/lit/ - Literature

>>14154703
>attempting to refute him
Pathetic

*critiques you*

>>14154703based hoomer

>>14154703
The Based option is saying that Hume had a point but Kant was his refuting and refining disciple.

>>14154847
all of Western Philosophy, before and since, can be summarized as different people taking turns to BTFO plato.

>>14154847

>>14154703
>implying this never happened

nothing personnel goy

>>14155229
>the existence of pain refutes moral nihilism
atheists have reached max cope levels

>>14154703
>empiricism has never been refuted before

>>14155229
>tfw you knew from the thumbnail what it was

>>14155229
This makes me want to actually place my hand on a hot stove just out of spite

>>14155387
Surely Harris has abandoned the determinnism after seeing how childish it is.

>>14155387
Based, I had that thought too.

>>14154703

simulation theory.jpg

literally refutes everything

>>14155387
The lesson we learn is that nothing sucks so much as Diem's US backed regime in South Vietnam.

>>14154703
based

>>14155387
You confirmed his assertion by making the thought of agreeing with him your new stove.
Sam Harris wins again.

>>14154703
David Hume? More like Anal Fume haha

>>14154703
*blocks your path*

>>14154703
>ARGHHHH IM GONNNA HUMEEEEEEE

>>14155229

I may be retarded, but it seems like by simplifying things so much he says nothing at all. What is "suck"? Just limited to things that cause us pain? Pain itself is a good thing because it steers us away from further more severe danger. Sometimes putting your hand on a stove can be the better alternative, such as a child who benefits from learning a lesson instead of going on to put his hand on an electric fence. He says "better" solutions are ones that aren't zero-sum, but even "suck" is not zero sum. All you do by "avoiding pain" is giving it different form to be experienced at another time. Pain will be felt regardless of what anyone does in life. The better solution seems to me, not to strive for a world that sucks less, but to understand what suck is, and what suck would be a better fit for each individual person.

>>14154703
If All Philosophy Books except for Those written by Hume and Kant were lost, nothing would be lost.

Is induction a "problem"? If so, can it be overcome?

>>14154703
But did you understand him? People misunderstand him. Hume himself refutes the "Hume" of those who misunderstand him.

>>14154865
>Completes Kant's system and converts you to antinatalism.

Heh, nothing personal kid.

The problem with Hume and empiricism in general is that Hume's philosophy is empiricist, rather than analytic. He thinks that the best way to go about finding truth is to try to observe the world. In order to do that, however, one must make a few choices and use some criteria. One cannot be merely a naturalist, for example, because naturalism is about what is seen and not what is sensed or what is heard. One must make decisions about what is observed and not observe, and the decisions are not always easy.

One such decision is whether the observer is "subject to our knowledge and power." The question is whether the observer can be told what is known, for example, or whether they cannot be informed of what is possible. In this case, the question is not whether one can know the answers to a test question, for example. Rather, it is whether one can be told the answers to the question itself.

>>14154890
no

>>14155262
>>14155368
>>14155387
>>14157436
>literally no arguments
Ben Stiller wins again

>>14158457
maybe because there's barely an argument in the first place. it's eight tweets. the best you could do for him is call it a scientifically-masked sort of consequentialism, which isn't an illegitimate viewpoint but it isn't new either, and it doesn't BTFO Hume

>>14157436
>What is "suck"?

Not surprised KHV on /lit/ don't know.

>>14155229
How did Harris fail to realize in his fifth tweet that at best what his stove example proves is only that it ought not be the case that we experience things that 'suck'? This doesn't derive 'ought' from 'is' at all. It just establishes the existence of primitive normativity. We can consider whether that is right or wrong, but it's definitely not deriving 'ought' from 'is', like at all. Harris is such a fucking pseud.

>>14158677
I had a similar impression. It appeared he was deriving oughts from oughts.

There is no such thing as a moral obligation or "ought". Hume was absolutely right.

>>14155229
brainlet here: can someone explain what he's saying and why he's wrong?

>>14160100
See >>14158677 and >>14158751 directly above you.

>>14158677
The point is that any normative statement — or any abstract consideration of action — is always underwritten by a descriptive intent (avoiding outcomes that suck). We only reason about things because we first feel some way about them (our nature), and so the question of what is moral is only sensible in the context of that natural bias.

There are two ways to present this conclusion:
-The more accurate one, is that 'oughts' don't exist. Strictly speaking, there are no obligations, only consequences.
-Alternatively, we can grant 'oughts' the status of an abstract category which can be appreciated for its pragmatic utility, if not its accuracy in describing reality. Still, it's important to remember that this category is abstract and secondary to our natures (not preceding it).

>>14155229
fucking mongoloid

>>14154995
mfw when it's true

>>14155229
pop philosophy: a cancer story

>>14160543
>a descriptive intent (avoiding outcomes that suck).
To me this look like normatively-loaded evaluation though. There's no automatic reason why pain demands avoidance from us. My guess is you and/or Harris think a reduction can be made from normativity to a good/bad belonging to pleasure/pain, where the good sort of speaks out to you as if to tell you "seek me!" and the bad speaks out to you as if to tell you "avoid me!" but I'll be honest, this just feels like crystallizing normativity. Pain and pleasure become little crystals of normativity on this view. You mine normativity from them, but that's not to eliminate it.

>>14160649
Think about what I said. We only reason about things because we first feel some way about them. Nature doesn't need a reason... Nature precedes reason.

>>14160713
I've thought about things like your post for long, friend. I get your point perfectly, I'm explaining how I differ in my views. But for what it's worth,
>We only reason about things because we first feel some way about them
is more or less Hume's take on the matter too. That's his bit about reason being slave to the passions and morality being reducible to our emotions (he more or less founded emotivism). Hume was optimistic and believed that we all shared common moral feelings (such as a "natural" love of children) on the basis of which we could define some behaviors as immoral. I may not agree with Hume, but I feel you and probably Harris would benefit from giving Hume's Treatise a read if you haven't yet. It's a good book.

>>14155229
Wow this Sam Harris guy must be a real intellectual

>>14155568
Because he's too retarded to understand them.

>>14154703
It’s reasonable to hold a theory by inductive lights if we’ve run it through enough tests under a noetic coherence (Quine) structure. Our validity derived from what we had at hand to use in our tests to discover further unknowns, and to deduce and test testable predictions from those discoveries

>>14155229
>or personal bias
Do masochists who enjoy being tormented with hot irons refute his claim about what truly and objectively sucks, regardless of culture and personal bias?

>Conscious minds are natural phenomena. [...] if we were to learn everything about physics, chemistry, etc.
Why is physical reductionism the only option on his table to explain consciousness?

>If we *should* to do anything in this life
>What *ought* sentient beings like us do?
Why does he use an infinitive after "should" and he doesn't use it after "ought"? Can he not even grasp basic grammaticla rules?

>>14160713
Nature is a meme. Our nature is whatever we want it to be

>>14155229
"Moral realism and consequentialism is correct because it is logical bruh"
- Sam Harris

The Absolute state of Atheism

>>14161487
I can't believe I am agreeing with the cancer of this website, a snk /pol/tard

>>14155229
Number three is begging the question. If you want to prove moral realism, one of the premisses in the argument can't be a claim of moral realism.

>>14161637
Fedorah tipping modern atheism is cringe. Real men read based old atheists like Freud, Hume, Nietszche, Stirner, Epicurus, Russel(even though he is protoreddit).

>>14160770
Fair enough. My view is that there is sufficient overlap in the natures of people in a given collective for moral systems to work, so there is a consensus basis, but not a universal one (there will always be outliers, e.g. psychopaths).
Thanks for sharing your differing view, but doing so is of marginal use in a philosphical debate if you don't attempt to demonstrate its probability... If reason doesn't precede our natures, then 'normativity' is only an abstract extension of that nature.

>>14161487
No, because as you say yourself, masochists 'enjoy' their ideal. So it's only a problem if you believe morality is truly universal (maybe he does, but I don't).
Objective ≠ Universal

I would hasten to add though, that if your preferences are sufficiently maladaptive, then nature will tend to remove you and your value system from the equation. Nature is the final arbiter.

>Why is physical reductionism the only option on his table to explain consciousness?
Because there are no other actual explanations. Even if you don't agree with it, phsyical reductionism is specific and testable in its claims, whereas mystical/non-physical alternate views rely upon exclusively negative claims (we can't test or directly refer to them).

>>14161600
I think it's more likely that whatever we want derives from our nature. We certainly can't alter our nature to literally be "whatever we want." Or are you one of those tranny-enablers who actually thinks that chopping their dick off makes them a woman?
Even if we concede a feedback loop to a limited degree, it certainly starts with nature.

>>14154865
>>14156677
These

>>14162928
>We certainly can't alter our nature to literally be "whatever we want."
We absolutely can. This has happened many times throughout history. 30 years ago it wasn't in our nature to fap to traps on the Internet, now it is. We can define 'nature' which ever way we want, there is no metaphysical 'true' state of man

>>14155229
>1) there are no shoulds
>3) there are things that shouldn't happen
>a bunch of more steps I didn't read)
People take this retard seriously?

>>14163395
Nature may be fluid, but there are obvious limitations. I could never be omniscient no matter how advanced technology becomes. Can you 'define' your nature such that you no longer require food and water? As for the trap thing, I already noted that a feedback loop still starts with nature. You're very obviously wrong.

I'd say there is no 'metaphysical' anything.

>>14163555
>feedback loop still starts with nature
There is no 'nature' for anything to start with. What is this 'nature'? Where is it?

>>14163555
>Can you 'define' your nature such that you no longer require food and water?
Teenage girls do this literally all the time

>>14163439
Except that what 3) really says is 'there are things that actually suck'. This is true. Although I don't agree with the notion of universal preference (or universal morality), there are things that the majority of a collective would find 'sucky'.

>>14155229
>Valence is axiomatic
>Therefore you can conflate is and ought
What kind of meme philosophy bullshit is this.

>>14163663
Suck is just another way to say should not.

>>14163663
>there are things that the majority of a collective would find 'sucky'.
It doesn't matter how you dance around it, the trick is to show why we should avoid that which sucks

>>14163583
It is the physical quanta and their inherent limitations which constitute our universe. It's everywhere. It's you.

>>14163628
Sure, and if they stick with it then they die. Elegant proof that abstract redefinition alone can't circumvent basic requirements of our nature.

>>14163725
>they stick with it then they die
Then that was their nature, just like it was the nature of Bobby Sands. There is nothing you can point to and say 'this is human nature' which I will not be able to provide a counter example of someone who gladly did the contrary.
There is no 'nature' unless you define it to a meaningless extent like 'everything that has ever, or will, or currently exists' which you seem to already be conceding.

>>14154995
Plato didn't get everything right but he didn't get everything wrong, either.

>>14163694
No, it isn't — it's a way of expressing preference. The point of the thought experiment (although Stiller doesn't make it very well) is that the abstract notion of 'oughts' are generalized from preferences.

>>14163721
Depends on your notion of 'should'. Is there any cosmic reason why humans should avoid that which they find sucky? Of course not, but it's a stupid question, because reason doesn't precede nature.

On the other hand, if you view 'should' as an abstract cognitive tool — a strategy of analyzing, generalizing and formalizing our preferences into rules that enhance the survival/flourishing of collectives — then "we should avoid sucky things like extinction" makes complete sense (as this is a healthy, non-maladaptive bias to have). In other words, the social strategy of morality only exists to serve our collective survival/flourishing (or, we can just admit that 'oughts' don't exist in a strict sense).

>>14155229
Buried inside the smug brainletism, there's an actual existential point: an appeal to passions over any intellectual knowledge.

>>14163802
>evolutionary psychology
>appeal to nature
>utilitarianism

>>14163770
Depends on their intent, doesn't it? If they wanted to die, then they exploited their very real nature to achieve this outcome. If they didn't want to die, then they miscalculated the malleability of their nature.

Nature is fluid, and is a continuity extending from whatever the most fundamental state is to our macroscopic concerns. There's nothing meaningless about that observation, you're just doing mental gymastics to justify your untenable position. It is obvious that within the spectrum of nature, humans have a localized nature which is tangibly different from that of rocks.

>>14163836
Oh, I'm so sorry you don't like those things. Mea culpa.

>>14163840
It was their nature to do exactly what they did, calculation is irrelevent, and you still haven't shown its human nature to eat. Try again if you like
Pro tip dude, when you have to use phrases like 'it's obvious' and accuse your opponent of 'mental gymnastics' it kind of means you lost. Sorry

>>14163836
>evolutionary psychology
Wrong. Although his post is written to appeal to the microscopic, its contents are more closely related to memetic darwinism than it is evo psych.

>appeal to nature
Justify this accusation.

>>14163802
>>>14163694(You)
>No, it isn't — it's a way of expressing preference.
Which is another way of saying if you should or shouldn't do something. Why dance around it?

>>14163836
>psychology didn't evolve
Where did it come from then lmao

>>14163857
Indeed, it was their nature to do what they did, but depending upon their intent, you've only proven that a) it is human nature to die if you don't eat, or b) it is human nature to require food for survival. Nowhere in this hypothetical is the reality of a human nature thrown into doubt.

Pro-tip, maladaptive outliers are an aspect of nature (mutation).
Platinum-Pro-Tip, the existence of a spectrum does not preclude the existence of localization (pic related).

>>14163872
I'm not dancing at all. I've made it very plain that I don't think 'oughts' exist in any concrete sense. We can talk about the normative as an abstract category with pragmatic applications, but the category is ultimately an abstraction of preferences. You're either being disingenuous, or you're a little bit dumb.

>>14163882
The major problem with evopsych is that it does not account for the massive amounts of plasticity and environmental factors that change our psychologies.

Experiences of the senses play a massive role in shaping your psychology, our cognitions are based on dynamic connections between neurons, and firing potentials. This is *especially* true of the higher processes that are performed in the PFC. To assert that the mind is as dictated in function by genetics as the formation of bodily structures is reductive at best. Genetics do play a role, but not nearly as evolutionary psychology would like them to.

>>14163934
The plasticity of the mind is itself something that evolved in a specific way though, and it's not infinitely plastic. Much of what evopsych talks about is not PFC stuff anyway, but things like sexual attraction which are a lot more primal.

>>14163925
Normative is just another word for oughts. So are preferences. If anyone here is dumb it's you with your petty obfuscations.

>>14164229
Yes, I used a synonym, I didn't realize that was against the rules. Preferences are not equivalent, as they are concrete phenomena (biological impulses). Normative/oughts are only ideas (they are not concrete, only abstract), which are informed by those bioloigcal impulses. It seems "a little bit dumb" was an overly generous assessment.