Is there a name for this particular worldview/philosophy?It's mine.
This isn't really an invitation to judge it, but feel free to, I guess.
>>7695482
yes I believe it's called "middleschoolism"
>>7695497
That's enlightening.
>>7695482
it's basically just intelligent design placing god far in the background
>>7695482
>doesn't factor in emergence theory
>doesn't back up any of his claims
1.5/10, wouldn't convert.
aren't /lit/ philosophy threads supposed to be about a text that is published and not the musings of a teenager?
>>7695552
So philosphies are only legitimate if they're published? Really?
>>7695482
Yes, it's a fedora misreading of Descartes.
>>7695559
Not only, but usually
>>7695482
>God exists
Why? Rest of your statements doesn't need it. Do you just feel safer with it?
>>7695622
How can philosophy be legitimized? It is not science, there is little empiricism to it in general.
One cannot cite studies.
>>7695822
>empiricism
>legitimate
>>7695822
>How can philosophy be legitimized? It is not science, there is little empiricism to it in general.
>One cannot cite studies.
Please just give up while you're ahead OP. I'm saying this for your own sake--every reply is digging you further into an embarrassing hole of underageb&
>>7695822
have you even read the analytics bro?
>>7695819
>Do you just feel safer with it?
No, I feel that if someone could prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist, then I could accept that view.
I find that instead of lacking belief or faith, people who don't believe in a higher power instead place that belief elsewhere.
>>7695888
That wasn't even me.
>>7695497
le strawman again
>>7695559
Philosophical texts are vetted by editors and other philosophers for logical sense and consistency.
You're just some kid on the internet.
>>7695849
kill yourself
But seriously why do you start off by affirming the existence of God? It really has no bearing on the rest of what you believe at all
>>7695888
I see no answer.
>>7696294
>I find that instead of lacking belief or faith, people who don't believe in a higher power instead place that belief elsewhere.
Very much indeed, some people wrote books about that.
>>7696294
Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists you wanker
>>7696521
I am God.
>>7696521
Prove he doesn't you cumguzzler
>>7696552
Philosophic burden of proof
In epistemology, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. [1] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.[4]
>>7697180
Please don't devolve into this /lit/, please don't.
>>7695822
>This is what I do.
>>7695552
report and sage shit threads like this one
>>7695888
Meme all you want.
Either provide an answer to how philosophy can be legitimized, or admit that it is all baseless musing that only exists to fill the gaps until science illuminates them.
>>7698494
Christ. What are you, twelve? How about educating yourself a teeny tiny bit before clogging up a this board with your narcissistic shitposting? I'm embarrassed just reading you. Honestly.
>>7698494
Legitimize by what criteria?
>7695822
(you)
>>7698494
holy fuck dude at least read descartes before you shit up the place
>>7695622
op said this was his worldview
its the spoilered part
>>7695552
>>7695561
>>7695888
>>7696410
>>7697500
>>7699198
I thought we were more forgiving than this, come on fellas, give the kid a chance? Am quite drunk but regardless at least enlighten him on his musings and give him encouragement. I know cunts brought up Descartes already but really, he's at least better than most mongs.
>>7696294
>I feel that if someone could prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist, then I could accept that view.
See the arguments of the following link:
http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
>>7695482
Sounds like the meme machine Dick Dorkins with a religious twist, don't mention it to him or he might have a str- oh wait
>>7695482
Deism, materilaism, cultural group selection and projection
Congrats OP, you made me think I mistyped "9gag" in my address bar.
>>7699384
>Human laws are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which you may choose to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were, you are then faced with the question "Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others?"
Who says he did? Who's to say that the natural order in our universe is but one of any number of universes? What I meant by the third line was that there is a transcendent God, not bound by the natural laws within his creation.
1/2
>>7696294
Do you honestly want people to prove a negative while assuming that your positive claim warrants no justification whatsoever?
>>7698494
Provide an answer to how empiricism can be legitimised.
The argument may not be circular, regressive or axiomatic.
>>7699416
>When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the things that are in it, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years.
I don't have that viewpoint. Nature isn't God, and thus is inherently flawed.
>Moreover, if you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions of temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to which the earth is tending -- something dead, cold, and lifeless. I am told that that sort of view is depressing, and people will sometimes tell you that if they believed that, they would not be able to go on living.
I don't see a future without the human race as depressing. Everything that has a beginning has an end and there will come a time when life as we know it will cease to be. Plenty of species have gone extinct in the past and will in the future. Humanity is no exception. Even once the earth becomes a husk devoid of life, soon to be swallowed by the dying sun, it ultimately remains an insignificant mote of dust compared to just the size of this universe.
>>7695482
MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE
READ KANT
OPEN A FUCKING BOOK NIGGER
>>7695482
Yeah, it's called being a dumb redditor (and illiterate)
Congrats on your first ever reflection, it's peculiar that it happened before you lost your virginity though.
>>7695482
>c
sounds kind of like a description of a clockwork universe? I can't remember much about it but look up benjamin franklin's beliefs for more info.
>>7699464
MORALITY IS MUH FEELS
READ HUME
STOP BEING A FUCKING SCHNOOK
>>7699384
>>7699449
>The Moral Arguments for Deity
>The Argument for the Remedying of Injustice
I did not make the claim that God was good. He is transcendent, beyond the human concepts of good and evil.
>The Character of Christ
It is true that his words have been distorted by future generations of Christians, often to suit the needs of a particular person or the needs of different cultures, but this is more of a criticism of Christianity in particular, not of religion as a whole, or an argument against God's existance. If anything, it proves my point that ideologies are constantly changing and evolving with time.
>Fear, the Foundation of Religion
Fear, and respect, of authority is the foundation of social order. Fear is innate within us. The fear of death and other consequences is one of the major things that drive our actions in life. It is not unique to religion, nor is it a valid case against it.
>Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.
This is Humanism. I don't believe we'll ever transcend our nature as human beings; to do so would be to become something fundamentally different. We are fated to repeat history, and no matter what changes occur, or how we evolve, we are still bound to repeat the cycle.
1/2
>>7700648
2/2
>A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men.
If we weren't ignorant as a species of the universe around us, we wouldn't have the need to learn about it.
It is also ignorant to take the view that science and the pursuit of knowledge hasn't flourished because of, and not just despite, the social order present in religious societies. A simple analysis of history and the writings that people in pursuit of knowledge have left us, proves as much.
I know I skipped a lot, but 4chain really isn't the best format for producing pages of commentary.
>>7699614
Do you mean the watchmaker analogy? I've heard about it, but have not yet looked into it with detail. Will do.
>>7699464
O-ok
>>7699464
how is anything objective
>>7699464
>MORALITY
>OBJECTIVE
I can't laugh more.
Is this a cringe thread?
Kill yourself OP, sage
gr8 b8 OP
>>7695482
it's called "le edgy faggotism"
>>7700882
LE MORAL RELATIVISM XDDDDDDD EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE EVEN MY SHIT TASTE XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD MY WRITING IS GREAT YOU JUST DON'T GET IT BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS USBJECTIVE XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD NO I NEVER READ ANY PHILOSOPHY BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE OUR OPINIONS ARE ALL EQUALLY VALID XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
>>7701101
>>7699308
You establish "facts," ie. my own consciousness exists. Logic is then your math, reason your formulas. You build philosophy upon this like abstract math, such that it is all substantiated, if not actually less than normative or actually correct.
>>7701101
moral relativism is objectively correct and there is no possible counter-argument kek grow up
>>7701128
Correct? Yes.
Of value? No.
I would argue certain tenets could be created which are objective in the human context based off of suffering as an absolutely bad thing for a sentient creature.
Albeit only with respect to certain forms/causes of suffering which are universal, ie. physical damage.
>>7701156
One man's suffering can be another man's pleasure.
Schadenfreude and Sadism areexamples of that
Masochists even equate suffering with pleasure.
>>7701172
Doesn't materialism basically imply hard determinism?
Or does it simply refrain from positing whether or not there may be a physical construct which might somehow subvert causality?
>>7699464
>Kant
>the guy who was btfo by nearly every philosopher after him
roflmao
>>7701187
What is suffering is relative, that it itself is undesirable is by definition universal.
>>7701286
>he only does philosophy to impress others
Laughingwhores.jpg
>>7701602
>he thinks his unlearned ramblings are philosophy
>>7701611
>he thinks philosophy requires formal education
le credentialist face
>>7700660
yeah, watchmaker. that was it.
>>7695849
This.
>>7703604
not that guy, but it´s very frustrating see how everybody mocking at you and anybody give a straight and direct answer. i know it´s undergraduate and much people talk about it.
but all you act like questioning about the limits of philosophy is an absurd and surpass theme. and here anybody give a chance to answering without meehh, read this, meeeeh read that… meeeh, you are stupid, man.
what just reinforce the notion that there is not a "correct" philosophy.
come on...
final bump
