/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16171699]

this might be a stupid question but how are you supposed to get over the is/ought gap? doesn't it destroy any talk of morality? the way I see it is to acknowledge it, but ignore it for pragmatic reasons. how are you supposed to argue for morality if you can't use facts of the world?

[Anonymous No.16171708]

>>16171699
Explain is/ought like I'm ten.

[Anonymous No.16171719]

>>16171699
Hume is based as fuck wrecked ethics with is/ought and wrecked science with the problem of induction

[Anonymous No.16171724]

>>16171708
There is nothing in the way the world is that tells us how it ought to be.

[Anonymous No.16172129]

The real scary one is the being/becoming gap.

[Anonymous No.16172133]

>>16171699
hume was retarded, who cares

[Anonymous No.16172139]

>>16171724
Self preservation is an end in itself for life and if you disagree stop eating and drinking water and we'll continue with our discussion in a year.

[Anonymous No.16172427]

You don't. You just recognize that your personal morals are philosophically arbitrary. You can still engage in politics and ethics by appealing to other people's shared moral intuitions but you can never convince a psychopath that altruism or something like that is good because they lack the capacity for empathy.

[Anonymous No.16172436]

>>16171708

[Anonymous No.16172439]

>>16171724
incorrect

[Anonymous No.16172583]

>>16171699
Kant fixed it dw

[Anonymous No.16172602]

>>16172583
he literally couldn't you absolute retard

[Anonymous No.16172631]

>>16172583
hmmm Kant does make an interesting case in postulating the existence of God, the soul, and morality as sufficient conditions for practical reason, but this is just sidestepping the problem and not fixing it. I think the only way to answer it is to be committed to some mystical realism where the natural order of the universe reveals the natural order of man, or that the ethical is equal to the aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.16172652]

>>16171699
Alasdair MacIntyre

[Anonymous No.16172662]

>>16171708
Just because cancer hurts ('Is') does not logically necessitate that it should be treated ('ought'). Basically there's a gap between the natural facts of the world and a man-made morality that cannot be rationally reconciled.

[Anonymous No.16172691]

>>16171724
>>16172662
Stop spoonfeeding newfags who are too lazy to open a book or even an SEP article.

[Anonymous No.16172725]

>>16172691
fuck off i do whatever i want cunt

[Anonymous No.16172778]

>>16172725
mate, i'll glass you if you don't fuck off.

[Anonymous No.16172807]

>>16172778
fucking try it you bastard

[Anonymous No.16172809]

>>16172129
Yeah, if you’re a pseud

[Anonymous No.16172818]

>>16172809
Based

[Anonymous No.16172820]

>>16172807
meet me at maccas carpark 8:00, rat

[Anonymous No.16172833]

>>16171699
noumena/phenomena desu

[Anonymous No.16173187]

>>16171719
also wrecked religion with his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
all while staying a jolly scotsman and making a fortune and being the biggest celebrity writer of his day with his Histories of England
the time he had that portrait painted he was drowning in groupie pussy

[Anonymous No.16173196]

>>16171699
If you think the is/ought gap is something to "get over", then you don't understand it.

[Anonymous No.16173209]

>>16171699
How do you "get over" the fact that 2+2=4? It's a simple logical fact that normative conclusions cannot be deduced from entirely non-normative premises.

[Anonymous No.16173233]

>>16173196
you're the one who doesn't understand it pseud

[Anonymous No.16173253]

>>16171724
He's somewhat mistaken when he doesn't look at "emotion" as something part of "objective" reality since the whole subjective/objective distinction is false as being torn apart by so many thinkers in the 19th and 20th century. What is, includes the ought.

[Anonymous No.16173329]

>>16171699
>doesn't it destroy any talk of morality?
>how are you supposed to argue for morality if you can't use facts of the world?

[Anonymous No.16173368]

>>16173253
cringe

[Anonymous No.16173615]

>>16173233
Imagine being this retarded.

[Gustav Klimt No.16173632]

>>16171699
You guys don't really spend most of your time reading Hume, right? You do understand there's an Intelligence Revolution happening right now and that AI is getting to a point it can surpass normal human abilities, right?

[Anonymous No.16173646]

>>16173368
I dunno nigger I'm trying to articulate thought I read about like a year ago and haven't thought about since.

[Anonymous No.16173819]

>>16173632
What should we be reading instead?

[Anonymous No.16173841]

>>16171699

Ignoring it for pragmatic reasons translates to relying on facts of the world
Furthermore morality itself is in fact a fact of the world

[Anonymous No.16173846]

>>16172662
>>16171699
This sounds like it can be perfectly appropriated for use in far-right politics. Yes, I see it now.

Thank you, Hume. You will usher in the new age of the right using Natural Law.

[Gustav Klimt No.16173848]

>>16173646

[Anonymous No.16173855]

>>16172631
Which is you know, what Kant believed

[Anonymous No.16173866]

Retroactively btfod by Plotinus

[Anonymous No.16173871]

>>16173253
>>16173646
You're right on target, anon. The subjective is merely a subset of the objective (particular perspectives resulting from the objective differences between observers), and the 'ought' is but an abstract subset of the 'is' (ultimately an expression of preference). Any normative statement contains and implicit preferred outcome and the pre/proscription in question ostensibly helps to achieve it (a prediction which can be empirically evaluated). The core of any so-called 'normative' statement is indeed descriptive.

Those talking about meta-ethical 'oughts' (i.e. cosmic, universal values) are spooked — those don't exist. Values don't precede valuing agents.

[Anonymous No.16173982]

>>16173187
what did he say about religion

[Anonymous No.16173998]

>>16173871
preservation does not precede agents striving for their preservation?

[Anonymous No.16174004]

When the fat Scottish man says "muh is/ought distinction", everyone goes
>WOW FAT SCOTTISH PERSON, YOU'RE SO SMART
When the Russian degenerate gambler says, "If God doesn't exist, everything is permitted", a statement with the same meaning, everyone goes
>BOOOOOH, AWAY CHRISTKEK. IMAGINE NEEDING GOD TO TELL YOU TO BE GOOD

[Anonymous No.16174023]

>>16174004
Total misunderstanding. If God did exist everything would still be permitted. The is of God's existence would say nothing about what we ought to do. God could try to force his will on us but that is just might makes right

[Anonymous No.16174055]

>>16174023
Does mmr bridge the is/ought distinction then?

[Anonymous No.16174057]

>>16171699
why would you think this is a stupid question, people have been grappling with this problem for about 250 years lol. Epistemological normativity is now the only domain of philosophy which matters to the true philosophers. You have to stop seeing a distinction between the is and ought. Because the -ought- suggests we should do Y, and the -is- proposes X is the case, but the next step is to question "ought" we believe X? What is our epistemic criteria for suggesting X? To suggest an X is to make some kind of "ought" statement, which means there's a criteria for believing in anything.

This is known as the collapse of the fact/value dichotomy, and based externalities like Hilary Putnam have written extensively on it. Sam Harris tries pathetically to argue for this point but he's so fuckijg stupid. Read actual philosophers to get a better understanding.

[Anonymous No.16174076]

Hume didn't believe in it, why should I
He fell in a pond once and was begging a passerby who knew him to drag him out of the well

[Anonymous No.16174078]

>>16174055
I don't think it does you might I guess. Point is morality is subjective

[Anonymous No.16174085]

>>16174023
it is not as if we could escape the limits, conditions of existence and their necessary consequences

[Anonymous No.16174103]

>>16174085
But this eliminates the ethical side of God's existence and leaves it as a brute fact. And when it is clear that God doesn't exist you can't fall back on saying morality depends on God as an apologetic tactic

[Anonymous No.16174167]

>>16174103
why would it eliminate when every tradition develops ethical systems from the consciousness of the divinity? this is most obvious with the platonic Good. the second half of your post is unintelligible.

[Anonymous No.16174168]

>>16172652
I think the most interesting one on this is MacIntyre's and Putnam's but I only read through wiki and I have no time to read and I sad

[Anonymous No.16174235]

>>16174167
>why would it eliminate when every tradition develops ethical systems from the consciousness of the divinity?

This runs smack into the is/ought distinction. How do you go from the is of the consciousness of the divinity to what we ought to do?

>the second half of your post is unintelligible.

A frequent apologetic tactic is to claim that morality can't exist without God so God must exist. Is/ought shows that God existing doesn't help with morality

[Anonymous No.16174242]

>>16171699
>>16174103
>>16174023
>>16172631
>>16171719
Does not Plato go over this repeatedly with the idea of beneficent, just and advantageous results of deeds? How does a logically just, advantageous and beneficent outcome of certain deed does not condition deeds?

[Anonymous No.16174252]

>>16173998
Not as a value, no. Are viruses making a value judgement or expressing an aware preference when they replicate? Does the universe care about whether a species thrives or goes extinct?

[Anonymous No.16174254]

>>16174242
> just, advantageous and beneficent

Advantageous and beneficent are clearly subjective and just has the same problems as moral. How do we determine what is just from what is?

[Anonymous No.16174257]

>>16174235
As I said previously, the platonic idea of Good (divinity) is what conditions what we ought to do, and this is implied in all religious systems.

[Anonymous No.16174268]

>>16171719
The Scottish school of common sense wrecked Hume, you fucking child.

[Anonymous No.16174271]

>>16174257
Yeah you can arbitrarily define whatever standard of ethics you want is/ought doesn't stop that. But that's also the definition of subjective

[Anonymous No.16174299]

>>16174254
They are only subjective when dealt subjectively. When I think doing whatever I want because it is advantageous to me, like stealing money, it is not objectivelly advantageous for when commited against me, who stole and now being stolen, the deed of stealing money is objectivelly not advantageous.

[Anonymous No.16174309]

>>16174271
How is that arbitrarily when the foudation for that standard of ethics is necessarily fundamental?

[Anonymous No.16174386]

>>16174252
>Does the universe care about whether a species thrives or goes extinct?
Yes, we do, or are capable of doing so. How could we value one thing or another if value weren't intrinsic to things?
>Values don't precede valuing agents
Where do valuing agents come from, and how do their values come into being?

[Anonymous No.16174416]

Latter half of
>>16174386
meant for
>>16173871

[Anonymous No.16174429]

>*ahem* Was this David Hume just terribly confused because went too far into empiricism? It seems to me that the Is is the physical world and the Ought the realm of ideas and it would be nonsense to say that ideas are part of the observable world and it would be nonsense to think that you can somehow arrive at identity of the things and their forms. It's like confusing maths and physics and saying that maths can't possibly offer us insight about the physical world because the physical will never be mathematically perfect. Knowledge of the objective Good is the mathematical model to the real worlds ethics, you will never arrive at the pure Good or Just itself, but striving towards its image is as possible as predicting movement with Newtonian mechanics.

[Anonymous No.16174430]

>>16171699

it's about freaking

werden
durfen
mussen

auf deutsch

to become
allowed to/have the right to
must / obligation

ever heard of laws including nature and physics

[Anonymous No.16174628]

>>16174386
>Yes, we do, or are capable of doing so.
The fact that we engage in valuation does not indicate that the universe as a whole does so.
>How could we value one thing or another if value weren't intrinsic to things?
Because a value isn't predicated upon only the attributes of a thing, but also upon the way an agent feels about the thing. Value is intrinsic to valuing agents specifically (because to value is to feel), not 'things' in general (there is no good reason to suppose a rock values anything). In other words, values do not precede valuing agents.

>Where do valuing agents come from, and how do their values come into being?
Evolution of life, and values are an evolutionary adaptation (basically an abstracted form of preference that follows from our concurrent capacities of emotion and reason).

[Anonymous No.16174786]

>>16174628
>The fact that we engage in valuation does not indicate that the universe as a whole does so.
Is the distinction itself not a valuation? Why is it not equally reasonable to view this as the universe evaluating itself?
This is the foundation of the argument I'd have against the rest of your post, so best to get this out of the way.

[Anonymous No.16174814]

>>16172139
there's still a gap

[Anonymous No.16174821]

[Anonymous No.16174843]

>>16174023
Think a little bit harder. "God" does not mean any random cosmic being here.

[Anonymous No.16174900]

>>16174628
>value isn't predicated upon only the attributes of a thing
but aren't the values valued upon the attributes of a thing? what is valued is implied in them

>Evolution of life, and values are an evolutionary adaptation
how is evolution itself not a process of valuation lol

[Anonymous No.16174915]

>>16171699
But you can use the facts of the world to argue for morality. Hume's is-ought problem is fallacious. "Ought" is just another form of "is".

Humans act, and the ultimate end of all human action is eudaimonia. This is not optional; every deliberate action you undertake IS ultimately aimed at eudaimonia. You can't just go and say "yeah, but what if I don't want eudaimonia" but that's like saying "yeah what if I want a square circle". It's nonsense.

However, that you act aiming at eudaimonia doesn't mean you'll use the proper means to reach it. This can be due to having the wrong idea of what eudaimonia is, or a wrong understanding between means and effects. A drug addict is seeking eudaimonia as much as an ascetic monk, but we can agree the addict is never reaching it. "Ethics" and "morality" are really: the proper actions to reach the state of eudaimonia, happiness, fulfillment of being.

There is nothing wrong with "If you want to cut a tree, you should sharpen your axe". Likewise, "If you want to reach eudaimonia (and you do), you should act ethically".

[Anonymous No.16174925]

>>16171724
I'm in the world and I say kill them all

[Anonymous No.16174933]

Morality is utility dressed as a fundamental

[Anonymous No.16174948]

>>16174429
This makes me want to sacrifice thigh of oxen to the gods. Why was the Greeks so based?

[Anonymous No.16174949]

>>16174915
Say more, and give some sources. I've read After Virtue and will be reading more MacIntyre soon. What else should I read?

[Anonymous No.16174971]

>>16174949
Not him but you can't really go wrong with Aristotle's ethics, especially considering they are the foundation of moral philosophy and especially virtue ethics like those McIntyre attempted to resurrect

[Anonymous No.16174985]

>>16174949
Is that all that you've read? If so, start with Plato, then Aristotle (he's mostly citing ethics there, terminology-wise). Then you'd wanna go into like the neoplatonists or stoics, then like Augustine>Aquinas>Kant, I guess.
tl;dr start with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.16174999]

>>16174971
The Nicomachean Ethics, I assume? Is the Eudemian Ethics any good?
>>16174985
Which specific works by which thinkers should I read?

[Anonymous No.16175018]

>>16174933

not at all

morality is not utility as an end to justify the means because the means aren't revolving perpetually as an end appeared to be foundational from the abyss to be stared at to find character

[Anonymous No.16175021]

>>16174999
Yeah, the Nichomachean ethics is the big one, the Eudemian ethics is sort of a prototype of the work with many parts being the same though it elaborates on certain concepts more, don't skip on the parts that aren't in the Nichomachean, but you should read the Politics and Rhetoric since they also talk about morality though not in the same systematic way they are analysed in the books with ethics in their name

[Anonymous No.16175082]

>>16174999
Eudemian Ethics is believed to be a draft of Nichomachean Ethics.
Honestly, can't go wrong with the complete works of Plato. The dialogues are all enjoyable to read, and an honestly fun way to get yourself into philosophy.
Then, for Aristotle, I'd say read his metaphysics, then Ethics, then if you want to read on into the neoplatonists (of whom you'd want to start with Plotinus' Enneads), read at least Aristotle's Categoriae from his Organon. I would view Politics and Rhetoric as more secondary reading, personally; the relevant details thereof you can infer from Ethics, more or less.
The Enneads then provide some context to bridge the gap between "pagan" philosophy and Christian theology in Augustine (Confessions, On Free Choice of the Will) and later Aquinas (Summa Theologica), who both went on to influence Kant, who I've only just started reading and can't adequately comment on.

[Anonymous No.16175086]

>>16171719
>>16171708
Alright, for the pseuds: every argument that ends in a moral conclusion must have a moral premise. To Hume, this is just. Trick of the tongue:

>People in Malaysia are suffering from a disease. Therefore, we must send aid to them.

He insists all thoughts of this form have underlying moral premises that are not able to be found purely in objective facts. So "people in Malaysia are suffering from a disease" itself doesn't lead to the moral conclusion. You also must have a belief like: preventing human suffering is desirable. So the ACTUAL argument is more like:

>People in Malaysia are suffering from a disease. Preventing human suffering should be done. Therefore, we must send aid to Malaysia.

The "gap" is that you never can ever have an argument about what's moral starting from statements about objective fact. Statements about morals are their own unique category.

[Anonymous No.16175125]

>>16175021
>>16175082
This is gonna end up taking me down a completely different path in life. How long did it take you to get through all this stuff?

[Anonymous No.16175153]

>>16171699
Moral statements imply goal-directed behaviour, nothing needs to be demonstrated except that I prefer certain outcomes. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.16175161]

noetic perception
Hume says nothing Plato didn't already say in Theaetetus

[Anonymous No.16175199]

>>16175161

apples and oranges

[Anonymous No.16175216]

>>16172139
That's a hypothetical imperative mate (an ought implies ought). You failed to bridge the gap.

[Anonymous No.16175223]

>>16175125

all of that is junk fast food run of the mill normie tier establishment reinforcing strata try writing a treatise on why your path in life is taken down and not up

[Anonymous No.16175239]

>>16175216

mind the gap says the hypothesis

[Anonymous No.16175256]

Have you tried reading Hume? He already answers this. There is no way to overcome the is-ought gap, but that doesn't mean you can't argue for morals.

It's the same sort of argument for moral realism. No, you can't prove objective morality, but you're not forced to accept moral relativism or subjectivism.

[Anonymous No.16175258]

the english language though lmao

[Anonymous No.16175283]

>>16175256

wtf are you jabbering about

what is philosophy of science and where is empiricism

it's like getting fixated on some figment and getting carried away from what does not keep you grounded

[Anonymous No.16175293]

>>16175125
About a year. You can finish most of Plato's dialogues in a day (each), with the exceptions of Laws and Republic, for instance. As far as taking you down a different path in life, philosophy is more like giving you context for what you find along the path you're already taking. Like, you seem to have an intuitive grasp of or belief in the basic premise, maybe because you were raised in the West, but reading those things will help you better understand or even develop it. I'm failing to put it to words.

[Anonymous No.16175303]

barnes and noble at the mall by the penguins

[Anonymous No.16175306]

>>16175086
Except that
>Preventing human suffering should be done.
Relates to the objective fact of your preference, or to a generally accepted consensus (which is an expression of overlapping majority preference). It's tempting to present the 'normative' statement as some kind of discrete axiom of reason, but you must understand that we only reason about things because we first feel some way about them. Feelings are a type of fact.

[Anonymous No.16175312]

>>16174786
To say humans are a part of the universe and that their valuing things is thus a part of the universe by them is trivially true. It does not make the universe a valuing agent except by rote definition. And what may be defined into existence may be defined out of existence.

[Anonymous No.16175325]

>>16175293
I think I know what you mean. I have other things to read and take care of, but I'll see if I can't try to go back to the beginning and do things thoroughly. I guess I'll just have to be patient.

[Anonymous No.16175328]

>>16175283
I don't understand this post. Any I'm not here to stay.

[Anonymous No.16175333]

>>16175223
wtf are you talking about

[Anonymous No.16175678]

>>16174786
>Is the distinction itself not a valuation?
No, it's a logical observation.
>Why is it not equally reasonable to view this as the universe evaluating itself?
a) The perspective of any particular observer is not identical with the universe (we aren't omnisicent).
b) Values aren't universal among valuing agents (because their natures aren't universal), so which agent's perspective would the universe privilege, and why?
c) Why do you anthropomorphize the universe? You project your own capacity for reflective thought and preference onto the universe as a whole, but what logical/empirical support do you have for this assumption? Why would we assume that our emergent capacities can be transposed to the state(s) they emerged from?

>>16174900
>but aren't the values valued upon the attributes of a thing?
Yes, but valuing doesn't happen without preference. An agent has to 'care' about the variable attributes of things.
>how is evolution itself not a process of valuation lol
Evolution itself doesn't have feelings lmao
It's a blind, non-aware process
Cart, meet horse

[Anonymous No.16175706]

>>16175678
>valuing doesn't happen without preference
a set of preferences established by the attributes from which values are valued

>An agent has to 'care' about the variable attributes of things.
don't know what any of this has to do with the discussion

>Evolution itself doesn't have feelings lmao
what do you think ''evolution'' is? how does evolution take place without attribution of the conditions and the teleological implications

[Anonymous No.16175760]

>>16174915
This sound like Sam Harris-tier bullshit. "If you don't think you are following eudaimonia you missuse language".
This is just a circular argument. Academical philosophy doesn't take this seriously

[Anonymous No.16175936]

>>16175706
>a set of preferences established by the attributes from which values are valued
No, rather preferences are established by the attributes of the valuing agent's own nature (i.e. values proceed from that nature, they do not precede it).
>don't know what any of this has to do with the discussion
Yes, your ignorance is quite evident.
>what do you think ''evolution'' is? how does evolution take place without attribution of the conditions and the teleological implications
The salient question is: "What do you think valuation is?" You don't seem to understand that valuation necessitates feeling some way about a thing. Evolution doesn't care about any particular outcome — it doesn't think that anything should exist — it's just an unaware, non-reasoning process. There is no implied purpose (again, you're anthropomorphizing the universe) to life or evolution, it's just physics.

[Anonymous No.16175968]

>>16175936
> values proceed from that nature, they do not precede it
you just wrote about attributes being predicated of a thing valued, certain values (and which will be valued) proceed from the attributes of a nature.

>preferences are established by the attributes of the valuing agent's own nature
utter nonsense and ilogical. the preferences are a set imposed, constrained by the very attributes valued. are you retarded or what?

>Evolution doesn't care about any particular outcome. It is blind and unaware
oh yes you are retarded and has no idea what youre talking about.

[Anonymous No.16176003]

>>16175968
>Evolution doesn't care about any particular outcome. It is blind and unaware
>oh yes you are retarded and has no idea what youre talking about.

Not that anon but wtf are you talking about here. There is no reasoning or goals in evolution. It's survival of the fittest combined with random mutation and heredity. That's it, it is blind and unaware

[Anonymous No.16176031]

>>16176003
>It's survival of the fittest combined with random mutation and heredity
this is not evolution.

[Anonymous No.16176036]

>>16175678
>No, it's a logical observation.
If the subjective is a subset of the objective (things that can be determined by logic, unless you hold that we can objectively determine things otherwise) then how is this anything other than wordplay?
>Why would we assume that our emergent capacities can be transposed to the state(s) they emerged from?
Because the us/universe distinction is irrelevant to begin with. If we reason, then matter can reason or has the capacity to do so in the right configuration. It is a capacity, then, of the universe to arrange its components in this way. I wish now that I could have read Descartes before having met you here, because I know he writes about this.
>The perspective of any particular observer is not identical with the universe (we aren't omnisicent).
Nor is any particular part or quality of the universe identical to its totality, surely you understand the absurdity of the contrary position. I'm not well read enough to make this point properly. This is, as I understand it, one of the issues facing physicists trying to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.16176037]

>>16175760
No, he's basically correct. Any action we ever take is into improve our condition in some perceived way (which could be described as attempting to approach eudaimonia), we are incapable of acting othwerwise. Of course, we can be gravely mistaken about the efficacy of the course of action we choose or the relative desirability of the particular improvement we sought.

Of course, none of that means that morality is truly universal, since the optimal conditions for one being aren't going to be identical to another's (morality is about finding the pragmatic overlap).

[Anonymous No.16176051]

>>16176031
Wtf is it then? Survival of the fittest combined with random mutation and heredity is what drives speciation

[Anonymous No.16176098]

>>16176051
i'm not here to discuss evolution but external and material changes don't make essential changes. consciousness is not evolved from seminal transmissions.

[Anonymous No.16176116]

>>16176098
Whatever woo woo metaphysical definition of evolution you are championing here doesn't matter. Modern biology uses the definition I gave and says evolution is blind and unaware. Your essential changes are made up

[Anonymous No.16176139]

>>16176051
Forget about it anon, he's less coherent with each reply. Not worth our time.

[Anonymous No.16176156]

>>16176116
>>16176139
the modern mentality operates with the same tools: nominalism and materialism, so the ethical and biological outcome is not surprising. you have no idea what matter is.

[Anonymous No.16176159]

>>16176003
>It is blind and unaware
>Red Queen don't real

[Anonymous No.16176196]

>>16176159
How can you know anything about the Red Queen effect and think that it implies that evolution is not blind and unaware? Is it because it has queen in the name, do you think there is an actual red queen controlling evolution?

[Anonymous No.16176218]

>>16176196
No, it very clearly implies that the organisms themselves work within a specific teleology in terms of evolution

[Anonymous No.16176254]

>>16176218
A constant age independent probability of the extinction of a species implies a teleology? Are you kidding me?

[Anonymous No.16176269]

>>16176254
Next time you try to debate on evolution and bring up "muh biologists", don't just use the Wikipedia article
Read a book

[Anonymous No.16176281]

>>16176269
You're the one claiming evolution is teleological against every modern biologist. Evolution has no goals and you talking about the Red Queen is just you trying to hide your shit behind something you think sounds smart. It has nothing to do with teleology.

[Anonymous No.16176309]

>>16176281
Make more appeals to authority without any sources
Or read a book
Hard mode: when you do your Google no jutzu, don't take the first thing you see

[Anonymous No.16176315]

>>16176309
So where are your sources and books that say the Red Queen implies teleology?

[Anonymous No.16176325]

>>16176051
>>16176196
>>16176254
>>16176281
By the way, did they find the missing link between apes and humans? Materialistic evolution is still a theory.

[Anonymous No.16176335]

>>16171699
The operation of desire and valuation does not require objective value, just as thinking does not require objective truth.

[Anonymous No.16176339]

>>16176325
A fucking meme book by a creationist. I win the argument

[Anonymous No.16176351]

>>16176339
Real scientific evolutionary theory says it is blind and unaware. If you want to turn to the Bible thumpers go ahead but don't call someone else uneducated about evolution

[Anonymous No.16176358]

>>16176325
Wynand De Beer is a South African who taught in Cape Town until moving to Ireland, where he met his Russian wife Lyudmila. His research articles on Hellenic philosophy and Patristic theology have been published in various peer-reviewed journals in the United States and South Africa. A member of the Russian Orthodox Church, he has also written articles for Orthodox publications and websites under his Orthodox name, Vladimir de Beer.

Rofl

[Anonymous No.16176382]

>>16176358
I didn't know you got a special name when you converted mine is going to be Rasputin Stalin de Putin

[Anonymous No.16176385]

>>16176339
>>16176351
>>16176358
Yet ''real scientific'' theory is just a materialistic theory with no material evidence whatsoever, if this is not truly laughable I don't know what is. This is what happens when someone has absolute no metaphysical intuition. Are you even human, or just really monkeys?

[Anonymous No.16176400]

>>16176385
So you admit I know what real evolution is and you don't. I don't care about your metaphysics

[Anonymous No.16176432]

>>16176400
You don't seem to care about evolution as well.

[Anonymous No.16176440]

>>16176432
I know enough about it to say

> It's survival of the fittest combined with random mutation and heredity

to which you replied

>>this is not evolution.

Yes that is definitely evolution no matter what some church bro tells you

[Anonymous No.16176468]

>>16176440
There is no way to discuss with people like you, you are enclosed within dogmatic assertions. These are ilogical, counter-metaphysical and without any material evidence despite being materialistic. You don't realize how absurd and desperate you sound.

[Anonymous No.16176478]

>>16176432
Page 74 of Evolution by Mark Ridley PhD in Evolutionary Biology dissertation under Richard Dawkins

Natural selection iseasiest to understand, in the abstract, as a logical argument, leading from premises toconclusion. The argument, in its most general form, requires four conditions:
1. Reproduction. Entities must reproduce to form a new generation.
2. Heredity. The offspring must tend to resemble their parents: roughly speaking, “likemust produce like.”
3. Variation in individual characters among the members of the population. If we arestudying natural selection on body size, then different individuals in the populationmust have different body sizes. (See Section 1.3.1, p. 7, on the way biologists use theword “character.”)
4. Variation in the fitnessof organisms according to the state they have for a heritablecharacter. In evolutionary theory, fitness is a technical term, meaning the averagenumber of offspring left by an individual relative to the number of offspring left by an average member of the population. This condition therefore means that indi-viduals in the population with some characters must be more likely to reproduce(i.e., have higher fitness) than others. (The evolutionary meaning of the term fitnessdiffers from its athletic meaning.)

[Anonymous No.16176487]

>>16176468
I'm enclosed within dogmatic assertions yet you're the one talking about metaphysical intuitions. Here is my metaphysical intuition that you're full of shit. Can't argue with that it's my metaphysical intuition therefore it must be true

[Anonymous No.16176506]

>>16173632
Look at those hips OH NO NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.16177141]

If the "ought" cashes out in something like "if you want to to achieve this goal, you shouldn't do X" there is no problem of deriving an ought from an is. From the fact that you don't want to get poisoned, and the fact that this well contains contaminated water, it would follow that you shouldn't drink from it.
On the other hand if the "ought" cashes out in objective prescriptivity - that is, an action that has the property of "not-to-be-done"-ness somehow built into it, you could still derive an ought from an is by postulating properties that are intrinsically action-guiding. So the logical problem of deriving an ought from an is is not really the big problem here, but there is a real metaphysical issue if you want to cash out ought statements in the moral realist sense outlined above, because you would have to justify bellief in the existence of such objectively presriptive entities.
There is also a related issue here concerning libertarian free will, for if we say that something that you objectively shouldn't do translates to "something that when perceived, forces the will to not do it regardless of any desires you may have" it follows that when you know something is moral you can't freely act immorally.

[Anonymous No.16177556]

>>16176351
science only deals with efficient and material causes. philosophy deals with all four causes. the case of value theory in evolution has to be addressed philosophically so a statement like
>Real scientific evolutionary theory says it is blind and unaware.
would be begging the question. science says everything is blind and unaware because that's how it operates. you have to address this using philosophical arguments and not an appeal to science.

[Anonymous No.16177577]

>>16177556
You mean aristotelian philosophy deals with all four causes and the only real presence that has is among the seminaries. The four causes don't exist besides the efficient. Begging the question is including the final cause as a given and then claiming teleology as something discovered

[Anonymous No.16178006]

>>16177577
the heart pumps blood, the mouth masticates, acorns turn into trees. this is all that's meant by teleology and you don't need an aristotelian framework to accept it.

[Anonymous No.16178448]

>>16171699
Just read John Rawls. He fixed it.

[Anonymous No.16178453]

>>16178448
Also Kant. You don't need science to create an objective ethics.

[Anonymous No.16178569]

>>16177556
Okay here is my philosophical argument. I will give you two.
Firstly, as Hume pointed out, we never observe any necessary connections in nature. If causes somehow point to, or are directed towards their effect, this connection remains hidden from our perception. This lack of empiricsl basis for the hypothesis leave some room for skeptical doubt.
Secondly, if a cause is directed towards its effect, this directionality is a relation of an existent object with a non yet existing object. But how can something be related to an object that doesn't exist? The only way non existent things can be said to be real is as intentional objects in the mind, like the idea of a dragon. Therefore, causes are not teleologically oriented towards their effects.

[Anonymous No.16178595]

>morality needs to be based in objectivity!!!
>there needs to be objective moral facts in order to do good things!!!
>god is dead, time to rape!!!

[Anonymous No.16178631]

so the problem is basically you can't derive "one ought not kill" from "killing is wrong"

but isn't it the other way around? "killing is wrong" is a true statement because "one ought not kill".

And where does "one ought not kill" get its truth value? Well that's easy - because I say so. My judgment is the source of moral facts. Why would I trust anyone elses, or worse still why would I trust some random disinterested morality out there in the 'objective' world?

[Anonymous No.16178928]

>>16171699
You have to act and you can choose how you act and how you act will change your reality
>Hume btfo

[Anonymous No.16179144]

>>16171699
It is true in 98% of cases except, properly understood, Aristotle or religion.