/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14833004]

>im going to blow the fuck out of phenomenology, naive empiricism, and metaphysics, all while steelmanning naturalism
>youre going to sit there and watch
>oh, and would you mind handing me that long island iced tea

[Anonymous No.14833031]

>>14833004
>And I'm going to do it all while continuously drunk because I'm an emotional and moral coward

Heh, and people say analytic philosophy can't deal with the important matters of existen... oh, wait...

[Anonymous No.14833041]

>>14833004
He became a drunk because deep down he realized you cannot reconcile normativity with naturalism. You cannot give naturalism a normative twist. His project failed, and he was too much of a brainlet to question the fundamental assumptions in naturalism and physicalism.

[Anonymous No.14833090]

>>14833041
>you cannot reconcile normativity with naturalism
why

>the fundamental assumptions in naturalism and physicalism.
which are?

[Anonymous No.14833104]

>>14833004
whos this

[Anonymous No.14833129]

The Jordan Peterson of his time.

[Anonymous No.14833133]

>>14833104
Wilfrid Sellars

[Anonymous No.14833137]

>>14833090
> why

It's all just a bunch of atoms. Who's to say what's a better or worse configuration if them?

[Anonymous No.14833148]

>>14833133
thanks

[Anonymous No.14833216]

>>14833129
dont insult Sellars like that. think what you will of his endeavors but the dude was hardcore and in no way a Jung-peddling midwit.

[Anonymous No.14833585]

>>14833137
normativity doesn't require an objective metric, just an inter-subjective one

[Anonymous No.14833605]

>>14833090
>why
You cannot ground a moral realism in a bunch of neutral or indifferent processes.
>which are?
Hard Problem of Consciousness is a good start.
>>14833585
An inter-subjective metric means it is relative and, thus, artificial. What is artificial cannot be used to argue one configuration of atoms is better than the other, since it becomes a matter of the majority or individual's preferences. Morality becomes a matter of one's passions rather than a genuine system to discourage bad conduct and encourage the good.

[Anonymous No.14833714]

>>14833605
>Hard Problem of Consciousness is a good start.
Epiphenomenalism solves this, and even Chalmers admits there's no knockdown argument against epiphenomenalism.

Also every credible model of the mind-body problem is naturalist. Property dualism, physicalist monism, and even the various strands of panpsychism ultimately resort to a physicalism and understand that physics will be able to define consciousness given time. It just becomes a matter of integrating consciousness into the scientific models of reality, whether that be as a fundamental principle or an emergent phenomenon etc. But always remaining within the grasp of physics.

pic related, what your thoughts look like.

[Anonymous No.14833734]

>>14833605
you seem to think relative means something like arbitrary, but it really just means contingent.

[Anonymous No.14833753]

>>14833714
>Also every credible model of the mind-body problem is naturalist.
Not true. All we can say, with certainty, is mental states supervene on brain states. Even with this fact alone, there are thousands of metaphysical possibilities.
Emergentism also has certain theoretical difficulties, especially when dealing with strong emergentism.
Empirical science does not deal with ontological matters. It is just a tool.

[Anonymous No.14833758]

>>14833734
The point is a relative ethics becomes nothing more than the fancy of either the majority or individual.

[Anonymous No.14834125]

>>14833605
You are a pseudointellectual retard who doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about. Sellers never tried to reconcile moral realism with naturalism, hence he cannot fail to do it. And the hard problem of consciousness has absolutely nothing to do with questions of normativity or metaethics. You are a literal shit for brains retard vomiting talking points you read from theistic blogs without even understanding them. Stuff your mouth with a dildo and spare us the noise.

[Anonymous No.14834165]

>>14833758
So what, I would rather have ethics be something we create, so we can promote a moral system tailored to human needs rather than it being something fixed that we have to deal with. There is no use for an external authority for our moral system, the consent of other people is all we need.

[Anonymous No.14834172]

>>14834125
He tried to give naturalism a normative twist.
>>14834165
My need is to bury you in the ground. Many people consent to this.
You stupid faggot.

[Anonymous No.14834184]

>>14834172
>He tried to give naturalism a normative twist.
No he didn't, stop saying stupid shit. And stop conflating the hard problem of consciousness with metaethics. The reason you cannot derive moral realism from naturalism has nothing to do with consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14834185]

>>14834125
>And the hard problem of consciousness has absolutely nothing to do with questions of normativity or metaethics.
Yes, it does, because it opens the possibility of a kind of soteriology to ground a metaethics and normative one.

[Anonymous No.14834191]

>>14834172
>My need is to bury you in the ground. Many people consent to this.
You stupid faggot.
Make an argument you fucking subhuman or I will tear your skull apart and rape your tiny brain.

[Anonymous No.14834197]

>>14834184
If consciousness have aspects to it that are not completely reducible to neural activity, this can be used as justification for soul or "storehouse consciousness". It can be used as basis for metaethics and normativity.
>No he didn't, stop saying stupid shit.
There is a big that argues he did. My friend who majored in philosophy wrote an essay on Sellar's views pertaining to functionalism and normativity.

[Anonymous No.14834198]

>>14833041
An ideally rational being would intend the implications of his intentions, just as he would believe the implications of his beliefs.

[Anonymous No.14834202]

>>14834191
>Make an argument you fucking subhuman or I will tear your skull apart and rape your tiny brain.
Yes, there are many civilizations that base themselves on tearing apart skulls and raping brains. They called this "moral".

If you treat morality as just social convention, you're better off to just dismiss its existence. It becomes merely an abstract system with no basis in reality, which was my point.

[Anonymous No.14834208]

>>14834197
>big
book*

[Anonymous No.14834216]

>>14834197
Is your friend this O'Shea dude lol

[Anonymous No.14834226]

>>14834197
>If consciousness have aspects to it that are not completely reducible to neural activity, this can be used as justification for soul or "storehouse consciousness". It can be used as basis for metaethics and normativity.
Nope, consciousness doesn't give you normativity. You need something Aristotle's final causality for that.
>There is a big that argues he did. My friend who majored in philosophy wrote an essay on Sellar's views pertaining to functionalism and normativity.
The point of functionalism is to give a physicalist account of intentionality, not normativity.

[Anonymous No.14834237]

>>14834226
No, I am saying if consciousness is not reducible to brain activity purely, this can give a possibility of soteriology. For example, Henri Bergson's ideas of explicit memory as inverted memory cone correspond with Lankavatara Sutra's ideas of storehouse consciousness quite closely. The idea of storehouse consciousness ties into Mahayana conception of rebirth, hence their morality is in tandem to it.
>>14834216
No, he's just a regular teacher who majored in philosophy and had strong background in Sellars. I deleted my correspondence with him.

[Anonymous No.14834258]

>>14834202
>If you treat morality as just social convention, you're better off to just dismiss its existence. It becomes merely an abstract system with no basis in reality, which was my point.
Then your point was stupid. Moral norms have the obvious utility of making social conduct possible by establishing certain rules that everybody follows. You don't need any objective right and wrong to give an external authority to these rules, they do their job well enough on their own.

[Anonymous No.14834271]

>>14834258
The rules are malleable and based on arbitrary standards of "utility". The rules themselves have no basis in anything real except for the whims and preferences of those who sustain them.
You need an objective right and wrong to give them a real existence otherwise they are illusory and maintained only for manipulating social conduct.

[Anonymous No.14834297]

>>14834271
So what, all we need morality for is to make people behave in a certain way so we can live in the type of society we want.

[Anonymous No.14834319]

>>14834297
Thus, it becomes a matter of baseless rhetoric to sway the masses to have them behave the way you want. Materialism/Physicalism logically entail nihilism, and likewise, ethical naturalism is a retarded position.

[Anonymous No.14834404]

>>14834319
All you have done so far is throw buzzwords around, you still haven't given a single good argument as to what's wrong with moral subjectivism. We want to build a certain society, and so we promote the types of behavior we think are going to obtain that goal. What's wrong with that?

[Anonymous No.14834414]

>>14834404
>you still haven't given a single good argument as to what's wrong with moral subjectivism.
Of course I haven't because that's not what we have been focusing on. What we were focusing on was how physicalism/materialism entail moral subjectivism. Moral subjectivism is an moral anti-realist perspective, and I was also subtly arguing how all anti-realism entails nihilism.
>We want to build a certain society, and so we promote the types of behavior we think are going to obtain that goal.
What I was arguing was the justification of your goals are based on baseless rhetoric. That is all I argued thus far.
>What's wrong with that?
This is bringing in a new question. Arguing what's wrong with that involves analyzing metaphysical and ontological questions.

[Anonymous No.14834471]

>>14834414
>Moral subjectivism is an moral anti-realist perspective, and I was also subtly arguing how all anti-realism entails nihilism.
What do you mean by nihilism, that everyone will start killing and raping tomorrow if we stop being moral realists?
>What I was arguing was the justification of your goals are based on baseless rhetoric. That is all I argued thus far.
And I am arguing that moral antirealism is cool and dandy and has no undesirable practical consequences.
>This is bringing in a new question. Arguing what's wrong with that involves analyzing metaphysical and ontological questions.
"What's wrong" in the sense of "what are the negative practical consequences of the doctrine", I am not asking you to refute it. I got the impression from your post that you strongly dislike it.

[Anonymous No.14834532]

people in this thread who think realism is incompatible with normativity are either retarded or think normativity is moral realism (which is retarded)

[Anonymous No.14834552]

>>14834471
>What do you mean by nihilism
That there are no objective moral values.
>And I am arguing that moral antirealism is cool and dandy and has no undesirable practical consequences.
There is no basis to discuss what constitutes desirable or undesirable consequences outside of one's personal preferences in moral anti-realist schemata.
>"what are the negative practical consequences of the doctrine"
There is no basis for the positive or negative from the position of the doctrine itself.

[Anonymous No.14834555]

>>14834552
lmao, are you a platonist?

[Anonymous No.14834559]

>>14834532
I am aware metaethics and normativity are distinct. However, I am arguing all Moral Anti-Realism, which is a meta-ethical position, logically entails the impossibility of grounding normative ethics. It collapses into a "everything is permissible" nihilism.

[Anonymous No.14834574]

>>14834559
pretend god is grounding our normative ethics then. but by god i mean an inter-subjectively created consensus

[Anonymous No.14834618]

>>14834574
I haven't precisely defined how I provide a ground to a normative ethics. The reason so is because I do not want to be plagiarized.

[Anonymous No.14834654]

>>14834552
>That there are no objective moral values.
Then your point is an empty tautology. If nihilism means the denial of objective moral values, the statement "I was subtly arguing how all anti-realism entails nihilism" means "I was subtly arguing how the denial of objective moral values entails the denial of objective moral values". I take it as mere carelessness on your part.
>There is no basis to discuss what constitutes desirable or undesirable consequences outside of one's personal preferences in moral anti-realist schemata.
No shit, that's what "desirable" means, whether you like it or not. I am asking because moral realists sometimes argue in melodramatic fashion that it is a big deal if objective moral values aren't real. I assumed that this was your position as well, but now I am not sure because you are avoiding the topic.

[Anonymous No.14834702]

>>14834654
What I was arguing in this thread:
1) All Moral Anti-Realism, even of the subjectivist or relativist kind, can be reduced to a moral nihilism.
2) You cannot reconcile normativity with naturalism. You cannot give naturalism a normative twist.
3) All Moral Anti-Realism, which is a meta-ethical position, logically entails the impossibility of grounding normative ethics.

[Anonymous No.14834705]

>>14834574
Doesn't that allow you to create anything? Nazi Germany, for example?

Though that's the fundamental problem isn't it? Everything is permissible.

I believe the only way to solve morality is Buddhist/Advaita Vedanta/Orthodox style. Everything practically everyone considers evil springs from desire, and if people could understand not to take their desires seriously, there would be no motivation to commit evil deeds.

[Anonymous No.14834715]

>>14834705
Nope, all nondualism, monism, and monotheism logically entail antinomian sensibilities. You cannot be a moral person in the strict sense of the word if you worship or seek a union with the "one" above all else.

[Anonymous No.14834719]

>>14834705
>does that allow you to create anything?
short answer, yes; although the subject of "you" is not a person

[Anonymous No.14834725]

>>14833004
please summary his theory
it fucking hard

[Anonymous No.14834751]

>>14834715
It's antinomian, sure, but I don't see how a person seeking union with the one or total detachment would be at odds with most moral systems.

[Anonymous No.14834763]

>>14834751
If it is inherently geared towards enabling antinomian tendencies, then there is no possibility to ground a metaethics or normative ethics. All nondualism, monism, and monotheism are thus no better than physicalism/materialism/natural when it comes to moral concerns.

[Anonymous No.14834792]

>>14834702
Fine, let's not talk about the fun stuff if you prefer abstract philosophical topics.
>1) All Moral Anti-Realism, even of the subjectivist or relativist kind, can be reduced to a moral nihilism.
But you defined moral nihilism as the denial of objective moral values, which is what moral antirealism also means. So your statement becomes a tautology.
>3) All Moral Anti-Realism, which is a meta-ethical position, logically entails the impossibility of grounding normative ethics
That's bullshit, you don't need objective moral values for a normative ethics. You can construe them merely as rules of conduct as I already explained.

[Anonymous No.14834820]

>>14834763
Yes, that's true, but in practice, the behavior of someone averse to their own desires seems unlikely to run afoul of whatever normative ethics someone would want to conjure.

[Anonymous No.14834821]

>>14834792
>You can construe them merely as rules of conduct as I already explained.
I already explained how the rules of conduct have no real foundation outside of the whims of society. The rules of conduct become arbitrary and defended via baseless rhetoric that stems from one's passions, nothing more. They have no real foundation beyond one's own preferences based on his or her conditioning. Again, this amounts to moral nihilism.
>So your statement becomes a tautology.
Well, yes, it is kind of obvious, so in a sense, all of the moral anti-realist speculation on subjectivism, relativism, non-cognitivism, and so forth should just be lumped together and classed as nihilism. It's a waste of time to speculate further.

[Anonymous No.14834830]

>>14834820
There is nothing to stop it running afoul. There is no incentive to be this or that way. It is what it is.
It boils down to a kind of nihilism.

[Anonymous No.14835132]

>>14833714
Isnt physics quite incapable of explaining higher order phenomena, because it is concerned only with the Very Small? What I understand epiphenomenalism to be is "not only can physics not explain what it is to have conscious experience, it never can. Mind is a product of material, but materialism can never explain it."