[ 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: 13 KB, 300x400, tumblr_kqof27BrH91qz8jguo1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
790313 No.790313 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /lit/, have you ever had deep insights about stuff?
Let's talk about philosophy
Sasha Gray related, she's pretty intellectual

>> No.790317

I came to terms with my mortality when I was 15.

>> No.790316

I wish holding up a book could make one intellectual.

>> No.790320

>>790316
Looks like someone has never held up a book.

>> No.790326
File: 40 KB, 375x500, 1276601158461.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
790326

>> No.790340

Why is she so fucking fuckable?

>> No.790341

The only area of philosophy in which I really have anything of value to add to a conversation is ethics. My personal view on ethics is a sort of modified form of utilitarianism, where rather than judging the morality of an action by its consequences, one judges the morality of an action by, based on the knowledge, intelligence, and amount of time allowed for thinking one through possessed at the time by the one acting, the most LIKELY consequences.

For example:

If I give a starving child an apple, and he grows up to be the next Hitler, there is no way I could have predicted that, but I've had a part in it. As a result, according to a strict Utilitarian view (by Mill's definition) it would seem that I've done something terrible. However, in most cases, giving an apple to a starving child is a good thing, and I simply lack the access to all the variables I would have to know in order to determine this child's entire future.

Instead, why not say that, given all the information I know, as long as I think through the consequences of my actions and know what's most likely, I can weigh risk and cost against potential good, and do that which is most LIKELY to yield the best results.

Essentially, every action is a gamble, because you don't know all the consequences. So, given what you know, you play the odds.

>> No.790345

>>790340
She is not. Once you see the cock-busted jaw, you can never unsee it.

>> No.790352

>>790345

I kinda feel sorry for her though, girls are so ridiculously gullible it isn't even funny.

>> No.790365

>>790341
See now that all sounds very reasonable but in reality it's either common sense or inapplicable. Often when faced with an ethical choice there'll be no way to decide which is better or not (the odds will be 50/50).

I much prefer trying to consistently act out of love. It's a constant struggle, but Kierkegaard trumps Mill any day.

>> No.790382

>>790365
In cases where there's no discernible difference, either choice is good. Mind you, I think acting out of love in cases such as these probably IS the choice more likely to cause a good outcome, all other things being equal.

Kierkegaard is awesome, however.

>> No.790386

>>790341

>The only area of philosophy in which I really have anything of value to add to a conversation is ethics

Unfortunately, ethics is the only aspect of philosophy I don't care to discuss, because it's so groundless.

Meta-ethics? any day. But I won't touch ethics.

>> No.790389

>>790352
>gullible
>implying she's not doing what she does out of complete free will

>> No.790387

>>790341
I was trolling
but
>>790365
agreed
Humans aren't reasonable creatures.
Those that want to be 'imperturbable, logical, impartial', etc. shed their imagination, emotion, humanity.

>> No.790399

>>790389
>Implying women don't have the mental age of small children

>> No.790405
File: 142 KB, 500x682, 7inch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
790405

>> No.790412

>>790389

> Implying we have free will

>> No.790414

>>790341
Thanks. Thanks. Thanks.

>> No.790419

>>790386
All philosophy and knowledge is groundless, thanks to the brain-in-a-vat theory. Everything is a gamble, including accepting our senses as accurate.

>> No.790424

>>790419
That's stupid.
If you want to be a sollopsist, how can you take a step in any direction? Surely you will fall through the earth, how can you know it exists?
The only things we can know about the external world, we must know through our senses. There is no other way for us to understand or know anything about the world, and consequently, about anything.

>> No.790430

>>790419
Therefore everything either requires faith or absurdism. Thank you, existentialists.

>>790382
Kierkegaard love! Brofist. But I think that acting out of love isn't really the act aimed at causing the best net gain; rather it's the act which sits best with the individual. For example, I'm vegetarian. I know that me not eating meat has no effect at all upon the net number of animals slaughtered, I just choose not to because I want to limit my personal involvement in the industry. Not a utilitarian act, but a moral one (in my opinion, assuming you have a certain view on animal rights)

>> No.790496

>>790424
I didn't say I don't accept my senses as true out of convenience.

>> No.790504

>>790430
When I can afford to do so, I intend to switch to eating free-range meat.

>> No.790509

>>790345
Oh... oh god...

>> No.790516

Why do people look to religion? How was it invented? Why are people clinging on to ancient texts?

>> No.790532

>>790516
Most humans are sheep

Look how a good part of the ancient Greeks were atheists and believed more in knowledge than religion. Then the dark ages smashed that and implanted religion into out belief system.

>> No.790537

>>790313

My goodness, I never knew a harlot like that could read. Oh well, I believe it's easy to be philosophical when you're on your back most of your life.

I've got a few olde time Great Idea books from encyclopedia britannica, and I've studied up on Law/Government Philosophy by the big wig philosophers.

>> No.790540

>>790532
What do you mean they believed more in knowledge than religion? They were all pagans weren't they? And the dark ages happened hundreds of years after ancient greece.

>> No.790543
File: 5 KB, 195x200, 1271818167311.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
790543

You ever think about how weird radio stations are? They buy rights to broadcast over a certain frequency, and then only they're legally allowed to do so. But radio waves are just electromagnetic radiation...so it's like buying the rights to display the color blue. Crazy, man.

>> No.790548

>>790540
>>790540
Not all of them were Pagans, they believe in pursing they arts and science over following some make believe.

Yes the Dark Ages happened way later but the ancient Greeks set into action the belief of that the advancement of science and art was up to human beings. It took the Renaissance to get back to ancient Greece/Rome era art and technology.

>> No.790550

>>790540
> And the dark ages happened hundreds of years after ancient greece.

Erm...remember how the Christians burned the library of Alexandria? The scientific values of Ancient Greece were carried on by the Roman Empire.

>> No.790556

Why were people religious?
Why do people search for order and meaning to the world?
How do you think they'd answer the question 'Where do we come from?' for instance?
What are they supposed to think?
Jesus these 14 year old "atheists" piss me off.

>> No.790560

>>790550
And the Christian values of the Roman Empire were carried on by 'dark age' Europe.

>> No.790589

>>790560
Christianity didn't become dominate till Constantine was Emperor which was late late Roman Empire

>> No.790621

>>790560
I don't see how that's relevant.

>> No.790624

>>790556

SCIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO TELL US HURR HURR

>> No.790664

>Why were people religious?
Because they want some sort of answer for questions that cant be answered yet

>Why do people search for order and meaning to the world?

Because we have the brain capacity to actually question those things. Simple organisms cant do that, they care about living and thats it.

>> No.790675

Well, I like Kierkegaard. And Sartre to some extent.

>> No.790684

>>790664
My reply you quoted was in response to
>>790516

>> No.790719

Love and Hate go hand in hand

Discuss

>> No.790917
File: 87 KB, 469x428, trollface_hd_523.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
790917

>>790419
0/10

>> No.790923

ITT:
People who have no idea what Satres existentialism is and how it (doesn't) work.
Also trolls.

>> No.790927

>>790923
Yeah, but it's not like it's worth finding out.

>> No.790928

>>790923
idk, Sartre's existentialism is better than Descartes libertarianism and Pinks libertarianism, even though none of them work.

>> No.790936
File: 120 KB, 419x500, facepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
790936

>>790927
Not worth finding out why we don't have free will.