Stop reading Aristotle. Stop reading Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.14435148]

Start reading Hume. HUME REFUTED THEM ALL!

[Anonymous No.14435160]

>>14435148
Aquinas is unrefutable. Hume just didn't understand his arguments.

[Anonymous No.14435165]

>>14435160
Saying "Aquinas is unrefutable. Hume just didn't understand his arguments." is not an argument. hume remains king of philosophers!!!

[Anonymous No.14435176]

>>14435165
remains king of the cucks, more like.

[Anonymous No.14435179]

Hey FUCK you for trying to turn Hume into some Guenon style meme overdone into masturbatory drivel. Hume is a legitimate philosopher, one of the most important and influential English speaking philosophers. You make him look bad. Stop spamming these threads and go shove a Bible up your ass

[Anonymous No.14435186]

>>14435179
It might at least prompt the newfags to read him. Do you want 10 threads per day of Guenon or Hume?

[Anonymous No.14435201]

>>14435160
what happens when an irrefutable argument is met by a indisputable rebuttal?

[Anonymous No.14435206]

>>14435179
I'm not trying to make Hume a meme. I am a fan of him. I'm simply trying to remove /lit/ of the plague of Thomists and Aristotelians, I will keep posting the modernists until /lit/ realizes that legitimate philosophers have refuted them until they stop digging up ancient and refuted philosophies.

[Anonymous No.14435211]

>>14435206
Based. Could you also be kind enough to post his followers and disciples, Kant and Schop?

[Anonymous No.14435217]

>>14435211
I will

[Anonymous No.14435220]

The fat fuck was retroactively refuted, he simply couldn't contend with the eudaimonian virtue ethics of the peripatetic doctrine

[Anonymous No.14435307]

>>14435160
/thread
and>>14435220
/thread.

[Anonymous No.14435312]

how will atheists recover from this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQKjUzotw_Y#t=4m20s

[Anonymous No.14435350]

>>14435307
kek

[Anonymous No.14436170]

in which book does aristotle talk about these things

[Anonymous No.14436175]

>>14435307
>pointed at Hume but Aquinas in the scope
What could this mean

[Anonymous No.14436178]

>>14435148
Hume was Retroactively refuted by Guenon and Parmenides you fucking brainlet Hylic.

[Anonymous No.14436179]

>>14436178
Based a pneumatikospilled

[Anonymous No.14436188]

"I will end what you started Hume"

[Anonymous No.14436222]

Plotinus retroactively refutes Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.14436292]

>>14435148
but is not wrong thinking the mind has made the connection?. i mean, that is the mind too. the mind made the no connection between things too.

[Anonymous No.14436356]

>>14436222
I genuinely want to see how.

[Anonymous No.14436361]

>>14436222
Plotinus maintained that Plato and Aristotle was in harmony.

[Anonymous No.14436368]

>>14436178
>Retroactively refuted by Guenon

[Anonymous No.14436412]

So lit: can you get an Ought from an Is?

[Anonymous No.14436418]

>>14436412
The Is-Ought distinction is a dismal byproduct of Abrahamic religion.

you literally cant refute this, everyone who tries ends up sperging out and going full retard like Jordan Peterson

[Anonymous No.14436427]

Not sure why anyone is still reading Hume when he was refuted by Harris

[Anonymous No.14436430]

>>14436427

[Anonymous No.14436439]

>>14436418
How do you not distinguish between those two things?

[Anonymous No.14436442]

>>14436439
see
>>14436427
>>14436430

[Anonymous No.14436444]

>>14436427
>>14436430
How will Humefags ever recover?

[Anonymous No.14436448]

>>14436442
He still affirms the distinction.

[Anonymous No.14436450]

>>14436444
They're all dead from burn wounds.

[Anonymous No.14436585]

I'm convinced that philosophyfags don't even like philosophy, they just like namedropping.

[Anonymous No.14436595]

I'm going to just ignore Aristotle completely and build my own notoriously problematic theory of causality so autistic people can spam the same threads about me. I'll be famous.

[Anonymous No.14436983]

>>14436430
I don't understand what this has to do with Hume, it looks like a generic blend of Utilitarianism and hedonism.

[Anonymous No.14436995]

>>14435206
okay but what about when future philosophers refute hume

[Anonymous No.14437011]

>>14436983
>Utilitarianism
Based on a flawed justification of the principle/dictate of utility given by Bentham in his book 'Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation'.

I really wish people would stop giving such undue acceptance towards this principle. It is absolutely founded in nonsense and deserves to be treated as such. :3

[Anonymous No.14437031]

>>14436412
Actually, there only exists oughts. Every is emenates from an ought

[Anonymous No.14437059]

>>14436427
>>14436430
I don't get it, He shuts down religion just to start rebuilding it. He literally just proved Good exists, which also implies an all-good being exists. Why not just go straight to the theologians

[Anonymous No.14437092]

>>14437059
Morden atheism is essentially trying to repackage christian morality into secular branding.

[Anonymous No.14437096]

>>14435148
>Cause and effect are unrelated
this is why people think philosophy is retarded

[Anonymous No.14437463]

>>14437059
>which also implies an all-good being exists
lol how

[Anonymous No.14437485]

>>14435148
Hume is going into the filter now...
Bye-bye fat Anglo fuck and his minion spammer.

[Anonymous No.14437519]

>>14437463
if you have an order on a set you have a greatest element, if it is an infinite set the limit concept is conceivable and exists.

Good is just an order on the set of all conceivable state of affairs, and given enough information, one state can be said to be more good then another.

[Anonymous No.14437578]

>>14435206
Ok, I’m thinking this is based.

[Anonymous No.14437593]

>>14437059
Neither Harris nor Hume want God to exists, Harris just isn't smart enough to realize what Hume did about the consequences of causality being true.

In fairness to Harris, he's also concerned with constructing a moral system without God, Hume didn't have to worry about that because he wasn't living in a declining civilization.

[Anonymous No.14437624]

>>14437519
Nice sophism. Maybe you could try arguing how God is derived from there being good things next time and stay on topic.

[Anonymous No.14437629]

>>14437624
Isn’t that what Kant said?

[Anonymous No.14437641]

>>14435179
>one of the most important and influential English speaking philosophers.
Lol there is like a handful of them

[Anonymous No.14437643]

>>14435148
Hume was a dolt. A fat sleepy-eyed British smoothbrain. He ought to be forgotten.

[Anonymous No.14437647]

>>14435217
Kant (pbuh) is the greatest mind to even incarnate on this planet. You will be blessed for shining a light upon such an illustrious master. But I advise that you drop this nonsensical obsession with Hume as Kant so far exceeds him that he has been relegated to the dustbins of history.

[Anonymous No.14437661]

>>14437624
>Maybe you could try arguing how God is derived from there being good things next time and stay on topic.
I didnt say God was derived, I said an All-Good being was Derived. In any case, If that is your concept of God then it is proof. Why don't you try to point out an Error instead of bitching?

[Anonymous No.14437686]

>>14437629
Its exactly what kant said. And what the greeks said. If you don't believe there is a maximally good being, either as the highest element in the set of all conceivable beings, or as a limit concept, which itself is a being, then you dont believe good exists.

[Anonymous No.14437696]

>>14437686
Would I also need to believe in a maximally evil being or is evil simply a lack of good?

[Anonymous No.14437712]

>>14435148
I feel like you have the wrong idea on what the two are trying to do. Thomas Aquinas was doing a more a priori logical proof of the nature of causality, whereas Hume tried to figure out how causality relates to our perceptions (impressions and ideas) and how to carefully consider it so we don't come across any mistakes. What Aquinas was doing was, as Hume believed, out of the bounds of human perception. Now, we've matured since his time, and we know that things don't have to be empirically verifiable to be true. Logical proofs will still be true based on their a priori nature alone, which is why 8th dimensional mathematics is still true even if we can't know empirically. Hume believed the only things true a priori were tautologies (Hume's fork). Aquinas did not make an inductive leap because he was not asserting a simple cause and effect relation, he was proving the necessity of something purely actual, i.e. "Unactualized Actualizer", i.e. "God".

[Anonymous No.14437727]

>>14437696
Depends on the Strand of theology. Some people conceive of Evil as lack of Good, ie onto-logically void, but this notion is meaningless to me because of Hegel. And i suspect theologians that consider this theory just do so by tradition instead of thinking. I imagine evil as essentially the reverse ordering on the set of beings.
for any ontological object x that is > y ordered by good, it follows that y > x on the ordering of evil.

Regardless of your theory on the ontology of evil, most people still believe a maximally Evil being. And by my construction, yes I know it exists. This is obviously confirmed by imagery of satan etc and in many religions good naturally gives rise to the opposite concept

[Anonymous No.14437728]

>>14437661
What does good even mean?

[Anonymous No.14437745]

>>14437728
A way things ought to be. I know it exists because reality continually unfolds. Therefore there must be a way reality ought to be. The question then becomes how do we further determine the nature of good? Sam Harris's argument is good.

[Anonymous No.14437749]

>>14437727
Thanks for the reply

[Anonymous No.14437751]

>>14437059
if he has any honest (he doesn’t), he will go to the theologians. what you brainlet atheists don’t realize is how advanced theology is. there is no ‘other path’ so far. your bad childhood experiences with the protestants is stopping you from advancing your thought.

[Anonymous No.14437768]

>>14437712
The only person who actually understands Hume and Aquinas ITT.

[Anonymous No.14437785]

>>14437712
This is a gross misrepresentation of Hume and a tactless misunderstanding of science. Hume doesn't merely posit that the relation of causality to perception cannot be systematized, he also believed that causality itself can't be argued for in an infallible sense. Which is why Kant's take on Hume's questions is actually interesting and relevant, Kant of course agrees with Hume on his examination of the principles of causality, he greatly disagreed with him on the nature of the concept of causality itself. In his terms, Hume posits the a-posteriority of causality, whereas Kant claims to have proven the a-priority of causality.

The existence of mathematical axiomatized systems which violate empiricism and even Kant is not proof that empiricists and/or Kant have been wrong. Mathematicians simply aren't versed philosophers, no mathematician who decides to quantify over "8th dimensional" realms believes he has a philosophy of science to justify his methodology. You need some reading on philosophy of science and the foundations of mathematics.

This means the existence of systems that violate empiricist accounts is not an argument in favor of Aquinas rationalistic method of philosophy, this is just lazy thinking on your part.

We never "matured since his time", philosophy isn't akin to science where one could draw out a map of achievements and progress. If anything, Aquinas' type of rationalist philosophy is probably less accepted today than it used to be during Hume's time.

[Anonymous No.14437808]

>>14437768
Ironic because your post suggests you yourself don't understand either of these philosophers, why would you assume you're in a position to judge the merits of the posts then? Clearly you are an easily impressionable retard who will never ever read.

[Anonymous No.14437815]

>>14437808
Clearly you are a homosexual Scottish person OP

[Anonymous No.14437816]

>>14437815
Not OP.

[Anonymous No.14437826]

Kant is a better Hume, why not spam him instead?

[Anonymous No.14437833]

>>14437826
Schopenhauer is, in turn, a better Kant.

[Anonymous No.14437881]

>>14437826
because he was obliderated by Guenon

[Anonymous No.14437900]

>>14436175
its a reflection you retard

[Anonymous No.14437938]

>>14437768
>>14437712
Kill yourselves pseuds

[Anonymous No.14437946]

>>14437785
>Kant claims to have proven the a-priority of causality.
How did he do that?

[Anonymous No.14437959]

>>14437751
Fine. Who should I read?

[Anonymous No.14438211]

>>14437745
>A way things ought to be
And what way is that?

[Anonymous No.14438229]

>>14437946
Synthetic a priori memery. It's a necessary condition for experience.

[Anonymous No.14438251]

>>14438211
theres lots of components to what the essence of good is. You can't just list them all but what we understand as morality is one aspect of it

[Anonymous No.14438264]

>>14438251
So it’s all subjective. K thanks

[Anonymous No.14438299]

>>14438264
no its not, there are mind independent ontological objects which exist with just as much certainty as the existence of the physical world.

Give me any argument that claims there are objects external to your mind and i can construct an identical argument which affirms that moral objects exist.

[Anonymous No.14438306]

>>14438299
So what exactly is good and the way things ought to be?

[Anonymous No.14438323]

>>14438306
ok, you seem to not understand basic principles of thought. Proving something exists does not mean you can conceive of literally everything about it. If that was the case, i would know everything about astronomy, stars, planets etc just by looking at the sky. The best explanation, which is really the only one, is that good exists and we are ascertaining it throughout history.

[Anonymous No.14438352]

>>14438323
You can’t prove an objective “good” exists. See ya, faggot.

[Anonymous No.14438361]

>>14438306
In fact, Existence proofs are generally the weakest proofs. Because all they do is, just that, prove the existence of a being.

But more to your point, Over the course of history is has been clear to us that good exists, Else no value judgement could ever be made and we clearly have ethical standards in this day and age

[Anonymous No.14438375]

>>14438352
explain what ethical behavior is if good dosent exist.

[Anonymous No.14438378]

>>14438361
No examples of what is objectively good. Just flowery prose.

[Anonymous No.14438385]

>>14438375
My behavior is whatever is conducive toward my survival and desires, same as yours. Ethics are merely an attempt to label one behavior as bad in comparison to another. Neither is objectively good or bad in itself, only in relativity towards its desire. Now, tell me, which desire is the correct desire?

[Anonymous No.14438409]

>>14438378
its not rigorously and mechanically understood. Its conceptually understood through symbolism, conversations, intuition etc. That is why there is such heavy emphasis on Imagery and symbolism in Religions. Me listing off Good things defeats the purpose, and this is actually why no modern christians stone adulterers. They are not taking the books literally or "rigorously", they are using intuition and thought to try to extract concepts from the book, and read between the lines. This is how Good is understood, it even develops in a hegelian way throughout history.

[Anonymous No.14438419]

>>14438409
>Me listing off Good things
What makes a thing objectively good?

[Anonymous No.14438460]

>>14438419
If it is designated good by God

> Neither is objectively good or bad in itself, only in relativity towards its desire
I dont know what you are trying to say here, I'm talking about Good and Evil not "good and bad" Sure there is a good way and a bad to get something done, but Im specifically talking about mind independent moral values.

> Now, tell me, which desire is the correct desire?
It has to be intuitively felt, but cannot be definitively proved. moral intuition is just as reliable external-Spacial intuition, just like i said earlier. Why should you distrust your intuition to not harm a baby?

[Anonymous No.14438495]

>>14435206
BASED. kant is even more based than hume though, so you should post him, still BASED tho

[Anonymous No.14438502]

>>14438460
I see no objective existence of good, only your subjective opinion.
>moral intuition is just as reliable external-Spacial intuition
You even stated it’s all subjective yourself.

[Anonymous No.14438522]

>>14438502
objective means mind independent you idiot, I believe there are objective moral values.

[Anonymous No.14438540]

>>14435186
Nothing anyone posts on /lit/ inspires anyone to read.

[Anonymous No.14438546]

>>14438522
You’re really stupid, I hope you know that.

[Anonymous No.14438550]

>>14438502
Also, I showed you the proof of the existence of Good, you still haven't refuted it. All you have done is strawman my arguments. I am making an existence claim and you are saying I claim to know everything conceivable about it.

[Anonymous No.14438562]

>>14438550
>I proved good exists by invoking god, an unprovable concept
Nice job

[Anonymous No.14438579]

>>14438495
>implying hume is based at all

[Anonymous No.14438591]

>>14438562
god? can you not read? If there is not a way things ought to be, why are you typing? why does anybody do anything? why does anything do anything?

im not claiming to know everything about the nature of Good, im claiming that it exists, and I have my theories about what it is. why can you not understand this?

[Anonymous No.14438595]

>>14438591
>If there is not a way things ought to be
How are things ought to be?

[Anonymous No.14438609]

>>14435206
>legitimate philosophers have refuted them

[Anonymous No.14438658]

>>14438595
>How are things ought to be?
what?

Why does reality will itself to change if Good dosent exist?

[Anonymous No.14438684]

>>14438658
You’re stupid. Killing you would be good.

[Anonymous No.14438699]

>>14438684
so you dont have any actual argument?

[Anonymous No.14438897]

>>14437946
You'd have to read the Critique of Pure Reason for a sufficient answer, however I can give you a condensed basic gestalt:

Kant accepts the a-priority of the rules of judgement, in modern terms (as in Kant's) this roughly translates to general logic. During Kant's time there was none of those sexy formalized systems of logic, but he was thinking of logical operations such as conditionals (if-rules). Google Urteilstafel for more information on this, or read the Analytic chapter of the first Critique. He also accepts that you cannot prove any thesis through experience, as any a posteriori judgement will suffer from the problem of induction, just as Hume lays it out. However Kant investigates the possibility that there are certain structures that we bring into experience which are purely a priori (to experience). If this were true, he could avoid the problems laid out by empiricists such as Hume. As I mentioned above, Kant deduces a priori elements of our experience by looking at the structure of our general logic.

To conceptualize this, take the conditional , in the general form of [ ] [ ]. Kant argues, since this is infact how our mind operates, it must also operate on our experience, this means the form of general logic, unser Urteilsvermögen a priori, must receive experential material so that it can actually be applied to experience. This then must mean the emptry brackets in the general logical form of the conditional [ ] [ ] must be somehow filled with perception material. So sort of like a puzzle, each bracket demands a certain object so it can be operational, in our experience we commonly call that type of perception that is molded to fit into the first bracket and turns objective, a cause, and for the second we call it effect. Cause effect. This is a very rough sketch, but this is how Kant believes we can have a priori epistemological concepts, by relying on the apriority of the forms of judging (general logic).

[Anonymous No.14438915]

>>14437946
You'd have to read the Critique of Pure Reason for a sufficient answer, however I can give you a condensed basic gestalt:

Kant accepts the a-priority of the rules of judgement, in modern terms (as in Kant's) this roughly translates to general logic. During Kant's time there was none of those sexy formalized systems of logic, but he was thinking of logical operations such as conditionals (if-rules). Google Urteilstafel for more information on this, or read the Analytic chapter of the first Critique. He also accepts that you cannot prove any thesis through experience, as any a posteriori judgement will suffer from the problem of induction, just as Hume lays it out. However Kant investigates the possibility that there are certain structures that we bring into experience which are purely a priori (to experience). If this were true, he could avoid the problems laid out by empiricists such as Hume. As I mentioned above, Kant deduces a priori elements of our experience by looking at the structure of our general logic.

To conceptualize this, take the conditional (if, then), in the general form of [ ] -> [ ]. Kant argues, since this is infact how our mind operates, it must also operate on our experience, this means the form of general logic, unser Urteilsvermögen a priori, must receive experential material so that it can actually be applied to experience. This then must mean the emptry brackets in the general logical form of the conditional [ ] -> [ ] must be somehow filled with perception material. So sort of like a puzzle, each bracket demands a certain object so it can be operational, in our experience we commonly call that type of perception that is molded to fit into the first bracket and turns objective, a cause, and for the second we call it effect. Cause -> Effect. This is a very rough sketch, but this is how Kant believes we can have a priori epistemological concepts, by relying on the apriority of the forms of judging (general logic).