Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » Who Do You Guys Think Are The Top Philosophers And Their Lessons? (80K)
  1. Results 91 to 120 of 196
  2. Page 4 of 7
  3. First
  5. 2
  6. 3
  7. 4
  8. 5
  9. 6
  11. Last

Thread: Who Do You Guys Think Are The Top Philosophers And Their Lessons? (80K)

post 1586247441 08-19-2019, 11:43 AM
-
#91
  1. Madvillainy
  2. Registered User
  1. Madvillainy
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2012
  4. Posts: 17,866
  5. Rep Power: 62491
time magazine just updated their philosopher power rankings and had aristotle at #1. honestly tho i think it's BS, it was so much easier to stand out back in the day. if aristotle had to compete against 20th century philosophers he woulda got wrecked.
Official Misc Straight Crew (90% straight and up)
post 1586247481 08-19-2019, 11:44 AM
-
#92
  1. Travis99
  2. Philosophy Crew
  1. Travis99
  2. Philosophy Crew
  3. Join Date: Jul 2011
  4. Posts: 12,076
  5. Rep Power: 81603
If you live like as Jordan Peterson describes by adopting ultimate responsibility but then looking at whether or not that is achieved like Alan Watts.

Well that gets me through. And neither of those guys came up with their philosophies, they are just repeating what has been said for as long as we know. Just in a way that’s in better relation to the things of today.
There is no they…
post 1586247601 08-19-2019, 11:46 AM
-
#93
  1. Travis99
  2. Philosophy Crew
  1. Travis99
  2. Philosophy Crew
  3. Join Date: Jul 2011
  4. Posts: 12,076
  5. Rep Power: 81603
Originally Posted By AltarOfPlagues⏩
theres a nietzscheanism "wisdom places bounds on knowledge"
Interesting. Nietzsche actually saved my life.

What book can I find that in?
There is no they…
post 1586247761 08-19-2019, 11:49 AM
-
#94
  1. Travis99
  2. Philosophy Crew
  1. Travis99
  2. Philosophy Crew
  3. Join Date: Jul 2011
  4. Posts: 12,076
  5. Rep Power: 81603
I often get ridiculed by people because I look at some things so deep. Some people say nobody cares that much, you take things too far. Or the famous blank stare.

I feel like there’s not many people that like to discuss these deep deep topics. And they fill my head 75% of the time.
There is no they…
post 1586247771 08-19-2019, 11:50 AM
-
#95
  1. BetaAsPhuck
  2. Wage Cuckin' It
  1. BetaAsPhuck
  2. Wage Cuckin' It
  3. Join Date: Mar 2014
  4. Posts: 34,506
  5. Rep Power: 127306
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
Nothing in biology contradicts physics, and math is more than numbers fyi. "Math believer?!" Is there anyone who doesn't believe math?!
What I think you are trying to say, and trying to accuse you of, is believing in Scientism/Logic Positivism...

"Logical positivism, later called logical empiricism, and both of which together are also known as neopositivism, was a movement in Western philosophy whose central thesis was the verification principle (also known as the verifiability criterion of meaning). Also called verificationism, this would-be theory of knowledge asserted that only statements verifiable through direct observation or logical proof are meaningful."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

"Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. The term scientism is generally used critically, pointing to the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I think he used math as a means of accusing you of holding that position.
If You Don't Like To Talk About Your Feelings, This Might Help...
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178926621

The Most Heartbreaking Thing That I've Learned About 'The Elite'.
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178536851

Bitcoin And 'The Elite' - Why Bitcoin Is Not Revolutionary
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=179820783
post 1586248061 08-19-2019, 11:56 AM
-
#96
  1. BetaAsPhuck
  2. Wage Cuckin' It
  1. BetaAsPhuck
  2. Wage Cuckin' It
  3. Join Date: Mar 2014
  4. Posts: 34,506
  5. Rep Power: 127306
Originally Posted By Madvillainy⏩
time magazine just updated their philosopher power rankings and had aristotle at #1. honestly tho i think it's BS, it was so much easier to stand out back in the day. if aristotle had to compete against 20th century philosophers he woulda got wrecked.
However, like they argue (regardingpowerranking)...

20th century philosophers probably wouldn't have the positions they have, without Aristotle.

Aristole is the creator of the syllogism, and the concept of logical fallacies, and both have heavily shaped Western Philosophy.
If You Don't Like To Talk About Your Feelings, This Might Help...
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178926621

The Most Heartbreaking Thing That I've Learned About 'The Elite'.
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178536851

Bitcoin And 'The Elite' - Why Bitcoin Is Not Revolutionary
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=179820783
post 1586248161 08-19-2019, 11:57 AM
-
#97
  1. jlick
  2. Unregistered User
  1. jlick
  2. Unregistered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2007
  4. Posts: 13,428
  5. Rep Power: 57947
Originally Posted By Travis99⏩
I guess I’ve read so much that is so plausible much of which is contrary to the other; personally I have have learned enough to know that I can not know.


What helps me deal with whatever this thing we call life is about a 50/50 mix between Alan Watts and Jordan Peterson

But that is just a brief limited description. Both of those guys can be found on youtube.
Reps for Alan Watts. He's my favorite philosopher.
-You are only as strong as your weakest link-
post 1586248271 08-19-2019, 11:59 AM
-
#98
  1. AltarOfPlagues
  2. yerrrrrrrr meh?
  1. AltarOfPlagues
  2. yerrrrrrrr meh?
  3. Join Date: Oct 2015
  4. Posts: 14,613
  5. Rep Power: 136737
Originally Posted By Travis99⏩
Interesting. Nietzsche actually saved my life.

What book can I find that in?
its in a deep cut i think, like why i am so wise.

edit-

Die Weisheit zieht auch der Erkenntniss Grenzen.
Wisdom sets bounds even to knowledge.
“Maxims and Arrows,” § 1.5
do not read my posts and weep, i am not there i do not sleep
i am the thousand greens that rep, i am the ban bet dutifully kept
of memes and trolls in toasted breads, i am not there, i am not dead.
post 1586248561 08-19-2019, 12:03 PM
-
#99
  1. propreffered7
  2. Registered User
  1. propreffered7
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2010
  4. Posts: 36,839
  5. Rep Power: 86393
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
Quarks are not "smaller" than electrons fyi.

Electrons and quarks, for our purposes, are point particles. Electrons have far less mass...

I believe in approximate determinism. Fundamentally, outcomes are random due to quantum theory. I believe in the idea that all particles have "free will" in the sense of them having outcomes not a function of their pasts. But that is a far cry from philosophical free will in the sense of a consciousness allowing autonomous action to influence these outcomes.

Nothing in biology contradicts physics, and math is more than numbers fyi. "Math believer?!" Is there anyone who doesn't believe math?!
Cherry picking.

No, physics or math dont contradict bio, but knowing math doesnt help someone coming into the er with a severed artery and whatever other complications and applying a specific medicine that interacts with the body in such a way. Or addressing some unknown bacteria thats never been seen before.

And yes, i know, later you can step back to quantify it in some regard.

So..how does math explain the qualia of consciousness is my point? And i know its not quantitative.. Thats also the point

Im not claiming not to believe in math. Just that it has the aforementioned pitfalls

Edit: in that same way i believe you try to apply your math knowledge to areas in which you dont know
post 1586248961 08-19-2019, 12:11 PM
-
#100
  1. Travis99
  2. Philosophy Crew
  1. Travis99
  2. Philosophy Crew
  3. Join Date: Jul 2011
  4. Posts: 12,076
  5. Rep Power: 81603
Originally Posted By AltarOfPlagues⏩
its in a deep cut i think, like why i am so wise.
Ok, that’s kind of what I was taking it as.




I did a presentation at work the other day on “the monster at the end of this book”

And how we can all be the monsters at the end of our own books. It was for about 150 people and about 40 minutes long. Although I could have went much longer. I got a lot of good feedback, but some people where just like “wut”

I wrote this out
If anyone knows me they know I love to read. And all these injunctions I've just laid out correlate to one of my favorite books. It's a deep, deep philosophical book and I'll explain the basics of it right now.

The staring character is the lovable, fury Grover, and the title is The Monster at the End of This Book. Now it starts off with Grover realizing there is a monster that he's going to meet if you make it to the last page of this book. So he starts to get nervous and asks not to go any further.

But life happens and you turn the page and Grover is stunned. He can't believe you are bringing him closer to something he is so scared of. Now, Grover starts putting up barricades, but you easily tear through barricades, and sometimes you make quite the mess which makes Grover angry. Page after page you bring Grover to his greatest fear. Even though the barricades become stronger and stronger.

Finally you one page away from the revolution of this monster. And this is when Grover is most scared. But it's in your nature and you can't help but turning to the last page. And there it is, Grover himself is the monster. The monster that caused all of his fear, anger and anxiety.

And if we look at what causes our anger, fear and anxiety, we are the monster at the end of our own books. And if we realize it is within our control, we can have wear withal to withstand some of our greatest fears.

The barricades we try to erect to keep us from realizing we are the actual monster, the actual creator of our own problems are weak and will fall apart as easy as turning a page in a book. No matter what you do, that thing inhabits you. You can control it, or it will control you. But first you must realize that it dwells within you.

You try to hide it from the world but the vail falls quickly. The only one who remains oblivious to its existence is you.
And I improvised and talked on the fly. But that’s what I got across.
There is no they…
post 1586249161 08-19-2019, 12:14 PM
-
#101
  1. Shortfuze
  2. "Your one f*ck fantasy"
  1. Shortfuze
  2. "Your one f*ck fantasy"
  3. Join Date: Feb 2004
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 31,897
  6. Rep Power: 179945
Osho's philosophy: "If you want to get over an addiction then indulge in that activity so much that you get sick of it and then you won't ever want to do it again"
*Simplicity is the key to life*

Thanks ZBlacktt for the mod rep!
Thanks ForumSentinel for the admin rep!
Thanks Gxp23 for the mod rep!
Thanks 400LB Gorilla for the mod rep!
Thanks CountryMike for admin rep!
Thanks Nics1246 for mod rep!

I got married on August 24, 2013!!
ლ(╹◡╹ლ)
post 1586249261 08-19-2019, 12:15 PM
-
#102
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By propreffered7⏩
Cherry picking.

No, physics or math dont contradict bio, but knowing math doesnt help someone coming into the er with a severed artery and whatever other complications and applying a specific medicine that interacts with the body in such a way. Or addressing some unknown bacteria thats never been seen before.

And yes, i know, later you can step back to quantify it in some regard.

So..how does math explain the qualia of consciousness is my point? And i know its not quantitative.. Thats also the point

Im not claiming not to believe in math. Just that it has the aforementioned pitfalls

Edit: in that same way i believe you try to apply your math knowledge to areas in which you dont know
I have studied biology.

The nature of consciousness is poorly understood (not just to me, but to everyone). But your brain is a physical system.

What do you mean cherry picking? I addressed what I saw that was glaringly wrong in your post.

There are no pitfalls to math. If you use any form of reasoning, you are using math. Math involves making definitions and deducing relationships between defined terms. You can see how it applies universally to both cases you mentioned.

If you are deducing anything logically ever, u are using math. Also, more detailed quantitative reasoning and statistical analysis is necessary for any field.

Anyway, this has dick to do with the issue I brought up about philosophy being mostly bs.
post 1586251461 08-19-2019, 12:46 PM
-
#103
  1. BetaAsPhuck
  2. Wage Cuckin' It
  1. BetaAsPhuck
  2. Wage Cuckin' It
  3. Join Date: Mar 2014
  4. Posts: 34,506
  5. Rep Power: 127306
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
I have studied biology.

The nature of consciousness is poorly understood (not just to me, but to everyone). But your brain is a physical system.
Have you done any research into 'Veridical Near Death Experiences'?

(Near Death Experiencers where for example medical procedures, and the people who performed them, are accurately described by people who were clinically dead at the time?)

A book I got through the post the other day about it;The Self Does Not Die; Verified Parnanormal Phenomena from Near Death Experiences By Titus Rivas, Anny Dirven, Rudolf H Smith

A book written by a Cardiologist that I plan on getting presents the Philosophical Naturalist explanation (Hallucination of a Dying brain), and criticizes why that can't account for a number of Near Death Experience Cases....Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience By Pim Van Lommel

If you haven't, and you like reading, I'd be curious what you conclude after reading their collective arguments.

I'm not saying you are necessary going to be inclined to no longer believe that the brain creates consciousness, but you might be more Agnostic on that position. )
If You Don't Like To Talk About Your Feelings, This Might Help...
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178926621

The Most Heartbreaking Thing That I've Learned About 'The Elite'.
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178536851

Bitcoin And 'The Elite' - Why Bitcoin Is Not Revolutionary
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=179820783
post 1586252441 08-19-2019, 12:59 PM
-
#104
  1. Travis99
  2. Philosophy Crew
  1. Travis99
  2. Philosophy Crew
  3. Join Date: Jul 2011
  4. Posts: 12,076
  5. Rep Power: 81603
Originally Posted By OPGenesis⏩
Not a commie, but I think Karl Marx was one of the most brilliant people to walk the earth.

His analysis of capitalism was pure genius.






“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”

― Karl Marx, The German Ideology / Theses on Feuerbach / Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy
All systems end up like that. I’m not saying all his ideas were completely wrong. The idea of community is a good one. But he left out so many crucial aspects of life it’s no wonder his ideology failed so horribly.
There is no they…
post 1586253921 08-19-2019, 01:19 PM
-
#105
  1. AltarOfPlagues
  2. yerrrrrrrr meh?
  1. AltarOfPlagues
  2. yerrrrrrrr meh?
  3. Join Date: Oct 2015
  4. Posts: 14,613
  5. Rep Power: 136737
top worst brainlet philsophical miscers

1. wincel, for having never cracked a book on philosophy, yet possessing and extreme willingness to discuss his idea that "philosophy is bs". appears to have seen a secondary youtube video on jaques derrida, probably by jordan peterson.

2. betaasphuck, for believing a near death experience is worth mentioning in any way shape or form. appears to think that rare personal reports of the unconscious state of near death is provably more than psychedelic experience.

i would like to thank u two for reminding everyone that this is the misc and that it is not a place to learn actual information, so kudos for keeping us grounded.
do not read my posts and weep, i am not there i do not sleep
i am the thousand greens that rep, i am the ban bet dutifully kept
of memes and trolls in toasted breads, i am not there, i am not dead.
post 1586254391 08-19-2019, 01:26 PM
-
#106
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By BetaAsPhuck⏩
What I think you are trying to say, and trying to accuse you of, is believing in Scientism/Logic Positivism...

"Logical positivism, later called logical empiricism, and both of which together are also known as neopositivism, was a movement in Western philosophy whose central thesis was the verification principle (also known as the verifiability criterion of meaning). Also called verificationism, this would-be theory of knowledge asserted that only statements verifiable through direct observation or logical proof are meaningful."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

"Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. The term scientism is generally used critically, pointing to the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I think he used math as a means of accusing you of holding that position.
I don't see how normative judgments could ever be informed by science. Science seems completely agnostic on that. We could maybe infer that some behaviors lead to certain outcomes or perhaps use math to determine optimal strategies given certain assumptions, but those assumptions are still freely chosen.
post 1586255081 08-19-2019, 01:35 PM
-
#107
  1. BetaAsPhuck
  2. Wage Cuckin' It
  1. BetaAsPhuck
  2. Wage Cuckin' It
  3. Join Date: Mar 2014
  4. Posts: 34,506
  5. Rep Power: 127306
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
I don't see how normative judgments could ever be informed by science. Science seems completely agnostic on that. We could maybe infer that some behaviors lead to certain outcomes or perhaps use math to determine optimal strategies given certain assumptions, but those assumptions are still freely chosen.
Sam Harris makes the case that although the fundamental ethical objective can't be derived from the scientific method, the scientific method can inform us of the best means to achieve that objective.

I think that partially he is correct, but applying pure science to say the objective of maximizing human happiness and health, would probably end up with us practicing eugenics. Because it would arguably be a purely long term pragmatic approach to the problem of suffering ("on a long enough timeline, what happened won't affect the population,and it will be normalized... So why not Eugenics?").
If You Don't Like To Talk About Your Feelings, This Might Help...
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178926621

The Most Heartbreaking Thing That I've Learned About 'The Elite'.
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178536851

Bitcoin And 'The Elite' - Why Bitcoin Is Not Revolutionary
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=179820783
post 1586255221 08-19-2019, 01:37 PM
-
#108
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By AltarOfPlagues⏩
top worst brainlet philsophical miscers

1. wincel, for having never cracked a book on philosophy, yet possessing and extreme willingness to discuss his idea that "philosophy is bs". appears to have seen a secondary youtube video on jaques derrida, probably by jordan peterson.

2. betaasphuck, for believing a near death experience is worth mentioning in any way shape or form. appears to think that rare personal reports of the unconscious state of near death is provably more than psychedelic experience.

i would like to thank u two for reminding everyone that this is the misc and that it is not a place to learn actual information, so kudos for keeping us grounded.
http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f13/DrrdaSSP.pdf

Read that and then look up category theory. Tell me how category theory doesn't supersede everything he is talking about that isn't bs. The rest of it is bs.
post 1586255251 08-19-2019, 01:37 PM
-
#109
  1. kingmanaverage
  2. Terrible poster
  1. kingmanaverage
  2. Terrible poster
  3. Join Date: Dec 2013
  4. Posts: 15,250
  5. Rep Power: 107906
Rudyrude

He taught us that it was all about the face srs
“Steroids is now just a word that the lazy and ignorant use to describe any guy that has more muscle and dedication than them”– Mike O'Hearn


"I am like getting the feeling of cumming in the gym; I'm getting the feeling of cumming at home; I'm getting the feeling of cumming backstage; when I pump up, when I pose out in front of 5000 people I get the same feeling, so I am cumming day and night. It's terrific, right? So you know, I am in heaven."
post 1586255721 08-19-2019, 01:44 PM
-
#110
  1. AltarOfPlagues
  2. yerrrrrrrr meh?
  1. AltarOfPlagues
  2. yerrrrrrrr meh?
  3. Join Date: Oct 2015
  4. Posts: 14,613
  5. Rep Power: 136737
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f13/DrrdaSSP.pdf

Read that and then look up category theory. Tell me how category theory doesn't supersede everything he is talking about.
derrida being an anti-structuralist (if you like) does not make philosophy mostly bs. there are, if you can believe it, more philosophers than JD.

you're idea that an ethical framework can have no truly objective grounding (without significant backing, eg expressivist philosophy or intersujectivism etc etc.) suggests a grotesque brotier level of grasp of 21st century metaethics.

this is not remotely surprising coming from you.
do not read my posts and weep, i am not there i do not sleep
i am the thousand greens that rep, i am the ban bet dutifully kept
of memes and trolls in toasted breads, i am not there, i am not dead.
post 1586255821 08-19-2019, 01:46 PM
-
#111
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By BetaAsPhuck⏩
Sam Harris makes the case that although the fundamental ethical objective can't be derived from the scientific method, the scientific method can inform us of the best means to achieve that objective.

I think that partially he is correct, but applying pure science to say the objective of maximizing human happiness and health, would probably end up with us practicing eugenics. Because it would arguably be a purely long term pragmatic approach to the problem of suffering ("on a long enough timeline, what happened won't affect the population,and it will be normalized... So why not Eugenics?").
We still have to choose how we define the social welfare function. So, Harris is kind of wrong.
post 1586255881 08-19-2019, 01:47 PM
-
#112
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By AltarOfPlagues⏩
derrida being an anti-structuralist (if you like) does not make philosophy mostly bs. there are, if you can believe it, more philosophers than JD.

you're idea that an ethical framework can have no truly objective grounding (without significant backing, eg expressivist philosophy or intersujectivism etc etc.) suggests a grotesque brotier level of grasp of 21st century metaethics.

this is not remotely surprising coming from you.
I'm using him as an example of what philosophy has become. There are still respectable areas of philosophy, such as formal logic, which can also be viewed as math. Good philosophy is usually math.

You can call my perspective grotesque, but people can take any moral axioms they want and then use them to justify any course of action. There is no objective indicator of how to build our ethics. The most popular frameworks were features of evolution that aided in our collective survival and reproduction. Stuff like the golden rule and tit for tat interaction has been shown to be an evolutionarily stable strategy. But if you are choosing arguments about how "best" to behave, you're implicitly choosing a set of criteria to judge this, and it is not universal. Someone else can choose different criteria and arrive at different conclusions from you.


btw


you're idea that an ethical framework can have no truly objective grounding (without significant backing, eg expressivist philosophy or intersujectivism etc etc.) suggests a grotesque brotier level of grasp of 21st century metaethics.

is the funniest chit i have read...I had to look up "brotier" to realize u meant "bro tier"


The significant backing is the fact that you have to choose axioms, numbnuts.
post 1586256051 08-19-2019, 01:49 PM
-
#113
  1. AltarOfPlagues
  2. yerrrrrrrr meh?
  1. AltarOfPlagues
  2. yerrrrrrrr meh?
  3. Join Date: Oct 2015
  4. Posts: 14,613
  5. Rep Power: 136737
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
Good philosophy is usually math.
at this point, im convinced you are a figment of my imagination.
do not read my posts and weep, i am not there i do not sleep
i am the thousand greens that rep, i am the ban bet dutifully kept
of memes and trolls in toasted breads, i am not there, i am not dead.
post 1586257391 08-19-2019, 02:05 PM
-
#114
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By AltarOfPlagues⏩
at this point, im convinced you are a figment of my imagination.
I can't convince you otherwise bruh. Dat dere philosophy.
post 1586257631 08-19-2019, 02:09 PM
-
#115
  1. FailedPotential
  2. Registered User
  1. FailedPotential
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2014
  4. Posts: 14,376
  5. Rep Power: 59586
All sense of ethics, or wanting to be ethical stems from emotion, even if you rationalise the reason for your behaviour, and conclude that way of being is best for society(or whatever), the root of it all is still your emotional desire to 'be' that way.

So the root of all debates on such topic will, at it's root, be "Because I feel like it". If you come to a conclusion that doesn't point to that, you haven't yet found the root.
Fak U say? Cheeky kent ya, i'll fakin fak ya, ya lil sloot
post 1586257991 08-19-2019, 02:15 PM
-
#116
  1. BetaAsPhuck
  2. Wage Cuckin' It
  1. BetaAsPhuck
  2. Wage Cuckin' It
  3. Join Date: Mar 2014
  4. Posts: 34,506
  5. Rep Power: 127306
Originally Posted By AltarOfPlagues⏩
you're idea that an ethical framework can have no truly objective grounding (without significant backing, eg expressivist philosophy or intersujectivism etc etc.) suggests a grotesque brotier level of grasp of 21st century metaethics. .
Can you summarize the most popular meta-ethics positions of the 21st century? (Genuine question, I haven't looked into it in a while.)

Best answers I read in response to the Is-Ought problem was the position of Ethical Naturalists, and the standard utilitarian and consequentialist arguments.
If You Don't Like To Talk About Your Feelings, This Might Help...
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178926621

The Most Heartbreaking Thing That I've Learned About 'The Elite'.
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178536851

Bitcoin And 'The Elite' - Why Bitcoin Is Not Revolutionary
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=179820783
post 1586258091 08-19-2019, 02:16 PM
-
#117
  1. BetaAsPhuck
  2. Wage Cuckin' It
  1. BetaAsPhuck
  2. Wage Cuckin' It
  3. Join Date: Mar 2014
  4. Posts: 34,506
  5. Rep Power: 127306
Originally Posted By FailedPotential⏩
All sense of ethics, or wanting to be ethical stems from emotion, even if you rationalise the reason for your behaviour, and conclude that way of being is best for society(or whatever), the root of it all is still your emotional desire to 'be' that way.

So the root of all debates on such topic will, at it's root, be "Because I feel like it". If you come to a conclusion that doesn't point to that, you haven't yet found the root.
That's the meta-ethics is-ought problem, in simple language (with a seemingly philosophical naturalist presupposition).
If You Don't Like To Talk About Your Feelings, This Might Help...
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178926621

The Most Heartbreaking Thing That I've Learned About 'The Elite'.
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178536851

Bitcoin And 'The Elite' - Why Bitcoin Is Not Revolutionary
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=179820783
post 1586258211 08-19-2019, 02:17 PM
-
#118
  1. AltarOfPlagues
  2. yerrrrrrrr meh?
  1. AltarOfPlagues
  2. yerrrrrrrr meh?
  3. Join Date: Oct 2015
  4. Posts: 14,613
  5. Rep Power: 136737
Originally Posted By BetaAsPhuck⏩
Can you summarize the most popular meta-ethics positions of the 21st century? (Genuine question, I haven't looked into it in a while.)

Best answer I read in repsonse to the Is-Ought problem was the position of Ethical Naturalism, and the standard utilitarian and consequentialist arguments.
maybe moral realism a la heumer and cuneo

https://philpapers.org/archive/HUEAOP.pdf

it is possible that morality aint real, but i think it is not a currently a popular position.

you have to stop reading about people's near death experiences brah. it's like holding a magnet up to a tube tv and thinkin there are rainbows inside of it. take it at face value- the brain does odd things when it is dying.


edit

The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism
Terence Cuneo
ABSTRACT
Antirealist views about morality claim that moral facts do not exist. An interesting question to raise about these views is whether they imply that other types of normative facts, such as epistemic facts, do not exist. This book develops the argument that they do. That is, it contends that moral and epistemic facts are sufficiently similar that, if moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts also do not exist. But epistemic facts (facts that concern reasons for belief), it is argued, do exist. So, moral facts also exist. And if moral facts exist, then moral realism is true. This argument provides not simply a defence of a robustly realist view of ethics, but a positive argument for this position. In so doing, it engages with sophisticated sceptical positions in epistemology, such as error theories, expressivist views, and reductionist views of epistemic reasons. These positions, it is claimed, come at a high theoretical cost. It follows that realism about both epistemic and moral facts is a position that we should find highly attractive.
do not read my posts and weep, i am not there i do not sleep
i am the thousand greens that rep, i am the ban bet dutifully kept
of memes and trolls in toasted breads, i am not there, i am not dead.
post 1586258531 08-19-2019, 02:21 PM
-
#119
  1. Silencespeaks
  2. Banned
  1. Silencespeaks
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2015
  4. Posts: 114,138
  5. Rep Power: 0
Post deleted by user
post 1586258941 08-19-2019, 02:28 PM
-
#120
  1. KingKringe
  2. To the Lost.
  1. KingKringe
  2. To the Lost.
  3. Join Date: Aug 2014
  4. Posts: 18,517
  5. Rep Power: 28654
1 - St. Hamudi

2 - Whoever came up with the term sloots gona sloot.

3 - Vanila latte.
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts