Is there any point to philosophy other than amusing yourself?

File: 38 KB, 320x480, 1275349996877.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Dec 28 18:20:03 2012 No.3292899 [Reply] [Original]

Is there any point to philosophy other than amusing yourself?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 18:33:02 2012 No.3292937 No, it's essentially useless because all its questions are answered through neurobiology

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 18:37:02 2012 No.3292952 sad attempt, good trip to page 15. it will take a little long though

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 18:38:02 2012 No.3292957 I can't answer that question without a philosophic statement. Do you get it now?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 18:46:02 2012 No.3292988 >>3292937 Haha Just when I thought /sci/ couldn't get more retarded... Comedy gold.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 18:54:02 2012 No.3293040 >>3292937 Science can't tell us shit about ethics, will, phenomenology or metaphysics Nice try, though

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 18:56:02 2012 No.3293044 >>3293040 your forgot aesthetics idiot

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 18:58:02 2012 No.3293055 >>3293044 That too.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 19:08:02 2012 No.3293116 Don't feed it, silly.

Ostia Fri Dec 28 19:15:02 2012 No.3293155

>>3293040

>Science can't tell us shit about ethics, will, phenomenology or metaphysics.
>your forgot aesthetics idiot.

I'm not >>3292937

I love this board, but the scientific illiteracy here gets annoying sometimes....You should research more before making that statement.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 19:19:02 2012 No.3293168 girls are really impressed by guys who can talk at great length about philosophy

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 19:21:02 2012 No.3293185 >>3293040 You go too far. The original guy was being a dumbass, but Neurobiology can help describe and explain ethics, will and aesthetics.

Anonymous Fri Dec 28 19:22:02 2012 No.3293186

>>3293155

Calling me out on being scientifically illiterate without backing up the claim isn't helping anything.

Clearly, I didn't mean to say science says nothing about any of these schools of thinking.

The qualm was with the notion that science has any kind of definitive answers with regard to any of these, an idea that's clearly bullshit.

Don't take the phrase 'can't tell us shit' so literally. And feel free to argue the actual point.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 19:23:02 2012 No.3293193 >>3293185 >>3293186

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 19:24:02 2012 No.3293198 File: 13 KB, 300x300, facepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3293185 >Neurobiology can help describe and explain ethics, will and aesthetics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:15:02 2012 No.3294263 >>3293198 Except it can.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:17:02 2012 No.3294269 >>3294263 That´s when you should post something to prove your statement.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:17:02 2012 No.3294276 That's when I sage this obvious troll thread and call it a day.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:38:03 2012 No.3294336 >>3293185 A scientific discipline can never explain ethics because of the is/ought problem. Aesthetics and will maybe.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:42:03 2012 No.3294344 This is probably a regarded question on the level of a kindergartner but.... If a philosophical question has a definite answer is it still a philosophical question? Define philosophical question.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:43:03 2012 No.3294346 yawn

Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:44:03 2012 No.3294352

>>3294336

luckily nothing justifies ethics or aesthetics, because they are totally meaningless fields of mental masturbation and anyone on the street is equally qualified to talk about them.

neurology will explain why and how we come to ethical/aesthetic judgments.

It will reduce the mystery of aesthetics enough to render it impotent and trivial as it already is to wise people.

Of course people will still be captivated by these illusions

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:45:03 2012 No.3294354 >>3294344 If that is a question then this is an answer.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:45:03 2012 No.3294355 >>3294352 >ethics is meaningless Oh, boy........................................................

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:46:03 2012 No.3294357 Don't feed trolls.

Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:46:03 2012 No.3294359

aesthetics is completely subjective and requires no inquiry

the only inquiry we need is how the brain tricks people into being attracted to certain things, like assholes and vaginas, when they are clearly disgusting and full of disease...

crazy what brains make people do just by pumping them with the right hormones

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:48:03 2012 No.3294360 >>3294359 >can't into the mind/body problem

Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:48:03 2012 No.3294361

http://www.nd.edu/~dlapsle1/DSG/DSG%20News_files/Narvaez%20Triune%20Ethics%20Proof2.pdf

List of more: http://consc.net/mindpapers/5.1l.4.2

The above links were literally 10 seconds of googling.

I have a better article but its behind my uni's database paywall.

The fact is none of you /lit/izens want to know about the exploration of the biological processes that dictate our moral codes, appreciation of aesthetics or any of the other generic areas of study that are supposedly beyond science. You spend your time in intellectual masturbation, arguing over soft interpretations of the world, with any debate essentially being driven by disagreements over definitions of particular nebulous concepts. You define yourself by these philosophies and their study and intentionally blind yourself to any evidence that what you are doing is completely retarded. It’s the same mechanism that makes religious people so aggressive when their faith is questioned. Their belief system has become part of their self-definition so any refutation of that system is a personal attack.

TL;DR Your hobby is retarded.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:49:03 2012 No.3294362 >>3292899 >philosophy >amusing yourself Spot on!

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:50:03 2012 No.3294363 >>3294360 >>can't into the mind/body problem >still thinks descartes is relevant

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:50:03 2012 No.3294364 >>3294361 >guaranteed replies

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:51:03 2012 No.3294368 >>3294360 the mind body problem is a different topic altogether actually. the fact that alcohol impairs judgment and brain chemistry dictates aesthetic preference are empirical matters now and a different topic altogether

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:51:03 2012 No.3294369 >>3294363 He is, unless you've got a fully descriptive theory of mind

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:53:03 2012 No.3294371 File: 53 KB, 640x454, herewegoagain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3294364 My keyboard is ready. Come at me bro.

Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:54:03 2012 No.3294376
File: 39 KB, 562x437, Ohwow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3294352
>luckily nothing justifies ethics or aesthetics, because they are totally meaningless fields of mental masturbation
>luckily nothing justifies ethics or aesthetics, because they are totally meaningless fields of mental masturbation
>luckily nothing justifies ethics or aesthetics, because they are totally meaningless fields of mental masturbation
>neurology will explain why and how we come to ethical/aesthetic judgments.
>neurology will explain why and how we come to ethical/aesthetic judgments.
>neurology will explain why and how we come to ethical/aesthetic judgments.

who let the retards out of /sci/?

6/10 for successfully rustling my jimmies

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:54:03 2012 No.3294377 >>3294368 >alcohol impairs judgment >therefore judgment is atoms

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:56:03 2012 No.3294383 >>3294377 >>therefore judgment is atoms well trees are atoms, but also a lot more. no one is making hasty reductions here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:56:03 2012 No.3294386 Don't feed it and it goes away.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:57:03 2012 No.3294390 >>3294376 he's right though

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:01:03 2012 No.3294395 >>3294377 >>therefore judgment is atoms ya they are brain activity, the function of brain cells, which are material - immaterial ghost philosophy belongs on /x/

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:03:03 2012 No.3294397 >>3294395 >ya they are brain activity, the function of brain cells, which are material Sure thing, bud! Demonstrate it.

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:11:03 2012 No.3294406

>>3294397

Why does alcohol impair judgement? Explain this phenomena in terms of your literary psychoanalysis and spirit gibberish.

As to your question:

>Disruption of the right temporo-parietal junction with transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the role of beliefs in moral judgments.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6753

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:13:03 2012 No.3294410 >>3294364 >guaranteed replies >no replies Seems that post hit a little too close to home.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:14:03 2012 No.3294413 >>3294410 I always post 'guaranteed replies' in reply to shitty posts in the hope that nobody else will fall victim to them after reading my reply. Almost always works.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:15:03 2012 No.3294415 >>3294406 You're cute; that's a non sequitur though. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:16:03 2012 No.3294417 >>3294415 Disruption of the right temporo-parietal junction with transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the role of beliefs in moral judgments. >http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6753

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:27:04 2012 No.3294437 Itt: /sci/ tries to argue a point using references and evidence. /lit/ ignores that evidence and keeps repeating the same pithy replies and condescension. /sci/ gets mad and /lit/ remains in their echo chamber.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:29:03 2012 No.3294442 >>3294417 This says nothing of the origin of moral judgments or cognition. That the brain is related to consciousness is clear. That the two are one and the same is a leap >>3294437 >p-pls respond

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:31:03 2012 No.3294447 sage

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:35:03 2012 No.3294461

>>3294437
>evidence
which proves nothing whatsoever.

i don't think he has any idea how science works in the first place. but sure as hell is amusing to read his try-hard posts. i remember the good old, teenage times where i would copy paste links to studies and abstracts to pose as an intellectual myself; then i turned 18 and grew up.

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:38:03 2012 No.3294474

>>3294442
>This says nothing of the origin of moral judgments or cognition.

The question that I replied to was:

>"ya they are brain activity, the function of brain cells, which are material"
>Sure thing, bud! Demonstrate it.

The citation demonstrates how judgements are functions of regions in the brain itself, and how they can be manipulated by manipulating the brain.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:40:03 2012 No.3294482 >>3294474 A citation is not a demonstration, buttercup. You'll have to try harder than that. I'll cheer for ya.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:47:03 2012 No.3294500 File: 10 KB, 225x172, 1335853943646.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3294482

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:49:03 2012 No.3294504 >>3292899 >2012 >philosophy a science >laughinggirls.png pic related its the fuck i give

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:51:03 2012 No.3294509 Philosophy and religion held back science for thousands of years. Imagine instead of jerking off over bibles and asking stupid metaphysical questions humans asked practical questions and looked to nature for the answers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:53:03 2012 No.3294512 >>3294509 Go read a fucking history book. I'm not even going to start explaining how crude and juvenile, how just plain wrong this idea is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:57:03 2012 No.3294519 >>3294512 literature is the opium of the masses yay for science!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:57:03 2012 No.3294521 sage

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:59:03 2012 No.3294524

>>3294512

from the year 1 to 17=600 philosophers were arguing about what? the nature of god, art, metaphysics, and love, politics, absolute Truth, religion, lol

wasted all our time, we could've been doing science instead.

religion and philosophy held us back and still do!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:00:03 2012 No.3294528 since when did science not grow out of empiricism?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:02:03 2012 No.3294531 sage

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:03:03 2012 No.3294532

>>3294509

Asking metaphysical questions thousands of years ago eventually led to the first scientific discoveries. The asking of the question is a philosophical pursuit. People just don't DO science for the sake of it. They do it in order to answer a question. Philosophy helped decide what questions were important.

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:03:03 2012 No.3294533

>>3294524

Go ahead and look up how Islam was the crux of revolutionary science for hundreds of years.

There used to be no division between philosophy, religion and science. That didn't change until the enlightenment. Any number of scientific discoveries were arrived at by religious thinkers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:03:03 2012 No.3294535 >>3294528 >since when did science not grow out of empiricism? empiricism aka science grew despite philosophy and religion holding it back and arguing about it pointlessly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:04:03 2012 No.3294537 >>3294532 >Asking metaphysical questions thousands of years ago eventually led to the first scientific discoveries. Non-sequitur.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:06:03 2012 No.3294545 >>3294528 That's a deep question, Socrates maybe? Engineering on other hand use practical or theoretical paths to solve problems. Which at the end of the day expands the science questions and the cycle begins again.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:07:03 2012 No.3294551 Get out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:09:03 2012 No.3294556 >>3294545 to observe a phenomena means that you are at once a part of the phenomena that you observe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:12:03 2012 No.3294561 File: 18 KB, 500x500, 1323656591715.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3294482

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:13:03 2012 No.3294564 Is there any point to this thread other than amusing yourself?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:13:03 2012 No.3294565 >>3294461 >evidence >which proves nothing whatsoever. Oh /lit/ you so crazy.

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:15:03 2012 No.3294567

It's a question of epistemology and it can be discussed on an "objective theory" vs. "interpretive theory" spectrum. But I'm sure you scientists knew this, right?

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that discusses "how we know what we know" and it's the difference between quantitative (scientific) and qualitative (interpretive) work. One is good at answering questions about some things, and the other is good about answering others things. Science tends to take the objective approach, holding that there IS a single independent reality at the bottom of it all, with no room for "another way" under any circumstances. Interpretive theories tend to be about ethics, and liberation and values and it tends to hold that in some cases there are no objectively "right" answers. Science can answer questions about how life evolved and interpretive approaches can help define the meaning of a text.

It's an interesting argument I'm reading from the science people ITT, because it is a battle of ideology and argument and rhetoric, three things that tend to be studied in interpretive or qualitative work.

Not to mention that science is about consensus, not proof. This is true in social science and astrophysics And suggesting that we can "be certain" about something is an application of philosophy right there.

It's ironic how some science purists complain about scientific illiteracy when the attack can be levied in the opposite direction about cultural. critical, and epistemological illiteracy as well.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:15:03 2012 No.3294569 >>3294565 You sincerely think science prescribes any kind of truth value?

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:15:03 2012 No.3294572

>>3293040
Not a troll. I always wondered why are ethics and morals are considered important. They are made based on a group of people agreeing on them. For example, its not morally right to smack a bitch in certain places, but not in others. Please tell me why it plays such an important role.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:17:03 2012 No.3294577 >>3294572 >based on people agreeing on them so is science

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:22:03 2012 No.3294587

>>3294533
Keep reading and you will find that science flourished because the believers left them the hell alone. Observation and math drove their development. Then some clown (Al-Ghazali) same along and said that empiricism was wrong and math was the work of the devil and the entire region turned to shit.

Ghazali was a philosopher and theologian by the way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:24:03 2012 No.3294588 >>3294567 everything you said is misleading and oversimplified, science doesn't commit such simple false dichotomies as qualitative interpretation vs quantitative., it also doesn't just stick to one frame of reference, do you even know what GR is?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:28:03 2012 No.3294593 >>3294572 >people agreeing That's all that science is. It isn't inherently important. Science is good for things like shooting rockets into space. Ethics is good for things like not being mutilated and raped on your way to the drugstore.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:30:03 2012 No.3294595 >>3294569 explain how it doesn't? except for the fact that laws that we accepted as absolute truths can be debunked tomorrow.

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:34:03 2012 No.3294608

>>3294593
Yet scientific enquiry can tell us more about how particular ethical models lead to more or less horrible rape. Understanding how the brain works is key to designing social systems that give outcomes we desire. It is a much more effective method for achieving a desired result than humping the leg of some long dead writer and arguing over the definitions of words he used.

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:37:03 2012 No.3294611

>>3294535
>empiricism

This is exactly the argument against "empiricism:" there isn't always every time an independently "right" answer independent of our conceptualization of the problem and answer.

empiricism is most of the time irrelevant when discussing the humanities. Sorry, faggot, but that's just the way it is. You may not find humanities useful personally and you can try with all your might to somehow "discredit" them, but that would require you to convince people who do find it useful that you are much more wise and intelligent than they are (at which you are currently failing), and that the humanities' usefulness is an illusion (youre failing at this too).

It's besides the point though; your ability to even conceptualize and argue for empiricism over humanities is an application of argument, something that is studied in the humanities anyway so just shut up and admit that interpretive work is useful to you at least some of the time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:37:03 2012 No.3294614 >>3294608 Science is purely descriptive. It's a set of observations. By its nature it cannot be a prescriptive tool. Look up the is/ought gap. This is very, very basic stuff

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:48:03 2012 No.3294632

>>3294614
Because predictive models are built upon hope and imagination and not observation and testable theories, right?
Because new theories are developed purely from observations that are already made, right?
Because no new experiments are ever proposed after a new theory is developed and science can only ever look backwards right. Right?

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:48:03 2012 No.3294633

>>3294588
>dichotomy
yeah, that's why I said "spectrum" right? some theories are more epistemolgically "pure" than others.

But yes, science certainly does stick to one epistemological frame of reference: objectivity. That's what makes it science. Science is never qualitative. Where ethnography is about shared meaning, experience, ethics and the importance of personal interpretation/aesthetic and creativity, social science is about cold hard "reality" and statistical significant difference, fundamentally limiting the breadth and scope of what can be learned.

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:52:03 2012 No.3294638

>>3294632

I never said any of that. No scientific theory will ever be able to demonstrate that a certain act is 'right' or 'wrong'. It will only be able to describe certain things about those acts.

For example, science can tell us what causes physical pain in individuals. It can never tell us when we should or should not cause that pain.

Why is this challenging for you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:52:03 2012 No.3294640 I honestly don't understand how anyone could not enjoy philosphy, no matter what level you're on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:56:03 2012 No.3294652 >>3294640 Anyone who says they don't doesn't understand what the term means

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:58:03 2012 No.3294655 I had a dream about hanging out in some rented out duplex with Justin Bieber last night. Getting weird vibes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 02:02:03 2012 No.3294663 Stay ignorant, /sci/. Stay butthurt, /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 02:02:04 2012 No.3294662 82 posts and 5 image replies omitted. i think you knew better /lit

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 02:24:03 2012 No.3294718 >>3294638 Ahh sorry I was arguing against the wrong facile argument. I gotta go to work but this video covers most of my counterarguments. http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 02:25:03 2012 No.3294721 >>3294718 >linking Sam Harris Stop it. You're not even trying.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 02:28:03 2012 No.3294731 >>3294721 >>3294437 >pithy replies and condescension /lit/.../lit/ never changes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 02:39:03 2012 No.3294767 File: 833 KB, 200x150, 1353085848392.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3294718 >Sam Harris

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 02:40:03 2012 No.3294777 >>3294767 >>3294731 Never ever changes.

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 02:44:03 2012 No.3294796

>>3294336
You think that by describing what goes on in the brain when people form moral beliefs, or make moral statements, that this doesn't provides insight to moral problems? Let's look at some examples as to how it may:

If you understand how people form beliefs, you may be able to provide evidence for or against moral non-cognitivism; the idea that people are not aiming at truth when they make moral statements.

Or if you look moral relativism, which states that there is sufficient difference in moral standards that we have no reason to believe that there can be a single system of morality. Maybe you examine the human brain and find certain things will always generate a disgust or outrage response. Or the converse - there is nothing in the brain that leads us to believe there is any shared biological basis for morality.

Or maybe some neurobiologist deduces from their studies that free will is impossible. Surely this will have an impact on morality.

Not stating that these have to happen, but if they are a possibility then neuroscience has the possibility to have some impact on our understanding of morality.

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 02:48:03 2012 No.3294805
File: 1.74 MB, 177x150, laughingnick.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3294767
>Socrates
>Plato
>Aristotle
>Rene Descartes
>Immanuel Kant
>Karl Marx
>Friedrich Nietzsche
>W.V.O Quine
>Ludwig Wittgenstein
>Noam Chomsky

I can dismiss arguments based on my opinion of a person too! Am I /lit/ yet?

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 02:48:03 2012 No.3294807

>>3294796

>people are not aiming at truth when they make moral statements.
>free will is impossible.
>there is nothing in the brain that leads us to believe there is any shared biological basis for morality.

Again, these are all descriptive statements. Any sort of moral system we build based on these will have to come about through a prescriptive statement, a philosophic statement.

Science can certainly inform our ethical framework, but it can't define it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 02:53:03 2012 No.3294819 >>3294807 Which is what was said back here>>3294361 Philosophy is all about arguing about definitions. To get anything done and to assess the effectiveness of what you do you need empiricism, you need science.

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 02:57:03 2012 No.3294826

>>3294593

>Science is good for things like shooting rockets into space. Ethics is good for things like not being mutilated and raped on your way to the drugstore.

I want to ask, do you think moral philosophical texts directly or perhaps indirectly prevent people from being mutilated and raped?

I think ethics to some degree is innate, and the discussions of philosophers on ethics don't greatly influence how the masses act.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 03:08:03 2012 No.3294842 >>3294807 The original statement was that neuroscience helps explain ethics. So I think we agree here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 03:13:03 2012 No.3294850 >>3294842 Right. I often end up arguing with people I agree with on here. It's silly but it happens.

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 03:28:03 2012 No.3294900
File: 65 KB, 278x400, 1350345095913.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3294850
What's worse is realizing you are wrong half-way through an argument, and either having to own up and admit your assholishness, or shamefacedly closing the browser.

Despite the bullshit I hope that people learn from some of these discussions.

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 03:37:03 2012 No.3294926

>>3294718

It's interesting, because when he mentions the physiological phenomenon we generally associate with well being, he suggests that there are "peaks" that are the same height, basically affirming what many post-modernists who study culture and ethics already believe anyway. Not many people I know will come out and say "female genital mutilation is neither right or wrong and all paths are of equal 'height' in the sense of 'well being.'" And if they do, they will usually follow up with the idea that right and wrong are over simplifications of morality, and even if they werent, there are many complex ideological reasons why something would be "right" independent of biological well being, no matter how well being is defined. Regardless, most post modern "western intellectuals" that are the target of this talk skip the "moral relativism" distraction and would say that while female genital mutilation is terrible, Americanization is not necessarily the answer, which is exactly what Harris said.

He gets fucked in the end though, because he dodges discussing the probability of well being and a social institution he personally disagrees with. Kinda supports the narrative that he is a fanatic, so yeah.

Cont:

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 03:37:03 2012 No.3294927

>>3294718
Continued from >>3294926

anyway, here's my primary rebuttal. Morality can be affirmed by science (IF you agree with the definition of "morality = human well being" and IF you agree with the observable phenomenon someone associates with well being) but it cannot CREATE morality. It can perhaps teach us about some of the methods people have used in the past to attain well being by showing us a neurological readout of what seems to correlate with well being, but it cannot fulfill a desire to attain it in a creative and individual way; personal experience is one of the greatest validation for morals and wisdom.

However, what Harris suggests neurology may be able to one day do-- map out an illustration of human well being-- journalists and anthropologists are already doing. If Harris needs independent validation of these accounts in the form of a computer readout, that's fine, but that would hardly put him in the majority. People already take non scientific, qualitative interpretive work like history, the humanities and anthropology seriously; a breakthrough that could somehow validate neurologically accounts of conditions of well being that people already believe in would hardly qualify as "game changing"

But the fact remains that Harris and any science purists is underestimating the elegance of our thinking if they believe that creativity and aesthetics and other pillars of culture we find valuable will fade away.

Science cannot create, it can only report, and I think that it can be easily argued that the breadth of what "reporters" like sociologists and anthropologists already do is much more nuanced and capable than any foreseeable quantitative approach to well being.

Oh yeah, I hope you see this; it would be kinda sad if no one read the longest post Ive ever had on 4chan

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 03:41:03 2012 No.3294931 >>3294926 >>3294927 I read your entire post, and I pretty much agree. I think most of us are on the same page here. We need science but science ain't all we need.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 03:43:03 2012 No.3294932 >>3294900 I learned that fat Beibs brings people together like nothing else can. No, I kinda liked reading this thread. But seriously anon, what is GR? Too lazy to google.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 04:02:03 2012 No.3294963 >>3294638 damn... I think you just like broke a wall or something man

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 04:05:03 2012 No.3294970 >>3294927 >>3294796 I was waiting for one of the intelligent posters I know lurk here sometimes to say something. Thanks for that.

Someone Was Here Sat Dec 29 04:12:03 2012 No.3294984

>>3294900
>What's worse is realizing you are wrong half-way through an argument, and either having to own up and admit your assholishness, or shamefacedly closing the browser.

People who have this happen often should take the example of Socrates more seriously.

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 04:31:03 2012 No.3295018

>>3294718
>all of those implications
>implying human well being is paramount according to what nobody knows he just says it is
>implying killing your daughter is a bad thing
>trying to imply there's objectivity in opinions
>juicy stakes are objectively better because they have more flavor
>doesn't account for the fact maybe some people hate flavor and like it dry therefore making the opinion 100% subjective
>dat leftist propaganda

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 04:37:03 2012 No.3295038 >>3295018 >thinks an objective account of morality is at all leftist You que, amigo?

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 05:23:03 2012 No.3295139

>>3295018

>implying human well-being is paramount according to what nobody knows he just says it is

Perhaps not paramount but as an objective of a society it’s damn good.
>implying killing your daughter is a bad thing
Yep, I can go with that.

>Not torturing little girls is objectively better because human suffering is not a desired outcome.
>doesn't account for the fact maybe some people like torturing little girls making the opinion 100% subjective
>dat philosophical nonsense

You go ahead and argue with your fellow armchair philosophers about the definition of good and bad. In the meantime science will just go ahead and improve society without you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 05:25:03 2012 No.3295143 >>3295139 You honestly believe all humans have the same idea as to what constitutes good or bad???

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 05:36:03 2012 No.3295169

>>3295143
No but I think running around the same circular arguments about the definition of a word gets no one anywhere. If someone disagrees that minimising human suffering is a “good” thing I can be fairly certain that what follows will contain a lot of ridiculously abstract arguments using theories that cannot even agree with themselves and no progress will be made in any direction.

The problem is that all people have an idea of what constitutes good or bad and no-one is willing to call out the people with idiotic ideas.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 05:39:03 2012 No.3295179 >>3295169 The biggest problem is that science can tell us very little about the 'best' way to minimize human suffering. We need much more than science to approach this question

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature