Relativism or Absolutism? What school of philosophy do you subscribe to (if you subscribe to one)neo scholastic myself
>>7831326
Relativist. Up until recently I was an existential nihilist. I'm looking for a better philosophy, but it has left me feeling very displaced.
Currently toying with Evola and Nietzsche.
>>7831366
So you just change your worldview based on how it makes you "feel"? That seems ignorant, and any type of relativism or nihilism will make you feel displaced
>>7831326
relativists are to undergraduates as absolutionista are to professors
>>7831374
No, I don't change my worldview on how it makes me "feel". I have desisted being a nihilist, and as such, I am now displaced in my beliefs because I had rejected all moral certainties and beliefs.
It is akin to standing on a foundation in an abyss, and having it crumble beneath you, as you struggle to catch hold of something, anything, that could save you from the downward spiral.
>>7831374
>he said something makes him FEEL???? time for me to put this ignoramus in his place...
>>7831386
hahaha filtered newtrip
p.s. dont bother replying i wont see it
Relativist. No philosophy.
>>7831382
I dont understand the analogy
>>7831383
>because I had rejected all moral certainties and beliefs
So whats your belief about morals now?
>>7831387
>newtrip
the irony, the sublime, pristine irony
>>7831386
Thats not why I criticized him. I criticized him because I thought he was allowing emotion to dictate his worldview
>>7831399
>filtered
>still replied
Are you fucking retarded m8?
>>7831399
>sublime
More like depressing.
>>7831403
ah yes, he was allowing his feely hormones to dictate his worldview instead of his thinky hormones, what a faux pas
>>7831404
other people can still read the reply, much in the same way that you yourself did, my fine feathered friend :^)
>>7831410
not mutually exclusive!
>>7831383
Honest question from the philosophical laiety here: How can one detest being a nihilist? Isn't the point of an ideology something you adopt as truth, not (under most conditions) subject to emotional whims? I'm something of a nihilist myself, and whenever I feel like defecting to a different mindset, I end up stopping myself. The whole process begins to feel artificial, as if I'm actively convincing myself of something, rather than naturally finding truth in it.
>>7831413
>think hormones vs feely hormones
Are you literally retarded man? Like who takes care of you?
Also
>sublime
>depressing
>not mutually exclusive
I dont even. ..
>>7831418
(I left something out)
As a nihilist it feels really difficult to detach myself from nihilism, since the whole idea of taking up an "artificial philosophy" for the sake of happiness seems especially pointless in an already confusing and pointless (sorry for the edge) world. I end up weighing personal happiness against identity, and confound myself, often no further than when I began.
>>7831374
Reason is the slave of passion, anon.
>>7831419
i actually said thinky vs. feely, not think vs. feely, but i can see how a novice in the discipline such as yourself would imagine the terms to be interchangeable
>the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure
>>7831425
Not that guy, I'm a different poster.
I guess I'm in a somewhat similar situation though. I've sort of given up I guess? I would call myself a nihilist too as I have that whole pointless (edgeedge) point of view too. It doesn't make me happy at all but it seems like the closest thing to truth that I have found. So I have that problem of truth vs. happiness. But I also think there isn't really such a thing as truth. We decide something is true (or maybe True) but that doesn't make it so. The deck is stacked against us in the first place by us having shitty hormone filled brains that just heuristic all over the place.
So I have been considering some kind of intentional delusion? Just say fuck it and lean into something that is going to make me happy even though I know it isn't 'true'.
>>7831443
>>7831326
I am an absolute relativist
>>7831443
Of course it is, there'd be no reason to reason if we had no passions.
>>7831448
>there'd be no reason to reason if we had no passions
Holy fucking circular logic
>>7831450
Tell me how reason has any meaning outside of passion.
>>7831444
Why are tripfags so autistic? I thought /lit/ was relatively free of them.
>>7831453
Reason is applied logic. It has nothing to do with passion, though passions should be taken into consideration.
I'd subscribe to absolutism, but society seems to practice relativism instead. I actually dread that possibility that abolutism is more of a pipe dream at this point.
>>7831461
what am i doing wrong? just trying to make friends here :^)
>>7831482
I don't think he was saying it should only be considered, he seems to be giving passion primacy here.
>Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.
I did take the quote out of the context of moral philosophy though, so that's my bad.
>>7831383
faggot
>>7831440
>>7831425
the whole question is why do you need to go beyond what you sensate ? why do you think that what you think and feel is
-relevant
-enough to call this your self
whereas what you feel and think is hardly controllable by your will, changes and is not really personal ?
why do you cling to the idea that a few of your ideas are more relevant than other ideas, even more relevant than what you feel through your other senses ?
On you flatten everything that you think and feel, you can still care about what you think and feel, which gives depression OR you can understand that what you feel and think, taste has never been really you and you understand that separating yourself from what you think is your self leads you to far happier state than depression and and state where you understand that it is precisely the original clinging to the fantasy of relevant thoughts and feelings (amongst the tons of thoughts and feelings that you have and had and keep generating) which makes you unhappy. This new knowledge and the new state that you install from this new knowledge is not reversible and you can call it truth.
>>7831326
Quasi-realism
>>7831539
This is one of the more rational arguments I've heard promoting a more visceral view of the world. However, I am something of a STEMfag, so looking at things unempirically in this way feels like another "artificial philosophy". And I acknowledge the fact that that was the point of your post, to encourage me to reject exterior input and rely on my senses. Is there a way to get past this doubt for a STEMfuck?
>>7831326
I was an anthropology major before going into medicine.
It's hard to have anything other than a relativistic worldview when you're balls-deep into studying different cultures in different times and places. The shit people did back then (and even today in different places) without seeing any ill in it, and the way they'd react to some of our practices, strongly suggests that absolutism is unfeasible on a near-fundamental level.
Morality is only absolute insofar as every culture HAS morality, some kind of ethical code (there's never been a moral-less culture), but the contents of each morality vary pretty strongly across the board.
>>7832462
You know that variance in moral attitudes does nothing to show that absolute moral values and duties don't exist, right?
>>7832489
>does nothing to show that absolute moral values and duties don't exist, right?
like the hundreds of moral values somewhere sometime once thought absolute but are now discarded?
just throwing this idea out: the best moral values are the ones that produce the best results in the period and area where they guide human and societal activity
freedom is a cool idea but doesnt work if the people are unruly fucks etc.
you need some authoritah to slap barbarians into some kind of socially cohesive unit to get any kind of shit done
why "democracy" and "freedom" aren't the ultimate values ATM in china, it's "national stability", because there's a real chance shit can fall apart etc.
of course then we need to subscribe to some idea of "good", towards which the morals guide us, and what could that be? how do you measure it?
we seem to use shit like technological progress, GDP per capita, measuring the health and happiness of the people and such things. I think it's a good starting point
if we agree that above is "good", on a societal level, then are there some things that we should not do, even though they would improve above
funny thing is that societies that have to a greatest degree removed shit like slavery and human trafficking etc., things thought to be "absolutely" repugnant, are also the most well-to-do ones, holding the most power on the international stage. one could ask whether the things mentioned are in absolute terms repugnant, or whether removing them increases the "fitness" of the cultural unit?
fuck you darwin, don't touch morals too
>>7832560
btw this goes to nietzche as well
morality is no truth, it's a tool, neither good, neither evil
the ubermensch is the one who sets the "good", which may be hidden, and creates the morals for the masses that he thinks will lead them towards the "good"
of course the ubermensch will pull the "good" out of his ass so to say, no one dictates his morals to him, he discovers them himself and even then never ties himself into them, he subverts them and changes them as he accumulates information, ideas and experiences
>>7832388
Do you understand what "empirical" means? Empiricism does not grasp at knowledge in spite of your senses, "exterior input" can only come about because of your senses.
>>7831326
Relativism. Life is not black and white, never has been, never will be.
>>7831326
relativistic absolutism
This is all I think about when alone in a room or on drugs.
I have convinced myself that this small difference in philosophy is the root of major ideological differences. Ie conservatism vs liberalism.
Neither is correct, as they develop into extremes. I long for apathy
>>7831326
Relativism which justifies absolutism at the same time. So, kinda both.
