/lit/ - Literature

>>5365000
What a delusional bubble you live in

>>5364024
What sort of professor asked that question?

>>5363914
That's like laughing at someone for being very good looking because they're "probably vapid". Stupid people should laugh at you

>>5355428
In any case, all moral systems are basically junk. Shit like that train problem that get posted are incoherent. Why? Because everything we are saying and doing can't be detached from the reality we are in. What's better, one person dying or five? Neither because no one is really dying. Sitting their with your imagination and working out these problems is worthless, because your imagination is not real. You can't run the same experiment twice and you can't run through the same thoughts. You can never have two identical situations. Attempting to codify morals into a system as such doesn't work then, the system will fail. It can be developed into a new system, but what that does mean is there is no way to think of a situation and determine "right" or "wrong" in symbols.

What right and wrong end up meaning is they are references to post hoc labeling of intro human phenomenon. They bear no absolute meaning on anything.

What should we do then? I mean, I'm digging through the past quite a bit right? But what should be done in the future? Well, frankly I have no clue and neither does anyone else. We can make inferences from phenomenon but we never get the authority to say what's right

>>5351181
The moral nihilist stance is incoherent. Do morals exist? Okay, before that question even makes sense we have to clarify exist. How do morals exist, and what is their existence?

We have moral objectivists "morals are absolute and unchanging." Iow morals exist outside of the physical realm, Platonism. Whoever says this needs to employ semiotics; since morals of this type transcend physical, they are by definition metaphysical, we can't observe them. Then, the problem isn't "the extra physical morals", it's how to describe them because we can't describe anything that isn't physical (tell it to Godfags already that our verbs and nouns are limited to physical or imagined space, wherein imagined space is necessarily an analogue of what's real). Of course, moral objectivism inevitably and inescapably leads to moral tautologies: "Murder is wrong. What is murder? Murder is killing that is wrong. How is it determined? By the subjectivity of individuals." So yes, you can make tautologically absolute statements, no shit, but a completely unambiguous moral calculator is impossible and thus moral objectivism is completely stupid. Or God judges me, in which case you have no agency to judge me anyhow.

But how does the nihilist view morals? He rejects moral objectivism but then says they don't exist. Well, sure, you can avoid objectivism but morals should be viewed phenomenologically. Morals are the names we give to phenomenon. IOW, morality forms as a weird complication of humanity, but then why do you say they don't exist at all? They are an active phenomenon in the world

But moral nihilism doesn't work, because you are not in control of you. You act morally. We all do, because that's what the phenomenon of morality is. It's how humans make decisions when face with disjunctions. Simply saying, "I can't find a good description for morals" doesn't mean you don't operate morally. You do. I do.

>>5354910
She stole that from George carlin, a SWM

>>5354878
From where does society come from? Is not society a sum of its individuals?

>>5354865
You're so lazy that you can't even parody, you just imply a parody?

How boring

>>5346625
There's nothing all that special in the history of philosophy. You only need to history to arrive at the proper context for later philosophy, but there's no end in itself unless you actually want to revive Augustine or whatnot.

Not one really is going to revive Leibniz or Descartes, I'm sorry

>>5346488
Which is, ironically, the entire study of metaethics, or that big modern analytic thing that fedoras ignore because they believe they can dismiss an entire school based on no argument or actual knowledge of the topic whatsoever

>>5346385
So here's the timeline of events

>hey guys I'm a Christian look how stupid I am
>fuck off
>fedora tippers!
>fuck off
so then you think and decide you should mockingly post this

You're so stupid I can't even articulate words to express how pathetic you are. No one cares about your religion here and your shitposting is the worst, least original tripe

>>5346243
It never had meaning

>>5346225
Harris makes some good arguments, just like many people made some good arguments. Just because history tends to filter out much of the moronic shit people say doesn't mean someone like Aquinas didn't give stupid arguments

>>5346625
Actually anon, your illiteracy doesn't mean you can dismiss "neuroscience" offhand just because you read a book on the philosophy of science or consciousness

>>5346206
And then there's idiots like you that think "a debate" means the topic is undecided

Don't you have church to go to? Bible study?

>>5351159
Why are you whining? No one likes whiners

>>5350107
That's because /lit/ is too busy being wannabe critics to understand what lies beyond being a jackass

>>5349401
You do realize logic is a broad term that covers many types of argument, right?

Not all logics are deductive syllogisms.

>>5348068
>math
>schedule this semester;
Lin alg, stat, logic, general chem, and intro to literature

19 units fuck yah

>>5347821
>2014
>working in the panoptilibrary

Fucking lel m8

>>5345569
I thought this was common knowledge in 2014?

>>5344530
Stop being so dense. Punishment itself is a "should", but whether Genghis Khan was good or not doesn't matter. Do you understand?

>>5344415
Butterfly you have seem to forget that labeling the past is the least valuable or useful aspect of ethics, ethics are primarily about future hypotheticals

>>5344033
You're right, but he asked the simple "what should I do," and there's no way we can answer that. Which is kind of my point