[ 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: 10 KB, 240x200, 225672631297809770_Rg7ptHQS_c_thumb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4030868 No.4030868 [Reply] [Original]

I am inevitably a product of my surroundings
My opinions are a product of my surroundings
Therefore no one's opinions are correct, just different
I cannot see any other alternative to this
TFW I believe in my own opinion
Oh god, my opinion that all opinions are meaningless is meaningless
BTW is this absurdism?

>> No.4030871

no, its relativism
and there is a basis for right and wrong based in nature

>> No.4030873

>>4030871
Not a basis, a source

Right and wrong by nature are still just suggestions

Right and wrong are essentially operators of the word 'should', as in 'how should we act'

It's not really grammar conducive to an objective/irrefutable conclusion

>> No.4030877

>>4030868
First two lines feel a bit Sartre, see contingency.

Later, ethical and epistemological relativism/nihilism; boring. A little bit of emotivism; ethical statements are just 'opinions' or 'emotional dispositions'.

Absurdism is actually slightly positivistic!

>> No.4030883

>>4030868
>Therefore no one's opinions are correct, just different
This is an essential part of Plato's philosophy as well. The philosophy tries to lay down his opinions, which is also why I have never grasped political philosophy.
>my opinion that all opinions are meaningless is meaningless
As the other person said, Plato's philosophy implies that ethical or political maxims can be deduced by thoughts, and applied to the intelligible world.

To the "You can't know anything 100%, and you can't know that a 100% either, etc etc" problem, Wittgenstein cleared this 'paradox' up.

In older philosophy, paradoxes were used as a tool or reference, in modern philosophy it is seen as an error in ones worldview, or thought. One could say that the 'truth' in the statement above is a predicate on a meta-linguistic frame with its own truth values.

>(citation needed)

>> No.4030893

>>4030868
>I am inevitably a product of my surroundings
>My opinions are a product of my surroundings
determinism

>> No.4031011

>>4030883
Please explain the Wittgenstein paradox business

>> No.4031019

>>4030883
>>4031011

Yes. I'm curious about it too.

>> No.4031040

>>4030868
>My opinions are a product of my surroundings
>Therefore no one's opinions are correct
Not sure how you make this leap...

>> No.4031059

an opinion couldn't be 'correct' anyway you tard, jesus...

>> No.4031089

>>4031059
back to your opium tea sweetie

>> No.4031120

its a self-reference paradox, when will hipsters understand this?

>> No.4031679
File: 13 KB, 220x326, 220px-Kierkegaard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4031679

>>4030868

>I am inevitably a product of my surroundings
Arguably. Free will is not completely incompatible with determinism in a sense that your free will can be exercised on the limited array of choices provided by 'faith', for lack of a better term.

> My opinions are a product of my surroundings
Along with a plethora of other factors such as intellect, will etc.

> Therefore no one's opinions are correct, just different
Firstly, as someone already pointed out this is a huge leap. Secondly, though opinions cannot be correct (unless they can be proven through empirical methods), some opinions are more valid than others. An opinion or assertion with a strong foundation on intelligence, logic, evidence and empathy (among others) is more valid than the opinion someone pulled out of his ass proclaiming: 'hurr durr i'm just a product of my subjective experiences brah'.

>> No.4031684

>>4031679

'fate', not 'faith'. Sorry.

>> No.4031756

>>4031679
I was thinking of either/or when i posted in this thread as well, the danish version, page 144, there is a very accurate description of this,

>> No.4031789

>>4031679
Would anyone else here go gay for Kierkegaard? I think I would. I would curl up in his arms whenever I would feel like shit and he would whisper, "It's okay. We both know that it was your fault ultimately."

>> No.4031803

>>4030868
I don't think that conclusion (statement 3) can be bought with only the prior two statements. Assume 1 and 2. Just because your views are a product of your surroundings, does not entail that a given opinion cannot be "correct". For example, assuming 1 and 2, we can also assume that there is a Platonic realm of ideas that acts like a gold standard of which we judge our opinions. If this were the case, then just because our opinions are a product of our surroundings does not entail any subjectivity. For example, assume that I am a nominalist about mathematical objects and assume mathematical objects exist in Plato's realm. My opinion would be incorrect, whether or not I have any possible knowledge of this independent realm. So, in conclusion, the argument is not deductively valid. You cannot get 3 from the assumptions of 1 and 2 without additional assumptions that have not been stated.

>> No.4031805
File: 24 KB, 600x450, kierkegaard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4031805

>>4031789
he's dreamy thats for sure

>> No.4031821

>>4030868
It seems like a middle ground between deterministic anguish and absurdism. The two aren't entirely incompatible...

>> No.4031837

>>4031789

He's the prettiest literary figure I can think of, that's for sure. Along with Lord Byron, that is. Absolute 10/10, would bang.
> no homo

Does anyone have the picture of him with the sunglasses on?

>> No.4031907

>>4030868
>I am inevitably a product of my surroundings
>implying you cannot realize your surroundings and reject them, forming opinions unique to this rejection

>Therefore no one's opinions are correct, just different
so, if somebody held an opinion that also happened to be a quantifiable fact (ie if you moved to africa you'd be at greater risk of contracting HIV if you were sexually active with the locals) it would be incorrect

>BTW is this absurdism?
no, you're just mentally deficient in some extreme manner

>> No.4031926
File: 2.04 MB, 3264x2448, IMG_0087.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4031926

>>4031837
I have the photoshopped version as well, but I saw this at my library some time ago.
I have something to tell you, viewer discretion advised.

Kierkegaard did almost certainly not look like this, and while popularizing philosophers is a strange thing to do in any case, it is detrimental to his philosophy about loneliness.
 Some of his ideas about The Public and the new media of his time could have been written yesterday.

>> No.4031958

>>4031907
>The Dragon Dildo Economist !4Rf3zBgVEc!!QwI4KaNlwE9
Your opinion would change if you got HIV, but how is that in anyway more of less correct than the opinion you had before? the fact that you have HIV is not an opinion. And also, your opinion that i'm mentally deficient is not greater or worse than any other opinion on me, since all of the factors effecting you till now are leading you to believe i am autistic

>> No.4031959

It means that you are a fool.

>> No.4031963

>>4031679
>An opinion or assertion with a strong foundation on intelligence, logic, evidence and empathy (among others) is more valid than the opinion someone pulled out of his ass proclaiming: 'hurr durr i'm just a product of my subjective experiences brah'.

But this is contrary to Kierkegaard.

>> No.4031977

>>4031963
Yes, page 144 in either/or mocks this very statement as well, had hoped he would look it up.

It goes on about how you are God's, your family's, your parents, your friends child, and if you in all this relativism, tries to find something absolute, you become ridiculous.

>> No.4031983

>>4030868
>I am inevitably a product of my surroundings

you aren't a product in the sense that you are continually changing / becoming something else, and how much you have influence over your becoming and how much your surroundings do depends on how slavish you are to externalities.

>My opinions are a product of my surroundings

No, your opinions are a product of your reason, good or bad.

>Therefore no one's opinions are correct, just different

Different in what respect? If they aren't different in respect to truth and falsehood then what are they different in?

>> No.4031986

>>4031977
>It goes on about how you are God's, your family's, your parents, your friends child, and if you in all this relativism, tries to find something absolute, you become ridiculous.

This is contrary to Kierkegaard. The character in Either/Or Part I is a character that Kierkegaard wanted to criticize.

>> No.4033553

>>4031986
>Kierkegaard wanted to criticize.
What are your sources? Please elaborate on how you came to this knowledge, I would like to know.

>> No.4033563

You will never be free as long as you are still making the distinction between "self" and "other." You aren't a product of your surroundings, you are an integral part of a whole, there is no separation. The self you perceive is as illusory as your free will.