Hey there /his/, need a little help.
My university is requiring all students to take Philosophy (even though I'm a film production student myself). We're supposed to put together a proposal for an oral discussion for our final. Just to have a little fun, I decided to argue against moral ethics. Here's what I have so far:
Thesis: We are not obligated to seek truth, therefore moral ethics are irrelevant.
Main reasons:
*Whether we follow good or bad ethics, we are still regarded as human beings; following or not following the teachings of truth does not redefine us as human. Think of phrase “we’re only human”
*Ideology is often disguised as truth; such as the strangely immense support for Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim “truth” (and anti-any foreigner ever, for that matter), comparable to resounding support for Hitler’s “truth”. Truth is UNTRUSTWORTHY.
*Also, there are so many different ideologies that define truth, too many opinions of truth, truth itself is lost in who believes what. Truth is SUBJECTIVE
*Truth does not even exist, following the philosophy of Descarte’s claim that “I think, therefore I am”. There is no way to confirm the world around us even exists, and yet we only choose to believe it through faith in our observations and belief in the ideology of said world.
*Following the previous reason and the very first, and elaborating on the second part of thesis, if we cannot confirm that the world even exists outside of ourselves and we do not lose humanity as we interact with the world, our actions have no significance whatsoever.
Texts: Descartes, Discourse on Method
Looking for any help with ironing out reasoning and maybe adding some information from texts from other philosophers as well.
Pic unrelated.
>using a poorly-defined folk saying as an example
>using Trump being similar to Hitler as an example
when you do this, you are practically inviting someone to pick at your examples. Those aren't commonly held facts, they are your opinions and the first things that come to your mind. You may want to find something that is more firmly accepted to base your arguments around
>there are so many differing ideas of what truth is, which shows that truth is subjective
that's just a bad argument.
>truth doesn't even exist, following Descartes
...you should probably choose whether truth is subjective or doesn't exist. These two points seem to contradict each other.
Also, Descartes clearly goes on after 'I think, therefore I am" to assert that absolute truth exists and that any well-adjusted human can discern what is true and what is uncertain. Using him as your main example is a strange choice to me.
>>385041
Thanks for the input.
>>385041
Pespective is making me dizzy
I think you need to discuss the difference between morality and ethics.
>>384849
Really weak argument. I remember being an edgy kid trying to make edgy papers and I still came up with stronger arguments, (i.e. for some reason Star Wars was talked about in class, so I wrote an essay about the benefits of the Empire, and I got a C because the teacher said it's wrong because the movies were written so the Empire are the bad guys). Now your paper is edgy and your arguments are weak. I'd give you a C- at best. If you want to write an edgelord paper you better have a pretty damn strong essay.
I'd just write that writing essays are a spook and if you can't confirm reality exists, there's no consequence in flunking your class.
>>384849
fuck your normalfag academic bullshit, I need to know who this semen demon is RIGHT NOW
>>384849
Considering the state of the humanities these days, just argue something about truth narratives being tools of power, cry about oppression, namedrop Foucault and Derrida and yer good.
>>384849
>calls himself a philosopher
>We are not obligated to seek truth
dropped
>there is no objective truth
A funny kind of phrase, is that statement objectively true? If not, than there is objective truth; if so, than there is objective truth.
>Truth does not even exist, following the philosophy of Descarte’s claim that “I think, therefore I am”
You should just drop out.
>>385235
>implying all philosophers agree that truth exists
>>384849
this all seems a lot like my life
>>385239
Cite one who doesn't, and I'll ask him to say "It is true that truth does not exist." with a straight face.
>>385227
>if we cannot confirm that the world even exists outside of ourselves and we do not lose humanity as we interact with the world, our actions have no significance whatsoever.
Turn this in. Get an F. Don't give a fuck because writing an essay has no significance whatsoever.
>>384849
I don't really follow your reasoning. It's pretty much just nonsense. The way you use the work truth is just ramblings.
Your thesis needs some working on it because you're taking a lot of huge assumptions in it for no reason. I think what you're trying to get at is
We can only be expected to act upon what we know for certain
We can not know what is morally right or wrong
Thus, we cannot be expected to act morally right or wrong
>>385204
> Namedropping Derrida
> Not expecting the worst shitstorm he has ever seen
>>385235
>calls himself a philosopher
Did you not read I am required to take the class?
hey guys, it isn't true that 2 + 2 is 4
OP has disproved math
>>385276
doesn't change the fact that you should literally fucking make a video of you just taking a piss on your copy of the Discourse and show that in class instead
>>385298
Does he say there is no truth in mathematics? Is that a true statement?
>Truth is SUBJECTIVE
Are you jewish by any chance?
you are going to get your shit pushed in if you pick a creative point and ask 4chin for help
pick a generic one which can be memorized from a book, thats your level
>>384849
you sound like a SJW or edgelord
I'm sure you'l get top grades at your liberal arts collage
I do hope you enjoy working retail and fastfood
>>384849
Maximum fedora
>>384849
Jean_de_arc.gif
>>384849
Talk shirt about Trump again fucker let's see what happens
