Philosophers who have accomplished truly incredible feats?

[Anonymous No.19402134]

I'll start: picrel squared the circle.

[Anonymous No.19402144]

Proved the existence of God

[Anonymous No.19402181]

>Hume’s idea seems to be that you cannot deduce moral conclusions, featuring moral words such as ‘ought’, from non-moral premises, that is premises from which the moral words are absent.

Although an Athiest, he eviscerated secular ethics.

[Anonymous No.19402188]

>>19402181
Secular "humanists" have been pretending he doesn't exist for centuries now

[Anonymous No.19402207]

>>19402134

[Anonymous No.19402214]

> Refutes causality.

[Anonymous No.19402228]

>>19402181
But he tore religious ethics apart as well. Why should we care what God says?

[Anonymous No.19402274]

>>19402228
That is true but Hume’s philosophy relies on
>Hume’s theory the virtues and vices are understood as simply pleasurable or painful qualities of mind (cp. T, 3.1.2). A vicious character, he argues, produces hate and humility (dishonour and shame) that makes us unhappy. In contrast with this, virtue produces love and pride, which makes us happy. This is the fundamental mechanism by which virtue is rewarded and vice is punished. This mechanism operates no less effectively among atheists, who have no belief in God or a future state, as it does among those with traditional theistic beliefs.

But to object to the last part using his philosophy, God is one the most common pleasure of mind, probably the most common one in the world, so denying what God wants would be denying what we want as a species because most of us believe in God. So we should do what God commands because it gives pleasure of mind.

[Anonymous No.19402291]

>>19402274
Did you read what you quoted?
>This mechanism operates no less effectively among atheists, who have no belief in God or a future state, as it does among those with traditional theistic beliefs.
Obeying God doesn't give me any pleasure of mind so I'm justified not obeying him

[Anonymous No.19402304]

>>19402291
>Obeying God doesn't give me any pleasure of mind so I'm justified not obeying him
For you, but that's not true for most of humanity.

[Anonymous No.19402317]

>>19402304
Most of humanity doesn't believe in Christianity. And even if it did what difference would that make to whether I got any pleasure from serving God? Objective ethics isn't going to come from a popularity contest I thought that would be obvious

[Anonymous No.19402319]

>>19402291
And I would contend that point in light of polling data.

[Anonymous No.19402322]

>>19402214
>david, it's time to pose for your painting
>hang on bitch let me get my hat lol

[Anonymous No.19402331]

>>19402317
Most of humanity believes in God, it's not a popularity contest. Hume doesn't believe in objective ethics. I'm just pointing out that most people in the world get pleasure of mind from believing and following God.

[Anonymous No.19402338]

>>19402331
>Most of humanity believes in God, it's not a popularity contest.
If it's not a popularity contest why does it matter that most people believe in God?
>I'm just pointing out that most people in the world get pleasure of mind from believing and following God.
And I'm pointing out that I don't get pleasure from believing and following God. Hume's is-ought destroys religious and secular ethics.

[Anonymous No.19402356]

>>19402338
>If it's not a popularity contest why does it matter that most people believe in God?

>Hume’s theory the virtues and vices are understood as simply pleasurable or painful qualities of mind

It matters because most people derive a pleasurable quality of mind from believing God, so that's works with Hume’s philosophy.

>Why should we care what God says?

Your original question, because God believing and obeying God gives the pleasurable quality of mind, people are happier believing in God >>19402319
You said "we" not "I".

[Anonymous No.19402384]

>>19402356
>You said "we" not "I"
And me saying "we" includes me. We is the plural first person pronoun. So why should we(which includes me and is meant to include everyone on earth) do what God says? You provided a reason for a subset of my "we" which doesn't include me and I'm asking again why should we care?

[Anonymous No.19402430]

>>19402384
Well the explanation works for overwhelming majority of "we", but as >>19402319

statistics show believing and practicing religion makes people happier generally so I can say within Hume’s philosophy that we should believe in God because it gives people a pleasurable quality of mind. So I can say it in a general sense of the population of "we" not in the absolute sense I guess.

[Anonymous No.19402442]

>>19402430
>So I can say it in a general sense of the population of "we" not in the absolute sense I guess.
And the absolute sense is the sense that objective ethics refers to. Hume's is-ought destroys objective religious and secular ethics. Everyone can have their own subjective ethics as you've accurately pointed out

[Anonymous No.19402456]

>>19402442
I wasn't talking about objective ethics, we were talking about Hume’s subjective ethics. But I can still say "we" like I can say "We Canadians like maple syrup" and that can be true in a general sense but not absolute sense.

[Anonymous No.19402464]

>>19402456
If you're not talking about objective ethics what are arguing for? Hume's is-ought problem doesn't apply to subjective ethics. A secular person can say most people think murder is bad just as easily as a religious person can say most people believe in God

[Anonymous No.19402468]

>>19402322
I bet he would browse /fa/

[Anonymous No.19402469]

Weininger accomplished a great deal in a short time.

[Anonymous No.19402474]

>>19402464
I was talking about it within Hume’s philosophical framework of
>Hume’s theory the virtues and vices are understood as simply pleasurable or painful qualities of mind

I thought that was obvious.

[Anonymous No.19402482]

>>19402474
And that framework is obviously subjective. Hume's is-ought problem is talking about objective ethics that try to apply to everyone. It destroys religious and secular objective ethics but doesn't apply to subjective ethics. Subjective ethics is just your opinion on what is right and wrong.

[Anonymous No.19402489]

>>19402482
I didn't say it applied to is/out, just how it applied to that framework.

[Anonymous No.19402492]

>>19402489
is/ought*

[Anonymous No.19402494]

>>19402489
>I didn't say it applied to is/out, just how it applied to that framework.
I've been confused from the beginning then. I thought you were replying to this >>19402228
where I pointed out that Hume's is-ought destroys religious ethics too. Hume even says that himself:

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and ESTABLISHES THE BEING OF A GOD, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason

[Anonymous No.19402503]

>>19402494
And I replied
>That is true but Hume’s philosophy relies on

From then on I was talking from within Hume’s framework

>Hume’s theory the virtues and vices are understood as simply pleasurable or painful qualities of mind

[Anonymous No.19402505]

>>19402503
>From then on I was talking from within Hume’s framework

So what? Are we still talking about is-ought or not? And if we're not how is your reply connected to my original post?

[Anonymous No.19402513]

>>19402505
No I was talking about Hume’s framework to answer your question on a subjective level but the is/ought guillotine still stands.

[Anonymous No.19402514]

>>19402442
>Hume's is-ought destroys objective religious and secular ethics.
Only if you exclusively allow for natural theology, versus more contemporary lines of argumentation i.e. presupposition shit.
They'll premise against the coherency of any debate occuring in a purely material world; undermine the materialist's beliefs by demanding the materialist to present evidence within his worldview that justifies his engagement in a debate; if he can't do this, and usually he can't (he has no claim to objective good/evil that can come out of the debate, he has no claim to free will that can justify his engagement), then his beliefs are said to be incoherent, because it is his belief that both the debate is and isn't meaningful, that it should and shouldn't be engaged in.
From this they'll attempt to derive a sort of 'God must exist for you to even debate, and you either believe this deep down or you're insane' and from that attempt to establish an is for a particular God as their opponent's first premise in their actions (very difficult). If this is established then it's totally outside the bounds of Hume's ought/is argument, which is designed against natural theology and not theology that is dealing with an ethical-God-is from the first premise.

Is it whacky? yeah maybe, but it's entertaining, a lot more entertaining than listening to "is can't ought!!" for 400 years.

[Anonymous No.19402538]

>>19402514
>Hume's ought/is argument, which is designed against natural theology and not theology that is dealing with an ethical-God-is from the first premise.
I mean you can do this but why can't a secular person just turn around and claim their ethical standard as a basic premise. Hume's is-ought doesn't apply to moral axioms assumed as brute facts.
>that it should and shouldn't be engaged in.
There is that should sneaking in again. Hume is giggling in his grave

[Anonymous No.19402561]

>>19402538
>why can't a secular person just turn around and claim their ethical standard as a basic premise.
Well it mostly centers around materialism and the lack of free will & objective good/evil. The trouble, right, is that no materialist can say "your engaging in this debate presupposes your disbelief in the immaterial", while they can certainly be on the receiving end of the opposite accusation.
>sneaking in again.
You can ignore it for "is and isn't meaningful" if you like. I'm just offering an outline of how some try to evade Hume. Keep in mind that both parties agree with Hume, but only the materialist has an ought/is problem for justifying his engagement in the debate.

[Anonymous No.19402572]

>>19402561
>You can ignore it for "is and isn't meaningful" if you like.
This doesn't work because you're still relying on the moral fact that you shouldn't engage in meaningless debate. A materialist can even accept the stupid premise that materialism makes everything meaningless and say they're having a meaningless debate.
>The trouble, right, is that no materialist can say "your engaging in this debate presupposes your disbelief in the immaterial", while they can certainly be on the receiving end of the opposite accusation.
Why does this matter to just assuming whatever moral axioms you want?

[Anonymous No.19402600]

>>19402572
>assuming whatever moral axioms you want?
That's not it. The argument at its simplest form is essentially accusing your opponent of having a hidden premise. It can't be any axiom, it has to be necessitated by your opponent themselves.
>This doesn't work because you're still relying on the moral fact that you shouldn't engage in meaningless debate.
No, that's not necessary. It's only necessary to prove that your interlocutor's beliefs are wholly incoherent. If you can prove that he holds the debate as meaningful/meaningless then he has no argumentation at all. Once again this relies on basically finding a hidden premise.

It's critical in nature, the position relies on having another argument to critique. There isn't really a lined-up natural theology type of deal going on here, there is no "premise 1: morality exists".
It's more like saying "your premises say morality exists, because you're debating right now, so you actually agree with me".

Tricky to get at, I'm not really sure what I think of it yet. It's definitely cool for working with Hume but you get much larger problems later down the line (establishing a particular deity's morality over another's). I have to go to bed tho, bye anon. For further reading I think there was some study on presuppositional acceptance among philosophers conducted a while back, maybe the sep/wiki page on presuppositions will have something about it.

[Anonymous No.19402612]

>>19402600
>No, that's not necessary. It's only necessary to prove that your interlocutor's beliefs are wholly incoherent. If you can prove that he holds the debate as meaningful/meaningless then he has no argumentation at all. Once again this relies on basically finding a hidden premise.
If it's not necessary to have a moral axiom that you shouldn't engage in meaningless debate the how do you get the meaningful side of the incoherence.
1. Religious person says materialism makes everything meaningless
2. Materialist agrees
3. Religious person says that make this discussion meaningless
4. Materialist agrees
5. Religious person says this discussion must be meaningful
6. Materialist asks why?
you said this
>present evidence within his worldview that justifies his engagement in a debate; if he can't do this, and usually he can't (he has no claim to objective good/evil that can come out of the debate, he has no claim to free will that can justify his engagement)
what justification does the materialist need? You're sneaking a should in again

>That's not it. The argument at its simplest form is essentially accusing your opponent of having a hidden premise. It can't be any axiom, it has to be necessitated by your opponent themselves.
But the answer you give here for the religious side is
> theology that is dealing with an ethical-God-is from the first premise.
If you can just assume your morality as a first premise there is no is-ought problem for either side.

[Anonymous No.19402617]

Removed ornamentation from European Aesthetics

[Anonymous No.19402641]

A man is the navigator of a ship, ought he not navigate the ship well? Is can lead to ought teleologically. Hume BTFO; Greeks were right again.

[Anonymous No.19402655]

>>19402641
Teleology is bullshit and just ethics in disguise. I say a navigator shouldn't navigate how do you show that I'm wrong besides popular opinion? And what if popular opinion is against your teleology? Teleology is subjective not objective

[Anonymous No.19402672]

>>19402228
Exactly! Why should we care about anything at all?

[Anonymous No.19402679]

>>19402672
Or rather how do we make the jump to what to care about. Hume showed that religion and secular fail to provide objective morality.

[Anonymous No.19402683]

>>19402291
But the main point is the unity of mankind in the very idea of God. Today this is not the case because the very idea of unity first acquired from God imbues now the community. As if the relation between community and God changed into individual and community.

[Anonymous No.19402688]

>>19402679
That is why the answer will always end up being religious.

[Anonymous No.19402692]

>>19402655
You wouldn't, then, call him a navigator. The premise of the ought lies in the description of the occupation. It would be an interesting contortion to see, that is of logic of a person to say that a navigator ought not navigate well

[Anonymous No.19402695]

>>19402683
I mean that is cool I guess. Still doesn't answer the question of why I should obey God. Hume pretty comprehensively wrecked objective morality from God along with secular morality

[Anonymous No.19402703]

>>19402695
Because any moral/virtuous act will ultimately come from an immediate ground of pure faith (as every intellectual position, for the ground from which the rational development proceeds will likewise be established only by a foundational fround of pure faith).

[Anonymous No.19402704]

>>19402692
My of definition navigator doesn't include an ought in it. If you just define your oughts into the words you're using sure you can dodge Hume but a secularist can do it just as easily as a religious person. I define murder as killing a person and you shouldn't do it. Presto objective secular ethics. It's the exact same as just assuming your moral axioms to begin with which is why I called teleology ethics in disguise.

[Anonymous No.19402709]

>>19402703
>Because any moral/virtuous act will ultimately come from an immediate ground of pure faith
If by pure faith you mean assuming your preferred moral axioms as brute facts I agree with you. But a secular person can assume their own moral axioms just as easily as someone can assume morality comes from God

[Anonymous No.19402756]

>>19402709
The thing still is that the the ground from which these axioms follow will be religious. The secular is just a late stage of what was once purely religious. This is anthropologically obvious in consonance with a phenomenological approach. I'm not going into detailed exposition of it here (about the idea of consciousness and unity, the Platonic One and the synousia (the pertinence of the platonic understanding of ontology, axiology and epistemology as intimately interrelated), the macro-micro cosmic relation between the unity of consciousness and community and both the idea of unity and one's own self-consciousness as conscious and that of community being derived and established by primeval religious awe—institutions and values had always been established on the consciousness of the Sacred, etc.), because it is too simple a response:
>a secular person can assume their own moral axioms just as easily as someone can assume morality comes from God
Yes, and why not go the whole way? One that precisely would not leave any room for individual subjectivity—as there is no more universal ground than God (an Ungrund Grund to express it theologically). What reason would be presented for such a halt? It would require another ground of faith.

[Anonymous No.19402763]

>>19402756
>Yes, and why not go the whole way?
It's an arbitrary assumption of starting moral axioms. There is no why or why not that's the whole point. Most of the rest of what you wrote is just gibberish.
>One that precisely would not leave any room for individual subjectivity—as there is no more universal ground than God
Assuming God exists is as subjective as it gets. God is far from a universal assumption no matter how much you want him to be

[Anonymous No.19402779]

>>19402704
>shouldn't
Does not equal ought, and thus not an equivocation.
>My of definition navigator doesn't include an ought in it
>It's the exact same as just assuming your moral axioms
Definition does not equal premise. Further, I never stated navigation as something that ought to be done for its own sake in the same sense as you have for avoiding murder.
>but a secularist can do it just as easily as a religious person
A teleologist would inherently believe in some kind of moral order and purpose to things. When Aristotle argued that something has an intrinsic end, how would that same intrinsic end be defined by popular opinion if it is intrinsic to itself?

[Anonymous No.19402786]

>>19402134
"Squaring the circle" refers to constructing a square having the same area as a given circle using only compass and straightedge, and it has been proved to be impossible using Galois Theory and other modern algebraic wizardry.
If the restriction on compass and straightedge is dropped, then plenty of people managed to "square the circle" way before Hobbes was born (the ancient Greeks already had a few methods).
Also, Hobbes was a bit of a brainlet and his first contact with mathematics was reading Euclid by chance at a library when he was already a grown-ass adult.

[Anonymous No.19402789]

>>19402779
>Does not equal ought, and thus not an equivocation.
So change the shouldn't to ought not to. They mean the same fucking thing.

>Definition does not equal premise. Further, I never stated navigation as something that ought to be done for its own sake in the same sense as you have for avoiding murder.
So navigators have no obligation to navigate well? What are you saying here?

>A teleologist would inherently believe in some kind of moral order and purpose to things. When Aristotle argued that something has an intrinsic end, how would that same intrinsic end be defined by popular opinion if it is intrinsic to itself?
And I explicitly said that teleology is bullshit and their are no intrinsic ends to things that aren't defined subjectively. Again tell me how to determine the intrinsic end of something objectively. You can't fucking do it because the intrinsic end of something is just an opinion you have. Teleology is fake and doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.19402795]

>>19402763
>There is no why or why not that's the whole point
Then there is no why or why not for morality too. But we are discussing morality and its praxis.

>Assuming God exists is as subjective as it gets. God is far from a universal assumption no matter how much you want him to be
God is the objectivity of exteriority, the objective relation itself between I-Other, that is why, concerning morality and the foundational moral ground (as moral acts, morality, is concerned with that relation). Likewise, God represents the very epistemological-ontological starting point, from which we can derive and find Faith itself. Hence why God is the most universal and concrete concept.

>Most of the rest of what you wrote is just gibberish.
If you can't understand such a simple thing which I have told you more than once, no wonder you peabrain would fail to extract anything from that part.

[Anonymous No.19402802]

>>19402795
>that is why, concerning morality and the foundational moral ground (as moral acts, morality, is concerned with that relation)
...it is not arbitrary at all, but universal.

[Anonymous No.19402803]

>>19402795
>Then there is no why or why not for morality too. But we are discussing morality and its praxis.
Again we're talking about ARBITRARILY assuming some starting moral axioms. Of course there is not going to be any why or why not for the ARBITRARILY chosen axioms. That's what fucking ARBITRARY mean.

>God is the objectivity of exteriority, the objective relation itself between I-Other, that is why, concerning morality and the foundational moral ground (as moral acts, morality, is concerned with that relation). Likewise, God represents the very epistemological-ontological starting point, from which we can derive and find Faith itself. Hence why God is the most universal and concrete concept.
This is verbal diarrhea. God is the elephant of the green dream that hides in our interior cave complex. Do you really think this means something? You don't even understand how basic logic works with starting premises

[Anonymous No.19402836]

>>19402803
>Again we're talking about ARBITRARILY assuming some starting moral axioms. Of course there is not going to be any why or why not for the ARBITRARILY chosen axioms.
On what rests the freedom that establishes the arbitrary assumption first of all? You still fail to get that I've been taking the issue precisely in a more fundamental level. People will never act and justify their actions arbitrarily.

>ignoring and disregarding again all other pertinent parts of the post without addressing them

[Anonymous No.19402844]

>>19402789
>So change the shouldn't to ought not to. They mean the same fucking thing.
>An X ought not to do the the things X's do.
Non sequitur. Should has material connotations while ought is a moral imperative.
>What are you saying here?
Moral imperatives must necessarily operate among agents of will. Thus a navigator steering a ship doesn't, by itself, carry any moral or ethical obligations with it. However, because he ought to navigate well there is now an inherent end to it where the navigator can have a bad, evil, harmful etc outcome or vice versa.
>And I explicitly said that teleology is bullshit
And yet it somehow makes it past Hume's problem.
>their are no intrinsic ends to things that aren't defined subjectively.
>You can't fucking do it because the intrinsic end of something is just an opinion you have.
If there were a moral order to the universe, would there not be an objective end? Of course, our attempts to understand such a thing would be, necessarily, subjective but isn't that the case when defining any other ought from any other system? I could just as easily say all of morality is fake and doesn't exist as well with your emotive argument.

[Anonymous No.19402846]

>>19402836
>On what rests the freedom that establishes the arbitrary assumption first of all?
This is pointless. Freedom to make an arbitrary assumption? Wtf are you talking about? You can arbitrarily assume whatever the fuck you want.
>People will never act and justify their actions arbitrarily.
Then you can't arbitrarily assume God as a moral authority and you're screwed by Hume again.

[Anonymous No.19402860]

>>19402844
>And yet it somehow makes it past Hume's problem.
It makes it past Hume's problem by sneaking in moral axioms. You can just assume them outright it defeats Hume the same way. But there is no objective teleology
>If there were a moral order to the universe, would there not be an objective end? Of course, our attempts to understand such a thing would be, necessarily, subjective but isn't that the case when defining any other ought from any other system? I could just as easily say all of morality is fake and doesn't exist as well with your emotive argument.
I mean what do you think Hume's is-ought argument does? It destroys claims to objective morality and says ethical judgements are subjective. I do not believe in objective morality it does not exist just like teleology doesn't exist besides if you assume that it does

[Anonymous No.19402862]

>>19402846
As you are too dumb to understand the implications of what you yourself are expressing, try to think this way:
The arbitrariness that justifies your 'moral' axiom (as if it was an axiom of anything but your own stupidity) is the same arbitrariness that justifies my anti-moral axiom. It justifies its opposite with as much force as itself; it nullifies itself. And this has absolutely nothing to the point of discussion which is morality and its own ground, it must be objective because morality can only be objective. Hell.

>Then you can't arbitrarily assume God as a moral authority
I refuse to repeat everything again, try fixing your brain first and reread everything I've posted here.

[Anonymous No.19402868]

>>19402862
>>19402846
Ah just remembering we are confined in a pure rational speculative discussion. I have mentioned anthropology, but you ignored, you know how it would be even more obvious from experience that what I said is the case in practice in all history of humanity.

[Anonymous No.19402872]

>>19402862
>The arbitrariness that justifies your 'moral' axiom (as if it was an axiom of anything but your own stupidity) is the same arbitrariness that justifies my anti-moral axiom. It justifies its opposite with as much force as itself; it nullifies itself.
I assume that unicorns are red. I assume that unicorns are not red. What the fuck is nullified you fucking ignorant retard?

>And this has absolutely nothing to the point of discussion which is morality and its own ground, it must be objective because morality can only be objective.
Fucking what? Morality can only be objective? Did you even read Hume's argument? Shit if you're just going to bust out with morality can only be objective just say that stupid shit from the beginning and stop wasting my time

[Anonymous No.19402875]

>>19402868
> I have mentioned anthropology, but you ignored, you know how it would be even more obvious from experience that what I said is the case in practice in all history of humanity.
If it's a popularity contest it's not objective morality. This is basic basic shit. Lots of people saying something is wrong doesn't make it wrong.

[Anonymous No.19402887]

>>19402872
Yes and you haven't provided a single rationale for any retarded shit you've spitted so far.

>>19402875
It has nothing to do with popularity. How can you be so retarded? It has to do with the empirical counterpart of what I've been affirming.

[Anonymous No.19402910]

>>19402887
>Yes and you haven't provided a single rationale for any retarded shit you've spitted so far.
Hume's problem draws attention to the unbridgeable gap between facts and moral rules the is-ought. I said that if you just arbitrarily assume the moral rules or axioms you can get around this but both secular and religious people can assume shit.

>It has nothing to do with popularity. How can you be so retarded? It has to do with the empirical counterpart of what I've been affirming.
How in the fuck do you get an empirical counterpart to a moral axiom? That would solve the is-ought problem right there.

[Anonymous No.19402927]

Assume no emotions, desires, or preferences exist. Then morality cannot exist, as no one would benefit nor be harmed by any action. Now imagine that an individual has preferences, but the world does not. Then he will certainly prefer some actions over others, even believing that other people have preferences as he does, but in the end, he’s only acting out of his own, irrational preferences. Now imagine that he does not have preferences, but that the world does. Then, to him, it does not matter what he does, as all experiences and therefore actions are equally preferable to him.

So it is clear that morality, if it can be said to exist, is wholly dependent on subjective preferences, which are beyond rationality. The only moral axiom that could exist is that I should do what I will have preferred in the end, though this is circular, as the only justification for why I should do what is preferable is because I prefer it. But any other formulation of morality is no less circular, and certainly more absurd. The word “should” is an odd word, but it can be clarified if you remember that it is based on some goal. For example, if you want to go to sleep early, you should stop using electronics before bad. But everyone wants to have the least regret, everyone wants to live a preferable life and be happy, so “should” in a general sense is based on this goal. So it is simple to derive an ought from an is , provided we know what will tend to our benefit. But of course it is true that no one knows perfectly the set of actions one should take in this life.

[Anonymous No.19402929]

>>19402910
It would solve Hume's retardation because that is not the problem at all.
Every institutionalization of values of morality, duty was established on religious determination (hence the divine characters of the community and its institutions, again if you were not such an obnoxious ignoramus you would ponder about what the details I commented regarding this above).

[YKHN No.19402938]

>>19402910
>religious people can assume shit.
No, they can't.

[Anonymous No.19402947]

>>19402929
>Every institutionalization of values of morality, duty was established on religious determination
And this is an argument from popularity. Fuck it even contradicts itself since not every institutionalization of values has agreed to the same values so it can't be objective. You've given an example of a subjective popularity contest.

[Anonymous No.19402955]

>>19402938
Yes, they can. Assuming that God exists and knows objective truth and that such knowledge can be passed on to humans is not much more absurd than an atheist assuming that he has the ability to discern truth in the world, while believing that he only has rational faculties because evolution allowed it to happen.

[Anonymous No.19402962]

>>19402947
How is it an argument from popularity? If from now on humanity keeps following its path of secularity for more 500 millenia, it doesn't change its institutional point of foundation.

>not every institutionalization of values has agreed to the same values so it can't be objective
Haven't they? Can you find me any institution that goes against itself? A community that does not strive to maintain order, to keep it as a community, to establish the necessary bonds between the individuals that constitute it, can you, above all, find me one that does not posit a divine principle?

[Anonymous No.19402969]

>>19402955
The idea of God is what establishes objectivity above all and, precisely, defines what and how one can behave. Then with the idea of God one cannot simply assume shit.

>an atheist assuming that he has the ability to discern truth in the world
But this is not what rational ability will disclose, it will disclose its own epistemological recursion. This is the fundamental problem.

[Anonymous No.19402973]

>>19402962
>How is it an argument from popularity?
Because again arguing that alot of people believe something doesn't make their belief true. This is basic basic critical thinking.

>Haven't they? Can you find me any institution that goes against itself?
They don't go against themselves they go against each other. Christianity and Islam don't agree about alot of things. You explicitly said
>Every institutionalization of values of morality, duty was established on religious determination
Is it EVERY institutionalization that is objective? Because that's illogical since they contradict each other

[Anonymous No.19402987]

>>19402973
>Because again arguing that alot of people believe something doesn't make their belief true. This is basic basic critical thinking.
You must be either mentally handicapped or dishonest. I said that it was not on account of how many people believe, not about quantity at all, but about the starting point. The original ground.

>They don't go against themselves they go against each other. Christianity and Islam don't agree about alot of things. You explicitly said.
That they go against themselves doesn't mean they don't agree about the same values, which was what you said here >>19402947. Of course people who adore Shiva as the ultimate principle will go against people who adore Allah as the ultimate principle, but this has nothing to do with the fact that they agree on the same values. This is like saying a moral french person does not believe in the same moral values as a moral korean one because they speak different languages.

>Is it EVERY institutionalization that is objective? Because that's illogical since they contradict each other
Their fundamental values, holy shit, you are so dishonest I refuse to keep going with you in this way.

[Anonymous No.19403006]

>>19402987
>You must be either mentally handicapped or dishonest. I said that it was not on account of how many people believe, not about quantity at all, but about the starting point. The original ground.
Again how does being original make something objective? Religion has provided a subjective grounding for morality throughout history.

>Of course people who adore Shiva as the ultimate principle will go against people who adore Allah as the ultimate principle, but this has nothing to do with the fact that they agree on the same values
You think the Hindus and Muslims agree on the same values? Wow you're so goddamn out of it I can hardly imagine what type of bubble you live in. There are multiple killings every year in India by Hindus angry at Muslims for slaughtering cows.

>Their fundamental values, holy shit, you are so dishonest I refuse to keep going with you in this way.
Again are you really claiming the world religions share fundamental values? This is so ignorant I don't even know what to say

[Anonymous No.19403015]

>>19403006
The objectivity is its empirical reality as foundational as I have already said. The non-religious ''values'' could (as in fact were) only be derived from its primeval religious source.

>Hindus and Muslims... world religions share fundamental values?
Yes, as I have said they share general fundamental values as the ones I fucking cited and you didn't answer as usual. Of course minor differences will cause and justify wars and murders because man is led by power, and if you are not X you are against X. This is the distinction to which every action can be reduced: friend and enemy.

[Anonymous No.19403029]

>>19403015
>The objectivity is its empirical reality as foundational as I have already said.
Again your empirical reality is a bunch of people have based their morality on religion. That's an argument from popularity and totally subjective
>The non-religious ''values'' could (as in fact were) only be derived from its primeval religious source.
One of my values is that people should shove popsicles up their ass. What religion did I derive that from?

>Yes, as I have said they share general fundamental values as the ones I fucking cited and you didn't answer as usual
And again a bunch of people agreeing on something doesn't make it true or objective. Basic basic critical thinking. You need to provide some type of argument for objective morality that doesn't depend on it being popular with a bunch of people.

[Anonymous No.19403035]

>>19402860
>It makes it past Hume's problem by sneaking in moral axioms.
There's nothing sneaky about it.
>But there is no objective teleology
>I do not believe in objective morality
>just like teleology doesn't exist
From a statement of fact, to article of faith, and back again to statement of fact. You must have such strong legs to make such large leaps.

If there is a moral order and end to the universe while a navigator ought to navigate well then it follows that the navigator's end of doing well must be in accordance with an objective end. In this way the Greeks had a "better" moral system than the moderns when concerned with Hume and objectivity. You confuse the points of being able to identify something objectively with whether or not that same thing is objective or not. For instance, your or my ability to measure the angle between two lines does not change the fact of whether they are parallel or not. Further, our inability to prove the 5th parallel postulate in Euclid's Geometry does not change the fact of whether or not two parallel lines will ever intersect or not. Whether or not we can come to know the moral order of the universe if it is indeed so does not change the fact of whether it actually is or is not.

[Anonymous No.19403039]

>>19403029
>Again your empirical reality is a bunch of people have based their morality on religion
Another fucking no. It is not contingent on quantity of people but on the fact that before the religious there was nothing. Only from the religious could it be established, and it is on this ground secularization operates.

>One of my values is that people should shove popsicles up their ass. What religion did I derive that from?
The non-religious values concerning principal moral, ontological, epistemological values. You are a fucking idiot.

>And again a bunch of people agreeing on something
Wait, now you concede they agree on things?

The whole discussion was your asking questions to me and saying ''wrong because I don't think so!''. You haven't presented a single coherent and substantial rationale.

A waste of time. Bye.

[Anonymous No.19403049]

>>19403035
>Further, our inability to prove the 5th parallel postulate in Euclid's Geometry does not change the fact of whether or not two parallel lines will ever intersect or not.
You're wrong about this and it shows how little you understand about logic and deductive reasoning. In spherical geometry there are no parallel lines and in hyperbolic geometry there are infinitely many different parallel lines through a point. The facts about parallel lines are totally dependent on what axioms you start with.
>Whether or not we can come to know the moral order of the universe if it is indeed so does not change the fact of whether it actually is or is not.
I mean this is true but so what? Hume shows that you can't derive an ought from an is. There may an ought floating around out there but we have no way of knowing it. I don't believe in objectively determined morality if you want to be specific.

[Anonymous No.19403050]

>>19403039
You spouted gibberish from the very beginning and showed a total lack of understanding of Hume and basic logic. You should be embarrassed

[Anonymous No.19403052]

>>19402144
Where God?

[Anonymous No.19403085]

>>19402317
There are 2.6 billion Christian’s and 1.9 billion Muslims in the world. So over half of the 7 billion people in the world believe in the Abrahamic God.

[Anonymous No.19403225]

>>19403049
>You're wrong about this and it shows how little you understand about logic and deductive reasoning
More like it would merely show my ignorance beyond basic geometry. While you could gleam my intent to argue within the context of Euclidean geometry your comprehension of my statements of fact is entirely wrong. I indeed did mean to argue within the context of Euclidean and did not consider non-Euclidean geometry, I certainly never stated anything false about parallel lines. In fact, my statement is not wrong even outside of Euclidean geometry in that I stated our INABILITY to prove Euclid's postulate or measure does not change the properties of line and its parallelism. I never stated the properties of parallel lines as Euclid said to be true or false, thus the context of whether or not my statements are true within Euclid's framework are irrelevant, as is your deflection from subjective understanding of something and that same thing's inherent objective properties.

>Hume shows that you can't derive an ought from an is
I just showed it to you. Allow me to reiterate If there is an objective telos of the universe and within this telos is a man that is a navigator ought he to navigate well? This is no different from if there are two men within a society and murdering is wrong ought they not to murder each other? Hume's argument clearly refutes the commonly found second one but not the teleologically derived first one.

[Anonymous No.19403246]

>>19402134
>refutes jewishness