to morality. How about this, as a single objective rule for morality;
>Any action preformed creates more instances of that action occurring, therefor increasing the likelihood of it occurring to yourself
>Therefor, don't do things you wouldn't want done to yourself
Would this be an example of an objective morality?
>>13569148
I've wanted to read him for a while. His works kinda go above my head though. Compare him to even the german idealists and he's a tough cookie. Maybe I'm a brainlet, but whenever I pick up an Aristotle book I swear I feel some physical magical power coming from it. Seriously, pick up and hold a copy of Metaphysics.
>>13569151
What were the rules for the thread? Was it just discussing ethics?

[Anonymous No.13569255]

>>13569228
No that isn't an example of objective morality. If you find a wallet and no one is around to see, you could steal it easily and benefit greatly. This doesn't really increase the chance that your wallet will be stolen. Sometimes this rule applies, such as when you punch someone in the face. But not all situations are that simple. Religious morals are constant, though. If only you always remember what they are, and apply them, then you will be morally perfect, since you will be perfectly rewarded in Heaven. These moral laws also tend to benefit you in this life

[Anonymous No.13569300]

>>13568783
>Why not?
Because, once fully spellt out, this:
>There isn't an objective good or evil, yet it is still in the individuals best interest to cooperate and advance his fellow beings.
becomes this:
>There isn't an objective good or evil, yet still it is objectively good for individuals to cooperate and advance their fellow beings

[Anonymous No.13569390]

>>13569255
>Religious morals are constant, though.
That depends on the religion, don't it? Discordia is technically a religion and it's rules are always changing.
> If only you always remember what they are, and apply them, then you will be morally perfect,
You're only being morally perfect within that specific ruleset of morality. If you were to compare a man who's perfectly followed one religious teaching, he'd be out of line with the others.

Surely blind faith in religious texts isn't the answer to living a moral life. Consider that even if a book is the word of god, it is still up to the reader to determine what the moralistic meaning is. Mortals are flawed, as you know. How can a man be sure that he actually understands the moral code presented in a text? Should he simply trust his instinct? What if this leads some followers to preform different actions? Would they all be perfectly moral, if they perfectly followed their interpretation of a religious text?

Or should a priest of the religion be consulted? Are not priests, unfortunately, subject to the same mortal flaws?

[Anonymous No.13569444]

>>13569390
A perfect Christian would do better than perfect members of other faiths, even if you allow the possibility that all religions are equally likely. Even the Quran (2:62) affirms Christianity. But Christianity is totally exclusive and in my opinion there are better arguments for its validity than other religions

[Anonymous No.13569453]

Reminds me of Schopenhauer, but I never really read him much. Or maybe Zapffe. Yeah, it's closer to Zapffe.

[Anonymous No.13569510]

>>13567274
Why does the average 4chan user both think they are special and superior to all others, and also desperately grasp for a daddy figure to latch onto? I see the way you guys talk about Kaczynski, Peterson and Marx and I really can't imagine you guys not having daddy issues.

[Anonymous No.13569538]

>>13569444
Your trips entice me to agree. But, are we still not limited to our interpretation of Christs words? How can we know that we are actually properly enacting his will? Surely an English translation would not suffice, to start. There would most certainly be discrepancies between translations.

I do actually really like Christs teachings. Ten commandments are good stuff. But, I don't believe it moral to follow it the bible to the letter, instead of the spirit. But the spirit of the bible is only found in interpreting it, which is different for everybody.

>>13569453
I've read Schopenhauer and liked him. Didn't like the pessimism. Like the name on Zapffe. Sounds cool, I'll add him to the book list. Thank's anon.

[Anonymous No.13569589]

>>13569538
The do's and don't's of the Bible are fairly clear. You don't have to be perfect, you can't be, but the rules still allow you to strive for perfection. Following the rules is what makes you aware of your sin, but that isn't enough to get you in heaven, because we can't make ourselves perfect. That's why I reject all religions that draw an arbitrary distinction between good and bad people as if good works alone can lead to salvation. Under such a paradigm, you can never know if you were good enough, and you won't be as content as the Christian who knows his sins will be washed away completely

[Anonymous No.13570143]

>>13569228
It was basically just a nice general discussion thread. There would often be themes or particular issues that were the focus of discussion. Sometimes the thread would be based around a particular text, philosopher, or philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13570162]

>>13567274
>>There isn't an objective morality, but one should
dropped

[Anonymous No.13570559]

>>13570162
>hurr durr hume said no oughts allowed even in subjective proclamations
Read the Enquiry on Morals

[Anonymous No.13570561]

>>13567274
Cringeretism