[ 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: 77 KB, 637x491, 125891243366012.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3374522 No.3374522 [Reply] [Original]

I am looking for books that dismantle the following ideologies: nihilism, ethical egoism, objectivism, libertarianism, libertinism, anarchism.

What are the most thorough critiques of these ideologies? And I don't want the author to be reserved. I want him to be as outspoken and brutally realistic as possible.

I also know that one of my favorite philosophers, James Rachels, wrote a text called "A Critique of Ethical Egoism" but I can't find it anywhere. What's up with that? Does anybody of you happen to know where this text was first published so I can find it? Google only finds pdf files of a worksheet that contains questions about said text. Very weird.

>> No.3374530

>>3374522

Why critique what's right?

>> No.3374533
File: 145 KB, 700x604, 1356255330249.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3374533

>nihilism

not an ideology

>objectivism

self-refuting

>libertarianism

marx

>libertinism

i don't think you know what this is, but either/or

>anarchism

idk but i have a pic related

>> No.3374534

>>3374530

Out!

>> No.3374546

It's either stupid nonsense that nobody wants to put into place, or a history book has refuted it sufficiently that a theoretical critique is unnecessary.

>> No.3374554

I've found out that the Rachels text can be found in "Moral Philosophy: A Reader (Fourth Edition)" but it's expensive as hell. Well, I have to do it unless somebody knows another way to get that text? This is especially annoying because I'm not very interested in the other texts of that reader (some of them I know already).

>> No.3374565

you are one of the hugest faggots ever

>> No.3374572

>>3374565

And you're obviously a person with an abundance of brilliance and charm.

>> No.3374590

>>3374572
thanks for noticing

>> No.3374594
File: 38 KB, 650x415, groucho-filof_001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3374594

These threads never made any sense.

You want books to dismantle an idea that you don't have so yourself? Then there is no need to dismantle it. There is nothing in these books for you.

If you are reading just to argue with people with an opposing opinion, then just don't read. Read to learn, read what will dismantle your ideas or build something that you don't have there yet.

If you wanted foundations for your own hunches, then I'd understand. But if all you have is to oppose other thoughts, then you must get yourself to reading that which support those ideas you hate so much. In fact, they are the ones that will give you arguments against them by the way.

>> No.3374602

>Ethical Egoism

Part of the point of an adequate moral theory is that it be able to resolve conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest arise when two or more parties have competing interests, which require compromises or a choice of which interest to pursue.
Ethical egoism maintains that we should only promote our own self interest. In a conflict of interest this requires that we promote our interest as long as all other competing interests require the promotion of others interests that are not to our benefit.
So, ethical egoism is an inadequate moral theory, since it cannot resolve conflicts of interest.

Done. These 'ideologies' are so infantile that anybody can refute them with minimal effort.

>> No.3374611

>>3374594

Blablabla...who says that I'm not also doing that?

From times to times I want to read things I agree with so that my own position becomes more refined and I get the satisfaction of reading something I wholeheartedly agree with. Apparently that makes me a bad person or something.

>> No.3374673
File: 8 KB, 187x230, 1231.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3374673

I've found it online!

http://www.memelyceum.com/documents/kchu228/egoism

I just post it here so that others who might be interested can read it too.

>> No.3374705

beyond good and evil

>> No.3374750

>>3374533
>Marx
>Libertarian
Holy shit, what the fuck am I reading?

>> No.3374754

not a book, but here is something you might find interesting:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102657523/On-the-Randian-Argument-Nozick

>> No.3374773

>>3374754

Not a big fan of Nozick but I'll have a loot at it.

Thanks!

>> No.3376479

bump

>> No.3376495

>>3374750
He's saying that Marx's works have good arguments AGAINST libertarianism, not for it.

>> No.3377368

>>3374522
Scepticism dismantles it all, including everything you love. Good luck.

>> No.3377416

>>3374522
Neo-platonism

>> No.3377418

>>3377368
shifting things to different ontological levels is hardly dismantling try harder

>> No.3377422

>>3377418
doesn't nihilism dismantle everything including itself?

>> No.3377429

>>3377422
scepticism isn't nihilism.

and no, it doesn't.