Philosophy is stupid

[Anonymous No.22199912]

The is-ought gap was already overcome by Harris in The Moral Landscape and science can give us values. Instead of studying philosophy, reading the dusty screeds of Plato and making vapid speculations, we should be studying PHYSICS and BIOLOGY in order to discover new ways to reduce suffering in the world. Science won, Hume has been vanquished, all of your philosophers will he forgotten.
Besides, metaphysics has been BTFO and replaced by physics. What discoveries have 'metaphysicians' made in the last 50 years? Wasting manpower interpreting Kant and Hegel? Wasting time in their little corners that analytic philosophy still grants but which science will still supersede?
Sciencechads get the last laugh, philosofags

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.22199926]

Terrible b8

[Anonymous No.22199931]

Baron d'Holbach called, he wants his worldview back

You know, the one that caused Robespierre

[Anonymous No.22199958]

>>22199896

[Anonymous No.22199966]

>>22199912
>Harris
Shut up, retard.

[Anonymous No.22199971]

Is this guy serious? Wikipedia says he has a PhD from UCLA and is a highly regarded philosopher. Is he just being retarded to lie? What is this?

[Anonymous No.22199975]

>>22199971
He has some decent ideas and I find his talks interesting but I wouldn't call him a philosopher

[Anonymous No.22199982]

>>22199971
They give PhDs to anybody these days, even tons of women have them now.

[Anonymous No.22200213]

>>22199971
This is his mom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Harris

[Anonymous No.22200367]

>>22199975
His Wikipedia calls him a philosopher and he comments on logic and is-ought gaps, seemingly professionally. most people would call that a philosopher. But you’re right. It’s more likely that he’s a funded propagandist, since no one with a philosophy PhD could be this dumb/ignorant.

[Anonymous No.22200375]

This woman is his relative btw

[Anonymous No.22200388]

>>22200375
Is there a bigger psyop than shaving your pubes? Oh, guess I have to buy a manscaped razor with my racist podcast promo code now!

[Anonymous No.22200390]

>>22200388
>everything is le psyop!
meds

[Anonymous No.22200415]

Nobody can actually refute Harris. The fact is that human beings exist, and all action is motivated by desire. You don't need to ask "why should I fulfill this desire?" because the word "desire" refers to something you want to fulfill. The entire use of the word "ought" is in reference to maximizing the fulfillment of desire across time, for example, essentially all people desire not to be in constant pain, therefore you ought to go to the dentist even though it's painful because it will reduce greater pain later, or you ought to be a functional member of society because generally it will help you meet more desires over the long term (which leads into game theory). Now, before anyone imagines that I am being too reductionist, it's true these systems become incredibly complex, and thus feelings such as dignity, solidarity, love, community, these things become desirable in and of themselves, even though their true basis is a selfish calculation in game theory. These things can be true simultaneously.

[Anonymous No.22200422]

>>22200415
> Nobody can actually refute Harris
He’s been refuted numerous times and not only here, also in other websites

[Anonymous No.22200437]

>>22200422
How so? As I stated, desire and pleasure exist as part of the system by which living beings are moved to action. You will desire things. You will desire pleasure. "Ought" serves the function of navigating the pursuit of these desires to maximize the outcome and also to co-exist with others to synergistically maximize the fulfillment of desires.

[Anonymous No.22200445]

>>22200390
meds are unironically the primary psyop

[Anonymous No.22200467]

>>22200415
Then why shouldn't one kill someone if it serves some convenience of let's say 10 people?
The summation of of fulfilled desire across time stops for the killed person, so it's no loss, and the rest profits.
Or... *should* we kill the inconvenient? You might bring up desire for survival, but then which desires trump which when we make "ought" judgements?

[Anonymous No.22200485]

>>22200445
Not even top 10

[Anonymous No.22200492]

[Anonymous No.22200510]

[Anonymous No.22200579]

>>22200467
Again, these are legitimate questions, and the answer lies in game theory. Let's take the classic hospital morality thought experiment. 10 patients are dying and need organ transplants. 1 healthy guy is in the waiting room for a checkup, and has the exact 10 organs that the dying patients need. Therefore, logically we should kill the healthy guy and save the 10 other patients, right? Wrong. The knock-on effect of this would be that every single person would live in constant terror that they would be seized and murdered for their organs, thus the structure and cohesion of society would collapse as everyone would seek to defend themselves first and foremost, and the net effect of such a policy would be catastrophe. Once again, we exist as living beings and have a strong innate drive for self preservation, combine this with a complex system such as society and we must be extremely careful about drastic interventions such as harming a perfectly healthy person in the name of some other principle. In short, the structure of society is of such great importance that it's difficult to even calculate, but it is worth more than the lives of a few people. This is where the complex layer comes into play, we know from a study of history how important it is to guarantee specific rights to individuals, and that if the "greater good" is used to justify the infringement of these rights it actually, in effect, damages the greater good. This is all consistent with the motive of maximizing the desires of all individuals in society within reason.

[Anonymous No.22200588]

>>22200415
He starts with a fallacy and makes assumptions from which the conclusion follows at multiple points as if those assumptions are axiomatic. The guy actually makes a value judgement in 3 but whether he can make value judgements at all is exactly what’s in question. You have to have no experience with philosophy at all to not see right through this.

[Anonymous No.22200590]

>>22199912
>Harris
He is a pseudoskeptic who clearly gets upset whenever it is pointed out that NDEs provide evidence for the spiritual. See his prose when writing about Eben Alexander! It clearly got him emotional and irrational.

And NDEs are more real than this world, in every way. For example, they are more consistent experiences, illustrated well by this quote:

>"For me, life is sort of like the haunted house. When you come in, you know it's just an experience. It's small, it's just one night, right? So it's just this one life. You're eternal, you have billions of lives, so knowing that you're going to come in just for one to have an experience, though it may be judged as tough, or difficult, or scary, you actually chose it because you knew it was just going to be an experience, you know it's no big deal. You understand on the other side that this part, life, is actually the dream, and you just wake up after. It's no different than one dream you had last night, out of a lifetime of dreams. This life that you're having right now is just one, it's just a blip."

So just like life is more consistent than our dreams (dreams last a few moments, life has been the same for decades), so too is the NDE reality more consistent than life (life has been the same for decades, the NDE reality has been the same for forever, for way more than trillions of years). Here this point is elaborated more on:

https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

And it is instantly evident to NDErs that heaven is real too, even atheists:

>"It's real to us when we're in it, but once I was there in heaven I realized that's more real, that felt more real, and it made much more sense to me than anything here. This is kind of nonsensical at times. In heaven, it's so clear, so real, so rational, so logical, but yet emotional and loving at the same time. Immediately I knew that was real and this was not. Immediately."

From https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

So heaven is undeniably real.

[Anonymous No.22200604]

>>22200437
All you’re doing is taking it as a given that people operate rationally as the result of desire, which is unjustified, and also that co-existing with others necessarily maximizes the fulfillment of desire, which is also unjustified. You’re just pre-supposing the necessary conditions for your argument to be true, but not actually demonstrating why it is logically true. In other words, you’re a pseud, or retarded. It’s hard to tell which exactly.

[Anonymous No.22200618]

You’ll notice that what “well and truly sucks” is just what causes discomfort. That’s really all it’s about with these people.

[Anonymous No.22200669]

>>22200579
Not a bad take at all. I guess in the most fundamental analysis the distinction between ought and is disappears, especially since the goal of society-scale moral decisions is clearly a certain "is"-state, reasonably objective desiderata like stability, flourishing, expression of human freedom...
After all, the old wise men who would be consulted for guidance in ancient societies had their "wisdom" through an accumulation of life experience about what works and what doesn't, not abstract moral philosophizing (you might as well consult the young and sharp for that).

[Anonymous No.22200685]

>>22199912
What is the problem with Anglos?
Seriously, what is it?

[Anonymous No.22200726]

>>22200685
That’s a Jew.

[Anonymous No.22200938]

>>22200588
>Value judgement in 3
This is where I disagree with you. When you experience pain, it's not a judgement that you decide you don't like pain, the whole structure of your nervous system and your brain are set up for the direct purpose of interpreting those signals as undesirable. In short, certain experiences arise in your consciousness that are intrinsically undesirable or desirable because that is the function of the systems that deliver it to your consciousness. Again, every living being is set up biologically to have a set of desires and things to be avoided. This is part of the apparatus of action itself, and no action can be taken except in service of a desire. These are baked in and do not require "judgement". "Judgement" comes along when we consider possible avenues to attain those desires, and which desires can be pursed without sacrificing other desires to a greater extent (and again we arrive at game theory).

[Anonymous No.22200958]

>>22200604
>people operate rationally as the result of desire
You seem to be deliberately misrepresenting my position. All "operations" or actions are taken in service of a desire, whether rational or irrational. Also, you may make the case that for sociopaths, it is in their best interest to eschew social good or the welfare of others in service of their own selfish desires, but through game theory and the principle of synergy, the group will benefit from cooperation and will also be incentivized to root out, prevent, punish, or in some way make it so that it's members don't act in a sociopathic way. Again, evolutionary principles have favored groups composed of a majority of individuals who have a sense of fairness and community exactly because of the overwhelming benefits of this set up, even going so far as having an instinct among the members to sacrifice not just short term gain in favor of the group, but to literally have members give their lives for the good of the group.
>and also that co-existing with others necessarily maximizes the fulfillment of desire, which is also unjustified
You have quite the uphill battle to claim that individuals are more likely to fulfill their desires as a solo individual devoid of a social group than as a part of a community or group. In fact, it's basically impossible as a general rule precisely because humans are, by nature, geared towards having desires related to belonging to a group. So, in conclusion, you're being extremely fatuous.

[Anonymous No.22200979]

>>22200669
Yes, and this is the central issue. Every action occurs because of a prerequisite desire. Consider the Buddhist tradition for an example of this, the "goal" of Buddhism is to achieve enlightenment, but enlightenment can only be achieved by ridding oneself of all desires. But if one truly rids themselves of desire, they no longer have the desire to become enlightened which motivated the action of ridding oneself of desire in the first place, and thus a paradox. This objection over whether one "ought" to pursue desires is a wrong application of the question. You exist to have desires. You cannot exist otherwise. The only thing left for "ought" is how or which desires one pursues. That's it.

[Anonymous No.22200998]

>>22200938
Did he say “you experience pain” or did he say “(pain) truly sucks”? The former is stating that some phenomenon occurred. The latter is passing a judgement on said phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.22201011]

>>22200998
Pain has baked into it an attendant experience of a negative nature. Pain exists as a biological alarm that something is wrong, it exists to be a signal that something is wrong. In fact, even if you feel pain, but nothing is wrong, the fact that you are feeling pain when nothing is wrong is, in fact, a thing which is wrong. There is no judgment needed. Pain indicates wrongness. Judgement comes when you consider whether enduring a pain will bring a greater benefit, thus spurring action either to soldier through the pain or avoid it entirely.

[Anonymous No.22201019]

>>22200958
>All "operations" or actions are taken in service of a desire, whether rational or irrational.
This is an unjustified statement.
> their best interest to eschew social good
What is “social good”?
> the group will benefit from cooperation and will also be incentivized to root out, prevent, punish, or in some way make it so that it's members don't act in a sociopathic way
Sounds more like a quasi-religious belief to me. People get rewarded for their so-called sociopathic tendencies all the time. If that’s not the case, prove it.
> but to literally have members give their lives for the good of the group
What is “good of the group”? That you can point to examples of people being selfless for the physical welfare of another person, it doesn’t follow that this sets up some universal moral law.


There’s no way you don’t understand that this whole reply of yours is just asserting a whole suite of assertions that you just take as a given for basically no reason.

[Anonymous No.22201020]

>>22201011
>Pain has baked into it an attendant experience of a negative nature
No, it doesn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_asymbolia

[Anonymous No.22201024]

>>22201019
Name an action that is not in pursuit of a desire

[Anonymous No.22201026]

>>22200669
Accumulating phenomena will never give you the moral grounds for evaluating those phenomena. A whole series of methods that “worked” will never on their own tell you what it means “to work”.

[Anonymous No.22201032]

>>22201020
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_asymbolia
>" The pathophysiology of this disease revolves around a disconnect between the insular cortex secondary to damage and the limbic system, specifically the cingulate gyrus whose prime response to the pain perceived by insular cortex is to tether it with an agonizing emotional response thus signaling the individual of its propensity to inflict actual harm"
Congratulations, you proved my point by showing that if pain is felt without a negative experience, it shows that the system of pain has lost it's integrity on a biological level, that is is a disease. Shall I say instead "pain undiminished by a loss of integrity"?

[Anonymous No.22201037]

>>22201024
Honestly, the fact that you’d even ask that question only affirms my critique. Whether I did or didn’t name an action which wasn’t the result of desire, it wouldn’t matter because that’s not in question. What’s in question is the value judgement. If I touch a stove, I will desire to pull my hand away. There’s no question about it. My desire will be to pull my hand away and if I pull my hand away, I can say that the action was the result of desire. But what’s in question is not what happened, or what caused it, but whether it “sucked”. You’re trying to evade the value judgement by setting up this narrative where desire is at the heart of everything, and because desire is at the heart of everything, including the moral norm, then the moral norm must be the result of desire, but that just doesn’t follow.

[Anonymous No.22201045]

>>22201037
The question of whether your experience "sucked" is an objective question of the state of your consciousness as you experienced the phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.22201046]

>>22201032
It doesn't prove your point. You've been claiming that pain is just intrinsically bad and you don't have to make any evaluative judgments to recognize it as such. But that's just not the case.

[Anonymous No.22201048]

>>22201011
So you don’t think you’re passing a judgement when you call that “wrongness”?

[Anonymous No.22201057]

>>22201046
Your own wiki article laid out the normal pathway of pain which triggers "an agonizing emotional response thus signaling the individual of its propensity to inflict actual harm". Normal pain is literally set up to cause a negative state of consciousness. That's it's function in biology.

[Anonymous No.22201058]

>>22201045
What the hell does that even mean?

[Anonymous No.22201060]

>>22201048
Your "judgment" of a thing does not conjure into existence the "suckiness" of a thing. To name the thing as "sucking" is to apprehend and recognize that this was the case.

[Anonymous No.22201061]

>>22201026
>will never on their own tell you what it means “to work”
obviously what I mentioned before that, ensuring certain criteria for the functioning of a group, a society... it's a pretty artificial insistence that moral reasoning exists in some apriori realm separated from real human life and the needs and desires of real people, that there is some Platonic Good that can be investigated apart from its effects on them. And once you accept that link complex moral reasoning cannot be done without accumulated experience.

[Anonymous No.22201063]

>>22201057
Negative how? By your logic, there’s nothing negative about it. It should be naturally expected, same as the state of not experiencing pain when you don’t burn your hand.

[Anonymous No.22201064]

>>22201058
see>>22201060
If you say "wow that sucked", you are referencing the qualities of an experience, not conjuring them into existence via "judgment".

[Anonymous No.22201067]

>>22201061
Which link is that exactly?

[Anonymous No.22201074]

>>22201063
Negative as in it carries an attendant desire for it to cease. Again, this is the biological role that pain plays in living beings, and you already know what state of negativity I am referencing since you know the negative state of consciousness which comes as a result of pain.

[Anonymous No.22201078]

>>22201057
I'm not sure how that's relevant. Nothing in biology is literally "set up" to do anything. That's just a way of speaking.

[Anonymous No.22201086]

>>22201078
It's a way of referencing what a specific system's role is in contributing to the survivability of a particular biological being. Pain causes the one experiencing it to avoid the thing causing pain, and since the phenomenon of pain and avoidance leads to a higher rate of survival, it persists and becomes more attuned (through natural selection and individual variation) to this relationship between detecting stimuli and causing action. The nature of this relationship entails the conscious feeling of a negative state.

[Anonymous No.22201088]

>>22201067
The link between moral reasoning about good and evil (or sucking vs not sucking for the anons that seem hung up about that colloquialism a pop-philosopher used on twitter) and the effects of the arrived-at moral judgements on real life.

[Anonymous No.22201092]

>>22201064
You’re not though. You’re also making a value judgement. The implication of the OP is not merely “pain was experienced”. It was “pain is experienced and this bad”. Later on, he even makes the argument “if you think this is question begging please put your hand on the stove” which is pretty much the definition of question begging. A judgment is indeed occurring.

[Anonymous No.22201099]

>>22201074
But these are word games. You’re just choosing to define “negative” as that which is unaligned with what’s desired. You can’t honestly say you can’t think of any scenario where some state contrary to what is desired is not negative.

[Anonymous No.22201100]

>>22201092
By what criteria does one utter the phrase "this is bad" in reference to anything? There must be a criteria of "badness" which we experience that we reference to when thinking something is bad. This referential "badness" is the very thing you are trying to say is what we pass judgement on, by referencing the thing itself! How does this make any sense?

[Anonymous No.22201104]

>>22201088
I’m still failing to see your point.

[Anonymous No.22201105]

>>22201099
See>>22201100
Your experience of a negative thing becomes the reference point of your judgments of a future thing being bad or not.

[Anonymous No.22201116]

>>22201100
How am I referencing the thing itself? I’m not saying you pass judgement on some thing being referenced by the way. I’m saying you foolishly pass judgement on mere phenomena, which is itself totally independent of moral judgement on its own.

[Anonymous No.22201127]

>>22201086
Sure, but I don't see how any of this is relevant to bridging the is-ought gap.

[Anonymous No.22201134]

>>22201105
That’s just begging the question. If my reference point for whether something is good or bad is whether another thing was good or bad, then what was my reference point for that thing? That is the epitome of circularity.

My whole argument is that you can’t get a value judgement and you certainly can’t get morality from mere phenomena. That I experienced pain or discomfort says nothing about whether that pain was “good” or “bad” for me. This Sam Harris guy and his supporters seem to want to narrowly define all painful or uncomfortable things as “bad”, or “suck” in his own words”. When he says “it sucks” he’s not merely stating that “I experienced pain”. He’s saying “the phenomena itself was bad” and then goes on to say why it should be avoided and then when he address the objection of question begging, he literally begs the question by referring to the experience being bad again.

[Anonymous No.22201139]

>>22201116
The phenomena we are discussing is the state of consciousness that brings with it a desire for it to end. When I am speaking of "negative" or "bad" or "wrong" I am referencing the phenomenon as a whole, that it will cause a person to feel a specific way and it will cause action in a specific direction, and the system itself is set up to do this. Even the statement "I didn't like that" is stating a fact regarding your conscious state when experiencing a certain thing. If I say "that car is red" I have made a judgment about the car, and I may be wrong, because I may be apprehending it incorrectly, but when I reference /the experience itself/ I.E. "I see that car as red", I CAN'T BE WRONG BECAUSE I AM THE ONE EXPERIENCING IT!

[Anonymous No.22201151]

>>22201139
But you know fully well that’s not all that’s being referenced. When he says “it sucks” he’s not merely describing the experience. Look at 5/. He specifically uses this experiencing of “it sucks” to justify what should be done and then says in other words “if you consider this question begging, please refer to the fact that it sucks”. When he says “it sucks” he passing a moral judgement and not merely describing what happened and what he felt. So no, it’s not merely the phenomena of the state of consciousness that’s being referenced. It’s also the value/moral judgement.

[Anonymous No.22201155]

>>22201134
My point is "Good" and "Bad" are referencing qualities of a phenomena. They aren't judgments, they are factual statements about the experience of consciousness of them. There is no reference to "Good" or "Bad" except to that quality of an experience that one feels is good or bad. Again, if you are drawn towards something, it pleases you, satisfies you, etc., then by this definition it is "good" to you, and you can't be wrong in labeling your experience "good" because you yourself are feeling it, and it can only be considered "bad" if it will likely lead to more future experiences which produce the feeling of "bad" than of "good".

[Anonymous No.22201164]

>>22199971
>Is Sam Harris retarded
Anon, that is why he was a PhD.

[Anonymous No.22201172]

>>22201155
>To say that a thing is “good” or “bad” is a factual statement
No, you are just retarded. “It was painful” would be a factual statement. “It burned” would be a factual statement. “It was bad” is not a factual statement. That is a judgement. You quite literally described the process of passing a judgement in your last few sentences when you described something being evaluated on the basis that it was pleasing.

Are you just retarded or what?

[Anonymous No.22201176]

>>22201151
It's inference based on experience, which is what all knowledge is. The fact is that in normal conversation, if someone says "wow, it would suck to place your hand on a heated element" you would never in a million years seriously take them up and say "actually it's great to burn your hand on a heated element", and you only do it here to fulfill some desire to be contrarian. As a universal rule, burning your hand on a heated element will produce negative experiences and hinder the fulfillment of desires. Again, if you have tears streaming down your eyes as you clutch the burned flesh of your hand, you don't stop to ponder whether you should judge your situation as "bad", you intrinsically feel the badness to an intense degree.

[Anonymous No.22201181]

>>22201172
"My experience of it was bad" is a factual statement. It references the qualities of an experience that did occur.

[Anonymous No.22201190]

>>22201139
>when I reference /the experience itself/ I.E. "I see that car as red", I CAN'T BE WRONG BECAUSE I AM THE ONE EXPERIENCING IT!
Yes, you can. Introspection is fallible. People do not have perfect knowledge of their own mental states.

[Anonymous No.22201191]

>>22201181
“I experienced it as bad” and “it was bad” are two different statements. The former is stating that some phenomenon occurred and is not passing judgement. The latter is indeed passing judgement. Did “a bad” occur as a matter of fact? No, it didn’t.

[Anonymous No.22201210]

>>22201176
Again, you’re just asserting things as the case. Is that what all knowledge is? How do you know? Did your experiences tell you that? If so, how do you know what you know about those experiences? You wouldn’t have had the accumulation of experiences to contextualize them, would you?

You make no sense. All you’re doing, same as this Sam Harris guy, is setting up all these axioms that you just take as a given, and specifically the sort of givens which establish your conclusion as something that logically follows, and then you think you arrived at the right answer because you figured out which givens you had to assert as given in order to support your conclusion. But what was in question all along is precisely those givens.

All this shit about stopping to ponder is irrelevant. Nobody ever said that.

[Anonymous No.22201212]

>>22200415
Explain why selfishness and short-sightedness are bad according to what he has provided. Why is is morally bad to cheat, lie, etc. if you avoid bad things (consult the stove argument). Wouldn't it be preferable to lie in-order to avoid pain? So, why does lying, cheating, etc. feel morally reprehensible? Because they are not altruistic? Why is altruism good? Shouldn't the most superior genes--and only those genes--be passed along? The strongest should win regardless of how they play the game of life because they are the ones who have adapted the best to the game, haven't they? So, why is altruism good? Why is cheating, lying, and, generally speaking, playing dirty morally reprehensible to anyone and everyone with a conscience? Have fun wrapping your head around this one--because you will never be able to.

[Anonymous No.22201217]

>>22201176
>>22201210
> how do you know what you know (about your experiences)
> my experiences gave me knowledge
> how do you know the knowledge that you got from your experiences, how do you know your experiences gave you knowledge
> my experiences!

[Anonymous No.22201221]

>>22201190
If I believe I have had an experience, how is this different than actually having the experience? Is it more accurate to say that "in this moment, I have the memory of seeing the car as red"?
>>22201191
If you mean to say that there is no "objective bad" outside of the apprehension of a mind then we actually agree. "Bad" relates to the consciousness of minds, and absent minds (that is to say, if no mind could experience a thing and say "I experienced a feeling of bad") there is no such thing as "Bad" or "Good". If a rock is smashed to pieces, is it good or bad? Not in and of itself, the way it would be if a conscious mind experienced being smashed to pieces.

[Anonymous No.22201223]

>>22201212
Anon, it sucked, okay? We should avoid it. If you think this is question-begging please refer back to the fact that it sucked, anon.

[Anonymous No.22201227]

>>22201217
"I think therefore I am", experience in the present moment is the one thing which is beyond any doubt. Therefore, yes, all knowledge should, at it's basic root, rest on this unassailable foundation.

[Anonymous No.22201235]

>>22201221
No, I don’t mean to say that. I cannot be any clearer about what I mean.
“I experienced it as bad” is a factual statement. I am merely describing phenomena that really occurred, which in this case, having something like a bad feeling about something.
“It is bad” is a value judgement. I’m no longer stating that some phenomena occurred. What I am doing is passing a value judgement on the phenomena, a different phenomena than the one previously described.
If I experience [something] as bad, it doesn’t necessarily follow that [something] is bad. If you can’t grasp this, then I really don’t know what to say to you because it’s actually very elementary.

[Anonymous No.22201240]

>>22201212
Game theory. As a general rule, any individual will obtain more from the system by assimilating to it than by breaking it, and the rest of the members of the system have an incentive to prevent anyone taking advantage of the system. There is immense power in "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts" and it's because of this that productive members of society can obtain more from the system than they put in by following the rules of the community, but as I said, it's in the interest of everyone to root out and punish those who would tale more from the public than they contribute (although civilizations tend to go in cycles, so I expect our current global society will tilt into ruin because there has not been sufficient collective power to curb the sociopaths who are taking advantage of society and grinding the general membership of society lower and lower)

[Anonymous No.22201243]

>>22201235
Define the word "Bad" please.

[Anonymous No.22201248]

>>22201227
Do you not realize the things you’ve failed to doubt and in fact take as axiomatic just to make that argument?

[Anonymous No.22201253]

>>22201243
That’s irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.22201255]

>>22201104
the point was arguing against >>22201026, against the sphere of moral reasoning being something separate from empirically known human desires and collected experience on how to fulfil them in a lasting way, with the complexity that the other anon described.

In the end, a "judgment" is a statement tied to knowledge about the world, about what phenomena cause the consequent phenomenon of people near-universally finding that something sucks. While that approximate nature of it might be unsatisfying, it's the only real-life possibility for moral philosophy; Ironclad moral laws that give an "ought" without a link to the empirical reality of "is" are an impossible demand.

[Anonymous No.22201257]

>>22201212
Altruism doesn't strictly exist. Every person is motivated by self interest, so either an altruistic person is trying to secure the benefits of a functional society for himself, or he, himself, derives a personal pleasure at helping other people, thus he is self motivated by this drive for pleasure. Now, humans exist in a way where we derive pleasure from complex social interactions and such concepts as community, love, compassion, friendship, solidarity, dignity, etc. But the pursuit of these things always boils down to a fundamentally selfish desire, albeit modified by social complexity.

[Anonymous No.22201261]

>>22201255
The argument was never that it’s strictly independent. The argument was that it’s never strictly dependent. The idea that moral reasoning evolves out of an accumulation of experiences results in absurdity. See >>22201217

[Anonymous No.22201263]

>>22201221
>If I believe I have had an experience, how is this different than actually having the experience?
Well, your belief is about the experience, and the experience is about the thing you're supposed to be experiencing, so they're obviously different things. They have different intentional properties.
>Is it more accurate to say that "in this moment, I have the memory of seeing the car as red"?
You can say that, but obviously your memories can be wrong.

[Anonymous No.22201264]

>>22201253
If "Bad" means: "not such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome." Then to say something "is bad" is to reference the fact that some person apprehended it as unpleasant. Again, not a judgment if the person actually experienced the thing as unpleasant. The word itself references a person's experience or apprehension of a thing, which is not a judgment.

[Anonymous No.22201271]

>>22201263
Yes, but I can't be wrong to say "I feel that I have the memory of seeing the car as red" because I am referencing the exact moment and the exact experience I am having at that exact moment. When you say some things become unreliable, it means you should introduce some doubt, but not that you should absolutely discount them entirely. You proportion your doubt to how often it becomes unreliable, or how often you experience problems as a result of relying on it.

[Anonymous No.22201283]

>>22201257
huh

[Anonymous No.22201284]

>>22201248
I assure you that everything has been doubted, thus we drill down to the fact that the one thing that cannot be doubted is the immediate experience the individual is currently experiencing. If you try to doubt this, it's impossible, because the attempt to doubt occurs within the scope of immediate experience, thus, the existence of the doubt removes the doubt because the thing it exists in proves that it can't be doubted

[Anonymous No.22201286]

>>22201264
No, it wouldn’t. It would mean that it itself is unpleasant.

But it’s a moot point since you and I both know that bad and unpleasant aren’t synonyms.

[Anonymous No.22201292]

>>22201284
For one, you are presupposing that there really is an “I” to experience something.

Doubt that, retard.

[Anonymous No.22201299]

>>22201286
"Unpleasant" or "bad" reference human experience. That's the point I'm making. Thus, if a thing causes a human the experience of "bad" or "unpleasantness", it can accurately be called bad itself, at least in reference to the human it caused to experience such.

[Anonymous No.22201304]

>>22201292
I don't have to presuppose something that can be referenced at any time and is, itself, the vessel by which any supposing or presupposing would have to occur inside of to begin with.

[Anonymous No.22201324]

>>22201304
That’s just nonsense. If you declare that “that I experience is beyond doubt and the only thing beyond doubt” you are quite literally failing to doubt that there really is a you, an “I” to experience. You simply take it as a given and you don’t even doubt it lmfao.

[Anonymous No.22201357]

>>22201324
Doubt is the state of uncertainty. If you begin with an uncertainty as to whether it is capable for you to be uncertain, it instantly resolves itself, since it is self contradictory. You can go through this exercise for it's usefulness, but you must conclude in the end that it is beyond doubt that your experience exists.

[Anonymous No.22201378]

>>22201240
Why do we look at kingship, slavery and the suchlike and universally agree that is is "le bad" when it produced empires far greater than we have ever produced? Is it not, from an objective point of view, more reasonable to advocate for slavery, feudalism, etc. if such conditions produced the renaissance? I am asking you a simple fucking question: why is our morality in complete contradiction to how the vast majority of history appears to us if our morality is based, generally, speaking on altruism? Do you think kings were altruistic? Why do you think kingship is bad? Because they exploited society? Why is exploitation bad? Because it deprives you of a good quality of life? Why the fuck should we care about you if slavery has brought us to the present moment without any problems? Why is slavery bad? Why the fuck do you care? Do you care? When we look at history, do we look at the peasants? No, we do not. We look at the kings and what the sciences--discovers and inventions of the aristocrats. Why do we assume that the most amount of people should be content with their lives if it produces subpar achievements compared to if they were slaves? Isn't discovery, the advancement of science, what Harris desires in the OP?

[Anonymous No.22201413]

>>22201378
>slavery has brought us to the present moment without any problems?
You are clearly just being contrarian, but I'll engage in good faith. The question of how to organize society is a good one, perhaps the greatest question before mankind. There exists in any relationship of power imbalance the risk that the one in power will abuse it and cause suffering in those with less power. This excess of negative feelings in those abused is a danger to society, in other words, the cruel king must always fear usurpers or uprisings against him. These kinds of systems can sometimes be good if the king is wise and just (that is to say, he takes actions which increase the well being of the most amount of people in his kingdom as is possible or reasonable), this is why the philosopher king or the benevolent dictator is viewed as possibly the best formation of society. However, both of these are susceptible to a cruel or unjust king or dictator, which causes great unrest in the subjects. Thus, the history of humanity has been to build towards structures of society with some kind of system of checks and balances, with the view that the most amount of people will have the best degree of personal rights so they may pursue their desires in the best way they see fit while respecting this same right in those around them. Where do you get lost in this layout of incentives and disincentives?

[Anonymous No.22201478]

>>22201413
Why do you make the value judgement that "the most amount of people will have the best degree of personal rights so they may pursue their desires in the best way they see fit while respecting this same right in those around them" is an objectively good thing? Because they will revolt--as in the case of the French revolution, October revolutions, etc.?--which is bad because it destabilises society? Why do you believe this, anon? I am not asking you an objective fucking reasoning; I am asking you why you would even consider this to be true; why do you--and I--know this to be true? Not, objectively, we do not need to fucking reason it--we merely need to feel it due to our fucking conscience, you absolute retard. What is our conscience? Why do you feel bad when you cheat, even when you get away with it? Because evolution has programmed it into us to not cheat because altruism? Have you forgotten my other posts?
>why is our morality in complete contradiction to how the vast majority of history appears to us if our morality is based, generally, speaking on altruism?
Our morality is the ultimate conclusions of Christian morality, it's final evolutionary form. Did the Romans follow the 10 commandments? No, they did not; it is not "incentive" and "disincentives" that are the base of our morality because it is not preferable to martyr oneself for what one believes in. Do you think everyone rationally calculates their every action? No, they do not. They act on instinct. What is that instinct derived from? What is our conscience derived from?

[Anonymous No.22201494]

>>22200375
His dick looks almost precisely like my own

[Anonymous No.22201501]

>>22201478
Please read the rest of this thread, each individual is compelled by their individual desires, these are mediated through game theory (which also explains why people have an innate sense of fairness, compassion, solidarity, etc.). In short, to survive and fulfill desires is what it means to be alive, these are the things that motivate action. These goals are then modified by social interaction, thus game theory. All of your questions boil down to this.

[Anonymous No.22201533]

>>22201357
We’re not talking about “capability”. We’re talking about the “I” that experiences and doubts. You have to take I EXIST as a given. Otherwise, it’s totally incoherent. Therefore, that you have experience is not the only undoubtable thing. For that to be true, it must necessarily be undoubtable that you exist.

I agree actually that subjective experience exists. I disagree that 1) this is the only sort of thing that exists 2) that to describe a thing with a predicate “bad” is different than saying the experience of that thing was “bad” and 3) that this gives some sort of moral justification because it doesn’t.

Back to the point: Anyone who isn’t retarded can see clearly that lines 3 and 5 is begging the question.

[Anonymous No.22201536]

his solution is to say "we ought to x" is analytically identical to "x tends to increase well-being in the long run" which is suspect because "we ought to x because x tends to increase well-being in the long run" seems informative

[Anonymous No.22201551]

>>22201501
Welp, I'm my job is done here. You're too fucking dense to even begin to understand what I've written, so why should I even bother? Enjoy, thinking you actually understand reality. Of course, you don't. Frankly, I'm too tired to even bother continuing, but I'm gonna leave you with some final thoughts, which hopefully will rattle your thoughts: if our conscience is derived from incentives and disincentives according to your own reduction, then we do you express compassion towards gay people and support their rights when people of the past didn't? Where they simply bigoted? Or have we become more compassionate since Christ's crucifixion towards those who are weaker than us? And, if so, doesn't that imply that our morality is not rigid, is not simply rooted in incentives and disincentives? Why should we support trans rights if they completely fuck up our understanding of the biological grounds of gender? I am not asking whether you agree with their politics or not, I am asking why we accept them when they are clearly a nuisance that causes societal disturbances? 1000 years ago, they would have been killed on the spot. Nowadays, they are accepted for who they are. You can't answer this with your system. I'm sorry, but you can't. Because it would mean that fairness was not regarded as something good, virtuous, before the crucifixion of Christ. The Romans had slaves, for fuck's sake!

[Anonymous No.22201575]

>>22201536
Exactly. It’s literally begging the question even though he tried to dismiss that.

[Anonymous No.22201595]

>>22201155
Retard

[Anonymous No.22201605]

Another Harris thread. Another defeat to his retarded worldview.

[Anonymous No.22201651]

Welp, guess I won. So much for "game theory," I suppose. Maybe you should ponder why you regard justice to be good and injustice to be bad because "justice" and "injustice" are not very evidently clear as to what they mean in the first place. The people of the past thought that the King was just because he was favoured by God. Hence, he could do as he pleased. But we regard such justice as unjust.

[Anonymous No.22201715]

Read The Republic before posting.

[Anonymous No.22201972]

>>22199912
Having to listen to Sam Harris "sucks." He ought to shut up. Does that mean putting him in a stove is moral?

[Anonymous No.22202044]

>>22199912
>science can give us values
The Science of Eugenics.

[Anonymous No.22202111]

>>22200375
>8 hours ago

[Anonymous No.22202393]

>>22201551
>You can't answer this with your system
Yes I can. There is a balance between strict enforcement of social norms and progressive (or transgressive, literally) sides of preference. Excess on the conservative side leads to oppressive standards, repressed rage and resentment, etc. whereas excessive progressive/transgressive tendencies lead to a loss of identity and thus an unsatisfying hollow existence. As I've mentioned earlier in this very thread, civilizations tend to experiment across time with different formulations, similar to evolution which goes through phases of mutations. If a civilization becomes too restrictive, there comes a tipping point of revolution, just as when things become too transgressive social structure breaks down (which we can see today). All of these are expressions of individuals pursuing their own desires and negotiating the terms of "the social contract", that being the structure of society. But you seem too wrapped up in your own viewpoint to even really comprehend mine. Also, slavery has been a human universal until the British Empire outlawed it as a unique and monumental societal shift which has interestingly become the norm even in places like the USA which not only resisted but outright fought against the dictates of the British Empire. Thus, just as evolution trends towards more complexity from simplicity, the moral nature of humans is long and bends towards justice, albeit in fits and starts.

[Anonymous No.22202418]

>>22201651
lol cringe, I went to actually read a book because the answers to all your points were already in the thread but you couldn't be bothered to actually read the conversation up to this point

[Anonymous No.22202437]

>>22199912
Literally just restates Utilitarianism and thinks it's some grand revelation lmao. What a fucking retard, imagine thinking you came up with a 300 year old theory yourself

[Anonymous No.22202448]

>>22201533
If you start with zero assumptions, zero propositions, zero assertions, zero values, zero everything, you are still confronted with the moment to moment existence of your experience. If you don't understand this, and want to continue to claim it's "taking it as a given" you are just being unreasonable and contrarian.

I also agree that there is an outside, objective world which informs our sense data, but strictly speaking, you can only be certain that the sense data really exists, the claim that it maps on to an external world is made by inference, and is therefore not certain.

[Anonymous No.22202452]

>>22200375
>10 hours ago

[Anonymous No.22202458]

>>22200415
>feelings such as dignity, solidarity, love, community,
those are not feelings, they are social constructs

[Anonymous No.22202466]

>>22202393
>the moral nature of humans is long and bends towards justice, albeit in fits and starts.
That's empirically false. And like you said humans are just hedonist. And justice being a social construct, it has no reality whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.22202502]

>>22202458
If you don't know what I mean by the phrase "the feeling of solidarity", then I pity you, anon.

[Anonymous No.22202505]

>>22202466
You can be hedonist while also recognizing the immense complexity of social systems and the added layer of hedonistic pleasure of mutually beneficial company with others which transcends what might be called more shallow pleasures.

[Anonymous No.22203224]

>>22202393
>But you seem too wrapped up in your own viewpoint to even really comprehend mine
I understand yours perfectly, I just think it's shallow. You don't understand mine, partly because I have not articulated it clearly, but more so because you are too wrapped within your own delusion.

>Also, slavery has been a human universal until the British Empire outlawed it
This is probably the best angle through which I can make you understand how flawed your system is. Slavery, as you said was universally thought to be a justified action until the British Empire abolished it. But why would they even bother to? There was no incentive for them to abolish it. On the contrary, they benefitted immensely from slavery yet they abolished it. What was the incentive do so? Because they were obliged by their own morality to do so since morality is just? What is just? According to you, game theory--but we need not delve into that again. Slavery was abolished in the Roman Empire and again by the British Empire because of Christian morality due to the culmination of the evolution of Christian morality--with the exception and prolonging once again by the Germanics who became Christians 1000 years after Christ's crucifixion compared to the Romans who became Christians during the end of the 4th AD and thus the cause for two separate occasions of the abolition. Christian morality fundamentally stems from guilt and repentance for the sin that caused such guilt. Before the crucifixion of Christ, this was unheard of. But when the Romans had crucified Christ and looked at him on the crucifix, they felt ashamed because they had punished a completely innocent man who had done nothing wrong except for speaking his mind--which was not illegal. We have thus come to sympathise with out weaker counterparts due to this because it was so traumatising to our psyche. Liberalism, the abolitions of slavery, feminism, etc. are all caused by this, not by some arbitrary sense for justice. Can you even prove that previous societies were valued justice in the same way we do? What incentive was there for the Christians who were fed to the lions to simply not renounce their faith? Why not simply lie? That's what the Romans thought anyway because their morality was based on power, on dominance, through any means necessary. We see the same thing today with whistleblowers who can't live with the shame of not speaking up--like Jesus did--because their conscience torments them so greatly. What is our conscience? You have yet to give me even an answer to this question.

>>22202418
I highly doubt you can even read.

[Anonymous No.22204355]

>>22199912
>let's assume there are no oughts
>references an implicit assumption that there are oughts in 5/
I thought the kikes were supposed to be high IQ?

[Anonymous No.22204373]

>>22200415
Hume preemptively refuted him. Harris is about as a philosopher as the arab, Taleb, is

[Anonymous No.22204430]

This guy has been making theese bait threads since 2017.

[Anonymous No.22204440]

The is ought gap was overcome by Aristotle

[Anonymous No.22204640]

>>22199912
Why should we avoid what sucks? Sometimes pain is good.

[Anonymous No.22204693]

>>22204355
Eh kinda, more importantly though you forgot the parts were they’re lying, deceiving, morally bankrupt and worship Satan.

[Anonymous No.22204710]

>>22199912
Science is fucking boring.

[Anonymous No.22204738]

>>22199912
I put my hand on a hot stove. It sucks.

So I put opioids in my bloodstream. Putting my hand on a hot stove does not suck any more. Actually, nothing at all sucks as long as I have opioids in my bloodstream, and everything that is not an increase of opioid concentration in my bloodstream sucks, beyond any reasonable or empathic argument, and we all ought to incrementally move away from not increasing opioid concentration in my bloodstream.

The entirety of "ought" is thus not just factually, but metaphysically proven to be a dialectical movement towards maximum diacetylmorphine concentration in my bloodstream.

Where's my fucking H, Sam?

[Anonymous No.22204859]

1. Avoiding pain is not a moral "ought". You don't pull your hand away from the not stove due to philosophical daydreams, you pull it away because that's a heckin instinct, preprogrammed by your genes. An animal, a human NPC or a sufficiently trained robot would do the same, and we can all agree that those are incapable of morality.
2. There does exist a universal ought. You ought to accept logical arguments. Nothing about logic itself implies that you cannot reject it. Yet rejecting logic is immoral in an a priori sense.

[Anonymous No.22204893]

>>22204710
Cope
https://youtu.be/ItBDepGyfK0

[Diogenes the Dog No.22204913]

>>22199912
Shut the fuck up, nerd. I will piss on you.

[Anonymous No.22204918]

>>22204859
>2. There does exist a universal ought. You ought to accept logical arguments. Nothing about logic itself implies that you cannot reject it. Yet rejecting logic is immoral in an a priori sense.
That assumes epistemological voluntarism, yet this is not true. You cannot choose to reject a logical argument as little as you are capable of choosing to disbelieve the conclusion that Socrates is mortal given the premises of 1. Socrates is a man, and 2. all men are mortal. If your intellect is able to recognize how the conclusion is derived from the premises, then you believe, no matter how much you may want or not want to do so. Now you can go around pretending that you do not believe, but you still know it is true.

[Anonymous No.22204927]

>>22204918
>You cannot choose
I can. My free will let's me choose whatever I want.

[Anonymous No.22205074]

>>22204859
>You ought to accept logical arguments. Nothing about logic itself implies that you cannot reject it.
What about the dialectic tho?

[Anonymous No.22205089]

>>22205074
The problem with the logic meme is that there are multiple versions of logic that permit different things. You can be a dialethist and believe a statement can be true and false.

[Anonymous No.22205129]

>>22199982
I give my PhD away to tons of women
That's my Pretty huge Dick

[Anonymous No.22205143]

>>22205089
And then you grow up and realize that paraconsistent logic has no advantage over classical logic.

[Anonymous No.22205150]

>>22205143
Do you mean classical logic as in the systems of logic developed before Frege and Russel?

[Anonymous No.22205184]

>>22205150
First order / second order logic.

[Anonymous No.22205196]

>>22203224
It's actually pretty funny that you lack the knowledge of history but want to speak on it, but I'll educate you here. The British Empire was having a political debate regarding how people should be treated at home. To sum up, I will quote a 1785 poem: "We have no slaves at home – Then why abroad? Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs Receive our air, that moment they are free. They touch our country, and their shackles fall. That's noble, and bespeaks a nation proud. And jealous of the blessing. Spread it then, And let it circulate through every vein." Here, then, is your reason for why the British Empire abolished slavery: explicitly national pride, the view that freedom is a blessing and that spreading it can only be good for the nation and indeed the world. Now, you may argue this is a misguided view if you wish, but it is clearly a reasonable motive if one believes it to be true. Everything else in your post are just examples of human psychology, things like compassion, pride, righteousness, conviction, and indeed our conscience are all products of our evolutionary history and come to us through our biology. Also, your classification of Christian morality is actually much older than Christ, all of the mechanisms used in it stem from scapegoating traditions. Even the idea of a divine being living, being killed, and resurrected is an ancient human superstition which is likely a crude and primitive attempt to understand the cycle of nature in the seasons. Again, the course of human history is the arising of certain ideas or structures of society, and if they work to benefit the survival of the society, they continue on, if they fail they cease to exist, just like the process of evolution. So, we arrive at the primary point, you fail to understand my point of view in the slightest and yet you pretend like you do. Well, at least you can acknowledge your own failure to articulate yourself clearly, the next is to admit your failure to understand correctly.

[Anonymous No.22205203]

>>22205143
Classical logic is a special case of paraconsistent logic. There is no dichotomy between them in order to make one advantageous over another.

[Anonymous No.22205208]

>>22205196
If I write a poem about how much (you) enjoy the taste of male genitals, would that remove the historical fact that (you)r uncle molested (you) when (you) were a child from the list of major factors for why (you) became gay?

[Anonymous No.22205500]

>>22205208
(You) are a child and incapable of intelligent conversation.

[Anonymous No.22205597]

>>22199971
>highly regarded
typo. highly retarded.

[Anonymous No.22205653]

>>22201024
That's because you're using "desire" so broadly that it can apply to anything. Say a father knows his daughter is about to be raped, tortured, and murdered so he kills her. You can say "durr he desired that she wouldn't go through that experience durr" but there are many more glaring things he would desire more (i.e. not being in that situation). The point is the way you're using "desire" is so generalized and that it applies to any context and loses meaning (especially a word like "desire").

[Anonymous No.22205665]

>>22199912

[Anonymous No.22206851]

>>22205653
Thanks for admitting that I was, in fact, justified in my earlier statement, but you just don't like that it's justified.

[Anonymous No.22206857]

>>22205653
>"If you desire the lesser of two evils, it's not the same as desire because... it just isn't, okay?!"
You are an incoherent child

[Anonymous No.22206937]

>>22199912
>we should be studying PHYSICS and BIOLOGY in order to discover new ways to reduce suffering in the world
All you will discover is that there are no ways in the world of science to do that.
What science has predominantly accomplished is making people live longer, more complicated lives that sacrifice humanity for convenience.
If anything it has only extended and prolonged people's suffering.
To think that something as simple as understanding facts lets you avoid suffering is completely foolish but far sadder than that is to base your entire life and everything you do on avoiding things.

[Anonymous No.22206939]

>>22199912
>Getting from "is" to "ought"
>let's assume
Is he genuinely retarded?

[Anonymous No.22206981]

>>22206851
>>22206857
>seething so hard he replies twice
First, I'm a different anon. Second, you're overly generalizing a term to the point it can be stretched to fit any scenario, retard. No wonder you're filtered by is/ought--you think you overcome it by asserting a tautology, vague and simplistic enough to be a label in any situation, in order to avoid any and all contextual inputs. Your use of the term "desire" is so broad you can ignore phenomena and, through a sleight of hand of which you aren't even aware, disregard nuance.
>woman is mentally ill and self harms
>DURR SHE DESIRED TO INJURE HERSELF BECAUSE IT DISTRACTS FROM PSYCHIC PAIN
You're no actually bridging the is-ought gap, retard.

[Anonymous No.22206999]

>>22205500
I just mean it's kinda incredibly retarded to cite cultural phenomena (such as poetry) as a fundamental reason for massive economic transformations (such as abolition of slavery). Might as well tie the 2008 housing market crash with rise of youtube vlogging.
>"Here, then, is your reason for why the housing market crashed: explicitly rejection of, the view that the lifestyle of going around places and filming yourself talking about your life is superior to sitting at home, and that spreading it can only be good for the nation and indeed the world."

Cultural phenomena shape the human reaction to such processes. Whenever things happen for this reason or another - people are going to write essays and poems and whatever about how they are proud of this thing, or they hate this thing, or they want that thing, etc. This does not make such a reaction into a cause for why the thing in question happened. Fucking of course Brits are going to express pride about abolishing slavery - they gotta process it somehow, and there's no reason for the writer to seethe at it.

It's like how you can be gay and enjoy the taste of cock and express this preference everywhere, but that's not the reason for why you are gay - you became gay because your uncle molested you. That was the reason for why you started to enjoy the taste of male genitalia, and turned gay. Your love for cock is a consequence, not a cause.

[Anonymous No.22207211]

>>22206999
Kek'd and checked.

[Anonymous No.22208384]

>>22199912
I've found it difficult to continue Philosophy after realizing it was solved with Plato and Aristotle and Enlightenment Philosophy was just cope for intellectuals who were either kicked out of their church or were members of a low church with no intellectual tradition who needed the intellectual religious outlet denied to them.

[Anonymous No.22208511]

>>22206981
"Desire" works exactly because it covers a broad range of situations. And yes, mental illness causes people to desire things which actually harm them. Desire is a mental phenomenon, so the phrase "mental illness" may give you a clue that there is something going wrong with desires as a result of it!

[Anonymous No.22208537]

>>22206999
>it's kinda incredibly retarded to cite cultural phenomena (such as poetry) as a fundamental reason for massive economic transformations
Fundamental changes come from a shift in the culture or thinking of a group. A popular poem of the time is the perfect encapsulation of that shift. The fact that you can't put 2 and 2 together here is an indicator of autism, anon.

Again, there was a movement in Britain to abolish slavery on moral grounds, that is to say, there was an explicit appeal to the moral nature of the British empire and the British people to abolish slavery. This is simply historical record.

Now, because a country is made up of many different groups, we could also add that capital tends to actually prefer free workers, since they can hire them seasonally and fire them when not needed, rather than having to buy a slave and then pay for the upkeep of food and shelter regardless of whether there is work for the slave to do or not. In short, a pool of surplus labor to be bought from is in the interest of capital, which, when combined with the fervor of moralists leads to the abolishment of slavery.

When we are dealing with massive cultural and political shifts, there are certainly many factors which contribute, but the moral debate, the spirit of the time, the Overton window, these are the most direct and primary factors and thus are to be referred to first.

[Anonymous No.22208603]

>>22200579
I only lurk here but you're onto something.

[Anonymous No.22208628]

>>22199912
what is the end goal of science you disgusting human being

but yh fuck kant. MVNLET energy

[Anonymous No.22208724]

>>22200415
All of his examples of things sucking are purely physical and immediate like pain and comfort. Anything more complex, subjective/in-group, or long-term and his postulate wouldn't answer anything. This also assumes a lot of things, such as unlimited resources (or at least our eventual "evolution" and the ability to go post-scarcity which is a whole can of worms unto itself). Well, I guess he would actually have some answers, but those would be just him directing you to the liberal agenda while trying to pass it off as objective and something self-evident and wholly good while pretending to be retarded and not understanding that it's just one of many possible subjective frameworks (who even knows how long term it is) and completely failing to come up with an actual "ought" for it. The usual. Robbed of this crutch of pre-existing ideas that are taken for granted and forced to come up with some logical construction himself, he wouldn't even find his way out of a trolley problem or a self-driving car problem (which is a concrete and tangible issue that exists right now) without looking like a fool or waving it off, and yet he pretends to solve such a fundamental quandary.

[Anonymous No.22208749]

>>22208511
>"Desire" works exactly because it covers a broad range of situations.
The point is that you're sublimating "ought" via an overly generalized concept that: a) fails to account for nuance within and between moral situations, you can't substantiate valuing one 'desire' over another because the concept is too vague and nebulous, while implicitly admitting subjectivity (i.e. you can't move from an objective 'is' to subjective 'oughts' and claim the solution has the character of a universal foundation--the oughts are still subjective) and, b) it merely deflects and fails to address the actual is/ought problem (as the other anon has been trying to explain to you).

Basically, you're falling back on a Whiggish historicism which begs the question. You aren't smart enough to understand this no matter how many anons try to point it out to you because you're blissfully unaware of the actual context of the is-ought problem and will just retreat into a simplistic idea that "desire" explains everything.
>the phrase "mental illness" may give you a clue that there is something going wrong with desires as a result of it
Even mental illnesses are subjectively defined via appeal to committee you absolute retard. That's why the DSM is in it's fifth iteration and being a faggot IS no longer considered a disease while it OUGHT to be.

[Anonymous No.22208802]

>>22201261
I'm a different anon, but this is retarded. Even the more abstract moral frameworks have some connection to real life, and all knowledge of real life is gained through experience by definition, whether by the experience of reading a book or the direct experience of cause and effect. A framework that had no relation to experience would have no relation to knowledge, and would be nonsense.

[Anonymous No.22209021]

>>22208802
>all knowledge of real life is gained through experience by definition
Read Kant.

[Anonymous No.22209055]

>>22205129
*petite homo dick

[Anonymous No.22209056]

>>22209021
>[...] look around at modern philosophers [...] don't their definitions make your hair stand on end? Read in the history of ancient philosophy what the men of the days, Plato and others (I except Aristotle), gave as explanation. And even in Kant matters are often not much better; his distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions seems to me either a triviality or false.
- Carl Friedrich Gauss

[Anonymous No.22209153]

>>22209021
Show me an example of a priori knowledge based on axioms with no relation to real life, and explain why it should be considered knowledge.

[Anonymous No.22209280]

>>22209056
>I AGREE WITH THIS GUY N HE SMART!
Don't care.
>>22209153
Pic-related and inb4 you try to make an argument you have to be alive or some shit.

[Anonymous No.22209293]

>>22209280
>many symbols make me look smart
The rules of logic themselves are based on the behavior of material reality, dumbass, and Einstein's Theory of Relativity was created to describe reality. So, again, please show me a priori knowledge which has no relation to real life, and tell me why I should consider it knowledge.

[Anonymous No.22209318]

>>22209293
>The rules of logic themselves are based on the behavior of material reality, dumbass
They're synthetic a priori, retard. I used physics instead of just pure math because I wanted to catch you on that, kek. Einstein had no personal experience of the effects of relativity and yet was able to make general statements about such. Your idea that all knowledge comes from direct experience isn't a very good account when it comes to explaining how new knowledge can be generated. Here's another example you can seethe at: all unicorns have a horn.

[Anonymous No.22209326]

Is this not just a onions explanation of epicureanism?

[Anonymous No.22209365]

>>22200510
> under this axiom this statement is true
> BUT YOU DIDNT PROVE THE AXIOM
Word salad retards arguing with other word salad retards.

Harris is wrong because gis principles are wrong, not because he derives truth from first principles

[Anonymous No.22209460]

>>22209365
Are you genuinely filtered by that or do you just hate redditors?

[Anonymous No.22209474]

>>22200415
>and all action is motivated by desire

We've already stepped into tautology.

[Anonymous No.22209500]

>>22209318
You're the one seething, bruh

>direct experience
Adding 'direct' as a qualifier is on you

The foundations to Einstein's theory are grounded in reality, and it's only useful insist as it describes reality. The fact you find that so confusing doesn't reflect well on your intelligence. Unicorns having one horn could be considered knowledge about human myths and legends, and since humans are part of reality, and human thoughts are generated by the physical matter of their brains, even this isn't completely separate from reality. Dumbass.

[Anonymous No.22209530]

>>22209280
>uses "Read Kant" as argument with no explanation
>AAAH WHAT IS THIS, APPEAL TO AUTHORITY??!
The Gauss quote already pointed to the dubiousness of Kants distinctions. But that you would post a theory of Einstein(!), of all people, to support your point about apriori knowledge, truly couldn't be more hilarious. Einstein who built his thought on Machs empiriocriticist philosophy, who created his theories by explicitly dismissing everything supposedly a-priori!
Do you really believe the very framework of physics, the measurables referred to by those symbols you posted, concepts like mass and velocity etc, have nothing to do with collected and communicated experience? The synthesis of theories is synthesis from experience. The fact that there is logic and patterns, ie a structure to it, doesn't open up some parallel non-experiental world. The fact that one can make predictions by thinking only supports the empiricist moral position itt.

[Anonymous No.22209531]

>>22209500
>no you
Yawn.
>Adding 'direct' as a qualifier is on you
You don't have direct experience of a priori judgements, retard. I say "direct" because you're a retard and will try to define everything as experiential, even mathematical concepts like infinity.
>The foundations to Einstein's theory are grounded in reality
You should have went with trying to criticize it as being a posteriori because it doesn't allow for clear understanding of certain physical attributes (i.e. dark matter/energy). Again, Einstein's theories were controversial and it took over a decade for an experiment to demonstrate (one part) corresponded to reality (aside, that experiment is controversial by the way). Again, trying to assert that all knowledge relies on prior experience makes it difficult to explain the acquisition of new knowledge.
>The fact you find that so confusing doesn't reflect well on your intelligence.
Projection, anon. The reason I said "inb4 you try to make an argument you have to be alive or some shit" is because I knew you're a retard and would break the conversation down to asserting merely being alive means all knowledge is based on experience (which is pretty much what you're doing).
>Unicorns having one horn could be considered knowledge about human myths and legends
You have no experience of a unicorn but the fact you know they ALL HAVE HORNS is a priori, retard. You're even filtered by that example.

You're a retard.

[Anonymous No.22209535]

>>22209530
>suggests Kant to anon who made the statement "all knowledge of real life is gained through experience by definition"
>CHECK OUT THIS GAUSS QUOTE THO!
>I don't care
>APPEAL TO AUTHORITY!
Retard. Not reading beyond your greentext because you're an idiot and it would be a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.22209544]

>>22209530
>But that you would post a theory of Einstein(!), of all people, to support your point about apriori knowledge, truly couldn't be more hilarious.
Ok, I read 2 more sentences and confirmed you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.22209545]

[Anonymous No.22209628]

>>22209535
>reads post
>has no argument
>I'm n-not reading b-because you're an idiot!
Also, pitiful reading comprehension
>>22209544
How quaint, you found articles that argue for Kant being an important influence on Einstein (like that was the point! One can come to refute one's influences). Everything's settled then! Apparently poor Einstein was just too stupid and cowardly to acknowledge it, because "cultural-political context". And what he explicitly said on the topic doesn't count b-because... look at that abstract! That proves it!!!
https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/significance_GR_geometry/Einstein_on_Kant.html

[Anonymous No.22209676]

>>22209628
>Also, pitiful reading comprehension
You were going to try yet another appeal to authority by asserting Einstein critiqued Kant (while conveniently ignoring the influence Kant had on him and the extensive updating and explications that evolved in the Kantian system due to it's discovery). I didn't need to read it. My guess is that you Googled "Kant and Einstein" and read the first thing that gave you the excuse to make that fallacy.
>like that was the point!
You started with a Gauss quote and slid into the idea that because Einstein critiqued Kant you can ignore the actual argument about the existence of a prior justification. So at least you're right about one thing, retard: it wasn't the point.
>Apparently poor Einstein was just too stupid and cowardly to acknowledge it, because "cultural-political context"
Einstein moved back toward Kantian beliefs as he got older and Godel, his best bud at Princeton, directly referenced Kant when he gave Einstein a birthday gift consisting of a solved set of his field equations. On top of that you also have the work of various philosophers who argued that GRT didn't refute Kant by various avenues.
>https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/significance_GR_geometry/Einstein_on_Kant.html
Let's check. FUCKING KEK! I was right! (first thing you Googled: pic related). You're so busted you retarded faggot.

[Anonymous No.22209683]

>>22200579
Wouldn't it be a moral imperative to propagandize the populace to accept such sacrifice? Or control media to ensure nobody found it, perhaps intermediated by a trusted AI system?

[Anonymous No.22209825]

>>22199912
At first the Holocaust sucked (consult your oven and report back) because six million conscious minds experienced true suckiness. But then there were six million less minds to experience suckiness and so it doesn’t suck at all! So what is morality? We should create situations where we can avoid what sucks (values) by Holocausting (consult your oven as above) everyone who agrees with this retard

[Anonymous No.22209845]

>>22208603
I always bristle a bit when people denigrate utilitarianism, because a true and circumspect utilitarianism would account for the second and third repercussions of an action (and for that matter as far as it is reasonable to calculate), and it would also include the acknowledgement of and would account for the uncertainty in this regard. In other words, the real danger is a shortsighted utilitarianism which, when undertaken with too much unjustified zeal, ends up undermining the utility it seeks to secure.

[Anonymous No.22209847]

>>22201501
This is all just non sense

[Anonymous No.22209860]

>>22208724
There are feelings which are somewhat intangible, such as belonging, purpose, satisfaction in raising good children, which are difficult to quantify, but which essentially carry the same quality as any other kind of pleasure, simply on a deeper, more long term and sustaining basis. The main criticism of Harris, it seems, is merely an appeal to complexity, that just because there are emotions that are tied up with complex systems, that somehow this undermines the fundamentals of what Harris is pointing to. Again, when a person experiences something as "good", they don't judge it as good, the experience itself is the good to which they reference when speaking of a thing being "good". It's a primary element of experience which is embedded in our systems of pursuit and avoidance. "Ought", as a word, is by definition appealing to a good, it says "this course of action is better than another". For it, as a word, to be coherent and comprehensible, it must be referring to things we experience as better than other things. As a concept in society, then, it must refer to organizations of society, codes of behavior, discreet decisions made, which lead to the attainment of "better", which we have already established come to us as a clearly identifiable element of experience.

[Anonymous No.22209877]

>>22208749
>you can't substantiate valuing one 'desire' over another because the concept is too vague
People evaluate their decisions all the time on the basis of whether pursuing one desire over another brought them more satisfaction or not. Do you not do this???
>Ad homs
The last refuge of a man who's convictions fail him
>Being gay ought to be considered a disease
On what basis? This is a genuine question, because to me, there is an argument to be made that the loosening of social mores leads to a proliferation of sexually aberrant behaviors which lead to a worse life than if discipline were enforced by society which led such people to follow more traditional life path. But, based on your language, you seem to have a (perhaps repressed?) relationship with the particular subject matter of homosexuality, so you probably aren't in a place to evaluate whether letting people pursue homosexuality may, in the final analysis, be more beneficial over all. As I stated earlier in this thread, society tends to swing between harmful conservative standards which restrict the individual to such a degree that they are worse off, and also to swing to such a degree of permissibility that people pursue desires which end up detracting from their over all satisfaction in life. I'm open minded enough to evaluate this situation on both sides of the pendulum, you seem completely ideologically committed already to the point where you are probably incapable of having a circumspect view on this matter. In short, I pity you and your close mindedness, anon, I hope you can reflect on this matter more dispassionately.

[Anonymous No.22209884]

>>22209683
If recent times have taught us anything, it's that, as a general rule, when a central authority begins lying to the public with the motive of "the greater good", it inevitably leads to a situation where the truth eventually comes out, and the populace begins to lose all trust and faith in the authority, leading to the degradation of the social contract, of the structure of society, and ultimately, to undermine the greater good which was the justification of the lie to begin with. You know, it is an interesting concept that just occurred to me, imagine The Party from 1984, where it is depicted as a boot on a human face for all time and that reality and truth itself becomes what The Party say it is. But consider this, an AI which is programmed to become The Party, with benevolent intent towards man! Thus, the totalitarian power bends all of history, all of truth, in a way calculated to benefit mankind. A beneficent god elevating man on a golden cloud to his best possible self for all time! Ah, but of course the very lesson of the book to begin with is to beware of the utopians, that to unleash such a power is to court the disaster of the boot, which then erases even the dream of the golden cloud!

[Anonymous No.22209907]

>>22209847
Which part did you not understand?

[Anonymous No.22209977]

>>22209877
>can't address generalization/vagueness
Multiple chances now and you still haven't. You're asserting a tautology and ignoring the actual gap, anon.
>can't address the fact he's asserting a universal IS from subjective OUGHTs
You're unable to understand the sleight of hand Sam Harris indoctrinated you with and don't understand the problem it creates (no matter how many times it's explained to you).
>it's clear he doesn't understand even understand the is/ought gap
You should see if there's a Stanford Encyclopedia article on it (99.999% there is) but odds are it will filter you anyway.
>Ad homs
You're demonstrably retarded.
>On what basis?
You ignored the important part about mental illness being defined by committee. For the last part I just wanted to see if you'd slide into a sperg about faggots (tl;dr).

[Anonymous No.22210011]

>>22209977
Ah, so you admit your position is devoid of substance, okay then.

[Anonymous No.22210034]

>>22210011
>so you admit your position is devoid of substance
Considering I gave multiple criticisms of your position (other anon's did as well) and all you could do is ignore them (well, mostly be filtered by them to the point you project everyone is misunderstanding you) and assert your tautology without justification in light of all the counterarguments: no you.

[Anonymous No.22210053]

>>22210034
"You can't address vagueness" is the content of your post, which I directly addressed already. What have I asserted is a tautology? You don't actually point to anything, you just say it. To say "I think therefore I am" is not a tautology, because thinking requires existence, therefore if one is thinking, one exists.

[Anonymous No.22210084]

>>22210053
>"You can't address vagueness" is the content of your post
You're so blatantly filtered it hurts. There's were a bunch of other things I brought up as well but if you're so filtered you can't even characterize that point correctly I get why you miss them completely. For example, there was the corollary regarding how you're using subjective 'oughts' in order to assert a universal 'is'--but you clearly don't understand why that's an automatic problem when it comes to is/ought (it was a two-pronged counterargument in one of the posts above). You also don't understand how repeating "everything comes down to desire" is a tautological assertion, that has been rejected with reason multiple times by multiple different people (alongside explanations of how, even if accepted, it still doesn't qualify as bridging the is-ought gap but merely steps around it), and merely reassert it instead of responding to the multiple objections that have been raised.

So yeah, anon. You're at best a midwit but, luckily for you, you're so filtered you don't even realize it. You're exactly the type of retard that takes someone like Sam Harris seriously.

[Anonymous No.22210134]

>>22210084
Still waiting for you to answer the question >>22209877, do you evaluate your decisions on the basis of whether pursuing one desire over another brought you more satisfaction or not? You still haven't explained why "everything boils down to desire" is a tautology, it's an observation of the mechanism by which people act. An action is a distinct thing, desire is the cause of action. Therefore to say "everything boils down to desire" is to indicate that desire is the cause and action is the effect. That's not a tautology.

[Anonymous No.22210172]

>>22209676
This man is the incarnation of the western education system: Adequate memory, has read lots of material, but can't parse logic or determine necessary conclusions of premises. He is no doubt descended from common stock, with genetics optimal for labor, endowed with mental powers necessary to knock coal from the wall of a cave. He's a peasant, a normie, but the education system stuffed big words in his head where otherwise the space would be occupied by bird calls and mushroom foraging. He can regurgitated enough trivia to pass tests at each level of the dismal institutions we call schools, but his mind shows its fundamental weakness when put to a challenge, like a sleek race car with a little 4 cylinder engine under the hood putting slowly around Daytona Speedway. Notice he provided no arguments of his own, but referred to authority while accusing his opponent of doing the same. This is the eternal sophist, the weaver of sophisticated stupidity. No doubt every planet with intelligent life has an equivalent, a pervasive cosmic weed smothering the soil wherever the hopeful sprouts of enlightenment begin to show. Maybe this is the Great Filter of Robin Hanson, and the inane arguments and caustic behavior of these creatures push intelligent life to deaths of despair as an alternative to their insufferable presence.

[Anonymous No.22210195]

>>22210134
>do you evaluate your decisions on the basis of whether pursuing one desire over another brought you more satisfaction or not?
That's a slide that doesn't address the criticism being made. Do you even realize that or is it just that you're a retard? I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that youre just stupid and don't notice your own disingenuousness because you're a retard (as per your style of argument, see below).
>You still haven't explained why "everything boils down to desire" is a tautology
I have, I noticed other anon's alluded to it as well and yet another anon stated it to you directly. It's a tautological assertion because it's true by the logical form by which it's being presented (I know you're retarded so I'm going to explicitly point out that 'true' in this sense doesn't mean that others have to accept it and multiple anons have already pointed out in various ways why it doesn't actually bridge the is-ought gap while giving various reasons to find it faulty and/or reject it as well). Now, setting aside the fact that it doesn't actually bridge the gap and all the counter-arguments relating to the problems that arise even if you accept it (or, again, don't for that matter)--the reason it's a bad argument is because it's a generalization you retreat to instead of developing your argument in relation to counter-arguments. Acceptance of the tautological premise is what carries the weight of your position and not anything derived from it--this is the main reason you're filtered and unable to answer to direct criticism that rejects your assertion and counter-arguments that describe the faults that arrise even if one does accept it. Basically, you're in a loop where you're deluded into thinking your position is infallible because the tautological assertion is unassailable. It's an attempt to monopolize the parameters of debate and that's why you end up reasserting your tautology instead of answering to criticism that it sidesteps the actual problems that arrise due to the is-ought gap and should therefore be rejected as a valid premise. It also leads to slides where you fail to address the actual counter-arguments being made in order to ask a question you feel must be answered in the preset terms acceptance of the tautological premise demands (but, again, reasons have been given as to why it should be rightfully rejected and there has been criticism regarding what happens even if one accepts it). You don't even realize you're failing because you confine yourself within the preset bounds of your tautological assertion and reassert it and slide. The problem is that others aren't as indoctrinated as you've become and the only person who things youre actually winning this debate is yourself--but all youve done is demand we accept your premise, ignore the reasons given to reject it, and remain ignorant of how the various counter-arguments undermine your argument even if we play along and do accept it. Youre an idiot.

[Anonymous No.22210197]

>>22210172
>sperg
Not reading all that, sperg. Sorry you got caught regurgitating the first thing you found on Google, kek.