[ 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: 93 KB, 640x761, 640px-Allan_Ramsay_-_David_Hume,_1711_-_1776._Historian_and_philosopher_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4996018 No.4996018[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

You cannot derive What OUGHT To Be from What IS.

So what do you derive it from? What ISN'T?

>> No.4996022

why did nietzsche hate hume

>> No.4996027

>>4996022
Because Hume was right and nietSche was wrong

>> No.4996031

There is no ought and you ought be ashamed for wanting an ought
>>4996022
*posts le nitchy fedora maymay*

>> No.4996032

Hume pls go

>> No.4996033

>>4996032
Nietzsche pls go

>> No.4996042

o-ought implies c-can

>> No.4996044

>tfw scotland has based philosophers like hume and england only has shitty bourgeois hacks like bentham and autists like mill

>> No.4996045

>>4996022
Because through his logic Hume crushes the human spirit and only his (archetype of the devil) smirk remains in eternity.

>> No.4996048

>>4996044
>using bourgeois as a pejorative
prole

>> No.4996049
File: 6 KB, 249x250, 1401778002047.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4996049

I challenge you fags to explain the difference between

- emotivism
- non-cognitivism
- expressivism

>> No.4996055

>>4996049
They are all spelt different.

>> No.4996058

>>4996049

I don't know about differences, but I can name one similarity.

They are all right

>> No.4996059

>>4996018
this is the very nature of human desire, we desire what isn't and believe it ought to be, but only until it is, in which case the dialectic turns itself on its head and we no longer desire what wasn't and now is and instead seek what still isn't

>> No.4996061

>>4996045
>human spirit
Sounds like a spooky meaningless concept. Why did Nietzsche REALLY hate Hume?

>> No.4996064

>>4996049

Challenge accepted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism

>> No.4996066

>>4996048
then what are you doing on /lit/

all middle class art and ways of thought are despicable

>> No.4996068

From some axiomatic ought, ofc.

>> No.4996073

>>4996061
>not realizing Nietzsche was in love with spooks and had a tulpa girlfriend cause real girls wouldn't have sex with him
top kek

>> No.4996074
File: 41 KB, 600x600, 3DE263C66E09F612D58AE266EFC9AE18EECAC91E_large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4996074

>>4996018
Why is Michael Faraday credited for his work half a century after Hume's death?

>> No.4996076

>>4996018

Personally I don't see the problem with getting an ought from an is. Logic isn't the end all be all of life.

If I know for example, that suffering is bad, and I know what would reduce suffering, I know what I OUGHT to do if I want to stop what is bad.

He is right in a strictly logical sense of course. If your argument doesn't start with an ought, whence it cometh? But I don't think it's a serious block in ethical action.

>> No.4996085
File: 75 KB, 407x584, 1394911700624.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4996085

>>4996076
>Logic isn't the end all be all of life

>> No.4996099

>>4996076
>i don't understand the is-ought problem

>> No.4996100

>>4996085
Neo lib pls go

>> No.4996102

>>4996076
So you have an ought implied with 'one ought reduce suffering', you are not getting an is from an ought in any way.

>> No.4996103

>>4996085

Logic is a spook.

>> No.4996105

It's easy to derive an OUGHT from an IS.

If you don't know how to do it, you are probably too inexperienced in the field of philosophy. I bet you don't know the meaning of life either.

>> No.4996107

>>4996099
It's not worth understanding. It's a Chinese-finger-trap for the mind. By the time you go down that shithole of a path all the pretty girls in the village will be married.

>tfw leave it for the autistis to solve

>> No.4996108

>>4996103
You're wrong because I say so.

>> No.4996109

>>4996105
do it fagget

do it now

>> No.4996114

>>4996109
I ain't gonna do your homework. This is like philosohpy 101. If it's too hard for you, drop out.

>> No.4996115

>>4996107
>solve
hurr

>> No.4996117

P1: Murder is wrong

C1: Murder ought to be illegal

ezpz

>> No.4996125

>>4996114
>i-i can't do it
good one :^)

>> No.4996127

>>4996107
>not realizing that the whole point of chinese-finger-traps of the mind is to mindfuck all the pretty girls in the village so you can fuck them before they get married
It's strange how so few people understand philosophy on /lit/.

>> No.4996128

>>4996117
P1: Murder exists
P2: What exists, ought exist
C3: Murder ought exist

>> No.4996130

>>4996117
missed out
>wrong things ought to be illegal

>> No.4996133

>>4996018

What ought to be is what is. If what is is something else than it ought be that, for that something else would actually be what is. So, the question is, what is?

>> No.4996136
File: 67 KB, 620x387, dinosaur.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4996136

>>4996128
>P2: What exists, ought exist

>> No.4996144

i just thought of a joke.


q: the 'ought-is problem' is attributed to whom?
a: hume

>> No.4996147

>>4996117

More like

Murder kills people. So murder ought to kill be people. Someone who is murdered ought to be dead or he isnt murdered. A murdered ought to have killed someone or he isn't a murderer.

>> No.4996154

>>4996147

Murder kills people. So murder ought to kill* people. Someone who is murdered ought to be dead or he isnt murdered. A murderer* ought to have killed someone or he isn't a murderer.

>> No.4996162
File: 17 KB, 819x557, whos_on_first_map.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4996162

>>4996144
Whom?

>> No.4996420

What exists is necessary.
Murder exists.

Thus murder is necessary.

Do you even Aristotle

>> No.4996454

>>4996420
thats such a bad logic

>> No.4996456

>>4996144
i don't get it

>> No.4996467
File: 11 KB, 300x299, derrida.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4996467

>tfw you realise kant simply appropriated hume while inserting mistakes into his thinking
>tfw all the bitches get wet for kant and no one cares about hume
>tfw hume is goat but everything thinks he's entry level faggot

/lit/..... i...

>> No.4996472

>>4996467
Kant was just the original shitposter that turned into a meme

>> No.4996477

>>4996467
>>tfw hume is goat but everything thinks he's entry level faggot
wtf

>> No.4996492

What is "spook" but "thing I don't believe in?"

>> No.4996498

>>4996492
Spook originally meant 'metaphysical concept that you let irrationally influence your life' and then became 'any metaphysical concept ever' thanks to /lit/ shitposting

>> No.4996513

>>4996454
How so?

>> No.4997158

>>4996498
It reached zen level
Pretty good for a bunch of tards on an image board

>> No.4998968

>>4996018
The original position
/thread

>> No.4998980

>>4996018
>You cannot derive What OUGHT To Be from What IS.

Yes you can. What is implies what ought to be; you can determine what a thing ought to be by what it is, as its telos is part of its essence. Disregard Hume, read Aristotle.

>> No.4999008

>>4996064
>Challenge accepted.

did you come here from reddit

>> No.4999127

>>4996498
I am euphoric in this moment, not because of any metaphysical concept I let irrationally affect my life, but because of all the other metaphysical concepts

>> No.5000406

Hume was such a cunt, since then we're pretty much fuck, how do I know what's the correct thing to do?

>> No.5000416

>>4998980
>as its telos is part of its essence
now try saying this with a straight face