/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16619288]

>be me
>see hume walking down the street
>run up to him
>start twisting his arm
>almost at the breaking point
>he shrieks
>STOP TWISTING MY HEART, IT HURTS
>you can't derive an ought from an is, bro, sorry
Heh... nothing personnel, philosofag.

[Anonymous No.16619363]

>publishes a book to try and encourage scottish people to avoid all things scottish
>refused to be called scottish and always called himself a northern briton
>spent thousands on training from his best friend to get a london accent, failed
Has anyone hated themself more than him?

[Anonymous No.16619369]

>>16619288
>Hume smirks
>There's no necessary connection between the cause of you twisting my arm and the effect of its breaking
>His arm suddenly ceases all resistance and and spins effortlessly in its socket like a noodle, knocking you off balance
>Hume grabs you and looks at you with rapacious hunger
>Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions
>*chomp* *chomp* *chomp* *burrrrp*
>The life of man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster, Hume muses as he continues his stroll down the streets of Edinburgh

[Anonymous No.16619373]

>>16619288
I hope you don’t unironically think this is any sort of refutation

[Anonymous No.16619376]

>>16619363
Nah. Hume was an idiot, a proper tosser if I've ever seen one.

>>16619373
No matter how much you try to take value judgments and factual judgment aparts, reality you show you're wrong and take away your silly philosophical beliefs.

[Anonymous No.16619412]

>>16619376
we use inaccurate language all the time because it’s convenient. Words like duty, ought, should, etc. are treated as if they have a meaning in themselves. But if I say I should do x, it only means that I would prefer the consequences of doing x as opposed to not doing x.

[Anonymous No.16619424]

>>16619363
Its funny that the "Scotch" section is the one more used today.

[Anonymous No.16619430]

>>16619369

[Anonymous No.16619433]

>>16619373
The refutation is that merely bringing is-ought up is in and of itself an is-ought. If you actually believed it you would equally have to acknowledge that there is no binding reason why you should be intellectually honest at all.

The very concept of the is-ought fallacy is self detonating. It’s just a fancy way of saying “just because things are factually true doesn’t mean they have moral or philosophic implications,” which is a D&D tier set of philosophic gymnastics to get around any sort of practical grounding for a moral system.

>hey the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, so if you’re trying to draw a straight line, you ought to make sure it’s the shortest possible distance.

>NUH UH THAT DOESN'T FOLLOW

Yes it fucking does nigger.

[Anonymous No.16619439]

>>16619369
OP BTFOd

[Anonymous No.16619444]

>>16619433
I hope you're baiting. If you're serious, then you are a literal brainlet. I'm afraid to say that not getting the is-ought problem of all things means you won't be able to wrestle with tougher philosophical concepts.

[Anonymous No.16619450]

>>16619444
I’m entirely serious. I am also entirely right.

[Anonymous No.16619465]

>>16619450
Might as well give up on philosophy then. You're doomed because of being a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.16619487]

>>16619369
Based Hume

[Anonymous No.16619563]

>>16619369
Absolutely BASED

[Anonymous No.16619748]

>>16619288
>>16619369
Fucking kek

[Anonymous No.16619803]

Hume was wrong about most things, he very overrated in anglophone philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16619806]

>>16619433
Please tell us how you can derive how an ideal world ought to look like from the current world we inhabit? Or how anything ought to be from what it is? There's no objective rational that can be used to argue one set of outcomes is better than another, it's all dependent on our subjective values. Of course there's no reason to be intellectually honest, that's just a choice we make based off our values.

[Anonymous No.16619814]

>>16619433
>>hey the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, so if you’re trying to draw a straight line, you ought to make sure it’s the shortest possible distance.
I agree with your overall point but this is a hypothetical imperative which no one denies can be true independent of value judgements. What you are really looking for is a categorical imperative, something that you ought to do no matter the extraneous conditions.

[Anonymous No.16619815]

>>16619465
Pretender spotted.

[Anonymous No.16619832]

Has Hume refuted all political idealism due to his ought-is distinction?

[Anonymous No.16619869]

>>16619815
pseud spotted

[Anonymous No.16620219]

>>16619433
>>hey the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, so if you’re trying to draw a straight line, you ought to make sure it’s the shortest possible distance.

>>NUH UH THAT DOESN'T FOLLOW

Theres a difference between a categorical imperative and a hypothetical imperative.

[Anonymous No.16620225]

>>16619412
There is no higher language other than our day to day language. Your "analysis" of should is meaningless as a philosophical statement.

[Anonymous No.16620306]

>>16619369
How will OP ever recover?
>>16619363
Just means hes based.

[Anonymous No.16620422]

>>16619288

The "ought" follows from when Big Boy Hume does some serious judo shit and fucks you up and your desire to not get wrecked starts firing off those practical inferences.

[Anonymous No.16620443]

>>16620422
He was a fat self-hating Scotsman. He isn't doing any jiu jitsu.

[Anonymous No.16620507]

>>16619369

[Anonymous No.16620514]

>>16619832
Political behavior, like all human behavior, follows from passions.

[Anonymous No.16620627]

>>16620507
Hume vores every possible refutation. He greedily gobbles up christfags in his round scottish tummy. Hume lasciviously licks his lips when he spies a rail thin spindly platonist. He crunches into his small frame and the spindly man promptly denies any allegiance to metaphysical sophistry - but to no avail! Hume keeps clamping up and down his bones and swallows him whole!! A passion fulfilled with reason. Yum!

[Anonymous No.16620645]

>>16619369

[Anonymous No.16620667]

>>16620627
He even retroactively vores the post modernists and neitzcheians?

>Grand narratives you say? dispel them you want to? Hah! everything is but custom, it is only for customs sake you want to dispel custom.
>Slave morality! My boy the only slave here is you to think a bondage of denial is less auspitious then one of action. Eat your food or slay it, it matters not to me If the preacher preaches, as long as I enjoy it.

>Laugh and grow fat!

[Anonymous No.16620741]

>>16620627
>if we take in our custody any thinker; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does he do any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does he elaborate any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit him then to the flames: to roast, of course! for he will make a fine meal.

[Anonymous No.16621378]

>>16619369

[Anonymous No.16622146]

>>16619363
looks like scotch won out

[Anonymous No.16622253]

>>16622146
Looks about 50-50 to me.