Do actually hold any sincere belief? Whatever it may be: dialectical materialism, the dasein is thrown in to the world, the jews pull the strings, christ died foru our sins, "we're actually just brains in a vat" and so on and so on. I genuinely want to know whats your personal experience with the knowledge and modes of thought you encounter in your life an how it is shaped by them.
I'm mainly interested in people who study philosophy (doesn't matter if academically or not), but everyone is free to contribute if he or she wants.
Oh and just another thing: let's not be judgemental, I don't want to refute anything, I just want to collect some experiences rather than concepts.
>>7910153
I have no belief system.
I compulsively masturbate from the moment I wake up until I fall asleep. I've been doing this for 2 years while I slowly run out of student loan money.
>>7910162
we could be friends
>>7910153
I have no belief system, though I try to experience life as truthfully as I can.
>>7910162
>I have no belief system.
spooked out chump
I'm essentialist in that I'm a nationalist and communitarian, because I think it's necessary to make sense of life, otherwise why bother living? I think there has to be something more than the material, but I'm struggling with the concept of the divine
i think the only way not to think ideas of my epoch (therefore the ideas of the dominant class) is to think marxism. I try a mixture of dialectical materialism, classical marxism (which is so easy and fun to use), but mostly postmarxism and some Althusserian nonsense I still don't really understand mixed with Baudrillard that leaves me delirious.
I'm a metamodernist Marxist
>>7910317
> marxism not being the ideas of the dominant class
kek
>>7910312
I like you
>>7910315
No m8, thinking you don't have a belief system is the spookiest spook ever spooked, of course you do you just can't see it.
>>7910285
Not really. Foucault does have a belief system.
I don't quite understand all those people saying "I'm a nationalist"/ "I'm a marxist" or whatever. I really only want to read Proust, eat dank food, and fuck- is that ok?
>>7910343
If I'm the one who is spooked then why are you the one speaking in memes.
>>7910349
what? are you stupid. Everyone has a belief system, foucault said that its essential to the human mind.
No ones really a marxist or nationalist or whatever there like you, completely blind to their own belief system, but try and label it with broad categories (what a hideous word). Thisi both good and neutral.
What you're doing is no different from the turds on /r/nihilism, the lowest point in human existence.
>>7910350
thats not an argument, also everyones spooked, even ya boy. but yeah memes are shit, sorry
>>7910153
I believe that our society is being secretly run by people far smarter, and far more virtuous, than any of us. And I think true democracy would be a catastrophe.
It's a feeling that's comforting and discouraging at the same time. I feel both infantilized and extremely lucky.
>>7910153
I believe in some sort of all-reconciling God but I think only Alcoholics Anonymous has got the right idea about it.
Also I often think everyone goes to heaven no matter what, which is difficult sometimes when I see people being cruel.
Also mostly what I believe in is that acquiring intellect and empathy, and apprehending works of art is the happiest way to live
>>7910356
I didn't say I have no beliefs. I do. Only I have no pretention or care as to whether they form a coherent system or not.
You don't know me, yet call me a nihilist. Why? I see value in things: Proust, food, and fuck. What's the problem?
As for the rest of your claims, I can't understand you, maybe you should work on your grammar and punctuation.
>>7910317
>i think the only way not to think ideas of my epoch (therefore the ideas of the dominant class) is to think marxism.
jesus christ brainwashing really works
>>7910363
christians ruined christianity
>>7910369
yea man i agree with this.
but also the old testament ruined christianity too, it's hard to believe the creator of everything was such an idiot. i was thinking about getting at some gnostic scriptures
>>7910369
humanity is wasted on humans
>>7910383
water is too wet
>>7910361
I believe that society is run by people far stupider and far less virtuous than in the past, and even our fake democracy is a catastrophe.
>>7910387
it is.
>>7910410
I believe that there have been no fundamental changes in the substance of what we call humans over the past 100 000 or so years
>>7910417
I believe that fundamental substance doesn't really matter.
>>7910417
aren't we like several feet taller
>>7910417
found the stupid nostalgic guy
>>7910312
>I think it's necessary to make sense of life, otherwise why bother living?
camus would like to have a word with you.
>I'm a nationalist and communitarian
what led you to choose these in particular? How did you arrive at these from the essence of things? Or did you choose them arbitrarily/randomly?My question is just basically why these in particular.
> I think it's necessary to make sense of life, otherwise why bother living
you put the effect before the cause. in order to justify the effect of living you concoct your own truth? It is similar to saying
>I can only be happy if I have a 15 inch cock therefore I must have a 15 inch cock.
This is deliberate self-delusion.
>>7910366
sounds like your belief is just bourgeois. aka enjoy some things that were made
>>7910463
Maybe.
>>7910502
>camus was a coward
please elaborate?
>>7910153
I swing on a pendulum between atheism and catholicism.
Daseins thrown-ness.
Authentic call of consciousness.
Ownness and the creative nothing.
Absolute spirit.
Agnoiology
>>7910513
He should have been like Nietzche and just gone mental rather than trying to figure out ways to make life bearable.
--------------------
>solipsistic
>believe that the world is absurd and unintelligible.
>do not believe that a hopeless struggle/revolt will assign any meaning or significance to that struggle/revolt itself.
-------------
>believe that I must concoct models of the absurd world in my mind that I can exploit to make my struggle/revolt more convenient/"happy". this model includes a description of myself and human nature that enslaves me in my struggle itself.
>realize that the desire for convenience/happiness and desirability is a part of that model itself
>realize the hopeless inescapability of this circular system in which I'm trapped.
>accept this as a stoic would
>continue to struggle (or believe in the illusion of it): to maximize the utility of desirability
---------------
>moral relativist
>almost entirely indifferent to the state/humanity
>care about it only insofar as how much it affects me and the people to whom my happiness is tied.
--------------------
if forced to opine on the state
>believe that the individual and the state are at conflict (in terms of goals and utility)
>therefore my goals and the state's are at conflict
>therefore only have preferences on how the running of the state based on how much it aligns with my own goals
>currently prefer an egalitarian, left liberal socialist state.
>maybe once I'm rich my preferences will change.
can all of the above be categorized coherently and consistently in some philosophical doctrine?
>>7910533
amoral familism
>>7910526
what you suggest sounds much more cowardly than what he did senpai. A cop out rather than a courageous revolt and struggle against the absurd. Does a hopeless struggle not require courage? To fully comprehend the extent of the futility of the struggle and yet continue to resist it? Like a norse god? That sounds courageous to me familia. I haven't read nietzsche since i'm still at the greeks so I can't really comment much about him .I did however recently read the myth of sisyphus and although i don't entirely agree with all of what camus said, I certainly would not call him a coward of all the things.
Despite the flaws that I see in his philosophy, I admire him for his persistence and insistence to resist the hopeless absurd. It shows courage and tenacity.
do you not agree anon?
>>7910153
MY portfolio is FUCKING SPECTACULAR. Just <i> high </i> frequency trading? Try CAPPEDDD. I'm trading 2x10^5 futures for the next century in 100 nanoseconds. Your mom called about NASDAQ, I told her it's 2016 (CRASH, BOOM, BAM) #ROCKKKKEEEDDDD. Forex trading? Try intergalactic. My penthouse is a bitcoin mine and it's a gold rush, baby (CRASH). Cash or credit? >mfw You don't accept goldman's cryptocurrency. KEKing like a big boy all day at your devs WAM WAM WAM WAM. Just hired 15 quants, all named Wang Ki #DAMNMAD### Stock advice? Watch a big boy roll, realize you're DONE before you started #350degrees and still cooking. BÔöòoóœoOOOMM
>>7910557
resist is the keyword, sisyphus is all about trying to trick yourself if to being happy rather than just being man enough to wallow in despair.
>>7910438
Camus was more concered with standing in opposition to something than standing for something
I was raised in a European country that has only recently come out of prolonged ethno-nationalist conflict. My family, neighbours and friends experienced much violence in their lives and the strength of that community which rallies around the nation is an inspriration for the common good of our people, our right to difference, our culture, spirituality, traditions, our sovereignty. Modernity and postmodernity in this globalised world has only contributed to the dissolution of a rootless, cosmopolite feckless people ready to be sweep aside in the cycle of history, when you stand for nothing you effectively cease to exist
More like
>This is my cock, it is part of who I am and I am guided by it as I guide it. It serves a higher purpose than myself, it is not purely for my own personal pleasure
>>7910588
This, life has never been about happiness. The greatest thing life has given is struggle, it is struggle that gives man vitality. Camus prefers to live in individualistic delusion than acceptance of lifes fullness and cruelty
>>7910604
>life has never been about happiness
>The greatest thing life has given is struggle
[citation needed]
until then, i'll just suspect you of projecting your misery unto the world, untermensch.
>>7910610
I was actually paraphrasing Zizek, so here's your citation
>“Happiness was never important. The problem is that we don't know what we really want. What makes us happy is not to get what we want. But to dream about it. Happiness is for opportunists. So I think that the only life of deep satisfaction is a life of eternal struggle, especially struggle with oneself. If you want to remain happy, just remain stupid. Authentic masters are never happy; happiness is a category of slaves.”
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/2122274-happiness-was-never-important-the-problem-is-that-we-don-t
Funny you should call me untermensch when it is Nietszche's Last Man that lives only for personal gradification, comfort and security
>>7910438
Thomas Nagel's essay on the absurd is has a better conception of the absurd than Camus I think.
Give it a read everybody
>>7910630
>Funny you should call me untermensch when it is Nietszche's Last Man that lives only for personal gradification, comfort and security
Your deliberately passing happiness as comfort and security actually tells a lot about you. It's okay, I was there too, when I was 15.
Camus was a true Nietzsche reader/following. No one cares about your personal turmoil, of how the world is a tough place to you. Deal with it. Become something else rather than "wallow in your despair" at the other anon said. Here's Nietzsche for you:
"Innocence is the child, and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea.
Aye, for the game of creating, my brethren, there is needed a holy Yea unto life: its own will, willeth now the spirit; his own world winneth the world's outcast."
You are merely a lion, not a child. Profoundly uninteresting.
>>7910648
Nietszhe believed we needed the illusion, we need myths for a heightened sense of self, being and sensibility, otherwise it is doomed to perish as it recognises its own inherinet meaningless, there is no need for tradtion, conservation, continuence.
>>7910699
Illusion, myths and sense of self, doesn't imply the need for tradition and conservation. Nietzsche is a philosopher of flux, he believed one should never remain, but always change, become something, create. Hence the "self-turning wheel".
The closest thing to what I follow us Daoism. It's basically just a belief that everything exists on a push-pull spectrum. Additionally, nothing can be known absolutely and every rule has an exception. Together, the sum of these beliefs is that no school of thought, no dogma can be followed 100% and be deemed as 'correct' in every life-situation.
Every decision is dynamic. I try to help people when I can because it feels good, and I avoid making decisions that would take away someone else's happiness withiut justification. It's okay to beat someone to a promotion becauae at least in that scenario it's for self-improvement. It's not okay to slap ice cream out of someone's hand or throw a brick through a window without provocation, though. In those scenarios, the other person loses things and I don't even gain anything.
Tl;dr don't be a dick, question everything, consider that everything can be seen from different sides.
>>7910638
I love you. I have been looking for a better conception of the absurd the second I finished myth of sisyphus. Although i liked the book quite a bit, I had disagreements with it and was looking for more literature on it. My primary disagreements with camus stem from how his deductions from the absurd, the following consequences:
1. revolt
2. freedom
3. passion
>>7910710
Recognising that culture is always changing does not mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater and deny the past, to do so would also be to deny the future. They are not distinct moments of a directional and vectored history, but permanent dimensions of all lived moments. Illusions, myths and an essence of self must be rooted into something higher than the individual, a priori meaning traditon and conservation is a necessity. They will always evolve but like Eliade said, it's not about keeping things the same but looking for the hidden sacred within our time
>>7910760
>Illusions, myths and an essence of self must be rooted into something higher than the individual, a priori meaning traditon and conservation is a necessity.
No, it musn't. I hope you are not making an argument based on Nietzsche, because that would be a rather awful reading of the author.
There is even less logical ground to base your existence on "a priori tradition" (the fuck is that thing, anyways?), than a priori Kantian knowledge, or in Nietzsche's case, an inscrutable metaphysical knowledge.
Metaphysics, truth, ontology, formal logic and even faith MAY be higher than the individual, tradition may not.
>>7910745
it is interesting to see someone adhere to daoism. I have a few problems with it senpai.
>everything exists on a push-pull spectrum
statements like these make me seriously question daoism and how seriously it must be taken. why? because they are generic and obvious patterns that any individual can observe but on closer inspection and scrutiny fall apart as statements that speak nothing about anything fundamental. To claim that "Everything is on a push-pull spectrum" is such a gratuitous trivialization of "everything", yet vague enough to be justified through some obscure intuition.
>Every decision is dynamic
again. what does "dynamic" here even mean? your entailing statements on morality are derived from just another arbitrary value system that anyone brought up in modern society generally adheres to.
-----------
Please tell me why daoism isn't completely and ridiculously vacuous and obsolete.
OP here
I'm pretty happy with thread so far, even though it has taken an existential rout, there's less shitflinging than expected.
>>7910533
you're me if I wasn't a hedonist
>>7910757
Avid Camus reader here. The incoherence you see may be that you are approaching camus with your logical senses. The absurd isn't a step-by-step deduction, rather it contains everything within: Revolt (nihilism) and Love are part of the absurd. By the way, freedom shouldn't be considered separately, in Camus' case, from revolt and love. In revolt freedom is the exercise of pure and wanton human strength (Caligula, The Rebel, The Stranger), some form of negative and harmful liberty. Freedom, in case of love, is the enjoyment of human condition, death, and carnal pleasures, as well as the love of other men endowed with such limited freedom (yes, Camus is a leftist).
>>7910600
>camus was more concerned with standing in opposition to something than standing for something.
agreed. (in opposition to the absurd)
>I was raised in a...
I think I see your reasons better now. If you draw strength for the struggle to resist the absurd from a collective community then more power to you.
But wouldn't camus argue that culture/spirituality/traditions/sovereignty are a part of the absurd and therefore have no inherent meaning? I can justify using them to resist the absurd but that is the extent to which I am willing to let you justify them. no more.
therefore your arguments against modernity, postmodernity, globalization as rootless, cosmopolitan and feckless are groundless. culture/spirituality/tradition don't have any inherent value or meaning as opposed to the rest.
>cosmopolite feckless people ready to be swept aside in the cycle of history
implying your culture and traditions won't? lol.
>when you stand for nothing you effectively cease to exist
this is where you get jingoistic. You delude yourself into thinking that there MUST be something to stand for. and that it MUST only be culture/tradition/spirituality. that man can not exist in a perpetual struggle like sisyphus.
>his is my cock, it is part of who i am and I am guided by it as i guide it. It serves a higher purpose than myself, it is not purely for my own personal pleasure
wat. "it serves a higher purpose". no. it does not. at most it is a means to resist the absurd through gratification.
>>7910588
>sisyphus is all about trying to TRICK yourself if to be happy...
thank you. i felt something was wrong with his argument in favor of revolt but could not articulate it properly. i actually agree with you here because you sort of captured my sentiment. his call for revolt as the only "coherent philosophical position" is a bit unsatisfactory imo. he even acknowledges that "it is a futile revolt. YET you must do it. TRICK your own self."
I now see why you think of him as a coward senpai. thanks for clearing it out to me. i wonder whether i'd rather be a happy coward or a tortured hero.
>>7910798
>the absurd isn't a step by step deduction.
no it is not. but the consequences that he shows (revolt, passion and freedom), he claims to derive through deduction (logic). he explicitly states in sisyphus that he will begin by accepting that the world is absurd and from that attempt to deduce what the absurd world dictates and what he can derive from that.
>>7910638
>>7910502
>>7910526
>>7910588
>>7910604
>>7910638
>>7910798
since you all seem to know a thing or two about absurdism, can I ask you all if you think camus leaps through this IS/OUGHT divide?
the word IS absurd and devoid of meaning therefore one OUGHT to attempt to find meaning in it through a futile struggle? please tell me if I'm grossly wrong here.
>>7910790
>if I wasn't a hedonist
right now, hedonism isn't very pragmatic for my condition. I wrote that my preferences might change once i get rich. I think i would have a hedonist phase once I get rich because then hedonism would be a marvelously sustainable strategy for a while. After a while, the happiness treadmill would kick in and my primary source of dissatisfaction would shift from monetary reasons to interpersonal ones. At that point I would return to stoicism.
How is hedonism working out for you btw? Can you afford to live a hedonist lifestyle? Do you see yourself eventually deriving less and less of gratification or satisfaction from it? Because I too had a phase in which I decided to fuck everything and played videogames and read books and ate like a glutton. But I realized it wasn't viable strategy if I had to optimize my life's utility as I was ignoring the ill effects it would have on my future. these ill effects would not happen if i was rich. but other sources of dissatisfaction would still eventually kick in. no?
how is your lifestyle? what do you do?
>>7910874
I think the moralistic reading of Camus is the least interesting. Take Camus as a meditative writer, interested in personal ethics and aesthetics. I don't think, in Camus' view, man "ought" to do anything. It's less about a logical conclusion than a burning desire (see my previous post) for a more satisfying answer. He has a very individual, anarchistic approach.
Also, "one must imagine Sisyphus happy" seem always taken out of context. It's neither is or ought; but only if you were in his place, plagued by the thought of death, the way out he's found is to "imagine" Sisyphus happy. This idea doesn't make any claim on the reality of the world; it's all in your head. Imagining Sisyphus happy won't make him happy, won't solve the absurd state of being, as it will always be there; but it might make you happy.
>>7910874
>the word IS absurd and devoid of meaning therefore one OUGHT to attempt to find meaning in it through a futile struggle?
I don't think Camus put the struggle as a perscription, more like a transitory anchor on which one can choose to grapple for the time being. After a struggle by all means puts a perspective and an order, as false and deluded as it may be, to an otherwise absurd (eheh) existence.
>>7910904
>After
*after all
>>7910420
yes, for exactly that reason
>>7910899
>>7910904
thank you so much anons. it is clearer to me now.
>won't solve the absurd state of being, as it will always be there; but it might make you happy.
>a transitory anchor on which one can choose to grapple for the time being.
(According to him and you)why not embrace the anguish and despair? did he satisfactorily answer that (i know he addressed this in myth of sisyphus but I wasn't fully sold. i think i'll read it again) .
>>7910926
>(According to him and you)why not embrace the anguish and despair?
Don't read his essays, read his prose, stuff like The Nuptials, Summer, Betwixt and Between. Camus says clearly that, because he has been born into a very poor family in French Algeria, and almost died of consumption, he learnt to "love" life for what it is.
Short answer would be that the aesthetic life saves him from the suffering. He longs for carnal pleasures, the sun, beautiful landscapes and poetic moments. It's all for naught, of course, but in front of a woman, of a sunny cliff, he can't help but feel that all this pathos doesn't matter, he himself doesn't matter much. It's a feeling of being part of nature, the world, I guess. Camus is somewhat a pantheist, loosely.
The other side of the coin is that, since Camus himself is able to feel such intense joy and pleasure from the pain of existing, then everybody else must be able too. Hence his political commitments. I'm not going to dwell on that part because that doesn't really interest me.
>>7910894
>Because I too had a phase in which I decided to fuck everything and played videogames and read books and ate like a glutton.
It's basically that but with less videogames and more music. It certainly has all the negative practical consequences you mentioned, I just can't make myself care enough to do anything about it. I think that I've never truly experienced any emotional extremes which makes it hard for me to desire very much in my life. I wouldn't be surprised if this was just a transitional phase into stoicism since it would be easier for me to be a stoic than most people as a result of my relative apathy. I just want to live every day the same as the last, comfortably repetitive, and this current hedonistic binge is the closest thing to that I can manage without being bored out of my mind since the 'happiness treadmill' hasn't kicked in for me yet.
>>7910926
I am more with the Rebel than the Myth of Sysiphus, but I think he deems it unbearable. I don't think he logical or factually demonstrated this, but it's rather the fundamental assumption that emerges from an experience and many experiences of life in a world that progressively demolished all the great narratives (this term is not used by Camus, but I think it encompasses more than the idea of God and religion, but also all the rocks that modern thought invented or discovered and progressively destroyed like science, progress, nation, race or emancipatory politics too)
>>7910950
you're more an epicurean than a stoic, altough they valued a lot communal life and frienship.
>>7910954
I guess, whatever makes me feel content regardless of how happy or apathetic I may feel at the same time. That being said I'm pretty much asocial, or at least as asocial as I can be, so the communal life and friendship part wouldn't exactly work out for me.
>>7910961
>so the communal life and friendship part wouldn't exactly work out for me.
well it was more a necessity for them otherwise only wealthy people could afford to live while doing mostly jackshit all day and enjoying the small pleasures of life (which I personally think are more enjoyable if shared with someone).
>>7910950
>I just can't make myself care enough to do anything about it
> I just want to live every day the same as the last, comfortably repetitive, and this current hedonistic binge is the closest thing to that I can manage without being bored out of my mind
>my relative apathy
i'm who you replied to. we have quite a bit in common senpai. even i didn't care enough to do anything about it until shit really hit the fan and the ill effects began to quite evidently more than compensate for the intervals of comfortable hedonistic binges.
i am attempting to be a stoic now. it hasn't solved everything. my life is still quite fucked up because of how lazy and hedonistic i was a while back but i'm trying to gradually get back on track. however my apathy, lack of social skills and lazy resorts to a nihilistic attitude is making it difficult.
>>7910961
>at least as asocial as I can be, so the communal life and friendship part wouldn't exactly work out for me.
I am going through a time of major conflict in which I am finding it difficult to assess exactly how important communal life and friendship are to me and if I can really be happy without these. I deluded myself into thinking that my hedonistic binges would be sufficient but crushing loneliness did creep in and fucked my head up quite a bit. I am currently trying to evaluate the importance and merits of friendship but am finding it really difficult to do so.
Objective morality (or, at least, human-relative morality as suggested by Hume)
I consider myself deeply anti-egalitarian, but I have no idea how I want society organized.
>>7911037
You likely have some distaste for a segment or segments of society if that's the case, couldn't you just orient your utopian structured society around that?
>>7911017
>objective
>morality
wat?
>>7911037
>deeply anti-egalitarian
what led you to such a staunch sentiment against egalitarianism?maybe you want a meritocratic society?
>>7911041
not him but a utopian society is not possible until each individual has his own universe in which he/she is a god. at that point it is not a society. so a utopian society can not exist.
>>7911056
>what led you to such a staunch sentiment against egalitarianism?
Browsing /pol/ and /r9k/ in his mother's basement
>tfw you study mystical and semi-mystical ontology and metaphysics and also physics and chemistry and astronomy, and have a vague but pervasive suspicion that scientistic materialism is not a valid or necessary "default" stance to take, and that there is nothing inherently implausible or unusual about crazy-ass ideas like idealism, nous having metaphysical reality, teleology or even eschatology or conscious design, etc., etc., and that denying things like the anthropic principle in order to "suspend judgment" about reality is ironically assuming (judging) that our local reality behaves according to what our tiny minds have observed and tend to conceive as stochastic and mechanistic
>tfw mixing several philosophers' and quacks' ideas about epistemological "openness" together to achieve a holistic practice of denaturing, loosening, disentangling, and/or unweaving assumptions and categories of thought, prying concepts and accreted empirical assumptions back and widening or deforming the field on which they interact with one another
>tfw it's too built on your own weird semi-ascetic semi-autistic experiences of playing with similar ideas to really reduce it to a simple formula or method and describe it, let alone recommend it to others
>tfw you wish you could, because the result is something like a warm fuzzy deistic faith, mixed with intentional theosophy, underpinned by sufficient rigour that you aren't stupid enough to go "CLEARLY SCHUON HAD ALL THE ANSWERS!!!" or "CLEARLY CHRISTIANITY SUB-BRANCH 8B-X-P4(B) IS THE FINAL ONE" or even "WE HAVEN'T OBSERVED ANY CARTOONISH NOTIONS OF MIRACLE OR MAGIC, THEREFORE NOTHING ABOUT REALITY IS MIRACULOUS OR INTENTIONAL OR SPIRITUAL"
>>7911056
Utopia means no where. The whole meaning is that it is something that cannot exist.
>>7910558
underrated post
>>7911041
>You likely have some distaste for a segment or segments of society if that's the case, couldn't you just orient your utopian structured society around that?
I only really hate egalitarian activists and academics, and it would be foolish to organize a society based on that alone. The reason I haven't tried to develop a system is because any honest attempt at doing so would require me to place myself near the bottom. I just can't bring myself to do it even though it may be right.
>>7911056
>what led you to such a staunch sentiment against egalitarianism?maybe you want a meritocratic society?
It partially because the idea is so readily accepted by society, and I also just believe that a well maintained hierarchy is better and more just than an egalitarian system.
Also, meritocracy isn't really rigid enough.
>>7911058
How insightful.
>>7910558
nice hip hop vibe there anon
>>7911155
>partially because the idea so readily accepted by society
are you serious? just because you want to be a different contrarian? -.-
even I am not particularly fond of left-liberals who staunchly support egalitarianism but that is only because i feel pissed that they derive that from nothing. they adopt it only because "muh feels". however that is no reason to be ANTI-egalitarian.
>I also just believe that a well maintained hierarchy is better
[citation needed]. better for whom? a single level hierarchy is still a hierarchy bruv.
>The reason I haven't tried to develop a system is because any honest attempt at doing so would require me to place myself near the bottom.
well then you're a conceited dishonest prick.
>>7911118
Without understanding the outcome of your metaphyics, I appreciate that the messiness of it helps me reconsider my own clumsy philosophical footing.
You're not afraid to remix and play with many systems of thought, and that process itself is agile enough to create novel concepts.
Whether or not that means anything, I'll try to have a little less dogma while accepting/denying metaphysically concepts
>>7911159
>based
eww
>>7911056
You don't think objectivism is a valid metaethical stance? Fun fact: relativists are laughed out of academia. It's a position held by highschoolers and contrarians
>>7911153
This isn't true. The original meaning of 'utopia' (as coined by More) is still vague and the original prefix could be 'eu' or 'u' since it was derived from Greek. Your claim isn't a fact
>>7911184
>are you serious? just because you want to be a different contrarian? -.-
A little bit. It has more to do with seeing different groups argue over who is the true arbiter of equality. Every group has to play lip-service to the idea, and all debates are framed in such a way that equality is seen as positive. It's honestly just brought me to question the value of equality and to entertain (and sometimes agree with) anti-egalitarian solutions to many of the problems we face today.
>[citation needed]. better for whom? a single level hierarchy is still a hierarchy bruv.
Society as a whole. The individual can and should be neglected as much as possible. I don't think a such a thing could be done with a single tiered system.
>well then you're a conceited dishonest prick.
I'll get around to it eventually. It's rather difficult to do what's right when it's at such a great cost to me.
ITT: People who haven't read Habermas or Tarunffo.
>>7911256
>you don't think objectivism is a valid meta-ethical stance?
It is a meta-ethical stance yes. but i am not sure how anyone can defend its validity? why are relativists laughed at? are moral relativists laughed at too? my issue is that objectivism assumes a lot and relativism doesn't. and those assumptions can not be justified.
>>7911274
>Every group has to play lip-service to the idea, and all debates are framed in such a way that equality is seen as positive. It's honestly just brought me to question the value of equality
well i see your sentiment here and even i am sick of it but that takes you only as far as to question egalitarianism and adopt a neutral stance. going all the way to the other extreme is pretty retarded senpai. just become neutral to it and then think which way to go. taking the other extreme JUST because you want to feel like a snowflake is just as shit a reason as being a conformist egalitarian.
>the individual can and should be neglected as much as possible.
D R O P P E D. i think we both are done here.
I have the sincere, intuitive, logical and scientific belief that reality is not soley material.
>>7910153
I have a sincere belief that humanity is fucked and most of us are violent stupid primative assholes. Even if we had the best education system all around the world that taught us how to do amazing things, we would end up just killing each other instead of finding scientific ways to live with each other.
I also have the sincere belief that we are looking at the first real bend downwards into ever longing entropy.
>>7911256
>Fun fact: relativists are laughed out of academia.
kek, pls stop ur making me giggle
>>7911256
The idea that it is either Utopia or Eutopia is based on ideas put forward in pseudo-etymological texts written to appeal to lowest common denominator, the kind of thing you get on Huffington Post, its actually Ou or Eu. U on its own is meaningless. And whilst it was originally spelt 'Utopiae' the consensus amongst historians and etymologists is that it was a romanization of Ou-topia, not Eu-topia. I'd be interested to see your sources and reasoning for challenging consensus. Forbes magazine is not a source, btw.
I apologize for being pedantic but I felt you were being both pendantic and incorrect so I was compelled to.
>>7910648
Holy shit, you write like a pretentious cunt
>>7911328
>>7911508
Moral relativists are, indeed, made fun of. You can't construct an ethical argument for or against a practice (dictatorship, torture, enslavement) without appealing to a morality that is objective or, at the least, relative to humankind (hume). Otherwise, the argument dissolves. One must assume objective morality to construct a universally-applicable ethical argument. Nearly all ethical papers you will ever read adopt this stance. I can give you a few arguments deconstructing relativism if you want
>>7910153
nah
>>7911153
im who you responded to in this post. I did not know it literally means nowhere. I just assumed it is used to connote an ideal place.
>>7911651
>You can't construct an ethical argument for or against a practice (dictatorship, torture, enslavement) without appealing to a morality that is objective. Otherwise, the argument dissolves.
so? big whoop.
>One must assume objective morality to construct a universally-applicable ethical argument
the entire point of moral relativism is that there is no universally applicable ethical argument. no?
>Nearly all ethical papers you will ever read adopt this stance.
really?
>I can give you a few arguments deconstructing relativism if you want
PLEASE DO.
it's so weird to see someone have such a staunch stance against moral relativism. i did not know it was laughed away in academia t b h.
>>7911651
No, relativism is the foundation of 20th and 21st century academia. Virtually all ethical arguments made in academia have the philosophical axiom they are building on stated at the front on the argument. They do so as they are explicitly aware that there is no robust argument against relativism.
>I can give you a few arguments deconstructing relativism if you want
One will do
>>7910321
do you pick your ideologies based on how alliterative they are?
you guys are great at labelling
>>7911694
thanks
>>7910410
Where's the catastrophe? Things seem to be running perfectly.
Do you really think our goal should be a society where success is assured, and everyone is taken care of no matter what choices they make? What an existential nightmare.
>>7911708
>where's the catastrophe
>things seem to be running perfectly.
being this deluded
------------
>Do you really think our goal should be a society where success is assured, and everyone is taken care of no matter what choices they make? What an existential nightmare.
damn. I never really thought I'd encounter a comically spoilt and sheltered rich person outside of the movies. but people like you exist.
yeah man you're right. who cares if people die of starvation. it is more important to keep away them existential nightmares.
>>7911717
This. As much as I hate being unsure of my place in the universe, I love not being fucking starving or dying of some shitty disease.
>>7910558
i see you, anon. 10-4. i've saved this personally, just for your information.
>>7911667
>>7911684
1. Individual relativism (subjectivism) doesn't explain moral universals (abhorrence to torture). Furthermore, it is contradictory:
>A moral judgment is true if it accurately reports one's feelings or commitments, and is false otherwise.
Thus, someone saying abortion is wrong and someone saying abortion is right are both right. This is a contradiction.
Contradiction Problem for Subjectivism:
1. Any theory that generates contradictions is false.
2. Ethical subjectivism generates contradictions
3. Ethical subjectivism is false
To remedy this, ethical subjectivists must attack premise 2. They must assert the individuals in the above example are merely giving opinions (i.e. I disapprove of abortion, or abortion seems okay to me).
This is a solution to the contradiction, but it has costs. Namely, that subjectivism is unable to explain the existence of moral disagreement. All moral disagreement must, then, boil down to both people acccepting the claims of one another, but this is an intuitive issue. For instance, if someone says I approve of abortion and another says I disapprove of abortion, they are no longer disagreeing.
In short, ethical subjectivism is either contradictory OR it denies moral disagreement. If you're fine with the latter, you may want to look into MORAL NIHILISM, which is easily attacked. Moral nihilism is not moral relativism.
2. Cultural relativism is self-contradicting, for one can belong to multiple cultures that have moral values that conflict. Cultural relativism inevitably collapses into ethical subjectivism, which still doesn't explain moral universals (sympathy-based actions) or remedy the contradiction of ethical subjectivism adequately.
>>7911775
not even either of the posters you're responding to
>>7911717
I don't live in a society where people are starving... I'm talking about Western society.
>>7911788
Why. Really cool pic btw
>>7911775
>>7911805
Why. Really cool pic btw
>>7911775
But what about Nietzasche ?
All men desire to know the truth, but some truth is superior to other truth.
Imagine a poor old lady that lost her mind, and spent all of her time in her room counting the number of hairs on the floor's carpet. She has knowledge that no other human being possesses, but none of us envy this knowledge of hers; rather, we pity her for being so preoccupied with it, because this knowledge is of no importance whatsoever.
Now, all men that do not have the knowledge of God are in the same pathetic state as this old lady, because just as this old lady wastes her life in concern for things of no importance, so those who lack the knowledge of God waste their lives running after things that are vain, empty, meaningless.
For if a man has the knowledge of planets and the stars, the continents and countries, the history of peoples, the tongues of nations, the writings of authors, the affairs of rulers, the exchange of the world's riches, but has not the knowledge of God, all of his knowledge is vain and it is as if he knew nothing. He who knows everything except God, knows nothing; while he who knows nothing except God, knows everything. Because God is the first and the last, the primary prime and the ultimate ultimate, the beginning and the end, the first truth and first cause, the universal being. All knowledge rests on first principles, and God is the principle of principles; so he who has the light of this first principle is able to see all secondary principles in that universal, all-luminous light; but he who has knowledge of many secondary principles but not this first principles, is in utter darkness.
We men have wills to love that which we will. Some man, not having the light of the Creator, love the creature instead; whether the creature be power, honour, fame, riches, or pleasure, their love is for the mere creature, an object of only finite and perishing worth. But we men with our intellects can conceive of the infinite and the eternal, and so no finite or perishing thing can ever satisfy our will which seeks the infinite.
>>7911836
What about him?
God is pure being, pure existence. This does not mean that everything that exists is God, but that God is in all things that exist and that all existing things are in God.
To say that all things that exist are God would be to infinitely divide the one, divine substance among every and all creatures. Everything that exists: clouds, trees, animals, stones, molecules, everything, would then have to be worshipped with the same total adoration and love owed to the divinity. This is the error of pantheism, which fails to distinguish the one universal and infinite Being and the particular and finite beings which reside in Him.
All the flowers rest in the flowerbed, but no flower is the flowerbed.
All beings rest in God, but no being is God.
All beings have Being, but they are not that Being which they possess.
Every particular being is infinitely exceeded and transcended by the one universal Being, which is God.
Everything has an end.
Everything has God either as its immediate end or as its mediate end through that which its immediately ordered to God as its end; just as all roads lead to Rome immediately or to a road which leads to Rome immediately.
The only substance in the material world ordered immediately to God as its end is man, who is ordered immediately to God by his intellect and will, by which he has the immediate knowledge and love of God. Everything else in the material world is ordered to God through man. Man is the ruler of the earth, just as God is the ruler of the heavens. Though God has immediate and absolute power and authority over everything in heaven and on earth, all things visible and invisible, He elects to rule things through intermediary powers and authorities so that these may know His Power, His Glory, His Justice, His Mercy, and His Love, and thereby participate through His Grace in the Holiness and Happiness He possesses in His eternal and all-blessed Nature.
Thus, God gives Himself to creatures, and His creatures give themselves to Him. Those creatures of His which give not themselves to Him nor glory in His Glory, but who give themselves to themselves and glory in themselves, fall into everlasting death and despair by denying the purpose for which they were created and choosing their own unnatural purpose instead. All natural, created substances are ordered towards their Creator. It is unnatural for the creature to worship anything other than the Creator.
>>7910944
And as he pined for a life of carnel pleasure, he shat on anti-colonial movements against French supremacy. I just cannot get over the absurd as anything other than a bourgeois conception
Some believe that the first principle is Chaos. They believe that in the beginning was not the infinite Intelligence of God ordering all things, but rather that in the beginning was infinite Disorder or Chaos. This primordial Chaos they then maintain exploded, creating all matter. This matter then arranged itself into the stars and the planets, and then into plants, animals, and finally men. Thus, they believe that Chaos or Chance is the first principle, and that Order comes out of Chaos as a secondary principle.
These men, not knowing how to lead their lives, who have chaos in their hearts, believe that Chaos is the mother of all things. Their minds in a state of darkness and disorder, they believe that the same was in the beginning before all things. They then abandon themselves to their disordered passions, whims, and opinions, each going their own way in what they proudly call, "expressing" their "individuality", believing that order will result out of this chaos.
That these men are supremely ignorant is obvious, because if it is true that the first principle is Chaos or Chance, then everything in their minds and out of their lips has its origin in Chaos or Chance, such that there is no reason to believe in anything they think or say. Thus, they destroy the principle of all intelligence, all truth, all reason, all argument, all speech.
We, on the other hand, who see that the first principle is a universal Intelligence, have a firm ground for our own derived intelligence, because we say that we know all things in the light of that first Intelligence, such that our knowledge is firm, ordered, established. Thus, we call coherently declare what we know, whereas they fall into incoherence, trying to make Order out of Chaos.
The principle out of which Order arises out of Chaos they call the principle of evolution. Thus, they worship the God in time, who is evolving from Chaos to Order, they believe in this Humanity evolving to become ever more humane, the civilization that is becoming more civilized, the culture that is becoming more cultured, the science that is becoming more scientific. This superstitious worship of the God of time or history is not held by us, who worship the infinite and eternal God who is outside all time and history, Who established it in his beginning and Who directs it to its final end according to principle of His divine Intelligence.
>>7911945
>he shat on anti-colonial movements against French supremacy
Yeah, he wanted Algeria to remain French because he was attached to the land. Sue him. He's not perfect, but I can say that his beliefs were more honest than Sartrists and Parisian intellectuals at the time.
>>7911968
At least Sarte and the pretentious Parisian bourgeois could recognise in principle the right of collective self-determination
For Camus, these struggles meant nothing thus there was no worry for him to challange the status quo so long as the individual could live in delusion
>>7911990
>recognise in principle the right of collective self-determination
At what price? Camus was isolated because he was among the very few French intellectual to condemn Stalinian trials and the gulags. Sartre, Merleau-Ponty and others knew very well what was happening, but said that they mustn't dishearten the working class.
>For Camus, these struggles meant nothing thus there was no worry for him to challange the status quo
Camus was just as much politically committed as Sartre. Only he was more of an anarchist and individualist, and didn't speak of most of his deeds.
Existentialism is much more bourgeois than Camus' absurd, if you ask me. At least with the latter you don't need a mockery of logical justifications to feel you need to act.
/lit/ is dishonest
/lit/ starts with the principle that there is no ultimate truth but only opinion
/lit/ then tells us to read all of the great authors from the Greeks onwards, whom express opinions that contradict one and other
/lit/ then tells us that the fact that so many "great" and "intelligent" and "genius" men disagree with and contradict with one and other, proves that there is no ultimate truth but only opinion
In this thread people talk about Camus. I have no idea why men put any weight into the words of this man called Camus. He did not live a life that suggests he was wiser than any other man, his teaching has produced no men of notable wisdom, and yet we are supposed to consider this Camus as though he was some kind of distinguished voice or authority. There are so many names which people mention on /lit/ as if they had something to offer us, but these men all lived pathetic and miserable lived themselves, so that it is highly doubtful that they have anything to teach us.
>And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many.
>>7912019
go to bed, kiddo
>>7911775
>doesn't explain moral universals (abhorrence to torture).
People torture other people. Torture was historically a common means of 'corrective punishment'.people exposed to abuse are more likely to commit abuse. Every system that used slavery or serfdom used systematic violence to enforce heirachy. There are no moral universals
>Thus, someone saying abortion is wrong and someone saying abortion is right are both right. The relativist argument would be both are equally valid, this doesn't meant both are correct.
To say something is 'subjectively right' is to say that if an axiom is accepted then X follows. I.e. if murder is the destruction of human life, if murder is always wrong and if a fetus is a human life then abortion is wrong. If a fetus isn't a human life then it isn't murder and isn't necessarily wrong. Both are not 'right' but both a valid conclusions from the different sets of parameters.
>MORAL NIHILISM, which is easily attacked.
Oh do go on...
>one can belong to multiple cultures
You misunderstand the usefulness of the term culture. No one is one culture or another but they are informed by what they are exposed to and when a large number of people share an enviroment and are largely exposed to the same things they tend to have common thoughts or behaviours which then start to form the enviroment influence on those around them which can all retroactively be described as cultural.
>>7912005
>Existentialism is much more bourgeois than Camus' absurd
Is bourgeois evil?
>>7910153
my most sincere belief is that woman are bitches
I'm also christian on principle, a /pol/ack, and a ironpill user
Nietzsche is nonsense
reps for jesus, sets for god
>>7912045
>People torture other people. Torture was historically a common means of 'corrective punishment'.people exposed to abuse are more likely to commit abuse. Every system that used slavery or serfdom used systematic violence to enforce heirachy. There are no moral universals
What is your argument here?
"Not all people refrain from torture therefore torture is not evil"?
"Not all people follow a moral universal therefore no moral universals exist"?
How silly is this?
"Some people break the law, therefore the law doesn't exist".
>>7912056
Let me put this simply:
If something is not universal then it is not universal.
Another way:
Not universal != universal
Or:
If something is universal it can be described as universal, if it is not it can't.
Maybe another:
If 1 person doesn't do X then you cannot say X is a universal behaviour of people.
One more:
IF SOMETHING ISN'T UNIVERSAL YOU CAN'T SAY IT IS UNIVERSAL!
One final one, I promise:
IF SOMETHING ISN'T UNIVERSAL YOU CAN'T SAY IT IS UNIVERSAL!
>"Some people break the law, therefore the law doesn't exist".
A law of human behaviour and a piece of legislation are not the same. I can't believe I have to tell you this.
>>7912090
You are using universal in an equivocal sense.
A moral universal is not necessarily something that all people universally fulfil, e.g. "thou shalt not kill" is a moral universal, not because all people universally fulfil this law and refrain from killing, but because it applies to all men universally.
Universal moral laws exist even if they are sometimes broken, just as civil law does not cease to exist because people sometimes break it.
You are essentially now saying
>killing and stealing is not universally evil if some people do it
>>7912123
prove universal moral laws exist anon, and that we are capable of knowing them
>>7912129
In order to know what is universally good for a thing, you need to know the nature of that thing.
For example, the nature of a plant is such that if it has no sunlight, it withers away and dies; so, it is good for that plant to have sunlight.
To know what is good for human beings we need only know the nature of human beings and what tends to promote their happiness or good.
From this it is easy to derive that things such as murder and theft are evil, because they tend to destroy the happiness or good of man by depriving him of the life or the property on which his happiness does or may depend.
We are able to acquire this knowledge because we are able to abstract universal concepts from individuals, such that we can abstract from the individuals Matthew, Mark, and Luke the universal nature "Man", and see what the good of this nature consists of. Generally, the good of any natural substance is that which promotes the endurance of its existence and the perfection of its natural powers or virtues. However, some goods are subordinated to others, as when a man destroys a plant (evil for the plant) in eating and digesting it in order to sustain himself, this being good because the good of man is higher than the good of the plant, man having a higher or nobler nature than the plant.
>>7911794
>people don't starve in the West
>Research from the Food Safety and Inspection Service found that 14.9% of American households were food insecure during 2011, with 5.7% suffering from very low food security. Journalists and charity workers have reported further increased demand for emergency food aid during 2012 and 2013.
either knowing things fully isn't possible, or we're not at a point in science where we're yet able to.
If you try to think of big things on a personal level, you're ruled by your biology, and the physics which make it up.
You'll either be drawn to egocentric conclusions, or push yourself away.
Or of course, just run yourself down with paradoxes.
So what's the point? Just live your fucking life
>>7912157
is this bait?
>>7912256
It's Aristotle, AKA the lord of philosophy who saves us from all sophistry
>>7912256
I dunno man, the guy's been responding for so long and with such long posts that I think he's genuine
I thought he was baiting earlier tbdesu
>>7912157
> being this Aristotelian
i believe in 'libertarian' values because it lets me pretend i am a rebel and pick up dumb leftist chicks while i work a capitalist drone desk job and contribute to the exploitation of the poor
>>7912267
Aristotelianism is just common sense
every other philosophy is literally babble that ends in nonsense and contradiction
I mean, look at these people who can't even find a reason to believe such common sense propositions as "murder is evil", lol
Aristotle not only penetrates into the highest metaphysical and abstract matters, but he also provides a firm foundation for what we know by common sense, whereas most philosophers who delve into metaphysics end up lost somewhere in the clouds
>>7912281
To me, Epicurus comes closer to moral common sense.
People's core humanity transcends ideology.
>>7912129
example:
someone is passing a drowning baby in a shallow pond. All one must do is reach over and pull the baby out.
Every healthy and mentally stable human being *universally* would save the child. This is called sympathy-based ethics and was coined by Hume. This is why you feel uncomfortable watching someone be tortured, regardless of their nationality. This is why you feel uncomfortable when you watch animals get tortured. This is why you feel abhorrence at the notions of 'gang rape' and 'hate speech.' Merely at putting yourself in the place of another, you desire to alleviate their pain. SYMPATHY IS UNIVERSAL and SYMPATHY IS THE DRIVING FORCE OF MORALITY.
>oh but anon what about the crusades, the holocaust, gang rape in Pakistan,etc
These people are acting wrongly. People within their OWN CULTURE recognize this fact. This is why you have civil movements and rebellion within a society. This is why many involved in the holocaust killed themselves after the fact. This is why VIetnam veterans can't sleep. Human beings are moral, sympathy-driven human beings. Denying this merely reveals an adolescent frame of mind. There are next to no moral nihilists in academia, anon. This is because academia is comprised of adults, not highschoolers.
>>7912281
>I mean, look at these people who can't even find a reason to believe such common sense propositions as "murder is evil", lol
It really is astounding
>>7910780
I never said I actually adhered to Daoism. I only said that it resembled my belief system. Still, that's an impressive argument against something I never said. Props.
>>7912169
Food insecurity isn't starvation. It's just another way of saying food is hard to get.
>>7911708
The catastrophe is looming my dude
>>7912123
holy moly you're one stupid mother fucker. If 'thou shalt not kill' is considered morally universal because it is applied equally to all men then 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.' is a moral universal which directly contradicts it.
These 'moral universals' can be quite easily explained, someone made them up. Just like civil laws, which change both through time and from geographic location to location. Your conception of moral universals is not mark against relativism, in fact it doesn't even conflict with relativism.
>killing and stealing is not universally evil if some people do it
m8 do you even know anything about relativism. the entire crux of it is that nothing is universally evil because there is nothing external to our socially constructed laws against which to compare them. What people do is irrelevant.
>>7912157
>it is good for that plant to have sunlight.
Why is a plant withering and dying bad?
>man having a higher or nobler nature than the plant
Oy vey, now you make me feel like an idiot for actually replying to you
>>7912281
>common sense
are you simple?
>>7912348
>There are next to no moral nihilists in academia
You keep saying this and eveyone knows it to be explicitly false, I don't get why you're pretending to understand or be knowledgeable about things you are clueless of.
I really hope ur b8 but I seriously worried your just that retarded
At the core I'm a dirty mean old physicalist.
I'm not a tard like Harris though, I don't believe morality can be based on what makes our brain cells tingle the best.
Most significant:
(1) Hard determinism
(2) Epiphenomenalism
(3) Moral Error Theory
>>7913642
You're responding to two different anons here. Im the one explaining sympathy-driven morality (which you neglected to comment on). If it's explicitly false, provide otherwise. The only relativist I can even think of would be Harmon, and he has a bizarre relativism anyway.
>your just that retarded
Lol
>>7910153
1. Most of history has materialism and the desire for more and better material as the motivating factors of the people(s) involved.
2. God is real, but his existence is on such a level that he is (probably) unaware of us and what we do.
>>7910153
I now hold a belief in Belief itself;
Being a chronic skeptic is just bad for the mind in the long run.
I feel Skepticism should be like a weapon you whip out when it's necessary but too many people these days are just skeptic of everything and anything they hear. Dulling the mind with no new ideas and wasting the sharp edge of Skepticism to swat at flies...
I used to be that way too, hardcore atheist. The fucked up part I didn't become nihilist and/or solipsistic, I just rolled back to antiquated and backwards ideas because those old ideas are mostly confirmation bias mixed with standard cultural mores and strengthened by an almost dogmatic resistance to any idea or philosophy that might changed my mind. Everything, everything was reduced down to, "it's lies" "propaganda" "religious/leftist brainwashing" etc.
I was reading the Binding of Issac and I realized that God not killing Abraham's son was a progressive move for that time period. I knew from reading history that all the other Canaanite Gods required human sacrifice. Human sacrifice was a cultural norm. Ofcourse Abe is gonna kill his son if ANY gods asked that it. That was just a thing people did back then. So when the people found a deity that says, "naw dog, I don't need you to sacrifice your kids to me" they are gonna hop on that motherfucking backwagon. Duh. Even after realizing goddamn Genesis my kneejerk thought was, "progressive bullshit." I knew I had to stop when some chick was hitting on me hard, lusting for me cock, and I just could not believe that she liked me...
People can say whatever they want but we are all Human. We're all gonna believe in something whether we think so or not. Skepticism is still she same Godsend as it always was but now I err on the side of believing in ideas, thought, people, myself. I am happier now for it.
Pic unrelated. I just wanted to bait people to read this cuz I'm a huge attention whore.
>>7914081
Joke's on you, I always read the end of a post first. I skipped the whole thing out of spite.
>>7913993
>which you neglected to comment on
because its shit that only an idiot would even suggest
>The only relativist I can even think of
If your talking about academics who are explicitly relativists and that is there point of argument then of course theres not going to be many because it is literally the foundation of contemporary philosophy.
>Lol
>doesn't proof read posts on 4chan
>what a shmuck...
>>7910363
Why do you believe in a place called heaven?
Somewhat relevant line from His Dark Materials I read last night: we have to build the republic of heaven where we are, because for us there is no elsewhere.
>>7911893
Sounds very fancy except that no human being, in all of history, has ever had actual knowledge about a creator, or "God". If a creator does exist, it probably cannot be conceptualized or fathomed in any human sense. Kek we only experience three dimensions and go one direction in time.
>>7912054
>I'm 17, the post
>>7914303
>17
More like 13. I wonder why those people are on /lit/.
>>7912019
underrated post
>>7914502
kys
> to maximize the utility of desirability
??
PS: I doubt you don't care about humans
my belief system goes along with biocentrism - everything goes back to our own biological senses and what we perceive as reality is our own creation. if we lose our senses, that reality ceases to exist. 'nature', 'the universe' , what have you, originates in the mind of man
>>7914227
>If your talking
>your
>that is there
>there
You're babbling Anon. Slow down.
>because its shit that only an idiot would even suggest
Believe it or not, this isn't a refutation. Also, I'm not sure Humean metaethics are, in any way, "shit only an idiot would suggest"
i think you might be a little out of your depth. Maybe stick to bookshelf threads?
>>7914227
>moral relativism is literally the foundation of contemporary philosophy
You are talking out of your ass
>>7915204
>DAMAGE CONTROL ACTIVATE!
I'm so undermined and embarrassed that the 20th century didn't happen, you win!
>>7915231
you're a worm
>>7915240
I don't think you know what we're talking about.
>>7910153
>Do actually hold any sincere belief?
No.
>>7915285
I objectively know you don't.
>>7915430
Kek. Enjoy being a moron m8
I believe that Heraclitus was essentially right, that the world is made of fire and that its ever changing nature makes it impossible to truly know much of anything from the human's perspective.
But I nuance this belief. The world is always changing, but only relative to the perspective of the actors in it. Take 'you never step in the same river twice' for example. You never step in the same river twice because molecules of water are flowing away from you, but does this constitute a change? I would argue no, there is not a fundamental change in that matter. Is there a change when this water is split into hydrogen and oxygen? Only to our perception, the molecule was hydrogen and oxygen prior to splitting, nothing was truly destroyed, it's only our perspective that says otherwise. Energy was lost? To our perspective, yes, but I believe it goes somewhere.
I fundamentally believe that the universe is an orderly, deterministic place that doesn't actually change much, and that human consciousness combined with the limits of our perceptive capabilities are what makes it appear chaotic and ever changing.
>>7910153
People are the manifestations of their hate
>>7914081
baited by Sam Harris.
I think it's important to have beliefs, but I haven't hammered mine to fine enough of a point to get behind quite yet. The first step to me is identifying what is bad, and I know that to me the most traumatizing thing for my community (rural WV) is poverty and lack of education. A lot of people like to cling to their mother country as a source of identity, but my family has lived in Appalachia since the revolution, so there's nothing there for me. The solutions to this problem are present in every kind of ideology, and I've messed around with all of them. Fascism? Clearly these coal mining morons know nothing about taking care of their state. Christianity? There's nobility in suffering. Communism? Union rebellions are a massive part of my state's history. All I know is I want to figure something out and help my people. Disregard everything, drunkposting.
>>7910153
I believe there's some kind of higher power-- not interventionist, not literalist, almost definitely not a voice in your head, but something. Stuff is too fucking weird to be an accident, and sometimes too perfect.
I also believe people are basically good. I really want to think it's because of that higher power or just something about human nature, but maybe it's self-serving. Wherever it comes from, I believe people tend to do the right thing when they're allowed to and they're informed.
>that's not much of a belief
and yet, I'm having what you might call a crisis of faith about it, and I have been for months
I only know for certain that i believe in a way of life fit myself.
Here's what life is, or at least that's what I think life should be: living in a rough world that doesn't particularly care for you, working like a motherfucker, and finding your own little tribe of mates to laugh and bitch and joke with about the silliness of it all until one day you can retire to a comfy nest and reflect on just how extraordinary life really was.
I want life to be a little rough and a little dangerous. Without either, it's not living, it's just routine. For this reason I aim to think less, because I found that when I dive deeper into thought in search of true life and the best way to live, I end up losing life altogether.
To put it simply: My dream is Yossarian, my nightmare is Stoner. My most present concern is the inevitable onslaught of Nietzsche misinterpreting edgelords coming to call me a child.(I don't know if they have a reason to, I just know that they like to)
Determinism surely did the most. I now understand how things can be done, and as a personal reserch in all aspects that interested me in my life, such as psycology of the single one or of the group, im now satisfied of my knowledge.
its hard to really understand that theres a cause for everything, but theres not a single one possible for everything, you have to dig deeper.
even extending determinism to other stuff in your life helps you in having the right approach to, i dont know, learning stuff, phylosophy, languages, economy. Basically, it's a way to organize your work.
Because we need this organization
>>7910533
This corresponds pretty much identically with my beliefs, except now that I have money I lean more to the right.
Interesting. I wonder if there is a name for this indeed.
For me it's Heidegger and Marx. To put it most simply, I think the former describes what modernity obscures while the latter describes how modernity works.
>>7911775
No, it's not a contradiction because the counterpositions are not statements of a single system.
>>7911893
I imagine the old lady happy.
>>7917541
isn't determinism bust?
>>7910516
Can you explain how you came to this state?
My sincere belief is that trail and error is the only way to live your life, and that what you do is what you believe in
>>7910512
Get some conviction in your life
>>7914706
>maximize utility.
maximize the utility built into me. i want to be happy and do things that are desirable. this includes things like looking out for my family, achieving some economic stability, fucking, drinking etc etc. things that will maximize my happiness.
PS: My happiness is strongly tied to a few people around me (mostly my family). Those are the people i genuinely care about.
And although I claim to be apathetic about humans in general, I admit that i feel sad when i hear about something bad happening to a stranger. Fuck, I feel bad even for fictional characters in books. In practical life, I try to help people as much as I can. I get depressed when I see someone else in a bad state and struggling.
But I hate this. I hate my lack of apathy. I know that those people don't mean anything to me, yet I exhibit compassion for them and then later regret it and hate myself for it. I am trying to teach myself to be more apathetic and rational now. To not let emotion cloud my judgement and my actions. To look out for my interests (which include my family's interests) and no more.
Five Pillars:
1. There is (most likely) no God.
2. There is (most likely) no afterlife.
3. There is (almost certainly) no soul.
4. Free will (as it is commonly understood) is an illusion.
5. We have no control over our beliefs.
>>7918823
The five pillars of Reddit.
>>7918841
You sure showed him!
>>7918823
>ascribing probability to the metaphysical
Lmao
>>7910153
I'm quite romantic about things like glory and love
I do not think that democracy is the best way of government
I am also quite patriotic and think there must be some.kind of god
>>7918873
that is the best we can do anon.
we can't be sure of metaphysics or metaethics now can we?
>>7918952
have you felt unconditional romantic love? someone who made you feel vulnerable and small?
or have you ever unconditionally loved someone?
>>7910153
It is through us that truth reveals itself to itself.
>>7919348
i do not understand that at all. please elaborate?
>>7919353
The material of the world is not separate from itself, but equally present everywhere; the principle of reason that underlies the structured order of the universe becomes, in consciousness, the means by which that consciousness comes to observe itself, and, with reason as observer in and through the mind of that particular consciousness, becomes therefore aware of its own nature.
I "believe," to speak conventionally, that everything is one; that everything which appears is impermanent and whatever is permanent, if there is any such thing (i.e. God) it is absolutely unknowable and ineffable by the impermanent; that every apparently individuated form possesses its own consciousness; that there are no discretely existing entities; that my consciousness is all consciousness and all consciousness is my consciousness; that free will is a meaningless idea (so is determinism); that every form is composed of parts, which part is a form itself composed of parts (all the way down, and up); that God exists.
So far the consequence of my "beliefs" seems to be trying to improve the world because of compelling self-interest. (If I'm everyone, then however I treat another person, that is how I'm treating myself.) I suppose politically I favor traditional heuristics and policies which promote eugenic fertility.
>>7910153
I am very opinionated and I have rigid morals, but I have learned not to argue 'cause it's pointless.
I believe that there is no karma or God overseeing us. You could torture and murder a thousand innocents and the universe will be indifferent.
Most of humanity is evil and only the threat of the law keeps people at bay. I used to blame religion but I think humans would find a way to be evil and destructive regardless. I think indifference and inaction are incredibly evil for a species like ours, and the hypocrisy we are capable of is disgusting.
I've come to really despise humanity and that's what drove me towards my sense of justice. I see what is wrong and I try as hard as I can not to do the same.
>>7910153
>and so on and so on
Fuck off, wannabe memer.
>>7919465
Hegelian Marxism interests me I guess. Psychoanalysis also, to some degree.
>>7910153
Nothing, really. I've completely burned out on socialism. Now I just want to amass as much power and fortune as possible.And die trying.
>>7919455
people aren't evil as much as self-centered.
their main concern is for their own survival and happiness which will always bee in conflict with others as long as there are finite resources. this conflict leads to ugly consequences which make you think that the other is acting out of malice and not self-interest.
>>7919538
you'll burn out much faster trying to amass power and fortune unless you're not already in a reasonably good position to do so (ie a secure financial background with good starting capital)
>>7918841
I'm the guy you were making fun of. Just wanted to say that was pretty funny.
>>7917504
>my nightmare is stoner
anyone's nightmare is stoner anon.
>I aim to think less, because I found that when I dive deeper into thought in search of true life and the best way to live, I end up losing life altogether.
not true. not thinking can itself lead to despair and sorrow as one then lacks the means to understand loss or deal with pain. you live a monotonous life devoid of feeling.
>Here's what life is, or at least that's what I think life should be: living in a rough world that doesn't particularly care for you, working like a motherfucker, and finding your own little tribe of mates to laugh and bitch and joke with about the silliness of it all until one day you can retire to a comfy nest and reflect on just how extraordinary life really was.
yeah I pretty much agree here.
>>7919538
queer
>>7919538
nice pendulum of perturbation you've got going there laddy
Indifference to indifference
>>7910153
i hold a lot of belief sincerely, yet none of them could reay fall into the cathegory of 'sincere belief' in a usefull way at least
>>7911967
thats a realy shitty and simplified description of ''believing in chaos''
![[Coalgirls]_Hyouka_20_(1920x1080_Blu-Ray_FLAC)_[12530EEC].mkv_snapshot_09.48_[2015.09.17_23.02.41].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3PNhnwP.jpg "[Coalgirls]_Hyouka_20_(1920x1080_Blu-Ray_FLAC)_[12530EEC].mkv_snapshot_09.48_[2015.09.17_23.02.41].jpg")
"Everything is fucked"
That's just about the only one I can think of.
>>7910533
This is me
Not sure if there's a name for it but if I were to coin it anything it'd be conditionism
>>7910322
hmm?
There are assholes everywhere. Rule number 1.
In the way people can't help but be in the way people and should just passed by with as little effort and thought possible.
The purpose of death is life.
Help those who can't help themselves.
>>This means animals, the disabled (physically and mentally) and nothing else. For lazy people refer to Rule #1 and the fucking in the way people rule.
>>7910780
The Dow is not the eternal Dow.
I believe that all beliefs are impositions of power or potential impositions of ones own power that one must strengthen in order to survive in the world's hierarchy.
I personally am a leftist and believe in egalitarianism not because i believe it's true, but because i want that system of beliefs imposed onto others so that the system might one day be imposed by the state onto others.
One must not mention that the conflicto of opinions is one of different powers at conflicto, it must be veiled as objective truth, in sophistry and lies, appeal to emotion.
>>7912531
did you not claim to believe that
>"everything exists on a push pull spectrum" ? and that
>"every decision is dynamic" ?
even if you don't adhere to it practically, I'm still calling you out for believing in sophistry.
>>7924842
so daoism gets a free pass by claiming "ayyy, we're not eternal". why not discard it from philosophy forever?
>>7911155
have a laugh reading this
http://riff-raff.se/texts/en/sic1-what-is-communisation
>>7912554
People do literally starve here in the West though
>>7911775
>which is easily attacked.
really now
>>7912348
spooked as fuck
>>7924857
that was just a fun quote from the endless kek mate
dialectical materialism is a fucking fact.
>>7912348
I could sit here and call you retarded and take apart your ethereal statements that attempt to possess me but you're a spook and giving you that would only give you possession over me.
>>7911017
>>7911256
>>7911651
>>7911775
^lol.
>>7912123
>>7912157
>>7912348
Not sure if actually this retarded or if the most dedicated shitposter I've had the chance to see on 4chan.
>>7924952
how do you know?
amoral egoism.
>>7910349
not having a system is a system
>>7910349
> I really only want to read Proust, eat dank food, and fuck- is that ok?
so hedonist?
>>7910361
>I believe that our society is being secretly run by people far smarter, and far more virtuous, than any of us.
why do you believe that? also, how many tinfoils do you own? do you believe in the illuminati? I think you take dan brown way too seriously.
communism
>>7926740
i sincerely believe I want to touch that chick, beyond that... unclear
>>7926790
pretty sure she's underage, m8
>>7924505
>indifference to indifiference
so, just "indifference"? moreover, this is an attitude, not a belief. you adopted this attitude based on an underlying belief that you haven't mentioned.
Only thing I believe is strict determinism
>>7928648
how so? even scientists and theoretical physicists don't believe in strict determinism now (with quantum mechanics proving determinism obsolete and inconsistent with observations).
>>7926314
spooky
>>7928659
quantum mechanic randomness works only for individual particles in isolated observations, but is mostly irrelevant at any scale over a couple of picometers
>>7928660
why does amoral egoism tick people off so much? is there even any argument against it? does it not simply follow from absurdism?
>>7928663
>quantum mechanic randomness works only for individual particles in isolated observations,
how big a moron are you exactly? quantum mechanics dictates wave/particle behavior and by extension dictates behavior of matter. just because technology is currently limited by how much we can compute and solve these equations through current computers does not mean that they don't hold solutions.
determinism is the pattern that seems to emerge. [see feynman's sum of histories]. but particle behavior is anything but deterministic. we just use determinism for convenience as a set of broad patterns. like saying that the ground is flat. it is convenient to assert for practical purposes but a more fundamental and rigorous look will tell you that the ground curves and is a sphere. the only difference here is that instead of looking at a smaller scale you're looking at a bigger scale.
jfc. I can't believe i have to explain this shit.
>>7928666
checked
not saying it's wrong, this is essentially Stirner's whole thesis in The Ego and His Own. He says society and yourself impose many "spooks" (though the German "Geist" is better translated to Ghost/Spirit) upon you, like morality, God, your own idea of goodness/bravery/justice etc. When you realize all of this make you a slave and liberate yourself of these you become the egoist and are free.
I essentially believe in a version of stoicism. I think that some of the most rewarding insights can only be experienced if one comes to terms with death, and learns to regard things (at least some of the time) with equanimity.
I try to achieve this both by meditating and by pursuing scholarship at the highest level, to counteract all of the thoughtless shit on the internet (this dual combo of meditation and scholarship is discussed in The Glass Bead Game by Hesse). Maybe the best way to put it is that I try to avoid having beliefs whenever possible (having no beliefs whatsover is obviously impossible and undesirable), and try to get through life based on having a stable and solid character instead.
From The Glass Bead Game: “Oh, if only it were possible to find understanding,” Joseph exclaimed. “If only there were a dogma to believe in. Everything is contradictory, everything tangential; there are no certainties anywhere. Everything can be interpreted one way and then again interpreted in the opposite sense. The whole of world history can be explained as development and progress and can also be seen as nothing but decadence and meaninglessness. Isn’t there any truth? Is there no real and valid doctrine?”
The master had never heard him speak so fervently. He walked on in silence for a little, then said: “There is truth, my boy. But the doctrine you desire, absolute, perfect dogma that alone provides wisdom, does not exist. Nor should you long for a perfect doctrine, my friend. Rather, you should long for the perfection of yourself. The deity is within you, not in ideas and books. Truth is lived, not taught. Be prepared for conflicts, Joseph Knecht - I can see that they already have begun.”
I know that what I've said seems contradictory because it's motivated by a fervent belief, essentially, that my perspective on life is existentially worthwhile if I follow this path. But to that, I refer you to DFW saying, "everyone believes in something, like it or not. Better pick yours so your belief isn't self-destructive." I think that's true, so I picked a relatively light-weight belief system that still allows me to contemplate moral subjectivity/the experience of others, and experience existential uncertainty myself, etc.
>>7928679
>I can't believe i have to explain this shit.
I have a M.Sc. in physics actually, it's just that on a macroscopic (read: anything upwards from molecular) scale, everything is perfectly predictable and considering the size of even things like cells everything is going to act in a 99.99999999999etc% predictable way, because the randomness of a single particle over gazillions of particles is none-existent. Same as if you would flip a coin a trillion trillion times, you'd get maybe 49.999999% heads
>>7928712
> society and yourself impose many "spooks" (though the German "Geist" is better translated to Ghost/Spirit) upon you, like morality, God, your own idea of goodness/bravery/justice etc. When you realize all of this make you a slave and liberate yourself of these you become the egoist and are free.
holy fuck. this. this. this. a thousand times this. I've been thinking this of late and can't see how one does not arrive to egoism in an absurd world without morality. I should read his book.
To anyone who I mention egoism, I get called an edgelord and told that I should fuck off with my "rand" ideas.
But I don't believe in objectivism. In fact, I think egoism follows from subjectivism. Because only then are you free to dispel relative subjective notions of morality to be egoistic.
>>7928723
yeah definitely read it. It's a bit length but the bulk of the theory is in the first 100 pages anyways.
For me the big eye opener was that you also impose these ideas (spooks) upon yourself. I already got to the point where religion/justice etc. are intended to get me to behave in a certain way, but really you try to live up to the idea of yourself in your head which ends up with doing stuff you maybe didn't want to. Definitely a good read even if you aren't into philosophy all that much.
>connection error
hiroshima keep the servers going you have one job
