/lit/ - Literature

>>6185366
>You have fundamentally overlooked the structure of my argument and this is exactly why your counterexample fails.

>You may try again, but I won't be here to correct you.

Oh wow, I did. Because the argument you made is even worse.

>There are no women under 20 inches tall
Is statement

>There are no women under 20 inches who ought to practice the violin
Is statement

There also no women under 20 inches who ought not practice the violin.

On second thought it's obvious you're just trolling, or so critically stupid you don't understand Hume

>>6185269
Hume believes that if you can imagine it, there's no way to prove its impossible. Yeah, all Hollywood movies are "possible", unless you rigidly impose our models of physics onto them. But we have no way of knowing if the laws of physics will or won't ever change. So OP just hasn't actually studied Hume

Like all of this board, they're just idiots about philosophy

>>6183711
LMAO

This is how desperate you are to """refute""" Hume, AGAIN?

There's no cars on the road, therefore no one ought to follow its speed limit! Look! You can break the law now!

Oh wait, you don't understand Hume's conception of possibility because you haven't read him: you're trying to justify your shitty metaphysical stance so you can be comfy lmao

Protip: if it can be imagined, it is possible.

>>6182633
>who was napoleon

>>6183536
The first commenter makes a good point. My grandmother went to ASU in the 40's. She lived in a one-sex dorm and students were barred from fucking. Of course it happened, but this idea of "freedom!" is burger-in-mouth retarded

>>6176131
Because you have a delusional concept of "very intelligent"

>>6174805
Your image implies that you're not an egoist. Lol. Anytime someone gets smug about equality, I laugh.

>>6172834
No, it doesn't matter whether he's right, the position he advocates is a good locus for discussion. Though I agree that "discussion" is usually less that serious an often is shitposting

>>6170458
Nietzsche wasn't anti-nationalist in the sense you mean. He believed in an empire, roman-style, to him nationalism actually meant atomistic nations infighting and suppressing the capabilities of the übermensch

>>6164761
Philosophical toddler detected

>>6164028
He did, Kant's fans are just cunts who insist he's perfect and no one gets him

>>6167805
But his philosophy is clearly idealist. He's definitely largely influence by Hegel

>>6167799
Ah I see. That's too bad, I guess

>>6167790
A spook cartoon wrote a book disproving himself? Shit

>>6167736
Is he just a cartoon??

>>6167678
Ah fuck really? I've been bamboozled. Who is he and who's stirner

>>6167677
I think you maybe missed the mark there a little dude

I finally got around to starting ego. What the fuck guys, this is really good. It's well-written and he's making very good points

>>6167342
Thanks, I will.

>>6167329
Then share your slice of the cake over here and let me be a narcissistic sociopath. Man.. Tastes good.

>>6167252
Great thesis turbocunt, why don't you write a book on it

>>6167312
Lol hyperbole much, you angry cunt? Look, I know you're going to fail to justify equality because it's an intrinsically unjustifiable stance, but getting angry and throwing a tantrum isn't going to alter my perspective.

Yes, I want to live a life of unfair advantage, and no, I don't want everyone else to suffer. So that's my goal, and you can't really say that's a wrong way to live. So either accept Machiavelli as the Prima scholar on morality, or move aside and spend the rest of your life complaining

>>6167285
Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter whether people are happy. It's my subjective whim that people should be happy, and that's the only affect it has.

It doesn't matter if inequality would cause global starvation and suffering, you can't justify equality without an unreasoned appeal to a person's sentiment. The whole point of this thread, though, is that "equality" ends up being patently about obfuscating personal desires as objective rules.

Yes, there are plenty of people who are perfectly happy and are not billionaires. This isn't even a mildly impactful question

>>6167232
By the way, I definitely think you're confusing objectivity with objective Truth. They are not the same thing.