Philosophy thread? Who is your favorite philosopher? What system of ethics do you favor? and why?
>>74818660
No, Molymeme, UPB, muh logic
>>74818660
I think Plato had it right. Except the platonic realm is basically just logic itself. I'm not really one for ethics but I would probably go with Kant.
>>74818918
Diogenes because he would embarass plato constantly for looking like a faggot all the time.
Diogenes was the dogs tits
Plato got his mind ass raped by diogenes all the time
fuck that fag
Cya lato plato
>>74818918
>I'm not really one for ethics but I would probably go with Kant.
Eh, some people find ethics interesting but I understand if some don't really care about it. Also why Kant? Just curious if you don't mind explaining, I've heard a lot of people claim Kant's philosophy on ethics isn't that great and isn't well favored.
>>74819034
Ah, a fan of Cynicism I take it? Yeah, Diogenes is pretty popular so no arguments here. Even though nobody really practices Cynicism anymore, unless you'd like to just abandon all materialistic possessions and live a life on the streets free of greed, wealth, fame and power.
>>74818660
Nietzsche, followed immediately after by Buddha.
Nietzschean ethics, of a sort.
>>74818660
I prefer the Great Master.
>>74818660
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSwAd2T41-o
>>74819160
I like that Kant just has a purely rational logical approach to ethics. He basically applies induction on ethics.
Tupac
>>74819034
Diogenes had a comfy proto-robot life, but let's be real, he was the unstable rambling man on the street corner that you'd call the police on when he got too close to you
>>74818660
Voltaire, Foucault, Camus, Bloch, Reich, Marcuse, Lukács, Marx, Nietzsche, Plato, Hegel.
>>74819580
Some #RealNiggaz up in here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkJA6SYwa94&list=PLEFDE3F40ACCEF0BE
Mash that motherfuckin like button!!!!
>>74819679
add: Horkheimer, Adorno (partially, I like Jazz), Habermas (especially).
>>74819679
I felt like I never really got Hegel. He like invented his own language to talk about whatever the hell it was he was talking about.
>>74819809
Maybe add Quine but I do not yet understand (integrate) everything from him.
>>74819832
Yeah man one of the guys I had to read exceptionally slowly. Trying to find that quote right now I liked from him, can't memorize it..
>Anyone but Schopenhauer
>mfw
>>74819679
Can anyone get me into Husserl?
>>74818660
On /pol/? I'd rather not.
Epictetus.
Stoicism + Post-Randian Modal Ethical Egoism
Because it works
>>74819527
>>74819527
No, he doesn't. He ultimately appeals to ethics by divine authority in the form of duty and the good will; regardless of how systematic and logical he appears on the surface, he is a mystic.
>>74819679
>>74819679
No wonder Germany is fucked.
>>74819225
You mean "Not Plato"?
>>74820183
Thank you! Fucking hate Kant's ridiculous 'logical' morality. Its literally just as axiomatic as all other ethical systems.
>>74820040
>Liking Fatalism
>Believing in Fatalism
I feel for Fatalists, they might as well commit suicide in all honest.
>>74818660
I like this fat fuck right here.
>>74818660
Martin Heidegger
>>74819679
t. kike
>>74820183
Wasn't he the one that evaluated the morality of an action based on whether society could still function if every single person did that action all the time? That seems logical enough to me.
>>74820446
Lots of things seem 'logical enough'. Almost every ethical system tries to give at least the pretense of consistency and unified principle. That doesn't make Kantian ethics any more 'logical' or 'objective' any other pseudo-logical moral systems like Objectivism or Utilitarianism.
Thomas Hobbes
>>74820446
How is that logical? If I do something than every single person will NOT do it!
There is no such thing as logical ethics. You can never get an is from and ought so all axioms will be illogical.
>>74820446
Kant says actions are only moral if they are performed according to duty for duty's sake and arise out of a genuine desire to do them from your Good Will. You might incidentally do something good by acting according to what your duty to the Categorical Imperative, but you must intuitively know what is right and do what is right because it is right with no ulterior motive in order to be a moral person.
You're thinking of Stefan Molyneux, actually. No memes. That's the principle of UPB.
The greatest philosopher of all time.The greatest philosopher of our time! The greatest philosopher with biggest philosophy show.
Based & Redpilled Stefan fucking Molyneux!
He fucking made and proved NAP with his book1
Whatever you say is nonargument.
>>74820712
What is UPB?
>>74820712
>>74820725
Oh. I'm getting meme'd on. Never mind.
>>74820781
Universally preferable behavior, a rational proof of secular ethics
Available at freedomainradio.com/free
>>74820446
As you said Kant believed that essentially you could deem something morally right and just only if it's what everyone else would do. One way to look at this is in terms of abortion, if a woman wants to have an abortion she could ask "Well, would every women who is pregnant have an abortion?" If she said yes then abortion is morally just, if she said no then it is not morally just or right. You see the problem? You can't say that every woman who is pregnant would be pro choice, if that was the case human beings would die out and never propagate. Also if every female was pro choice then that means pro life would be morally unjust, thus by Kant's logic abortion is immoral because you could never have a unified or 100% agreement on the action being applied to everyone.
>>74819225
>>74820868
Serbia is trolling you. I'm not. That's why I said I don't want a philosophy thread on /pol/. Look into it yourself. Go read his book and watch his youtube video about it. If you care about ethics it's worth reading.
I'm bailing before this thread gets any worse.
>46. Never call yourself a philosopher, nor talk a great deal among the unlearned about theorems, but act conformably to them. Thus, at an entertainment, don't talk how persons ought to eat, but eat as you ought. For remember that in this manner Socrates also universally avoided all ostentation. And when persons came to him and desired to be recommended by him to philosophers, he took and- recommended them, so well did he bear being overlooked. So that if ever any talk should happen among the unlearned concerning philosophic theorems, be you, for the most part, silent. For there is great danger in immediately throwing out what you have not digested. And, if anyone tells you that you know nothing, and you are not nettled at it, then you may be sure that you have begun your business. For sheep don't throw up the grass to show the shepherds how much they have eaten; but, inwardly digesting their food, they outwardly produce wool and milk. Thus, therefore, do you likewise not show theorems to the unlearned, but the actions produced by them after they have been digested.
Epictetus and Stoicism
Kant
Thomas Aquinas
>For the Age has itself become vulgar, and most people have no idea to what extent they are themselves tainted. The bad manners of all parliaments, the general tendency to connive at a rather shady business transaction if it promises to bring in money without work, jazz and Negro dances as the spiritual outlet in all circles of society, women painted like prostitutes, the efforts of writers to win popularity by ridiculing in their novels and plays the correctness of well-bred people, and the bad taste shown even by the nobility and old princely families in throwing off every kind of social restraint and time-honoured custom: all of these go to prove that it is now the vulgar mob that gives the tone.
Oswald Spengler, /pol/ the person
>>74821222
oops wrong thomas
>>74821137
I'm sorry you are so against philosophy threads on /pol/ I'm aware that shit posting and memes are going to fuck it up, but you still get some honest and genuine answers so it's not completely ruined.
>>74820183
your a dorable
>>74820962
Like I said, sounds like sound reasoning to me. That would assume that all people are the same though, that they have the same resources to raise a child, etc, etc.
>>74821736
There are a lot of hole's in Kant's logic though, as I said it's not very popular with people for that very reason. It's a universal system that Kant believed could be applied to everyone, and not everyone is the same. We can't say that everyone will act the same way in a situation, I can't say that you would do the same thing I would in a certain situation. The same goes for everyone no this board, or in this thread. You can't say with 100% certainty that everyone in this thread has the same mindset towards life and what not.
>>74821268
>He doesn't respect best Thomas
Guy was a fucking genius
>>74821736
>Like I said, sounds like sound reasoning to me.
What you really mean is "I like the way this feels"
The idea that each person should have the same standard is not backed up by pseudo-logic. People are taught it as a cultural belief and it feels right to them because it's become a normative.
>>74821992
I suppose that's true. In that case I'll agree with what that guy up there said, that you can never derive an "ought to be" from an "is". So then there is no such thing as rational ethics and ethics itself is just bullshit.
>>74822163
>So then there is no such thing as rational ethics and ethics itself is just bullshit.
That's called Moral Nihilism and it states that nothing is intrinsically good or bad, for instance looking at murder from the perspective of Moral Nihilism would state that murder is neither good nor bad.
>>74818660
based Kierkegaard
>>74822163
Now take a step backwards. Ethics being arbitrary doesn't make it bullshit, anymore than politics being arbitrary makes it bullshit.
Just because all values are derived from the will, not the reason, does not mean we cannot come to arrangements.
>>74819679
Fag alert
>>74821908
You can divide Thoma's work into two categories.
One category is him working with ideas that had already been put forward by Avveroes, Avicenna, and Aristotle. Aquinas didn't really add anything new, he just rephrased them and changed a few trivial matters. I am of course talking about his proofs for God which he is well known for, he didn't invent any of them, he just re-interpreted them. This is hardly "genius", he just got promoted by the church because they would rather give credit to a Catholic than a Muslim or Pagan.
And what really says something is if you look at the history of philosophy Aquina's interpreation never really accomplished much. Avicenna's was ultimatly what influenced later thinkers and pretty much all medevil metaphysics is just a footnote to Spinoza.
The other category would consist of him giving his opinion about all sorts of matters that only matter if you are a Catholic like what a certain bible passage means or how to identify witches.
>>74820183
>>74820269
this, Kant's ethics are flawed, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that. Grown ups prefer Hume
>>74822163
>So then there is no such thing as rational ethics
Nope. No fields in philosophy are purely rational, even epistmology.
>ethics itself is just bullshit.
It is if you take the axiom that only rational thoughts should be pursued. This axiom however is self-defeating since it cannot be proven rational, it's another is-ought.
Read Oenology of Morality. We never operated on pure rationality.
Enlightenment ideas about thinking they can make everything "rational" died with the N man and really aren't a part of 21st century philosophy
I want to get more into Zen. What books to read?
>>74822667
I'm sure you could read anything on Buddhism or books on Zen in general, if you want to know some popular books on the subject then that I do not know.
Nietzsche
>>74822847
Here is the only thing I hate about people who follow Nietzsche's philosophy, first off you can't be a Christian and you can't drink Alcohol.
Those two principles negate a lot of believers, Nietzsche hated Christianity, essentially if you believe what Nietzsche did then you must be an Atheist and you must abstain from drinking alcohol. I doubt most people who Nietzsche actually do those two things, though I'm sure most of them are Atheist, I doubt they abstain from drinking alcohol.
>>74818660
