[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 112 KB, 900x900, ben stiller.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22718634 No.22718634 [Reply] [Original]

>bridges the is-ought gap

>> No.22718650

>>22718634
>with his dick

>> No.22718663

>>22718634
>(((Harris)))

>> No.22718670

>>22718634
>we've le determined that suffering is a real thing, so like don't le cause it LOL
What if I want other people to suffer?

>> No.22718673

>>22718634
>>22718650
>>22718663
>with his circumcized dick

>> No.22718690

>>22718634
>le randomly assembled atoms
>also x is bad

>> No.22718794

>>22718634
? That's Ben Stiller.

>> No.22719218

>>22718634
It's actually trivially easy. All you need is to make it an if-then statement.
"If you want X, then you ought to do Y."

>> No.22719223

>>22718634
>his arguments were so retarded that both 4chan and reddit destroyed them
kek good times

>> No.22719285

>your house IS on fire
How does this NOT immediately provide sufficient material to derive an "ought"?

>> No.22719435

>>22718663
How is his being Jewish manifested in his writings, if it is at all?

>> No.22719441

>>22719435
Atheism, for starters.

>> No.22719455

>>22719441
Very confusing.

>> No.22719458

>>22719455
Atheism is an extension of Jewish propaganda

>> No.22719480 [DELETED] 

>>22719458
How so?

>> No.22719481

>>22719458
Yep. Atheism for the goyim.

>> No.22719484

>>22719458
How so?

>> No.22719491

>>22719481
That's not Jewish. "Morality"/Noahide laws for the nations/goyim is Jewish.

>> No.22719494

>>22718634
Utilitarianism bridges the is-ought gap, because we are able to directly and immediately experience pleasure as good, and goodness by definition demands its own increase as an imperative for what is "better," so by our subjective experience of pleasure we are able to know it is an objective good with an objective "ought" towards its increase. Of course, from here we only need to consider that von Neumann machines (machines that utilize surrounding matter to replicate themselves) are theoretically possible, and then it becomes apparent that the ultimate "ought" of humanity is to utilize these von Neumann machines to transform as much of the universe into minds experiencing pleasure as possible, since the amount of pleasure so generated would completely swamp any other ethical concern or possible end to strive towards.

>> No.22719533 [DELETED] 

>>22719494
Pleasure belongs to the lower, animal life. Value is the good of the higher life of the human.

>> No.22719541

>>22719494
Pleasure belongs to the lower, animal life. Value is the good of the higher life of the human.

>> No.22719543

>>22719533
Define "value" in a way that can bridge the is-ought gap in the same way pleasure can with its immediately experienced goodness.

>> No.22719563

>>22719543
Value is that which is timeless. A statement expressing timelessness is experienced as good by a human being.

>> No.22719683

>>22719563
And could we say that this experience of it as good is a form of pleasure, making such valuation merely a subset of Utilitarianism?

>> No.22719693

>>22718634
>uhhhh you can be an Atheist and a Buddhist at the same time :^)

>> No.22719966

>>22719693
I've always wondered how Buddhism without belief in the supernatural aspect of rebirth doesn't imply immediate suicide as the most efficient way to dissolve suffering. Atheist Buddhism, then, is either a suicide cult or a contradiction.

>> No.22720660

>>22719541
>Value is the good of the higher life of the human.
That's a gibberish way to say 'Pleasure extended over a longer period o time'

>> No.22720710

>>22719494
That does not bridge the problem. But your point about von Neuman machines is funny (aside from the fact that minds are not material). This is pure utilitarianism. Not even Mill would agree with this, who at least had some principles.

>> No.22720715

>>22720660
Sure, but that boils it down to one specific kind of pleasure and not pleasure in general. After all, as epicurus says, some unnecessary pleasure just entails more suffering

>> No.22721072

>>22719218
>misunderstands the gap

>> No.22721073

>>22719683
>Utilitarianism?
Hedonism*

>> No.22721093
File: 77 KB, 1024x797, 1699210413225668m.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22721093

>>22718634
>orange man bad
>get the vaxxinee
>ok maybe just a little religion
>no i was never wrong about covid reality just didn't align with my correctness and i will never apologize
>drumftft is literally worse than a war with russia and iran at the same time

Do people really take this guy seriously?

>> No.22721213

>>22721093
he's really shown his true colors the past few years. high verbal iq midwit who's finally starting to fall off with his fanbase. you're not even exaggerating in the green text. he actually compared trump to an asteroid about to destroy the planet. i have two friends who have spent money to see this guy live unable to defend him.

>> No.22721227

>>22721213
He's deranged and mindbroken. All the people who used to have him on as guests talk about him in the past tense.

>> No.22721236

>>22718670
Conceivably, you could be deceived into thinking others are suffering, without them actually suffering. Thus the optimal outcome is for no one to suffer and for you to become delusional. Although I suspect you've already fulfilled your obligation in this regard.

>> No.22721243

>>22719458
>"NOOO, any attack on my ancient retarded myths must be the work of the juuuz"
There's just no fix for stupid to this degree

>> No.22721262

>>22721243
All atheism requires is one miracle, that everything suddenly came from nothing for no reason at all. Or you could just be agnostic or a deist and accept that you don't know everything.

>> No.22721267

>>22721262
A miracle is a suspension of the natural order. For atheism to require a miracle, you would have to contend that the natural order was for nature not to exist.

>> No.22721284

>>22721267
Define nature, I would sooner call it reality.

>> No.22721396

>>22721284
Reality consists of time and space. The existence and ordering of time and space are what I refer to as nature. If it is in the nature of time and space to come into existence, it is not a miracle that we find that they have come into existence. Although, even the language of "coming into existence" is flawed when speaking of time, because "coming" denotes a change occurring in time, an impossibility when referring to time itself, since there was not prior time from which it to "come" from.

>> No.22722415

>>22721396
Sounds dangerously like taoism

>> No.22722498

>>22718670
>What if I want other people to suffer?

That's a desire imbued with ill will.

>> No.22722508

>>22719458
This is acutely succinct. Jews hate Christianity since Jerome burned the temple and Stephen was struck by the first stone.

Atheism is the solution for the Christian problem

>> No.22722564

>>22722508
Reminder that Christianity has just as much trouble with is/ought as atheism does.

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.

>> No.22722585

>We got unlucky that covid didn't kill more kids

So this... is the power of Jewish moral philosophy...

>> No.22722592

>>22721073
Epicurean hedonism is misunderstood and not the same as utilitarianism

>> No.22722594

>>22721396
>Reality consists of time and space.
Lol
Lmao

Sure, but it's all in your head

>> No.22722599

>>22721396
So, time is eternal? That's not the standard view in physics today.

>> No.22722608

>>22722599
>So, time is eternal?
He's saying calling something eternal implies time exists. Time didn't come into existence because that implies there was a time before time existed. But that doesn't mean time is eternal

>> No.22722650

>>22722608
So nothing became something.

>> No.22722672
File: 39 KB, 600x548, 8bd8c13bdc3c1b9b254676334093489f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22722672

>>22722608
>time didn't come into being because that implies that time is not eternal because in order for it to come into being there would have to have been a time before it. So it cannot have come into being
>but that doesn't mean that time is eternal.

>> No.22722675

>>22722650
>So nothing became something.
Somewhat different question than asking about time."Became" implies that time existed before whatever popped into being.

>> No.22722687

>>22722672
You cut out the first part
>He's saying calling something eternal implies time exists
Prior to times existence nothing is eternal or transistory, those words don't apply since time doesn't exist. You can't even really talk about anything being "prior" to time's existence.

>> No.22722709

>>22722675
There are two states, timeless and time. It went from the timeless state to a state of time according to our best observations. Or in theological terms that already square the circle of that superstate you can say the all and eternal beginning and end in it's timeless entirety with time being only an illusion of conciousness.

>> No.22722725

>>22722709
>It went from the timeless state to a state of time
It "went" again implies time existed prior to time existing. Nothing can be "before" time.
>with time being only an illusion of conciousness
And you're accusing me of being goofy

>> No.22722735

>>22722725
Again the current state is time. So either you believe in a superstate or you don't believe in reality.

>> No.22722741

>>22722735
>So either you believe in a superstate or you don't believe in reality.
Mystical gibberish. Of course since time is an illusion you already knew I was going to say that lol.

>> No.22722756

>>22722741
State a ‐ timeless
State b - time <---------- you are here

>> No.22722769

>>22722756
"Transition" between states again implies time exists. "Change" implies time. Talking about time not existing makes very little sense.

>> No.22722787

>>22722769
So in order for time to come into existence time must exist. Interesting take since time exists.

>> No.22722798

>>22722787
>So in order for time to come into existence time must exist
I'm not even sure I agree with this. All I'm saying is that it makes very little sense to talk about time not existing. I've never seen anyone talk about it without also assuming time exists by using temporal parts of language

>> No.22722800

>>22722798
Time is just measurement of matter in motion. Imagining a state with no matter or motion isn't that difficult.

>> No.22722810

>>22722800
>Imagining a state with no matter or motion isn't that difficult.
Not hard to make either any decent vacuum chamber can do it. But no, time does not stop in a vacuum.

>> No.22722829

>>22722810
And an ocean exists in a barrel of seawater.

>> No.22723228

>>22718634
Hegel already did this in a much more coherent way.

>> No.22723237

>>22721236
What if he wants himself to suffer.

>> No.22723249
File: 38 KB, 800x800, 1692052917002365.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22723249

>>22719285
Because you can't OUGHT a fire out or OUGHT a fire into not occurring. Telling a fire it's bad and quantifying it is bad doesn't stop a fire from combusting.

>> No.22723289

>>22722650
Cause and effect are temporal phenomenon. A cause precedes its effect in time. It's literally incoherent to speak of a "cause" for the beginning of time, because by "cause" you reference an earlier time than the beginning of time.

>> No.22723299

>>22723237
Any situation where you want yourself to suffer is an indication of pathology and should probably be investigated on those grounds. But generally speaking, people are free to make themselves miserable if they wish.

>> No.22723328

>>22723299
The first statement is an admission that you haven't breached the is ought gap.

As for the second, if a community of such people got together, would it be wrong for them to hurt one another?

>> No.22723470

>>22723328
I am referencing utility. To maximize well being, freedom and individual choice are good "rules of thumb", since any system created to regulate people too strictly will almost certainly lead to worse outcomes than ensuring freedom, even if some individuals use their freedom in a deleterious manner. If a person is operating under a pathology, it means they cannot accurately determine what they desire, in other words, they feel as though they desire things which will actually cause them real suffering and prevent them from flourishing. In short, I believe you have misunderstood my post.