Philosophy thread? Who is your favorite philosopher? What system of ethics do you favor? and why?
My favourite philosopher is Wittgenstein again.
Nothing worth saying unless it's true.
>>28758229
Diogenes is my favorite philosophy personality.
Like a lot of people, a good mix of Stoicism and Cynicism is how I live my life.
in philosophical terms i'm an absurdist. once you learn to recognize and accept meaningless and relativism, it's your only remaining path forward. existentialism is for babies
>>28758300
You know I took a philosophical quiz (Obviously I don't take the results seriously) but I scored 100% for Epicureanism and 95% for Stoicism, which are completely opposite philosophies of each other. I feel like I'm more Stoicism than Epicureanism, the Epicureans were more like "Live life to the fullest each day!" and I don't do that at all.
>>28758229
Whenever I try and read a philosophy book it seems so pretentious and uptight and they always write in vocabulary that is just meant to make them look more academic or some shit. I'm not retarded, I can understand it fine, It's just annoying. Seems to be people just trying to look smart and impress others. It might just be myself being a lazy asshole, though.
Personally I'm some kind of right-wing libertarian minarchist, believing that a minor state which does not interfere in society aside from military/police, and maybe a space agency, taxes only going to those things. Fully anarchistic libertarians are too Utopian and unrealistic.
In term's of religion, It's a hard question to answer but my core feeling is atheist, though a God is possible, and if we're talking some sort of computer/simulation God, it's even a likely explanation.
I guess if I had to choose I'd say existentialist, but I don't understand the existentialism-absurdism ideological conflict too well.
To me, If you were truly an absurdist, you would just kill yourself, because if there is not any objective meaning to life, you should just end life right now as you will die anyways and any pleasure experienced during life would be entirely forgotten, and any suffering with it. It would just be easier to stop existing. This is probably a flawed view though because like I said, I'm not too familiar with the idea. Not only that but an absurdist could just claim to be an existentialist because it makes them feel better, after all, it doesn't really even matter. Even being an absurdist doesn't actually matter because it's just, you know, something you choose to make life more pleasurable.
>>28758838
>I'm not retarded
>spouts shit on something they know through a wikipedia article at best
hm
>>28758869
>could have made a good post
>writes this shit instead
Fuck off m8
I'd say Socrates. He's like philosophy Jesus and it's important to realize you might not even have the answers you consider most basic or necessary. I think I'd like Hume but I'm reading Aristotle right now.
As far as systems of ethics I'm not too well versed so I can't really say. Perhaps utilitarian when necessary and deontological otherwise?
>>28758838
you're thinking of the existentialist-nihilist ideological conflict. absurdism revels in its own internal hypocrisy, nihilism just states the truth
>>28758413
Post quiz now
I am, my favourite philosopher.
Everyone else = fgt
>>28758961
Here you go, it'll tell you what philosopher/philosophy you follow/believe in the most by percentage.
http://selectsmart.com/philosophy/
>>28758869
I said I wasn't retarded in the concern of understanding academic vocabulary. In terms of what absurdism and existentialism actually mean I was honest and admitted I don't really know shit.
Besides what did I say that was wrong if you are so well educated on the subject? Not trying to be condescending with that, actually wondering what I got wrong.
>>28758958
Thanks. Can you expand on the actual differences between the two? Because they seem to be effectively the same. Absurdism seems to be the agnosticism to nihilism's atheism.
>>28759011
William of Occam and st Augustine checking in apparently
>>28759276
I know St. Augustine combined religion with philosophy, primarily the Christian teachings. Are you a heavily religious person, anon? Do you base your views of life and ethics on religion? Because St. Augustine was about mostly religious philosophy.
I don't know much about William of Occam other then the creator of Occam's Razor which is a concept popular with some people.
>>28759015
nihilism is merely an acceptance of truth- "there is no meaning".
absurdism on the other hand is a doctrine to live your life by, a path forward. where nihilism simply states, "there is no meaning", absurdism states "there is no meaning, but continue to search for one and live your life regardless".
nihilism isn't really a way of life if that makes sense, it's just an idea. absurdism puts that idea into practice (so does existentialism, but absurdism is more honest)
>>28759315
If the question offered gods will as an option I picked it since I assume if God is an option on the test that trumps all the other choices.
I don't consider the existence of God very likely.
>>28758300
THIS, to be honest.
Based Diogenes and his cynicism
>>28759349
let me edit this slightly:
>absurdism states "there is no meaning, but
to
>absurdism states "there probably is no meaning, but
>>28759393
So you're an Atheist but believe that a higher power (God for example) trumps any other answer? That's very contradictory, anon. Someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God wouldn't really base their logic and rationality on the thing they don't believe in. The quiz was asking what YOU think is the best answer, not what SHOULD be the best answer. If you don't believe in God then you probably shouldn't have picked answers centered around God.
No wonder you got a high score with St. Augustine, it's because you put a lot of answers pertaining to God.
>>28759015
>>28758838
I'm this guy.
I tried that test and got 100% for Epicurus, 91% for Jean-Paul Sartre, 90% for Nietzsche, 80% for Ayn Rand.
If anyone cares.
>>28759457
I don't care what you think faggot.
>mfw atheists/agnostics look down on religious people
any true absurdist would recognize the lack of superiority in disbelief. not believing in something doesn't put you on a pedestal
>>28759003
Ultimate pleb philosopher
>>28759536
That's fine, I'm just pointing out that you are contradicting yourself heavily, but if that's what you choose to believe then by all means, go for it.
>>28759606
Do you really think there's anything contradictory whatsoever about answering a test honestly?
You sound like a huge hypocrite
Gondola is comfiest philosopher.
>Observe
>Do not interact
Truly the philosopher for robots
>>28759633
Well I'd like to think you get better results if you answer honestly rather then answer based off contradictory ideologies. You based your answers off basically this logic
"Oh, I don't really believe in God but yet I believe that God is a sovereign being that explains all other rational answers and trumps all other answers to a philosophical question."
If you can't see what is wrong with your logic of thinking then I have nothing more to say to you, just live in denial and be a fool for the rest of your days. You are essentially an Agnostic and not an Atheist, even if you discredit the existence of God, a part of you still believes that God may exist. You're just lying to yourself but I'm not going to sit here and tell you how to live your life, I'm just pointing out that your way of viewing life doesn't make a lot of sense, I guess it doesn't have to.
>>28759687
You define your entire philosophy by how consistent you think it is.
Why even take the test? A perfectly consistent set of answers would only produce the philosopher you've already selected at the outset. Literally you'd only need to answer one question
Carl Jung. Much more then a philosopher.
>>28759517
What test is that? Orgy
>>28759779
It's this test
http://selectsmart.com/philosophy/
I liked to read read it when I was younger, but I found that it isn't worth your time if you're being professionally educated in the subject.
If all goes right I'll be able to study it a few years from now. I might start reading it again to prepare myself.
>>28758346
>accepting relativism
schopenhauer, in my view, a lot aspects of life would be different if humans weren't so deterred by their overburdening sexuality
>>28759817
>100% Sartre
>Then Hobbes, Hume, Mill, and Nietzsche in the 70s
I'm surprised. I thought I would've gotten 90 something for Nietzsche.
I like rule utilitarianism because it sounds like a pretty good mix of utilitarianism proper and the bullshit Kant tried to pull.
>>28759683
So Taoist?
>tfw 100% Aquinas
I just kind of wank off, watch anime, and hope I get shot or just have a heart attack.
Putting all my marbles on the hope that there's a "next life". If not, oh well. I wouldn't be aware of my current existence in either scenario. Of course unless there's on indefinite afterlife where you carry your memories with you.
Who the fuck knows. Somewhere between your physical body and "you" there's some magic going on.
is free will even possible physically?
>>28760070
if you can't accept relativism, go outside, look around you, and eavesdrop on a few conversations. if you haven't accepted relativism after this practice you're deluding yourself.
>>28760445
Say you know the future of everything in its entirety. What would happen? Would you begin moving and speaking autonomously? Would you be "inside" of your self? Or would you just move about with knowledge of basically everything?
>>28759011
Post results and call each other cucks
>>28760476
>because something is, it is the way it should be
>>28760554
I never assigned value to the notion of relativism. but you're right, it is correct
absurdism
anything else is cuckoldry
>>28759011
Kant. Is that good?
>>28760646
More like KUCK
>>28760529
Get a load of this God-fearing greek cuck.
>Rousseau btfo
>>28760445
No, unless you somehow become free from cause and effect, and have complete knowledge of everything in the universe that was, is, and ever will be.
Failing that, maybe there's some magical, unseen force in the universe that throws a spanner in the works of causality and actually everything's random.
>>28760767
I'm a filthy Slav actually. But thank you :3
My favourite philosopher is Stefan Molyneux. I favour his system of ethics, Universally Perferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics. I favour it because it has proven objective morality to be true once and for all.
Who scored 100% Bentham?
Pretty much expected.
yeeeeeeeeeeeeee
>>28761724
except it hasn't. objective morality doesn't exist
>>28762019
Isn't torture objectively bad?
>>28762071
it doesn't mesh with my own moral compass, no, but my moral compass isn't necessarily 'correct' from any objective standpoint
>>28762071
No. Torture can be a "good" to stop other "evils".
>>28762019
sorry but that certainly is not an argument
>>28759557
my nigga drake is my favorite philosopher
>>28762089
I don't need to argue for it, just look around you. morals are like axioms. what I consider "good" you may not and vice versa
you can believe objective morality exists and that's ok, but believing in something doesn't make it true
>>28762084
So is torture that can't stop other evils objectively bad?
>>28762084
except it doesn't work
>b-but intimidation
sure let me just intimidate a bunch of suicidal robots, chink commies who eat bugs, or suicidal towelheads who believe in god
i think that i can really scare these people with a strong martrydom culture by threatening them with death
Spooks the thread
>>28762119
But I was just pretending to be retarded
Is this good senpaitachi?
>>28762171
Both you and I scored 100% on Stoics.
You're cool in my book.
>>28758229
>Who is your favorite philosopher?
Kant.
>What system of ethics do you favor?
My own conception of Kantian ethics.
>and why?
It can't logically be avoided.
>>28762111
common guys, torture is fun
>>28759687
Son, you don't seem to understand that actually agnosticism and atheism are not oposits. Gnosticism and agnosticism regard KNOWLEDGE, as in, you know or don't know that there is a god. Theism and atheism, on the other hand, regard FAITH (you either believe or don't believe there is a god). So you can, actually, totally be an agnostic atheist: you don't KNOW if there is a god, but you don't BELIEVE there is.
>>28762242
What's objections do you have to Utilitarianism?
>>28762272
for u
>>28762318
>What's objections do you have to Utilitarianism?
What objections do you have to Utilitarianism?
Corrected error.
>What
Stoicism
>who
Marky-mark and the Roman bunch
>ethics
Christian ethics and morals
>why
I was angry and emotional as a kid, but the more I stopped seeking pleasure actively and stopped making emotional decisions, the more I seemed to have an easier time being in some sort of peaceful-not-happy state. It feels good like sleeping though.
>>28758229
I got Existentialism and i'm a INFP
Just fuck me up famalam
>>28762318
>>28762326
Any ethical theory which bases goodness or badness in consequences rather than within the actions themselves I think is logically flawed for three main reasons:
1, Knowledge of whether one's action is moral or not is impossible, because that which determines the actions moral worth (it's consequences) comes after the action in time. Therefore one would have to have knowledge of the future in order to know whether your action is moral. Moral knowledge is only possible if the morality of actions is based in what one can have immediate and direct experience of; the motivation and the concept of the act itself.
2. It's also ontologically unsound. I've never heard a good argument for why a material result can have the properties of, or be considered identical with, "good" or "bad".
3. Consequentialism necessarily implies that the autonomy can rightfully be violated in order to bring about the desired result. This is contradictory since the value and dignity of autonomy is necessarily presupposed in the belief that those desired results are actually valuable. That is, why should anyone be worthy of obtaining the benefits of what a consequentialist would consider good? The worth of humans requires dignity and autonomy, and dignity and autonomy require that people always be treated with respect and never used to achieve some end.
antinatlaism
linguistic idealism
moral statements are objectively true based on whether I say it's right or wrong (I am the source of objective morality)
truth is a language game
the past is a story
science doesn't give us facts instead they give predictions
>>28762131
>Implying Marx didn't crush saint Max into the ground like a worm in his book
>implying anyone today would know and remember Stirner if Marx didn't mock him in his book
your pic is stirnerist's wet dream, reality is Marx stomping both stirner and Rothtard
>>28762103
>If people disagree about something then therefore there is no truth with regards to that thing
>>28764113
except morality is purely subjective friend. implying "truth" can be found in morality is like implying art can be objectively good/bad
