 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)belb ...and 67 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613722 Today 3 Topics 127517 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
First I think the burden of proof is *always* on the individual claiming objectivity. "Morality is ojective," as you say, is an outlandish claim-- given the subjective nature of our human perceptions. I intend to answer you solely with Cartesian reductionism. It was the single bit of philosophy I immediately agreed with in college. I don't know that darisgriffen is real. I'm perceiving what you write, but that could be a faulty interpretation. I could be insane. You could be a figment of a fake reality designed just for me. How can i know otherwise? I don't know that xltronic is real. I don't know what blue, red, or yellow *actually* looks like, or if they exist at all. .I just know my own subjective interpretation of this part of the light spectrum. It's all filtered thru ME, everything i experience. Everything you experience is filtered through you. These experiences never intersect. Descartes posits that while math may seem objective, we don't actually know it's not the devil playing a trick... and 2+2 actually=5. For the record, I *believe* 2+2=4, but I'm not capable of disproving Descartes, and neither are you. All you can prove (and *ONLY* to yourself) is that you are thinking right now. That you are a thinking being. (I think therefore I am). Now because you made the outlandish claim that morality is actually objective, let's turn it around and see if YOU can provide a better proof. The burden is on you, not me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm sorry but no, what you're doing here is denying the possibility of anything being true, which i don't think is a position you can hold coherently. logic might be a human tool and you might argue that it's not meaningful in tour definition of reality, but it's by definition not arbitrary, it's not an illusion. otherwise why are you even arguing, where are your opinions coming from, why are you not living your life just hallucinating pretty pictures? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
To be very clear I'm not denying *any* possibility. I'm only denying a confirmed, objective reality. Anything is possible. I personally have a "faith" that everything around me is real, even if I can never *know* that for sure. I have my own moral compass. Treat others as I want to be treated. That's it. It's probably rooted in some sort of evolutionary psychology related to giving me the best chance of survival in a small group n the African savanna. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
objectively big is a woke obsessed with woke youtube videos and roger wilco is a racist jew wannabe wearing a kippah |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it is true whether or not an apple is objectively real |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Speaking of which, where is Roger? Where is Umbro? Xltronic's community of cod Jews is endangered. Objectively speaking. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Nietzsche’s narrative goes like this: before “logic” things just “were.” Nobody had to “justify” themselves before anything or anyone: Masters were masters, slaves were slaves. Here’s the men, there’s the women. Every hierarchy was to be accepted “as it is,” unquestioningly, categorically, naturally, without any pesky “logic” causing any trouble. And Nietzsche presented this as the happiest era for humanity, where slaves were spared painful hope and the idle rich were able to fully dedicate themselves to art. Logic in this narrative is the dissolving and reconstructing agent that causes change. This is why he preached a more “impressionistic” way of living, always spurning any social pressure to deliver justifications for one’s actions. This is why he is today something of a patron saint for the bourgeois artist, whose credo remains “Art for art’s sake.” But Nietzsche appeals to more than just artists. Rebels of all kinds, more or less indifferent to art, find immense appeal in the acid way Nietzsche rejected anyone’s efforts to impose any truths whatsoever upon himself: “I was the first to discover truth, and for the simple reason that I was the first who became conscious of falsehood as falsehood. That is to say, I smelt it as such.” Nietzsche’s genius was that he realized by presenting himself as a so-called “skeptic” of all institutions and all morality, by forever refusing the “shackles” of logic, he could find a very roundabout way of getting back to the barbaric “might makes right” political position. What he really discovered was that ruthless ruling class theories of “survival of the fittest,” social Darwnism, eugenics, and slavery could all in fact be dressed in very regal garb, thus opposing Hegel’s progressive modernism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i've merely shared some anti-racist theory which is met with white fragility: just not wanting to hear it. you can make that all about me, as much you want, but the only 'me 'about it was that i said i was upset by some of the abhorrent things being said i didn't call you alt-right. i said i saw some of these kinds of narratives being echoed and i was actually more referring to Roger with that. something like that: not too useful to argue about persons |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so he was like a more charismatic Jordan Peterson |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm being racist right now lol what u gon do mmmm racism, rub it on your skin |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
They share a keen interest in hierarchy. As for charisma, would be interesting to know if Nietzsche had a similar reedy, panicky Kermit voice when he got worked up. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
how do you organise your files? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
having said that i just totally defeated myself in an imagined argument where i was u i quite like trees |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
>>>They share a keen interest in hierarchy. here u go |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ssssh, the workshy Dutch lad has piped up about fragility. Let him/xir speak |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lol it's true that some people use weird pronouns!! epic win, sir |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i also do paid work, i'm a prol |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah the last couple generations are the most likely to understand and respect transgender and gay equality yet they are doing everything they can to alienate themselves and turn it into some silly joke that no one can take seriously. when i say they i mean a small number compared to the whole lgbt community but they seem to be getting the most publicity because possibly of how absurd and silly they are and then what they bring up gets discussed on a broader scale like they represent the lgbt community even the left |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
To put this in perspective. A French man who *feels* he is a Lesbian (SPOILER - He isnt) is giving a lecture on what he thinks other people think is reality, morality, etc. Through a French lens. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if you are a male and you come out of the closet and tell your dad that you are a lesbian he probably won't have a problem with it, no? cause... you're still into chicks? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that's nice but moral realism is the majority view among philosophers (A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other). Another study in 2020 found 62.1% accept or lean towards realism.) so you'll have to forgive me if i express doubts about your expertise on what's true or real |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i mean let's be serious here. i'm smarter than you. i'm happier than you. i don't spend my time ruminating bitter platitudes in some sort of hallucinatory indignant daze. have you considered that i'm right and you're wrong? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
(my assumption is yes, you think about it everyday, which is why you don't know how else to interact with me. but luv when you say these things it only makes me sad for you and the hole you've buried yourself in.) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Without wading into the rest of your quarrel with Roger here, That you would point to "56% of philosophers in 2009 lean towards moral realism" like it amounts to ANYTHING is so laughably inane it almost makes me actually believe in moral realism... Like the argument is so bad that it's the actual platonic ideal of a stupid argument, existing in the ether. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no actually i think it is an excellent argument for the point i was making which is that hurling insults and calling people insane for believing in moral truth is a little unserious |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
for the record I said inane. not insane. but you said you're smarter than everyone else so maybe you're right? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my apologies, you called "Archangel Big" retarded and a piece of shit but indeed you didn't explicitly question his sanity. i don't think it was entirely unreasonable to assume it was implied but you're at least technically right. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I actually said neither of those things, but making shit up or taking it completely out of context is kind of your jam. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
alright sorry, please explain my misreading so i don't make the same mistake again |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok. In *context,* which IS important, I said It was retarded to pretend your moral ideas outside of your own subjective perception. Not that big was retarded. And I said that when you do pretend those ideas are inherently true, it instantly turns you into a piece of shit. I meant it more universally than it came out, perhaps. Authoritarianism is born of people holding their morals as truths. The whole post was a bit aggressive on my end. And then I ended up waxing poetic on Descartes. I was on a heater that night. But if you're actually reading my point rather than trying to win an internet argument on some technicality or strawman, you'll see I'm not falsifying the context. Anyway that's all, you've deflected enough to get me to write all that; my actual point here was that "6% more modern philosophers agree that morality is objective reality" was actually the single worst argument EVER made in favor of objective reality. Objectively bad. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Woman with a penis wants you to explain something to them. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That part doesn't irk me, daruisgriffin can see herself in whatever way makes her happy. It's easy enough for me to use a pronoun (whether I believe it or not) and takes nothing out of me, personally. I guess I do draw the line at some of the crazier pronouns though, I don't wanna feel like a total clown saying it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
French man wants to control your speech and commonsense. But ignore that, concentrate on some rarefied sphere of philosophy in an argument you can't win. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sometimes it's easier and better to just yield a bit of control to another person on an individual basis. That's just my take anyway. I'm far less inclined to want to do that for groups or the government though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
And yes there is no winning in philosophy. dariusgriffen we can settle this in a round of Team Fortress 2 or Quake 2. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
she doesn't have a penis dude |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but do you have foreskin is what i want to know |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you have to get it snipped you know... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
shhh don't ruin his fantasy |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
also to be clear it doesn't matter what you and i believe or want: i'm physically, socially and legally a woman and i'm not compelling anyone to treat me as such. it's just my material reality. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You're not. You're confused. Legally in France I imagine I could marry my cat. A french doctor would let me believe what I wanted. I wouldn't mistake you for a woman. I don't wish you any harm, at all. I would ask you and your activist friends to move back from women's spaces. Stop attacking women. Stop being a massive entitled man that's uncomfortable that women have the right to their own space and identity and reality. Because you mix with the worst kind of cosplay, fetishist pervert that we all have to accept. And it's not a good look. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Babe you don't know what you're talking about. I'm just a person, not the avatar of a concept that you need to spew automatically generated text at. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*makes scissor motion with fingers* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's time for the brit milah |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
How could morality be objective? Can someone elaborate on that? Whatever x% of which ever population think is true is meaningless to me if they cant come up with an argument for us to take apart. As I understand it morality is not only not objective, but not even universal for all subjects. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You can view it as something close to logical truth. It doesn't mean that any currently existing ethical system is necessarily right, but it posits that there are such things as moral problems that have correct solutions. It's an epistemological thing, not an ontological one. Though I'm not sure it's a very meaningful distinction (but if pressed and even though it's unknowable and it feels weird either way I'll admit that no I don't believe that logic and morality are ontologically real). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
guys, morality is objective because buildings objectively exist and the building says don't be racist |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
more is needed to claim objectivity we call time (and space) objective even when its not but we do so because of how strongly and unequivocally it permeates our intuition: even if time is subjective there is no abstract choice to be made regarding the experience of time by the subject. morality is an abstraction and so its bound to fit every subject differently because no 2 are made the same in regards of what they know. if we look at it as "right solutions" we are faced with more subjectivity, as solutions can only exist if there is a problem and a problem can only exist for a subject but as very subject is made differently (some have claws, some are starving, some are in love) they problems are different, and so are their available solutions. would you say morality is as objective as hunger? how could I convince a tiger not to use its claws to tear me apart and eat me? for it thats the solution that springs immediately to its intuition. its only by thinking about it that youll find moral problems, but your only source of research for this is your own experience as a subject attached to a body. it that body was sufficiently different that would also change your set of problems and solutions |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm honestly not sure how that differs from logic! tigers don't seem capable of either (no offense to tigers i love you guyst) my claims would be something like: there are objective solutions in certain problem spaces. subjectivity is reducible, in theory if not in practice yet. it's appropriate to talk of moral fallacies just as logical fallacies. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thats the thing: logic is our claws, just as claws reap matter our abstraction reaps our intuitions of time and space (matter) into meaningful (suited to our problems) predictions some consider it immoral to engage in the reproduction of our species, which is to say to have children, but their logic makes no sense to a young couple in love how we have been predisposed to solve stuff is not our making or choice i do things the way i find they suit me the best and find it immoral to impose my solutions onto others. but thats just me, others do whatever; thats what is to be expected |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
