[ 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: 214 KB, 400x399, frodo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5499830 No.5499830 [Reply] [Original]

Why be moral?

>> No.5499848

The belief that social chaos is preventable

>> No.5499852

morality is fake

>> No.5499862

Categorical imperatives.

>> No.5499876

If I don't others will follow.

>> No.5499881

>>5499830
Why eat shit?

>> No.5499888

>>5499852
It's fake until you're on the receiving end of something immoral. Then all of a sudden your post modern beliefs are shattered and reality isn't so subjective.

>> No.5499892

>>5499830
One reason is because not being moral can have severe or punishable consequences. Of course, there is certain degrees of morality. Murdering someone will most likely land you in prison or face a death penalty (is that moral)? Stealing a snickers bar from walmart probably won't even land you a slap on the wrist.

>> No.5499893
File: 53 KB, 850x400, quote-the-flute-is-not-an-instrument-that-has-a-good-moral-effect-it-is-too-exciting-aristotle-323465.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5499893

>>5499830
Because the point of life is to have been virtuous.

>> No.5499908

The creation of one's own values is the highest affirmation one can achieve in this great whirlpool of forces that is existence.

>> No.5499914

Because you choose to be

>> No.5499916
File: 88 KB, 500x614, 5544_1a9e_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5499916

>>5499908
Wrong. It's imposing those values on the people around you. It's the highest purpose

>> No.5499917

>>5499892
But that's only a reason of why to abide the law.

>> No.5499921

>>5499862
That explains how not why.

>> No.5499937

>>5499888
You're assuming that anon is a hypocrite and that is probably true. But hypocrisy of application isn't an objection to that statement. What you've described seems to only confirm it: morality is a hypocritical tool of power.

>> No.5499961

>>5499937
Are you seriously trying to deny that right and wrong don't exist? If I raped your mother, is that immoral in your eyes, or would your feelings about your mothers rape be fake?

>> No.5499979
File: 133 KB, 555x335, a bridge.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5499979

>>5499916

>> No.5500014

because you benefit from living in a moral society

>> No.5500021

>>5499961
I was my mom rape baby and she resented me for it.

>> No.5500041

>>5500014
This, most likely...

>> No.5500052

>>5499961
>If something isn't immoral, we're not allowed to have feelings!

Have you ever read a book? I only ask because you posted on /lit/ and seem fucking stupid

>> No.5500057

>>5500021
my resents me for her deciding not to go through with an abortion for me, true actually :(

>> No.5500078

>>5499961
An Immoral act is defined by resultant bad feelings? Really? Such an idiotic premise can easily be used as evidence against objective morality.

>> No.5500080

>>5500057
Leave her then. Find people who actually like you.

>> No.5500093

It makes you feel good. To avoid shame. To avoid guilt. To bring structure to your life. To be something other than an apathetic potato. To be proud. To not feel like your life is meaningless.

>> No.5500107

>>5500093
>To live in a lie.

>> No.5500121

>>5500107
Human reality is ontologically constructed, you simpering idiot.

>> No.5500130

>>5500121
I like you but you're a tripfag so I don't actually love you

>> No.5500137

>>5500130
But would you fuck me? I'd fuck me.

>> No.5500148

>>5500121
don't make it anymore true

>> No.5500173

>>5500093
⇒It makes you feel good.
Why would restricting and limiting myself make me feel good?

⇒To avoid shame. To avoid guilt.
As a sociopath I don't feel these emotions.

⇒To bring structure to your life.
My job brings structure to my life. My hobbies bring structure to my life. But I don't see primitive superstition would bring structure to my life.

⇒To be something other than an apathetic potato.
On the contrary, morality would get me closer to being an apathetic potato because morality would inhibit many fun things.

⇒To be proud.
I'm proud of my achievements. If you have nothing other to proud of than some inane dogma, then your life must be pretty empty.

⇒To not feel like your life is meaningless.
Is this really a thing? I thought every normal 12 year old figures out the meaning of life.

>> No.5500186

>>5499830

Because it's the only thing we have.

>> No.5500195

>>5500121
"Ontologically constructed" is an empty and meaningless expression. At best it's a tautology.

>>5500137
Nobody will ever fuck you.

>> No.5500203

>>5500148
Uh yeah it does, unless you're a fgt who only accepts noumena as truth, in which case you might just as well kill yourself.

>> No.5500217

>>5500195
This post is empty and meaningless, ontology is not.

>> No.5500221

>>5500217
>>5500195

>> No.5500227

>>5500121
>Human reality is ontologically constructed

What an utterly vacuous statement. Your mother's cavernous cunt has more meaning than your supposed platitude.

>> No.5500234

>>5500221
It is now a tautology in addition to being empty and meaningless, way to go.

>> No.5500239

>>5500217
There is no intellectual merit in ontology. Every infant can and does vacuously question the meaning of existence. "Hurr durr, how do abstract entities exist? Am I deep yet?"

>> No.5500248

>>5500239
>every infant can add his fingers
>there is therefore no intellectual merit to mathematics

>> No.5500262

>>5500093
>To avoid guilt.
Morality is all about guilt.
>To be something other than an apathetic potato. To be proud. To not feel like your life is meaningless.
Morality isn't the only way of evaluating and feeling. We are capable of evaluating and experiencing art, physique, food, etc. without any concepts of evil or vengeance. This is a very innocent way of looking at things and a much more joyful one too.

>> No.5500267

>>5500248
Mathematics is more than adding single digit numbers. Ontology is not more than failing to answer pseudo-deep nonsensical semantics questions.

>> No.5500269

>>5500234
i fucked up the quote, forgive me.
Society is still very false even if it is based as you say it is, but at most that'd be at a fundamental level but not on the surface, so no, sorry.

>> No.5500270

>>5500248
>Well, 1+1=2, so you're wrong!

>> No.5500277

>>5499888
I've been beat up before, doesn't mean I suddenly think it's immoral, just means that I don't like it. Not every dislike has to be religiously universalised.

>> No.5500286

>>5500262
Nietzsche didn't know what he was talking about, of course it's more joyful for the rapists to evaluate rape as art, that doesn't mean it would make everyone happier.

>This is a very innocent way of looking at things and a much more joyful one too.
If the idea of being a responsible human being makes you panic

>> No.5500306

>>5500267
>Mathematics is more than adding single digit numbers. Ontology is not more than failing to answer pseudo-deep nonsensical semantics questions.
There's nothing pseudo-deep about what autists call "semantic questions". Language is our common frame of reference, it is what allows to show that we share a common outlook and feeling about things. Language is humanity's expression of reality, abstracted yourself from it because "semantics ain't shit" is like taking a bunch of drugs and saying all the visions everyone else is investigated are stoopid.

>>5500269
False compared to what? We're all naked underneath, that doesn't mean clothing doesn't exist.

>> No.5500311

>>5500286
>Nietzsche didn't know what he was talking about

Specifically?

>> No.5500323

>>5500311
Specifically the idea that the artistic aesthetic is the only metaphysic, and that a 'childlike' way of looking at morality was somehow higher or deeper.

>> No.5500324

>>5500306
⇒Language is our common frame of reference

And philosophers are alienating themselves from society by not accepting language the way normal people do. A normal person knows what numbers are and how to use them. A philosopher on the other hand endlessly goes in circles over such inane questions as "What is the ontological status of mathematical entities? Do numbers really exist and what does existence even mean?" It doesn't fucking matter. You are wasting your own and other people's time without ever coming closer to an answer. Grow up or go into autism therapy.

>> No.5500332

>>5500286
So why would those people not remove the rapist if they don't find it pleasing? Doesn't mean they have do it with morality, they might just say "what a stupid annoying animal, not good for the power of our community at all".
You seem to assume that Nietzsche was a liberal i.e. any evaluation must be tolerated, let's all be free from each other's evaluations, etc... But such interpretation of him is pretty stupid, it directly contradicts with what he says.

>> No.5500356
File: 1.97 MB, 290x268, 1406084250583.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5500356

A wicked man asking a righteous man "why be moral?" is kind of like a coward asking a man of courage "why be brave?" To the righteous man, seeking justice makes sense. The same way seeking pleasure makes sense to the egoistical hedonist, seeking fame and self-improvement makes sense to the narcissist, and seeking knowledge makes sense to the curious man.

>> No.5500363

>>5500324
They ask how normal people use the language, which sometimes normal people don't ever thoroughly examine.

>>5500332
They might, but people who don't have strong morals tend to find the observation of rape to be exciting.

I don't assume Nietzsche was a liberal, he wanted a new aristocracy.

>> No.5500364

>>5500324
Oh you again. You're so fucking stupid it hurts. It's not about them existing or not. They are concepts applied to things to quantify them.

>> No.5500367

>>5500356
>"makes sense"
so vague man, please be series here

>> No.5500407

>>5500367
Not vague. It's a common colloquialism in my language community. If you aren't familiar with the phrase then I should make a better effort to reach you, however I suspect you are familiar with it's usage and you see things through a limiting ontology that obscures the nature of being, preventing you from experiencing aletheia.

>> No.5500412

>>5500363
⇒which sometimes normal people don't ever thoroughly examine.
Philosophers don't "thoroughly examine" them either. They fail to answer their own questions. They autistically play with semantics like clumsy infants who use abstract language for the first time, but in the end the only result they ever reach is "we cannot know". Might as well bang your head against a wall. It has the same intellectual merit.

>>5500364
Your shitpost has zero content.

>> No.5500419
File: 90 KB, 600x399, freddo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5500419

>>5499830
Why be immoral?

>> No.5500427

>>5499830
Because you want to be.

>> No.5500434

>ctrl+f
>spook
>zero results

Sure is plebeian in here.

>> No.5500436

>>5500363
>people who don't have strong morals tend to find the observation of rape to be exciting
Only in our moralizing culture where any exit from morality leads people to nihilism and reactive destruction because their drive for creativity was made weak by morality. Sade's books are somewhat of a good example of that, its characters can exit morality only as a reaction to and a negation of it, which is morality's oldest trick.

>> No.5500443

>>5500407
No, you're just vague by using a vague term.

>> No.5500445

>>5500419
Why be anything in relation to morality?

>> No.5500452
File: 52 KB, 500x494, 1386188130528.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5500452

>>5500419
/thread

>> No.5500460

>>5500412
You can't know. What are you talking about? Logic itself can't be 'known'. 'A or not A' is not provable. It is not doubted, but it is not provable either because it's an unfalsifiable tautology. This however is one of the bedrock beliefs of our entire language and civilization.

Philosophers should attempt to get rid of questions instead of trying to answer things that can't be answered.

>> No.5500462

>>5500419
⇒Why be immoral?

Because all the fun things are immoral.

>> No.5500472

>>5499830
Because morality is a possession that can not be lost in the same way that those that you would get through immorality would be.

>> No.5500475

>>5500443
Vagueness is subjective. I'm not sure which terms will be less vague to you. I think a colloquial phrase commonly understood better reveals truth than a two-dollar word rife with problematic metaphysical baggage. (Not that you've used that sort of word in discourse with me.)

>> No.5500484

>>5499830
Morality is spooks

>> No.5500491

>>5500460
Philosophy is dead m8, all those useless cunts have been swapped with scientists.

>> No.5500492

>>5500324
I guess quantum physics are shit because "people" don't get them, then.
Better burn the LHC and get more THC

>> No.5500496

>>5500462
Hedonist.

>> No.5500509

>>5500472
Funny how the strongest proponents of morality are the most immoral people.

>don't be greedy, for morals are a possession you will always possess

>> No.5500515

>>5500492
⇒I guess quantum physics are shit because "people" don't get them, then.
What does this have to do with my post? Quantum physics has explanatory value and is used in practical applications. My post didn't even talk about "people not getting" something. The problem with ontology is not that "people don't get it", but the fact that it's useless. Every person with common sense sees why its questions are unanswerable and meaningless.

⇒Better burn the LHC and get more THC
I agree.

>> No.5500518

>>5500496
Sadist. Though she prefers "sociopath"

>> No.5500522

Because of the tripartite soul and eudemonia being harmony between it's parts where reason rules, thereby living a virtuous life rather than a tyrannical one ruled by fickle passions or spirit.

>> No.5500524

>>5500475
Cool. Can you ATTEMPT to convey what you were initially trying to say in a more concrete way that suits the subjectivity of not being vague from your perspective at least?

I'm just curious in what you said, but can't fully comprehend it, because EYE found it too vague, I don't care to argue it's universal understanding of the term.

>> No.5500526

The only thing you can't refuse doing is breathing, other than that go at your own risk.

>> No.5500529

>>5500262
Guilt: Western
Shame: Middle East, Japan.
Difference!

>> No.5500539

>>5500518
You really have to try to be this much of a sniveling, laughable failure

>> No.5500542

>>5500529
Yes, you're confirming what I've said.

>> No.5500543

>>5500509
Desire to possess something is in no way immoral. Desire to possess oneself is in fact moral.

You'd do better to study ethics rather than going on the internet and daring someone to save you from anomie.

>> No.5500547

>>5500173
Oh I just saw this. This explains a lot.

>Why would restricting and limiting myself make me feel good?

You are restricted by the rules you follow.

>As a sociopath I don't feel these emotions.

Lol

>My job brings structure to my life. My hobbies bring structure to my life. But I don't see primitive superstition would bring structure to my life.

Your belief in logic can be considered superstition since it is an unfalsifiable tautology. Our entire civilization is based on this bed rock belief. Also, again, the RULES give you structure such as your job. You follow the rules and are therefore moral. Moral isn't some metaphysical thing. Look at how we use the word in context. You are moral.


>On the contrary, morality would get me closer to being an apathetic potato because morality would inhibit many fun things.

Subjective bullshit. What's fun to isn't to others etc. You are moral because you follow the rules of language and of your job for example. You are just like everyone else whether you believe it or not.

>I'm proud of my achievements. If you have nothing other to proud of than some inane dogma, then your life must be pretty empty.

What achievements?

>> No.5500552

>>5500542
There's a pretty big difference.

>> No.5500560

BECAUSE THE EAGLES WOULD'VE BEEN SHOT DOWN YOU FUCKING RETARD

/thread

>> No.5500566

>>5500529
⇒Shame: Middle East, Japan.

Great oversimplification, mr armchair fedora psychologist. Shame is prevalent in western civilization as well. It only has a different quality. In the western hemisphere shame is a private emotion of the individual. Just look at all the faggots with their greentext/feel/spaghettit stories. In the eastern hemisphere on the other hand shame has a collective quality. They fear being a disgrace for their family, their clan or whatever.

>> No.5500574

>>5500552
Yes, of course, I agree. It just seems you wanted to oppose my post with that difference, but I don't think you did. So can you elaborate on this?

>> No.5500580

Do you believe anything but your mind exists? You probably do, unless you're being difficult for the purpose of epistemological skepticism itself. You at least act like you do at the very least. Do you believe other people exist, and feel things as you do? You almost certainly do. Do you believe pain itself is negative, and that fulfilling preferences of people by itself is positive (as an example)? You almost certainly do, or hold similar beliefs like that.

So then actions you make take which cause pain (as an example) to other individuals whom you take to have comparable minds to your own, are actions which are inconsistent with the axioms you have expressed to hold. This is due to

1. Not sincerely holding those axioms; or
2. Not sincerely adhering to them because of human fault.

To not act unethically is thus to act wrongly

>> No.5500586

>>5500566
Anon didn't mean the geographical opposition as absolute as it sounds to you. There are different nuances to shame, but guilt is something that is much more emphasized in Western world.

>> No.5500598

>>5500547
⇒You are restricted by the rules you follow.
That's why I do not follow any rules unless someone enforces them with threats of violence.

⇒Your belief in logic can be considered superstition
Common sense is not a belief but on the contrary the opposite of belief. I don't need faith to accept logic.

⇒You follow the rules and are therefore moral
There is nothing neither moral nor immoral about entering a contract in which I do something and get paid for it. It's just rational. Having a job doesn't make me moral. Are you a NEET or why do you know nothing about jobs?

⇒You are just like everyone else whether you believe it or not.
I'm objectively superior.

⇒What achievements?
Intellectual, athletic, financial etc etc. If you weren't a NEET shitposter and had a life instead, you'd know what kinds of achievements are possible.

>> No.5500607

>>5500598
I know this is old shit, but why did people start using that alternative to greentext? Was it a move from some other community into here?

>> No.5500614

>>5500529
Guilt: Feeling resultant of violation of a personal sense of right and wrong.
Shame: Feeling that other people will consider your action a transgression of right and wrong

One is an internal stigma, the other is external.

>> No.5500621

>>5500524
Sorry for not answering your question initially. I'll give it a shot, however I'm afraid I'll further obscure things by using less sincere words.

To the egoist, being selfish does not need a justification. Is it pre-linguistic? Pre-cognitive? Ask a Stirnerist why be egoistical and he has nothing to give you. Maybe he'll say it's something you'll do inevitably or automatically, but even if all are spooks but the self, he cannot provide reason why one should serve the self rather than work against it.
Same thing with the lecherous: to him any chastity or prudence seems inauthentic. He'll accuse the pure of being deluded or hypocritical. To him only perversion seems authentic.

Same with the righteous man. There's something in oppression and abuse that he can't stand. The lie catches in his throat and turns his stomach. Truth is beautiful and stirs his heart. Acting justly "makes sense." Doing a righteous deed needs no more justification than that it is righteous.

Does this answer your question?

>> No.5500624

>>5500607
It's just /lit/'s jester, we call it "arrow".

>> No.5500639

>>5500621
It does actually! Thank you.

>> No.5500642

The very fact that the purportedly amoral person tries to convince me of his ideas using discourse rather than aggression demonstrates he's already operating according to the foundational moral principle that one should not aggress against another.

>> No.5500649

>>5500598
>That's why I do not follow any rules unless someone enforces them with threats of violence.

Then why do you have a job? You don't have to follow the way society does things. Why not break away and have fun?

>Common sense is not a belief but on the contrary the opposite of belief. I don't need faith to accept logic.

Yes you do. You can't falsify it and there is no proof for or against it. It is a belief. You can't say 'I know logic exists' because then you'd have to look at it's negation to see how that statement is nonsense: 'I don't know that logic exists'. What would such a doubt be like? And on what grounds?

>There is nothing neither moral nor immoral about entering a contract in which I do something and get paid for it. It's just rational. Having a job doesn't make me moral. Are you a NEET or why do you know nothing about jobs?

Actually it does. You are following the social convention. What do you think of someone who has no job and is a bum? Are they being moral? As we use the word in our language, no they are not. Morality isn't some metaphysical thing. You follow the rules of society whether you like it or not(you don't commit crimes) and are therefore moral. If you do commit crimes however, then you are not.

>I'm objectively superior.

Any way to objectively prove that statement? You insult a lot of people which isn't something an objective person would do. You certainly act on emotion a lot at least here.

>Intellectual, athletic, financial etc etc. If you weren't a NEET shitposter and had a life instead, you'd know what kinds of achievements are possible.

Yet again, subjective bullshit. Achievements are subjective to that person. There is no absolute standard of achievement. To say 'I am proud of my achievements' is akin to saying 'I am proud of my personal opinion of this'. It's a subjective term that is meaningless.

>> No.5500651

>>5500642
How do you suppose to use violence over the internet? Let's meet IRL and fight it out.

>> No.5500682

>>5500642
The so-called amoralists often have the most sophisticated moral sensibilities. This is the result of having not blindly bought into the established morals simply because they're established, but instead putting in serious thought as to why specific mores are or are not sensible or practical.

>> No.5500692

>>5500649
⇒Then why do you have a job? You don't have to follow the way society does things. Why not break away and have fun?
Because I enjoy my job? And thanks to my high intelligence I still have enough time to have fun in my free time.

⇒You can't falsify it and there is no proof for or against it. It is a belief.
Logic is not a belief. Faith is what happens in the absence of logic. Never go full retard.

⇒You are following the social convention.
Of course I do. Unlike you I'm neither retarded nor autistic.

⇒What do you think of someone who has no job and is a bum?
I laugh in their face.

⇒Are they being moral?
There is no such thing as "being moral". Morality is a spook. Are you illiterate?

⇒Any way to objectively prove that statement?
I don't want to be doxxed.

⇒You insult a lot of people which isn't something an objective person would do. You certainly act on emotion a lot at least here.
Are you linguistically impaired? "Objective" is not an adjective to describe a person's character or attitudes.

⇒Achievements are subjective to that person. There is no absolute standard of achievement.
Achievements are objective. I have more money than others. I have a higher academic education than others. I beat others in competitions.

>> No.5500695

>>5500649
Following the rules of society is not inherently moral. Usually it is strictly ethical.

>> No.5500706

>>5500614
You got it mixed up a bit.
Guilt: internalization of a relation between multiple parties where one party has done something "morally wrong" (tautological expression) with respect to the other party according to supposed both party's evaluation, possibly projected into some higher being like God.
Shame: evaluation of one's own action as bad, not necessarily morally (I can be ashamed of my book because I think it's of low quality), a relation with some other party that perceived or would perceive that action as bad (an actual or possible reader of my book).

>> No.5500726

>>5500682
I'm inclined to agree with a caveat: many of those who disparage morality are either alienated edge-lords or wicked people rationalizing their vice. These types, especially the second, do not have sophisticated moral sensibilities. They have an immature emotional development dressed up as a simplistic moral anti-realism.

>> No.5500732

>>5500642
Why do you see amoral persons necessarily as animals? Is this not a moral view? Amorality means different perception, not necessarily a less refined one. Some would argue it can be more refined (e.g. becoming an "übermensch" rather than a "monkey").

>> No.5500735

>>5500651
Oh come on! You've had this argument IRL and you didn't begin clobbering your interlocutor. Was that simply because you're a coward?

>> No.5500739

>>5500726
>many of those
So not all?

>> No.5500742

>>5500692

>Logic is not a belief. Faith is what happens in the absence of logic. Never go full retard.

Keep telling yourself that. lmao

>Of course I do. Unlike you I'm neither retarded nor autistic.

That hurts. Inside.

>There is no such thing as "being moral". Morality is a spook. Are you illiterate?

Morality is simply how we use it in our language. That's it.

>Are you linguistically impaired? "Objective" is not an adjective to describe a person's character or attitudes.

The fact that you insult people shows you aren't objective. Whether you like it or not, you are as subjective as a kid who got his candy stolen from a bully and now hates him. I'm getting to you(for some reason) and you are getting defensive and insulting me. That in itself is a logical fallacy but let's not get into that.

>Achievements are objective. I have more money than others. I have a higher academic education than others. I beat others in competitions.

This is hilarious. You really believe that? Some people believe making a lot of money is a great achievement, others do not. How do you explain that? Can you show me the absolute standard of achievement? Is it having a job, going to college, making, AKA following the social conventions? If you do believe that, prove to me that statement is true.


>>5500695
True it gets a bit of both I'd say but certainly more ethics you are correct.

>> No.5500745

>>5500732
1. I never mentioned animals. I don't know where you're getting that.

2. You're misunderstanding Nietzsche.

>> No.5500755

>>5500651
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little pragmatist? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class at the french psychoanalytic institute in Siberia, and I’ve been involved with numerous of my patients, and I have over 300 confirmed theories. I am trained in semiotics and I’m the top analyst in the entire psychoanalytical community. You are nothing to me but just another subject. I will surprise you with complex analytical tools the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my superior speech act. You think you can get away with implying that there are contradictions in my theoretical edifice over the Internet? Think again, you locus of signifiers. As we speak I am contacting my academic colleagues across the USA and your psychlogical condition is being analysed right now so you better prepare for the treatment, you piece of radical otherness. The treatment that radically changes the perverse thing you call your life. You’re fucking outside the symbolic order as such, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, theoretically and I can analyze you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in the psychoanalytical field, but I have access to the entire oevre of psychoanalytical writings and I will use it to its full extent to analyze your miserable ass as the superego product of the pre-dominant ideology of the continent, you little object-a. If only you could have known what unholy psychological implications your little “clever” comment was about to reveal about you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re being analyzed, you goddamn psychotic. I will contemplate the Real that seems to lure all over you and which you might, so to speak drown in, if you fail to reproduce a suitable master-signifier. You’re fucking lacking the phallus, kiddo.

>> No.5500775

>>5500706
I was talking about guilt more in the sense of personal feelings of transgression. Sure there is guilt in the legal sense, or in the religious sense if you're that kind of person, but that stands alone from individual feelings of guilt.

Your definition of shame is essentially what I said.
>(I can be ashamed of my book because I think it's of low quality)
The shame here is connected to the imagined perceptions of other people. It's (perceived by you as) low quality, therefore you're less likely to show it to someone.

>> No.5500779

>>5500692
One more thing:

>Are you linguistically impaired? "Objective" is not an adjective to describe a person's character or attitudes.

You said before 'I'm objectively superior' when I said you were like everyone else. Did you describe your character with that statement? It was rather vague.

>> No.5500791

>>5500745
>1. I never mentioned animals. I don't know where you're getting that.
The way you mentioned aggression in that context seemed to imply that you mean something uncultivated like using physical force in the usual sense.
>2. You're misunderstanding Nietzsche.
Because I've used the word "monkey"? I agree, but couldn't think of anything else to get my point across in one word.

>> No.5500805

>>5500742
⇒Keep telling yourself that. lmao
Alright, I'll do: "Logic is not a belief. Logic and common sense are the opposite of faith."

⇒That hurts. Inside.
Are you gonna cry?

⇒Morality is simply how we use it in our language. That's it.
Morality is "muh feelings". Much more primitive than language.

⇒The fact that you insult people shows you aren't objective.
Do I need to repeat myself? "Objective" is not an adjective you can use to describe a person's attitudes or character.

⇒Whether you like it or not, you are as subjective as a kid who got his candy stolen from a bully and now hates him. I'm getting to you(for some reason) and you are getting defensive and insulting me.
Wow, watch out guys. We're dealing with an armchair psychologist here. Where did you learn this autistic preschool misunderstanding of interpersonal psychology? At reddit university? You must be very bad at communicating.

⇒That in itself is a logical fallacy but let's not get into that.
No, it isn't. It's not even an argument.

⇒Some people believe making a lot of money is a great achievement, others do not. How do you explain that?
All people value money and social status. Only some are in denial. Leave your mom's basement once in a while and go outside. Society doesn't obey your fedora'd idealism, kid.

>> No.5500821

>>5500779
⇒You said before 'I'm objectively superior' when I said you were like everyone else.
⇒Did you describe your character with that statement? It was rather vague.

The fact that I'm superior is objective. Facts are objective. That's not the same as calling a person objective. Please take an autism test. Your inability to understand everyday language is worrisome.

>> No.5500822

>>5499830
it follows categorically from a good will
the social contract will beat you up if have a bad one

>> No.5500828

>>5500805
Here's something for your logic delusions(From Godel):

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory.

You can't prove logic. All you can do is believe in it's truth. If a statement is immune to doubting, then it would seem to follow that there is no need to justify it; and if there is no need to justify it, then it is not a piece of knowledge.

>> No.5500844

>>5499830
there isn't a compelling reason. people tell you to be because they are and/or think you are stupid and will be a pointless inconvenience for everyone unless you follow arbitary rules.

>> No.5500846

>>5500821
Oh I understand now. Thank you so much for the clarification. How are you superior? And in relation to whom? To every other human being?

>> No.5500854

>>5500828
You don't need to copypaste wikipedia. I'm familiar with Gödel's theorem and it adds nothing to your already disproved falsehoods. Logic is a branch of math and involves no belief or faith.

>> No.5500860

>>5500854
Lol okay dude. Have fun with that.

>> No.5500872

>>5500854
I love how you just say 'It adds nothing' as if that's the end of it without a counter argument. You are easily one of the dumbest people I've ever encountered.

>> No.5500889
File: 578 KB, 500x265, 1367372483051.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5500889

>>5500822
Don't insult Kant by mixing Categorical Imperative with Rousseau's plebby social contract.

>> No.5500892

>>5500872
I love how you just post your ad hominem insult like an enraged infant stomping his foot and believe you somehow disproved me or tought me a lesson. Keep your futile aspie rage to yourself.

>> No.5500898

>>5500892
If only you knew how to conduct yourself in an argument, you might look more legitimate.

>> No.5500901

i love how people argue on the internet like retarded children while i laugh at how petty and stupid they are

>> No.5500907
File: 1.82 MB, 175x175, This is b8.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5500907

>>5500860
>>5500872
I can't believe you retards get so totally demolished by arrow every single day and yet you keep pretending these bitchy comments do anything more than reveal your deep anguish. Just stop talking to her.

>> No.5500908

>>5500901
Jokes on you, we're only pretending

>> No.5500915

>>5500908
me too
i haven't laughed in years

>> No.5500923

>>5500915
What do you call a shovel on a skyscraper?

Heidegger

>> No.5500927
File: 164 KB, 1280x720, kant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5500927

>>5500889
>don't insult Kant

That filthy Mannlein insulted himself more than enough,

>> No.5500930

Philosophy is a lot like an apple: It's juicy and sweet going in, but looks, smells, sounds and tastes like shit coming out.

My own quote lol.

>> No.5500935

>>5500907
Que? What is this arrow of which you speak?!

>> No.5500937

because I said so and I'm threatening you with force such as arrest and imprisonment, so do it :^)

>> No.5500944

>>5499830
because society is an organism and suicide is retarded

>> No.5501044

>>5500935
>

>> No.5501089

>>5501044
no really what is it?

>> No.5501100

>>5501089
⇒no really what is it?

It's a mystery.

>> No.5501124

>>5501100
>using fag arrows

why?
>green is good enough

>> No.5501134

>>5501124
>ditto

>> No.5501136

>>5501100
Who is the 'she' attached to arrows?

>> No.5501141

>>5501136
the gay arrows
>i might add

>> No.5501147

>>5499830
because your superior punishes you if you dont

>> No.5501149
File: 873 KB, 1920x1080, foryou.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5501149

Tell me about her! Why does she use the arrows??

>> No.5501219

>>5500607
It's a troll meant to discredit STEM majors and make /lit/ hate /sci/, ignore it.

>> No.5501223

Why not?

>> No.5501459

>>5500078
How would you define an immoral act

>> No.5501497
File: 51 KB, 500x385, 1411877111396.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5501497

Christ, /lit/ is actually edgier than /pol/ now. At least they have values!

You have to be either incredibly misguided or literally, LITERALLY autistic to not get the worth of moral codes.

>> No.5501503

>>5501219
There's also people pretending to be her to make her look bad or bore her or something.

>> No.5501665

>>5501459
>morality doesnt exist
>how would you define it
are you fucking serious

>> No.5501683

>>5501665
>value systems for evaluating actions relative only to the systems don't exist

>> No.5501694

>>5499830
glory of the futile struggle against cruelty and the fostering of humanity. not in every action, but in some. world is random, doomed, and base. except for when I choose otherwise.
fuck you, nature.

>> No.5501699

>>5499830
Because you have to be, otherwise I'll throw you in jail

>> No.5501707

>>5501699
you cant catch me, faggot.
im fucking your daughter right now.

>> No.5501708

>>5500173
>sociopath
Funny way to spell autist

>> No.5501742

>>5500267
What is mathematics? Since you seem to know

>> No.5501759

>>5500324
Just.. Lol

>> No.5501768

>>5501742
I'm not going to spoonfeed you. Use Google if you're uneducated.

>> No.5501770

to please God

>> No.5501772

>>5500624
Arrow is male and the arrow linguistically means "implies" in symbolic logic

>> No.5501780

>>5500755
Semiotics is legit analytic philosophy, why are you making fun of it?

(Anon simply mocks words without understanding them)

>> No.5501794

>>5500828
Godels proof is good for mathematics but logic and mathematics aren't the same thing exactly. You can't use Godel for logic with his incompleteness theorems

>> No.5501797

>>5500854
Math is a branch of logic is a branch of philosophy, dummy

Except math gets weirdly complicated because it was created for science

>> No.5501802

>>5501089
Logic symbol for "implies"

Because lel lel lel it's funny

>> No.5501807

>>5501707
I have a daughter?

>> No.5501810

>>5501768
Sounds more like you just don't know. Faggot.

>> No.5501811

>>5501794
They aren't but they are closely related. They operate on the same principles. It can be translated as: You can't use logic to analyze itself.

>> No.5501813

>>5501802
¬ "you" ∨ "ur not retarded"

>> No.5501827

>>5501813
I do not understand this, and that makes me angry.

>> No.5501880

>>5500923
only if its pointing down.

>> No.5501885

>>5500898
>2014
>thinks conduct, arguments, and legitimacy are relevant

>> No.5501896

>>5501807
no, but my dick is so far up your ass your seed has seed.

>> No.5502631

>>5501797
⇒Math is a branch of logic

How can you say that after the Gödel theorem has been posted? Are you cognitively disabled? Logic is a strict subset of math.

>> No.5502696

>>5502631
>Gödel's incompleteness theorem proves logic is a subset of math
>Are you cognitively disabled?
You should ask yourself the same question.

>> No.5502719

>>5499830
Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it.
Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself..

>> No.5502722

Life is better when we can enjoy the fruits of each others labours. Literally the source of any reasonable morality.

>> No.5502724

>>5502696
What did you not understand?

>> No.5502777

>>5502724
Your particular brew of mental retardation.

>> No.5502784

>>5502777
It's called "intelligence". Do you expect me to apologize for knowing more math than you?

>> No.5502804

>>5502784
No, I believe it's called "stupidity" or "mental retardation", at least in conventional English. You don't understand the incompleteness theorem. Stop speaking authoritatively on a subject you know little about.

>> No.5502894

>>5502804
I do understand the incompleteness theorem good enough to see the obvious corollaries which you seem to reject for whatever emotional reason. Please go be retarded somewhere else.

>> No.5502953

>>5502894
"Obviousness" must be determined by your pretense as this is not an acknowledged result of the field. If it's so "obvious" however, go ahead and show me the proof for this remarkable claim. I can't wait to see how some sociological problem of stratification has anything to do with a result in formal logic.

>> No.5503033

>>5501223
Because.

>> No.5503053

>>5502953
Gödel's theorems are widely accepted as a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem, thus proving that there cannot be a single consistent and complete axiomatic system as the basis for all of mathematics.

>> No.5503067

Well, because to not be moral stems from weakness.

>> No.5503092

>>5503053
I still don't see how you arrive at such a social interpretation from that. Nonetheless almost all mathematicians and logicians, constructivist, platonist, intuitionist, whatever, don't give a damn about syntactic completeness. You only see the CS people obsessing over that because it essentially corresponds to Turing-completeness. Thus even if I were to accept your line of reasoning the more appropriate inference to make would be that math and logic cannot be reduced to computer science.

>> No.5503105

>>5501459
I don't believe in objective morality, so I simply wouldn't.

A moralist would say that an immoral act is an act which transgresses the universal moral laws.

>> No.5503106

>>5503092
⇒I still don't see how you arrive at such a social interpretation from that.
Where the fuck is a "social interpretation"? I merely said logic is a branch of math.

⇒Nonetheless almost all mathematicians and logicians, constructivist, platonist, intuitionist, whatever, don't give a damn about syntactic completeness.
ignoratio elenchi

⇒the more appropriate inference to make would be that math and logic cannot be reduced to computer science.
Computer science is a degree, not a field of research. Also nice non-sequitur.

>> No.5503132

>>5503106
>Where the fuck is a "social interpretation"? I merely said logic is a branch of math.
Math and logic as academic fields are done in social context and study entirely different systems. Math doesn't subsume logic and vice versa.

>ignoratio elenchi
It's very relevant. you say
>there cannot be a single consistent and complete axiomatic system

>Computer science is a degree, not a field of research.
There is a CS department at every university. There are researchers employed there and they publish papers in CS journals.

>Also nice non-sequitur.
Thanks for admitting that your own claim is nonsense.

>> No.5503151

>>5503132
⇒Math and logic as academic fields are done in social context and study entirely different systems. Math doesn't subsume logic and vice versa.
Logic is a branch of math. It is studied by mathematicians. Like all branches of math it has a broad range of applications. But don't confuse applications of logic with research in logic.

⇒It's very relevant. you say
⇒>there cannot be a single consistent and complete axiomatic system
Your reply is still not relevant. The fact I posted proves that logic is does not subsume math. Therefore logic is a strict subset of math.

⇒There is a CS department at every university. There are researchers employed there and they publish papers in CS journals.
CS is not a well-defined field. Every research done in CS departments could as well be assigned to either maths, physics or engineering departments.

⇒Thanks for admitting that your own claim is nonsense.
Your is the non-sequitur and you didn't even understand mine.

>> No.5503193

>>5499830
Because of pressures and conditioning by society.

>> No.5503195

>>5503151
>Logic is a branch of math.
No, mathematical research qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from research done in logic.

>It is studied by mathematicians.
It's studied by logicians and not mathematicians.

>Like all branches of math it has a broad range of applications. But don't confuse applications of logic with research in logic.
I never did. Please refrain from accusing me of shit that I haven't done.

>Your reply is still not relevant. The fact I posted proves that logic is does not subsume math. Therefore logic is a strict subset of math.
Sorry, but it shows only what you've written. That there cannot be a single consistent and complete axiomatic system as the basis for all of mathematics. Nothing more.

>CS is not a well-defined field. Every research done in CS departments could as well be assigned to either maths, physics or engineering departments.
This is clearly wrong, else nobody would be handing out degrees for it or funding dedicated departments and journals. Look up the wiki definition of computer science and notice how it differs from math, physics, and engineering.

>Your is the non-sequitur and you didn't even understand mine.
Ostensibly nobody but you understands it, because in academia we have logicians, we have logic programs, and we have logic journals.

>> No.5503209

>>5503106
>logic is a branch of math
I think it's pretty clear since Russell's failed attempt and Gödels incompleteness theorem that they are separate.

>> No.5503215

>>5503151
>CS is not a well-defined field. Every research done in CS departments could as well be assigned to either maths, physics or engineering departments.

imo that's true
not every country has it as a separate science too, afaik

>> No.5503219

>>5503195
⇒No, mathematical research qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from research done in logic.
But research in logic is not different from mathematical research. Thanks for demonstrating that you know neither.

⇒It's studied by logicians and not mathematicians.
Logicians are mathematicians who specialized in logic.

⇒I never did. Please refrain from accusing me of shit that I haven't done.
cool backpedaling

⇒Sorry, but it shows only what you've written. That there cannot be a single consistent and complete axiomatic system as the basis for all of mathematics. Nothing more.
Your inability to draw obvious logical conclusions is worrisome. Go see a neurologist.

⇒This is clearly wrong, else nobody would be handing out degrees for it or funding dedicated departments and journals.
Philosophy departments also hand out degrees and receive fundings even though their students do nothing more than reading and talking.

⇒Look up the wiki definition of computer science and notice how it differs from math, physics, and engineering.
There is nothing in CS which couldn't be subsumed by any of the above-mentioned fields

⇒Ostensibly nobody but you understands it
Every mathematician understands it.

⇒because in academia we have logicians, we have logic programs, and we have logic journals.
I never claimed the opposite.

>> No.5503224

>>5503209
Russell and Gödel were mathematicians and they made logic a branch of math. Why are you illiterate?

>> No.5503263

>>5503224
No. They were trying to make mathematics a subset of logic and it was proven to be impossible. To think beyond this (that mathematics is separated from logic or that logic is a subset of math) is speculating beyond their discoveries

>> No.5503270

>>5503263
⇒They were trying to make mathematics a subset of logic and it was proven to be impossible
Exactly my point.

⇒To think beyond this (that mathematics is separated from logic or that logic is a subset of math) is speculating beyond their discoveries
Logic is obviously a subset of math. It is researched by mathematicians with mathematical methods.

>> No.5503285

>>5503219
>But research in logic is not different from mathematical research.
It isn't. Logic as studied by logicians is not the same thing as math studied by mathematicians.

>Logicians are mathematicians who specialized in logic.
No specialization is needed or involved. Logicians are just people who study logic.

>cool backpedaling
I never did this either.

>Your inability to draw obvious logical conclusions is worrisome. Go see a neurologist.
Personal attacks only help underline how weak and loose your associations really are. You might want to follow your own advice.

>Philosophy departments also hand out degrees and receive fundings even though their students do nothing more than reading and talking.
>There is nothing in CS which couldn't be subsumed by any of the above-mentioned fields
How about instead of sidetracking you defend your original stance in a civil manner?

>Every mathematician understands it.
So it shouldn't be hard then to show me one not part of this conversation or some literature on the topic.

>I never claimed the opposite.
They are entirely separate from mathematicians, math programs, and math journals.

>> No.5503290

Because the complex network of individual subjective streams is all that represents humanity. It's our duty to try and figure out where our own stream intersects with another's and protect that point. It's hard work, especially in these days where the marketing of ethics and image politics have replaced the desire to understand where each of us is coming from, but it's the only thing that can prevent our extinction.

>> No.5503305

>>5503285
⇒It isn't. Logic as studied by logicians is not the same thing as math studied by mathematicians.
Logicians are mathematicians. They have degrees in math and use mathematical methods.

⇒No specialization is needed or involved. Logicians are just people who study logic.
Logicians are mathematicians. They have degrees in math and use mathematical methods.

⇒I never did this either.
cool backpedaling

⇒Personal attacks only help underline how weak and loose your associations really are. You might want to follow your own advice.
Cool armchair psychology. Did you learn it at reddit university? Or is this what they teach in philosophy departments? To distract with pseudo-psychological musings when you're losing the debate?

⇒>There is nothing in CS which couldn't be subsumed by any of the above-mentioned fields
⇒How about instead of sidetracking you defend your original stance in a civil manner?
How about you prove me wrong? Name one thing which couldn't be subsumed by the above-mentioned fields?

⇒So it shouldn't be hard then to show me one not part of this conversation or some literature on the topic.
Sure, go ahead and write an email to any contemporary researcher in logic. While looking them up, you'll also find they studied math.

⇒They are entirely separate from mathematicians, math programs, and math journals.
They are specialized mathematicians, programs and journals. What you claim is as inane as saying "Number theory isn't math, number theorists aren't mathematicians and number theory journals are not math journals". I'm sorry to hear that the concept of subset inclusion is too hard for you to understand. If your cognitive skills are lower than those of a dog, I won't be able to help you.

>> No.5503307

>>5503270
Likelihood seems to me a weak argument for such a big statement. Unless you are trying to apply Leibniz Law somewhere

>> No.5503359

>>5503305
>Logicians are mathematicians.
>Logicians are mathematicians.
Most often a logician has either a standalone degree in logic, math, or philosophy/computer science. What degree they have is irrelevant to how they identify themselves professionally, the department they do research for, or the journals they publish in.

>They have degrees in math and use mathematical methods.
Logicians don't do math. They do logic and use logic and logical methods.

>cool backpedaling
I never did this either.

>Cool armchair psychology. Did you learn it at reddit university? Or is this what they teach in philosophy departments? To distract with pseudo-psychological musings when you're losing the debate?
more half-baked personal attacks

>How about you prove me wrong? Name one thing which couldn't be subsumed by the above-mentioned fields?
I don't know enough about academic philosophy or computer science to help you.

>Sure, go ahead and write an email to any contemporary researcher in logic. While looking them up, you'll also find they studied math.
They told me they studied logic, not math, and also that you're so full of shit Gödel is turning in his grave.

>They are specialized mathematicians, programs and journals.
Logic is neither a specialization nor subfield of math. It's just logic.

>What you claim is as inane as saying "Number theory isn't math, number theorists aren't mathematicians and number theory journals are not math journals". I'm sorry to hear that the concept of subset inclusion is too hard for you to understand. If your cognitive skills are lower than those of a dog, I won't be able to help you.
pure strawmannery

>> No.5503457

>>5499830
Why be anything? Cause you believe in it.

>> No.5504044

>>5500462
no, actually they mostly feel fun because they're against morality, because they're taboo, and a pleasure taken mostly from going against the norm is rather empty, also search for pleasure makes you exactly what being immoral tries to avoid, it makes you a sheep that took all it's ideals and values from what the majority thinks and wants, therefore being immoral for pleasure is contradictory.

>> No.5504050

>>5500496
i hope you understand that it's not really an insult.

>> No.5504106

>>5503359
⇒What degree they have is irrelevant to how they identify themselves professionally
If logic cannot be studied without a math degree, then it's clearly a field of math.

⇒Logicians don't do math. They do logic and use logic and logical methods.
"Number theorists don't do math. They do number theory and use number theoretical methods."
Seriously?

⇒I never did this either.
cool backpedaling

⇒I don't know enough about academic philosophy or computer science to help you.
You don't know anything about math either. So why do you participate in a debate about a topic you don't understand?

⇒ you're so full of shit Gödel is turning in his grave.
Gödel was a mathematician. He studied logic, a branch of math.

⇒Logic is neither a specialization nor subfield of math. It's just logic.
Repeating your denial doesn't make you less wrong.

>> No.5504185

>>5504106
>If logic cannot be studied without a math degree, then it's clearly a field of math.
Only it can. Did you miss the sentence before the one you've quoted? A math degree will not teach any logic, ignoring the sometimes required elective course.

>Seriously?
another straw man, but that was to be expected

>cool backpedaling
underrated response

>You don't know anything about math either. So why do you participate in a debate about a topic you don't understand?
You don't know anything about me. And at least I don't have any education in meaningless insult generation.

>Gödel was a mathematician.
He was a polymath with focus in math, physics, philosophy, and logic.

>He studied logic, a branch of math.
He studied logic and math, which are disparate.

>Repeating your denial doesn't make you less wrong.
I wouldn't need to repeat it if you managed to understood it the first time and a simple statement of fact =/= denial.

>> No.5504262

because it's an evolutionary advantage

>> No.5504280

>>5499830
Because it follows from the definition of moral: "what one ought to do." Now, whether you ought to do any of the things many people have claimed to be moral is another question. Is anything actually moral, and has anyone discovered what is the right thing to do?

There may or may not be absolute moral right and wrong in the universe. If there is, we are obligated to behave in accordance with moral law, from its definition. If there is not, it does not matter what we do or do not do. If we are unaware of what is good then it is impossible to act in a good way, so if there is absolute moral right and wrong then our first obligation is to determine what it is. If there is no absolute moral right and wrong then we have no obligations, so we ought to look anyway.

>> No.5504314

>>5504185
⇒A math degree will not teach any logic, ignoring the sometimes required elective course.
At some schools a math degree will allow you to take logic classes and to specialize in logic. Without profound math knowledge you cannot study logic. A math degree is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for researching logic. But why do I even reply to you? You don't even know what these words mean.

⇒another straw man, but that was to be expected
Reductio ad absurdum is not a straw man.

⇒underrated response
cool backpedaling

⇒You don't know anything about me.
I know that you don't know shit about math. This is what you told me throughout this thread.

⇒He was a polymath with focus in math, physics, philosophy, and logic.
His focus was on mathematics where he also made his degree and published his research.

⇒He studied logic and math, which are disparate.
He specialized in a branch of math. Said branch is known under the name "logic".

⇒I wouldn't need to repeat it if you managed to understood it the first time and a simple statement of fact =/= denial.
Ad nauseam is a fallacy.

>> No.5504321

>>5504262
⇒because it's an evolutionary advantage

Did you not read the thread? I explained why it is a disadvantage.

>> No.5504355

>>5504321
Where?

>> No.5504374

>>5504321
You should really read more and realise that everyone has you pegged as a neurotic cunt for what you espouse.

>> No.5504382

>>5504374
i personally pegged him as a troll
u lot just taking the bait is neurotic

>> No.5504409

>>5504382
And here is the American neurosis of "They're terrorists! Kill them!"

>> No.5504866

>>5504314
>At some schools a math degree will allow you to take logic classes and to specialize in logic.
And some schools hand out degrees in "holistic health". What's your point?

>Without profound math knowledge you cannot study logic.
Almost all logics studied by logicians require nothing more than intelligence, intuition, and logical maturity to understand.

>A math degree is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for researching logic.
You are incorrect. There are many respectable logicians with undergraduate/graduate degrees in other subjects. Logic in its present state can be fully grasped without any math.

>Reductio ad absurdum is not a straw man.
ignoratio elenchi

>cool backpedaling
very creative reply

>I know that you don't know shit about math. This is what you told me throughout this thread.
That's one of the voices inside your head, not me.

>His focus was on mathematics where he also made his degree and published his research.
Read my post again. He focused on math, physics, philosophy, are logic. He's published and was highly educated in all those fields.

>He specialized in a branch of math. Said branch is known under the name "logic".
Read my post again. Logic is not a branch of math. You don't need to know that some Seifert fibered space can't be obtained through surgery on a knot to do logic but such information is required for high level math.

>Ad nauseam is a fallacy.
The arachnotoxin LTx2 has 116 amino acids.

>> No.5505230
File: 213 KB, 500x382, webegrillin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5505230

>>5499830
Well I suppose I don't know

>> No.5505523

>>5499830
So you co-operate with ignorant humans.

>> No.5505626

>>5499917
Exactly, you only need to abide by the law

And we can extend this to unofficial laws that carry penalties, such as social rejection and financial rejection

>> No.5505788

>>5504866
⇒And some schools hand out degrees in "holistic health". What's your point?
Are you seriously comparing a math degree to a "holistic health" degree?

⇒Almost all logics studied by logicians require nothing more than intelligence, intuition, and logical maturity to understand.
This is what undergrad kids who barely took a dumbed down intro to propositional and first order logic actually believe. Top kek.

⇒You are incorrect. There are many respectable logicians with undergraduate/graduate degrees in other subjects.
Name 5 of them.

⇒Logic in its present state can be fully grasped without any math.
Absolutely impossible because logic is a field of math.

⇒ignoratio elenchi
red herring

⇒very creative reply
cool backpedaling

⇒That's one of the voices inside your head, not me.
I do not subvocalize while reading.

⇒Read my post again. He focused on math, physics, philosophy, are logic. He's published and was highly educated in all those fields.
Read my post again. His focus was on math. That's where he did his degree and where he published his research.

⇒Read my post again. Logic is not a branch of math.
Read my post again. Logic is a branch of math.

⇒You don't need to know that some Seifert fibered space can't be obtained through surgery on a knot to do logic but such information is required for high level math.
You can do a lot of math without knowing anything about geometric topology. Obviously that's a different branch of math, just like logic is a branch. You can also do statistics without knowing number theory. You made no point whatsoever. Cool buzzwords btw. Your undergrad is showing.

⇒The arachnotoxin LTx2 has 116 amino acids.
cleverbot pls

>> No.5505793

>>5505788
What do you do for a living? If you don't me asking that is. I'm just curious.

>> No.5505832

>>5500621
i like you

>> No.5505911

>>5500642
That's pretty nonsensical, using discourse tends to be less problematic and that's all there is to it. Why fight someone if you can con him?

>> No.5505920

>>5505793
⇒What do you do for a living? If you don't me asking that is. I'm just curious.
autismbux

>> No.5505933

>>5505793
I'm still working on my PhD. I also have other sources of income but naming them here would make it easy to doxx me.

>>5505920
projecting much?

>> No.5505955

>>5505933
Can I ask what field your PhD is in? You don't need to name the school obviously.

>> No.5505976

>>5505933
Arrows, I was just wondering if you realize how needy you are in terms of validation from other people (this is not related to your response here, just your behaviour in general). Troll or non-troll, you still seek validation on 4chan. Have you identified the roots of your neediness? Do you think it stems from being a sociopath and therefore validation of your status is the only form of affection you can decode?

>> No.5505977

>>5505955
It's highly specialized. If I told you, it would be easy to find out who I am.

>> No.5505979

>>5500093
>>5500000

>> No.5505990

>>5505977
Gotcha. Don't worry about it then! Thanks for indulging my curiosity.