[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 9 KB, 211x250, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6969586 No.6969586 [Reply] [Original]

>>6969566
Why don't you cite their evidence, not just their name?
You clearly have little understanding of ethics in general, all you do is posit mystic dogma, no evidence, no facts, just your opinions. You can't name one thing and why it is moral or immoral, not one thing. Just admit that moral realism is an indefensible position.

>> No.6969590

>>6969586
I can.

insulting somebody based on a quality they know they contain is immoral because it is unnecessary cause of pain

>> No.6969596

>>6969590
How is causing pain objectively immoral?

>> No.6969606

You're just a trashy poster.

>> No.6969608

>>6969596
because it has to do with whether the state is desired or not desired by the victim

typically pain is not desired

>> No.6969609

>>6969586
The problem with you is you want a one sentence explanation of objective morality because you are too lazy to research it for yourself because that actually take TIME & EFFORT. But no, thats too much to handle for you, it is far easier to criticize others than to do your own research. Whats funny is you havent given one good argument against objective morality. Whats even funnier is you actually think you can just fuck off on doing the necessary research for yourself and still know the answers to your questions. Not only is that wishful thinking its also holds no basis in reality. When getting into the subject of objective morality naturally other topics of similar interest that are related to it will overlap therefore there is no one sentence answer to your questions and if thats the foundation you are going off then it was flawed from the start and therefore anything that comes from it will be too. Oh and if you do come up with an argument on the validity of moral relativism then I will have no choice but to accept it. But since I know there is no valid argument for it and I also know what I am asking of you is simply impossible and you can rage against what is but as Ive said before, it is independent of your perceptions so rage all you want, it is what is, it always has been, it always will.


tl;dr Quit being lazy and do your own research or keep your mouth shut you fucking moron.

>> No.6969611

>>6969608
So morality is dependent on how good it makes someone feel?

>> No.6969613

>>6969611
Stop calling me names!

>> No.6969615

>>6969609
So there is no argument for moral realism? I thought so. You're just a dogmatic mystic.

>> No.6969616

>>6969586
alright, im going to explain a moral principle.
"Good must be done and evil is to be avoided"
Self evident, every agent acts for something he considers "good" even if it isnt a true sense of good, like the drug addicted inject themselves because they think the "high" is good, or the robber who thinks having more is good.

now to a moral precept
We are rational
Reason is to find truth
Therefore, we ought to pursue truth and avoid error.

>> No.6969621

>>6969609
GIVEN that the argument for moral relativism is IN FACT valid, but I know it wont be because there is no validity to moral relativism.

>> No.6969623

>>6969611
no. its not good or bad. its desired or undesired.

>> No.6969624

>>6969616
What is the criteria for something to be good or evil?

>> No.6969627

>>6969615
You are just proving the fact that im right more and more with every post you make..

>> No.6969628

>>6969623
So it's not a moral question. gtfo

>> No.6969631

>>6969624
missing the point entirely

and yes I basically said that in
>>6969623

>> No.6969634

>>6969627
You don't even know what makes something moral, you're a poseur.
>>6969631
Desirability is subjective.

>> No.6969635

>>6969634
Then please enlighten us or stfu.

>> No.6969636

>>6969624
whether it is contrary to what it is to be a human being

>> No.6969638

>>6969636
How did you come to that conclusion?
>>6969635
Morality is a personal opinion.

>> No.6969640

>>6969628
no it is. because you are acting in such a way that imposes an undesirable outcome that is unnecessary

in truth it boils down to a notion of power politics between free agents, and what is or isn't "true power"

>> No.6969645

>>6969638
>Morality is a personal opinion.

Ok you made your statement, now prove it.

>> No.6969651

>>6969638
from the reality of universals

since there is something that is to be a human being, just as there is something that is to be a triangle, then there are things that a human being ought to avoid, since they are contrary to being human.

Are you a goldfish, because you seem to be forgetting what i already established in the first place.

And stop making this thread, it is obvious you dont want to acknowledge objective morality

>> No.6969655

>>6969640
in fact, the new axiom i've just now discovered is:

evil is achieving power through means that compromise other free agents insofar as those agents are oppressed or otherwise afflicted to what THEY CONSIDER TO BE "negatively" by the being with said power

>> No.6969662

>>6969651
So what is the criteria for being a human besides the obvious biological, objective facts? Also, how is it that your opinion on what is human dictates what is moral?
>>6969645
Moral statements are value statements, values are subjective to the individual, therefore morality is subjective to the individual.
>>6969640
You're not talking about right and wrong, so fuck off.

>> No.6969664

>>6969655
but I still need to include the notion of necessity somehow. because obviously, the police could arrest a serial killer who was bombing infant care facilities in hospitals, and the killer could the claim the police were evil, but somehow no one would agree. this must tie into "delusion" somehow, it is "delusional" to think the killing of babies is a "necessity"

>> No.6969668

>>6969655
Evidence to the truth of that statement?

>> No.6969670

>>6969662
im saying right or wrong BOILS DOWN to these concepts ultimately, right and wrong is the facade of a power struggle

>> No.6969674

Ok this is obviously a troll thread, no one can be this obtuse I mean the person has to be a real fucking idiot.

Could be both now that I think about it..

>> No.6969676

>>6969670
If you mean that ideas of good and evil are inventions of the upper classes imposed on the lower classes, then yes.

>> No.6969679

>>6969668
I think the truth would be in nature, because beings in nature seem to "adhere" to this notion of power effortlessly. in the sense of, the gazelle doesn't call the lion evil just as the lion doesn't call the gazelle evil for escaping, they both acknowledge the necessity of the others "predicament" or "necessity" which is hunger, and ultimately survival.

>> No.6969681

>>6969674
>waaaah my mystic dogma has been refuted
>ur a mean poo poo head!!
Go enforce your moral opinion on others.

>> No.6969689

>>6969676
Do you believe there is no such thing as objective truth?

Forget morality for a moment.

>> No.6969690

>>6969679
Those animals can't speak. Is killing another person for food moral? It's natural, after all, just like paedophilia and incest.

>> No.6969703

>>6969662
>So what is the criteria for being a human besides the obvious biological, objective facts?
>see human
>see what it does
>see what is unique to him
>make a definition

>Also, how is it that your opinion on what is human dictates what is moral?
it isnt my opinion, it's an objective definition since everything about a human being follows from its rationality.

also, since your all for evidence, please provide evidence for these
>Moral statements are value statements, values are subjective to the individual, therefore morality is subjective to the individual.
>Morality is a personal opinion.
>Desirability is subjective.
>GIVEN that the argument for moral relativism is IN FACT valid

please, provide proof

>> No.6969704

>>6969689
Yes, scientific evidence points to objective truths. For example, the existence of oxygen is objectively true, the existence of our planet is objectively true, the existence of the elements is objectively true. These are supported by irrefutable evidence, unlike your moral opinions.

>> No.6969717

>>6969690
because the human has made a value judgement of the free agency of the food he consumes. a cow is not equal to a human, in the level of "choice" that could be interfered with.

for the most part it is seen as evil to "interfere" with the life of another because for the most part the "life" belongs to another which happens to be "equal" in any sense of the word

>> No.6969719

>>6969655
>evil is achieving power through means that compromise other free agents insofar as those agents are oppressed or otherwise afflicted to what THEY CONSIDER TO BE "negatively" by the being with said power

This is absolutely awful. Any agent could consider anything negative. Back to /v/ you undergraduate.

>> No.6969718

>>6969704
do you have evidence for these?

>> No.6969722

>>6969681
This is getting really pathetic on your end. You have succumb to childish insults because your arguments hold no weight. And just because I cant convince you of the truth or of your own stupidity doesnt mean that either are any less valid in the real world.

I know youre not going to accept what Ive said and that's alright, because like I said before, truth is objective therefore independent of your perceptions so it doesnt need your approval.

*eagerly awaits mediocre pseudo-intellectual comeback*

>> No.6969737

>>6969719
you apparently didn't see my response to that post.

delusion and necessity no doubt play into it.

cannibalism would be seen differently if it occurred in an "emergency"

>> No.6969743

>>6969719
in other words, what is a valid excuse for this sort of mass killing that you would accept as "legitimate"? What could the killer tell you that would make it all make sense?

>> No.6969744

>>6969703
So homo sapiens? That doesn't say anything about morality, it's a purely biological definition.

Everything about a human doesn't follow from rationality. Do wisdom teeth flow from rationality? Do five toes flow from rationality?

I already provided a logical proof, see the first quotation you made on the third paragraph.
>>6969718
Yes, do you want me to cite the evidence? You could try breathing to prove the existence of oxygen, though.
>>6969722
You just don't realise what is is Truth not what is but what is not has Truth value in, but not in not what flows from what is, what is being Human Rationality.

I don't see why you can't cite any evidence for your claim besides mystic, dogmatic claims. Surely if you were convinced of moral realism there must be some succinct evidence.
>>6969717
Yeah, those are your moral opinions, they aren't objectively true.

>> No.6969755

>>6969744
>those are your moral opinions, they aren't objectively true.

you being a human being, and me being a human being is objectively true. I assume you contain similar reactions to certain possibilities that inflict pain that I do. Because that's how we are built.

a burn will be painful. I won't burn you. I don't have to, and I don't desire to cause pain.

fuck it, you know what morality is all about, justice.

justice, delusion, and the will to power, and the will to pleasure. these are the foundations of any so called "morality" discussion

>> No.6969764

>>6969755
Justice is just the opinions of those in power enforced through law. You can desire not feeling pain all you want, but that doesn't mean everyone has to feel that way.

>> No.6969765

>>6969744
>Everything about a human doesn't follow from rationality. Do wisdom teeth flow from rationality? Do five toes flow from rationality?
wisdom teeth arent to be a human, five toes arent to be a human, genetic makeup arent to be a human, i didnt make an appeal to biology anywhere

that isnt proof, that's an assertion, youre begging the question

how do i know im breathing oxygen? what if it's invisible health dust?
please provide evidence for your claims, and no citations please

Is the little babby too dumb to provide evidence? awww poo poo babby is stupid :(

>> No.6969767

>>6969744
Do I need to cite evidence of gravity and its proof of existence? Before they had a name for gravity it still existed.

If you believe morality is relative then have fun when they send you to a FEMA camp because hey guess what, the ones running those also think morality is relative and they actually have the power and ill intent to impose their "morals" on you, then will you agree that its right and "moral" what they do to you because they say it is? If you wouldnt then you have no choice but to accept that it is in fact NOT relative. Its the golden rule, and surely this isnt your first time hearing about it.

Ultimately what you lack is common sense, and that I can not help you with.

>> No.6969769

>>6969662
Morality can only be objective in context. For instance, it's objective that it's morally wrong to kill your pet in 21st century U.S. Morality is a socially-ordained phenomenon.

>> No.6969780

>>6969764
I'm saying, the desire to cause unnecessary pain, when the fulfillment of this desire is attached to nothing but increased power, and most likely a delusional concept of power, is what is evil

>> No.6969785

Define "morality".

>> No.6969787

>>6969780
it is literally the difference between what could be called "constructive" criticism vs. making an invasive attempt at worsening the problem to increase your own stature, you never gain stature by the worsening of others.

case in point is that a sports player is considered "good" if he beats another "good" player. not if he breaks the other players leg then wins. ......that is delusion. to think that this is "impressive" to beat the broken legged player

>> No.6969793

>>6969787
to put it another way....

yeah, you win (after breaking his leg) but that wasn't the fucking game you fucking dumbass!

>> No.6969800

>>6969785
and here we have an anon looking to play a word game

>> No.6969810

>>6969800
It's fine if you don't want to define it. It just means every statement that contains the word "morality" isn't coherent.

>> No.6969816

>>6969769
That's relativism.
>>6969767
How would me not liking being sent to a fema camp or gulag or whatever make it immoral to do that? Morality already IS the enforcement of the will of the powerful.
>>6969765
The only objective definition of human is biological.

So morality isn't a statement of value? It is a statement of value in moral realism, too, you dingus.

It doesn't matter what you call oxygen, it is still there. There are some simple experiments you can do to prove oxygen exists, just heat some mercuric oxide.
>>6969780
That doesn't make your assertion true.

>> No.6969819

>>6969810
the point is that defining "morality" is as useful as defining "god" in an atheism discussion.

you literally need to break it apart to begin to talk about it

>> No.6969827

>>6969816
it is absolutely true what I'm saying in the sports contest metaphor

see
>>6969787

>> No.6969831

>>6969800
Fruern maybe the OP doesnt have the mental capacity to understand what youre getting at, but it all makes perfect sense to me, and it really comes down to each person being responsible for their own actions and realizing that we are all connected and that every action we take causes ripples with no logical end and if those actions are in accordance with truth and objective morality the outcome which is what gets manifested into physical reality will be good (I DONT FUCKING CARE HOW MYSTIC THAT SOUNDS OP, YOU FAGGOT) but I realize that is a very ideal way of looking at the world, though if the aggregate could do so then everything that has been said for objective morality would prove itself.

And I would also like to add that it is not impossible; it CAN be done and the current human condition is just that, a condition.

>> No.6969833

>>6969819
Morality: what is right and wrong, preferably why.
God: an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being from which all things flow from.

Neither of those things are real, though.

>> No.6969835

>>6969819
>the point is that defining "morality" is as useful as defining "god" in an atheism discussion.
What are you trying to imply here?
>you literally need to break it apart to begin to talk about it
Do you think this discussion has the possibility of going anywhere if it isn't defined?

>> No.6969841

>>6969827
Good in sports refers to actions and ability, not morality.

>> No.6969846

>>6969816
>The only objective definition of human is biological.
prove it
>It is a statement of value in moral realism, too, you dingus
prove it
>It doesn't matter what you call oxygen, it is still there.
prove it, me breathing only proves that i breath
>There are some simple experiments you can do to prove oxygen exists, just heat some mercuric oxide.
so no evidence, who wouldve thought? you cant provide a single shred of evidence. Is the babby too stupid to give evidence? is it because he is full of poopoo or peepee? why do you hold on to your baseless opinions?

>> No.6969850

>>6969833
>Morality: what is right and wrong, preferably why.
Define "right" and "wrong".
>God: an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being from which all things flow from.
You are perceiving something that is omnipresent right now. You just need to realize that it's also omnipotent.

>> No.6969856

>>6969833
do all things flow from one thing? would be the first question, if you say no then of course "the thing they all flow from" won't exist

if not, then you need an alternate explanation of things "being here"

>> No.6969858

OP fucked up from the start, he is going into this discussion (if you even want to call it that, its really just a bunch of taunting coming form the faggot OP) with a bias being his atheism and if any new material or truths come into the picture he immediately rejects them as they do not fit his world view.

OP is incapable of looking at things objectively which is why he cant think objectively and by deduction why he cant comprehend objective morality. Nothing we can do, he is in a deep state of mind control but will fiercely deny it while only digging himself deeper in the hole with his own illogical arguments and childish name calling.

Stay fedora my friend.

>> No.6969860

>>6969737
Then your definition is meaningless, undergrad. Filtered.

>>>/v/

>> No.6969865

>>6969841
right, so as I said, morality begins to break down into power. a sports contest is literally a contest of the "power" of one's ability vs the power of another

the contest is legitimate, because both are permitted to use their "full power" in an attempt to gain more power by beating the opponent.

>> No.6969866

>>6969846
>prove it
There is no other objective definition. Scientifically we can determine a human by a number of factors, see: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Homo-sapiens

Moral statements are defined as statements regarding the value of actions in a moral sense. This is an issue of definition.

http://www.kids-fun-science.com/plant-experiments.html

Try this, my scientifically illiterate friend.

>> No.6969876

>>6969831
I do see most good things come from a good intention

>> No.6969882

>>6969865
Ok never mind i take back what i said about agreeing with you. If you buy into the whole power dynamic bullshit then you dont get it.
Authority has no legitimacy, truth can never be destroyed, fear is an illusion, all beings are free.

>> No.6969883

>>6969856
We don't know, learn to scepticism.
>>6969865
That has nothing to do with morality.
>>6969850
Right and wrong are what people like, they just use these terms to mean what God wants, but God doesn't real.

>> No.6969886

>>6969866
>There is no other objective definition
prove it
>Moral statements are defined as statements regarding the value of actions in a moral sense.
prove it
>http://www.kids-fun-science.com/plant-experiments.html
lol stop citing links and post proof

oh, you cant? im not surprised, since your so totally full of shit because your a dumb poo poo baby, awww dont be sad, im sure poopoo babbys will find something to do with their lives
they wont

>> No.6969892

>>6969883
What God wants is what happens, so going by these definitions, morality is predictions of the future. "Right" is what happens and "wrong" is what doesn't.

>> No.6969899

>>6969882
>Authority has no legitimacy

Really? Having authority over someone justifiers itself. Are you a college dropout by any chance?

>> No.6969901

>>6969892
God isn't real.
>>6969886
Those are issues of definition, if you don't like the definition use different words.

Do you want me to paste the kid experiment? It's easy for anyone, even you and your total ignorance of science.

>> No.6969904

>>6969886
so what happens if I use your debate style with
>>6969882

let's see!

>truth can never be destroyed
prove it
>fear is an illusion
prove it
>all beings are free
prove it

look I can logic !!

>> No.6969905
File: 74 KB, 1280x720, trivium.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6969905

>>6969876
Yeah but intention doesnt mean shit if you dont act on it.

You can have the information available to make the right decision but if you dont understand the information it is useless to you.

You can understand the information given to you but if you dont put what you know into effect (wisdom) aka action, aka what gets manifested into physical reality then it is still useless.

It is only when you have the necessary information and you understand AND you put it to practical use that things get manifested in physical reality.

That, my friend is the TRIVIUM.

>> No.6969907

>>6969899
Da only aufority yall be needin be dis hyar big blag dig all up in yalls bizznuss, biatch.

>> No.6969914

>>6969904
These questions are entirely legitimate, fuck off back to >>>/r/philosophy

>> No.6969917

>objective morality exists because I say so!
>if you don't accept it you're an evil atheist
This is worse than, /v/. Both boards need to learn that their opinions aren't objectively true.

>> No.6969921

>>6969882
>all beings are free.
Define "free".

>> No.6969923

>>6969917
>everything is subjective
>>>/mu/

>> No.6969925

>>6969917
Actually this is OP second thread in the first he clearly stated he was a moral nihilist, how many nihilists do you know believe in God? Or to be moral?

Lol, you see its ridiculous the nonsense being propagated here.

>> No.6969930

>>6969921
No.

>> No.6969931

>>6969925
Being an atheist isn't a bad thing, though. OP is pretty much correct in stating that morality is nothing more than the subjective values of individuals or cultures.

>> No.6969938

>>6969931
It ultimately depends on how you define "morality".

>> No.6969941

>>6969882
but seriously, I can understand the other statements, but if truth can never be destroyed, I'm not sure what truth you're bringing into play that relates to power dynamics

>> No.6969942

I like how all the people in this thread want to argue about vague concepts without a willingness to define the terms they're arguing over. It makes for hilarious nonsensical babble.

>> No.6969953

>>6969942
because right and wrong are relative, so immediately the typical "morality" definition is thrown out the window.

>> No.6969954

>>6969938
I think it is just what is right and wrong, so OP, if he really is a nihilist, would say there are no true right or wrong actions, morally, so morality is more about good and evil. Those really have to be defined by an individual or group, as it is based on their preference. I can't see objective morality existing without an arbiter of morals, a God.

>> No.6969956

>>6969953
i.e. "morality concerns what is right and wrong"

its just a general starting point, its not in itself worth defining because by nature it is vague just as I said, "god" is vague.

>> No.6969964

>>6969953
It depends on how you define "right" and "wrong".

>>6969954
"Right" and "wrong" still need to have a "prime" definition that is not subjective, or else the words wouldn't be useful.

>> No.6969969

>>6969954
yes but I'm still waiting for an answer to a question I asked which was, "if a serial killer murders several people, what is a sensible rationale you could attribute to him?"

it is entirely possible is response is, "because I am pleasured by killing"

literally nothing but dopamine happening. he kills because it gets his dopamine flowing.

but this "isn't good enough"

because we as humans have realized that dopamine flow can be controlled, and if it isn't controlled, doesn't that mean he is simply a dopamine robot?

there must be some difference in "human" vs "dopamine robot" is all im saying.

>> No.6969971

>>6969904
Sure thing!
>truth can never be destroyed
Truth is manifested holographically, the information comprising the Truth can never be destroyed, for it is literally contained within every single thing in creation. Thus the Truth is systemically preserved. The only way it could ever possibly be eradicated would be to destroy every element in all creation, which, to the best of my knowledge, no one has been able to do just yet. Understanding the indestructibility of Truth allows us to understand that anyone who actually believes that the Truth is capable of being suppressed and ultimately destroyed is living in a deep state of fear, illusion and denial. They are raging against that which is, and those who do that seldom find themselves in a good place.
>fear is an illusion
Fear is the essence of negative emotion which leads to all other expressions of negativity, or "bad" feelings, which we experience, including hatred, intolerance, insecurity, depression, and a host of others. Fear shuts down Consciousness and perpetually strives to stop the Light of Truth from reaching us and having an effect in our lives.
Control is the highest expression of Fear manifested into external reality. Control is an illusion. It is not actually real, for no one is in fact in control of anything or anyone. Anyone who believes that they are are in external control of anyone else are actually in very deep states of illusion.Our present situation is that our planet is currently trapped in repeating cycles of Fear, resulting in tremendous amounts of suffering, because the people of this world have been raging against Creation by refusing to learn the core lesson that Fear is an illusion. Fear was created so that the Creation could come to know itself for what it really is - pure Love.

And since no one is actually in control of anyone or anything then we are all free, therefore proving the illegitimacy of authority.

>> No.6969976

>>6969964
as i said, its not right and wrong from the individuals point of view but "desirable and undesirable"

the example I used was that no evil happens in a hunt with a lion and gazelle. there are simply desirable and undesirable outcomes for each free agent involved

>> No.6969978

>>6969969
Humans are animals like every other primate. Why should we need to do more than seek pleasure?

>> No.6969982

>>6969976
>no evil happens in a hunt with a man and woman. there are simply desirable and undesirable outcomes for each free agent involved

>> No.6969986

>>6969976
But if you question why certain things are "desirable" and "undesirable", it will lead you along a path that inevitably leads to the conclusion that everything happens for the same reason.

>> No.6969988

>>6969978
because we want to live. imagine you choosing to live each day.

you could say, a cow doesn't WANT to live as much as a human because it doesn't understand what it means to live like a human does.

the killer seems to eliminate the inherent equality of his victim being "another human" and so decides for the other that it doesn't "want to live" and so eliminates the choice entirely

>> No.6969992

>>6969978
Because humans can realize the purpose of pleasure and condition themselves to be better at taking pleasure in the right things.

>> No.6969993

>>6969982
the situation is different because the man is hunting pleasure ultimately, not survival

>> No.6970005

>>6969988
>a cow doesn't WANT to live as much as a human

Nice unfounded assumption.

>it doesn't understand what it means to live like a human does

How do you know this? Were you a cow yesterday or something?

>>6969992
You don't know if an animal can't "realize the purpose of pleasure," whatever the hell that means.

>> No.6970008

>>6969971
but we can't blame those who are fearful if they have no control over their fear, if no one has external control over anything

>> No.6970014

>>6970005
its not unfounded. a certain "richness" of being human which includes a wide spectrum of awareness emotion and reactions, such as facial expressions, laughter, tears, etc.

in all it makes it more "real" than the cow. because we see the cow as little more than a bug, and a bug anybody crushes because it doesn't even scream

in complete honesty I'm only rationalizing me eating meat, and it comes down to me not feeling the sacrifice is worth the cow's life, which could be seen as evil in some ways. but cows don't seem all that aware of what's going on.

>> No.6970015

>>6970005
>You don't know if an animal can't "realize the purpose of pleasure," whatever the hell that means.
You can, easily. If something kills itself when presented with access to free heroin, then it doesn't realize the purpose of pleasure.

>> No.6970023

>>6970008
No but we can most certainly wake them up to the fact that it is in fact an illusion. And sometimes talking soft to people just doesnt do it, sometimes you have to be assertive and a bit confrontational. Its called tough love. I wouldnt be here arguing for hours if I didnt truly understand and KNOW this information. And this is for all to know, this information doesnt belong to anyone, it belongs to everyone.

>> No.6970024

>>6969993
What if the woman is the only food around?

>> No.6970028

>>6970024
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party

>> No.6970034

>>6970028
Yank cannibals, what does that say of morality of a man eating a woman, though?

>> No.6970039

>>6970023
I would also like o add that the only thing that we do have control over is ourselves. Therefore there is only self ownership.

>> No.6970040

>>6970034
I'm saying the gender doesn't matter. I'm not sure how though a man would come to a situation in which another man was the only food. maybe the actual hypothetical is:

if two men are locked in a cage, and then time passes until they are both starving, then each given a knife, would they fight for the fresh meat, or put down their knives and both perish after suffering for weeks on end?

You'll never know because different men would react differently

>> No.6970043

>>6970023
fear ultimately concerns death.

because fear wouldn't need to include others, just a cliff to walk along the edge of

>> No.6970055

>>6970043
I disagree with you, while it is a cause of fear it is not the only cause of fear. But the fear of death is really the ego being concerned with its own self continuity, understanding that it is inescapable and a futile attempt to even try then you realize that life has its ups and downs and it always will with or without you. As the great psychologist Carl Jung put it

"Even a happy life cannot be without a measure of darkness, and the word happy would lose its meaning if it were not balanced by sadness. It is far better take things as they come along with patience and equanimity."

>> No.6970056

>>6970014
You only don't empathize with a cow because you aren't a cow. This "richness" you feel is anthropocentrism based on you having only ever been a human.

It comes down to the fact that you can't communicate with a cow and you can't get in a cow's mind and therefore you can't empathize with a cow outside of commonalities we share with a cow (e.g., hunger, the need for sleep, etc.)

>> No.6970060

>>6969942
Welcome to philosophy!

>> No.6970061

>>6970055
To add on, everyone lives and dies, it truly is what makes life so special, not because we are all special little snow flakes or whatever but because our time on this planet is limited and we are truly blessed to be able to experience the ups and downs that come in this beautiful drama we call life.

>> No.6970132

>>6970061
There is no definitive agent the undergoes the processes "life" and "death".

>> No.6970149

>>6970132
If what you are trying to get at is that consciousness never dies I agree, but physical death is a very real occurrence.

>> No.6970162

>>6970132
OR if what you are trying to get at is that energy can not be created or destroyed it can only be changed from one form to another I also agree but death is just energy being changed from one form to another.

>> No.6970169

>>6970060

Welcome to pseudo-philosophy! If you were to attempt a majority of the shit that is posted in this thread within a critical setting (e.g. rigorous forums within academia), you would be fucking lambasted.

>> No.6970174

>>6970149

Do you not sleep?

>> No.6970181

>>6970174
No.

>> No.6970186

>>6970169
so what subjects do these rigorous forums concern themselves with

>> No.6970188

>>6970162
I just can't understand objective morality. Moral relativism is just so clear and undeniable it shouldn't be up for debate.

"What's best for everyone" has been interpreted a million different ways, including eugenics, human sacrifice and slavery. Your moral code isn't superior to anyone else's.

We can agree that killing is wrong. But what about self defense? What about the death penalty? What about abortion? Whay about in acts of war?

There is no objective morality. People just need to stop getting off on their moral superioritt and feigned altruism.

>> No.6970189

>>6970186
idk i was just trying to sound smart ;(

>> No.6970191

>>6970188
why wouldn't you go to a hospital and kill the first newborn you can find

>> No.6970208

>>6970186

Not me >>6970189; what the fuck you cuck.

Anyway, go read some articles.

https://ndpr.nd.edu/recent-reviews/

http://philpapers.org/browse/all#a13

>> No.6970219
File: 20 KB, 499x499, perf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6970219

>>6970208
Ok, not even kidding, that page has work on Aquinas, Derrida, Kant, Hegel, and Wittgenstein.

So apparently they haven't gotten too far

>> No.6970225

>>6970188
If everybody did whatever they wanted to do according to what they think is right and wrong the world as we know it would not exist today we would have destroyed ourselves a long time ago, and its getting that way believe me and we are letting it happen. Moral relativism just doesnt make any sense logically.

No it is not ok to murder someone.
Yes it is your inherent birth born right as a creation of the divine to defend yourself if you are being attacked, but self defense and murder are two different things.

Man ends up destroying himself when he goes against nature for it is a force you simply can not beat. Nature is objective and makes no mistakes, if you dont believe me just do your own research on the subject. When deer start to over populate they eventually start dying off on their own through diseases they acquire, this is natures doing. It does not care for your pity notions of what you believe to be right or wrong, nature simply is. And understanding nature we can understand objective morality in that we can learn to live in harmony with nature but only if our morals are in accordance with it, if not Chaos will surely ensue.

And chaos is an ever present truth in nature, surely there will always be chaos in the universe, it is a universal law, but through living in accordance with objective morality we can greatly reduce any unnecessary chaotic events. Or we can keep up our amoral behaviors and let nature take care of us, and it will. And even when we are not here, right and wrong will still exist in the universe, with or without us.

>> No.6970227

>>6970219

Tell me a discipline that radically divorces itself from the tradition that engenders it.

>Still use Newtonian mechanics for a vast majority of work within practical settings in physics
>therefore, physics hasn't moved that far

GG

>> No.6970240

>>6969623
Haven't you ever done something you didn't desire but in hindsight you're glad you did it? Seems like in your definition the morality of said action flips completely depending on the circumstance.

>> No.6970246

>>6970240
I feel what I was saying had more to do with intention.

imagine a child throwing a tantrum because his parent won't buy him an ice cream.

yes, its his desire, yes the parent interfered, but the parent desires a healthy condition for its child, the parent intends to help the child in some form.

inflicting pain however, is often done for purposes of attaining power, or attaining pleasure, both seem to be unnecessary ultimately

I was mainly talking of "unnecessarily inflicted pain"

>> No.6970250

>>6970227
I guess I figured the field at large would have resolved many of those issues by now. or at least come to more agreed upon terms. Its just incredible these authors still hold so much sway, So I guess what they had to say was ultimately deep and still unresolved, still analyzed, still debated

they weren't "thrown out" with some advancement like some other fields in favor of an "improved model"

>> No.6970262

>>6970227
Feminist "Sociology"

>> No.6970265

>>6970250
Not who you were responding too, but as the old saying goes "there is nothing new under the sun.."

If you started this thread expecting to hear anything new I got bad news for you...

Truth is a pathless land, there are many ways to get to it, there is no ONE path, and Truth has always existed, there is no end, no beginning, there simply is. What else could it be? (Pro tip: Nothing else)

>> No.6970282

>>6970265
yes but what IS the truth in its simplest sense?

"LOVE" is thrown about, but so much seems to HAPPEN goddamnit. the world seems to be such a clusterfuck of activity, and time, and history, and causes, and people, and millions of things happening at once. how is it that something so complex, so multi-faceted, so aimless could possibly be related to the truth?

you make the truth sound so singular, so self-evident, so obvious, and yet it hides in every corner it can find a shadow.........yes or no?

>> No.6970292

>>6970265
"There is one truth." being true itself while allowing anything else of substance to be true is a mathematical impossibility.

>>6970246
There is no substantive evidence for objective value in pleasure. The belief that pain is bad and pleasure is good is just nonsense. Some things many people hold to be great grant the owner pain; some things many people hold to be terrible grant the owner pleasure.

>> No.6970313

>>6970282
I already told you in all of my previous posts. You are just too god damn hard headed to get it; I guess its because you are expecting me to reveal this fanciful fucking definition of Truth that will give some "AHA!" moment and make your life better and etc etc.
Sorry, thats not the Truth. And im also very sorry that the Truth isnt interesting enough for you or acceptable to your personal tastes.

I said it before and ill say it again;
Truth is the expression of all that exists. Truth is simply that which is, and all of that which is encompasses the Truth.

This means that ultimately, Truth is comprised of all information, in all space, times, frequencies and dimensions of existence.

Truth is unwavering. It simply is, and it is always simple. It is only our perception that wavers either toward the Truth or away from it - but the Truth itself is simply that which is.

And if you have your own idea that doesnt match then by all means go with it, but please call it something else other than Truth so as not to confuse others on what Truth REALLY is. Like I said this isnt my opinion, it simply is. Independent of me.

>> No.6970324

>>6970250

I think the point is that a lot of academic philosophy is precisely devoted your requested point, interpreting the meanings within these texts, and so, attempting to deliver these insight points within the purview of a legitimate interpretation of Wittgenstein, Kant, Derrida, etc. Philosophy may not have 'answers,' but it re-orientates itself and asks differing questions that reply to the tradition that bore it. One cannot possibly say that philosophy has not progress, and not look at the vast radical change from Greek philosophy -> medieval philosophy + scholasticiscm + Aristotelianism -> modern philosophy (advent of epistemological questions and issues regarding perception) -> 20th century philosophy (emphasis on linguistic philosophy, semantics, syntax, grammar, etc.) -> 21st century philosophy ( I would wager a presumption on a move towards political philosophy)

>> No.6970328

>>6970292
You are taking what im saying out of context to try to disprove me. Its pathetic really. There IS one Truth and all of which is encompasses the Truth.
see >>6970313

>> No.6970342

>>6970313
>Truth is the expression of all that exists

Yes I can understand this. because I feel there is a holistic nature to existence in itself, even if it is infinite

I guess the "fanciful" defintion would be from a perspective that is not human, because I can only sense certain things. I am limited by my "humanness" and so feel that there is something "behind the curtain" some outer force, or some other level in which the things that happen, happen..........some place where what happens affects things in a different way, where things have some sort of weight or purpose

because humans still seem "stupid" to me, and I feel there could possibly be some being, maybe humans in the future even, that could comprehend more of the "nature" of what we find ourselves in

it is difficult sometimes to not see the body for example as some strange "prison" that imposes limitations of physical possibility and mental power

>> No.6970345

>>6970313
Your answer is meaningless to a discussion of ethics. If you believe "truth" is existence itself then we cannot use your proposed "truth" to form value statements about future events. Without value statements about future events we cannot discuss ethics. With sufficient understanding of the physical laws whose interactions are at work in the brain, any belief (or that which provides it) is empirically measurable. Therefore all things that we can imagine exist, as ideas, as biochemical structures. If you offer that existence itself is "truth" then you've said everything is truth- which is equally valuable to the judgment that nothing is true, except that it is a suggestion that requires future justification while the suggestion that nothing is true, does not.

>> No.6970369

>>6970345
If you are suggesting that nothing is true, and that is a fact, then it is true that nothing is true.

Therefore you can not escape it any way you look at it. Also, why did you conveniently choose to overlook my previous post?
>>6970225

>> No.6970393

>>6970369
The statement that nothing is true doesn't require truth for validity. In that way it is similar to the statement "I am a liar.".

Your moral realist post about being a creation of the divine and the inherent worth of human life is of absolutely no value to a discussion of ethics.
You are trying to offer answers you cannot logically defend. Human beings are entirely material (so far as our ability to check reveals) so the laws they follow in reality are a subset of material laws.
Human beings are capable of murdering or being murdered, and in fact they are murdering and being murdered as we speak. In the scenario that a person is murdered, the chance of them being murdered is 100%- it is a reality. Reality is something that needs to exist, and as far as we know it is the only thing that needs to exist.

I think I could be killed in about one second right now, so I don't need to be alive 2 seconds from now. See how my view of "ethics" is compatible with reality and how yours isn't? That is why it is so easy for me to think that you're wrong.

>> No.6970434

>>6970393
Youve taken what I said out of context, every living being is a creation of the divine whatever you want to call it, it all came from the same source. Also im not making the claim we are special snowflakes, im saying we have the right as living beings to defend ourselves, so far ive said nothing wrong.

Also you do know there is a difference between ethics and morality right?
So youve already fucked up by not even knowing what the hell youre arguing, and thats why it is so easy for me to KNOW that you are wrong. And I actually agree with this statement you made, though I believe you are looking at it from a negative point of view.

> In the scenario that a person is murdered, the chance of them being murdered is 100%- it is a reality. Reality is something that needs to exist, and as far as we know it is the only thing that needs to exist.

But reality doesnt have to be everyone murdering each other. You are advocating death and destruction whether you are consciously aware of it or not. I am advocating change, I am advocating love for your fellow man, love for all living beings on Earth. Humans are not inherently good or bad, and people have a hard time accepting that, I choose to view it in the positive light meaning we can be whatever we want to be. And hopefully we will soon choose to spend the time we have been given on earth to better understand ourselves and break through this vicious cycle or fear and hate for each other once and for all.

>> No.6970454

>>6970434
I am not advocating death and destruction. I am not advocating anything. Reality needs to exist. Normative statements about future events like "we have the right as living beings to defend ourselves" cannot extend from logic. That statement, and other moral realist claims, are merely the enactment of one's preference.
I am not a satanist, I am a moral relativist. I do not think human beings are "inherently good or bad" because either of those claims are unsubstantiated claims that try to reinforce moral realist perspectives. To say whether human beings are good or bad we need to first say what is good or bad, and yes, we are the ones who make that call. We have no evidence to believe otherwise.
My stance is that moral realist statements are merely the attempt to justify one's preferences without relying on egoism. You have given no evidence for the contrary.

>> No.6970484

>>6970454
Self defense exists in nature, therefore its not my own judgement call on it. It is a truth in nature. There is your evidence.
Also it is a logical fallacy what you are proposing, objective morality is diametrically opposed to ones preferences otherwise it wouldnt be objective. It would just be moral relativism, but if you are saying that it is my preference to align myself with objective morality then by all means youre absolutely right. But it still does not disprove the objectivity of morality, you only prove that peoples preferences make them want to align themselves with objective morality.

Also as far as i am concerned you have given no valid argument for moral relativism. It is one thing to deny and criticize others, but it is a different thing altogether to actually prove your point. (Which you have not done)

>> No.6970500

>>6970484
Self defense in the present exists in nature but nothing leads us to a substantiated belief in future self defense. A future world state where self defense is impossible seems physically possible, therefore we cannot make logically founded value statements about future self defense.

Self defense will either happen or not happen in the future. Whether or not we have any objective claim to "just" self-defense is an absolutely unjustifiable claim.

>otherwise it wouldn't be objective

This is exactly what I am proposing. You are convinced that you are not making your own value statements about future events and that your value statements about future events exist in nature. They do not- only the universe's present state currently exists.

My posts are all founded in logic (they extend from the necessity of reality, and reality is by definition necessary) and give arguments for moral relativism.
If you are looking for some greater power to guarantee the veracity of my claims, then none exists for either of our arguments. The difference between us is that I am NOT arguing an indefensible position and that you are.

We do not observe evidence in reality for objective morality. You are claiming the existence of objective morality. I am not.

>> No.6970533

>>6970500
While I see what youre getting at it I can not accept your solipsistic point of view. If you die then you have no way of knowing what will happen after your death, that is true. BUT, one can logically assume that the next day the sun will still come up and people will still go on with their lives (even though you cant prove it through your own experience because you are dead), so some things we can base our conclusions off of circumstantial evidence, does that mean it is fool proof? No, but neither is moral relativism, in fact moral relativism is nothing but faulty.

Moral Relativism means that there is no objective standard of morality, meaning there is no right or wrong. So if there is no right or wrong then man can do whatever he wants like he is GOD. Meaning he can take you freedom away to do what you want (and its happening believe me)

Also the utter nonsense of moral relativism is flawed from the start, because if everyone gets to decide what is right and wrong then you are by deduction allowing others to do what others want to you whether it means killing you, stealing from you, anything. Now obviously that would not make you too happy, but if you believe in moral relativism you are advocating slavery. I dont care if you dont believe you are or not, it is a fact. You cant possibly sit here and argue that right and wrong is subjective to the individual, because when someone blows a hole in you or one of your childrens heads because "it is my right as moral relativist" you will see just how erroneous that belief really is.

>> No.6970546

>>6970533
You do not understand moral relativism at all. Nobody has claim to rights as a moral relativist, "rights" and "justification" are a moral realist spook.

People could blow a hole in my children's heads, if I ever have children, that is. It could happen.

Examine your own argument in the center of your post. You are saying that if moral relativism is true in reality that man can take away the freedom of others. You proceed to agree that man in reality takes away the freedom of others.
Moral relativists do not believe in the "justness" or "rightness" of this world or any other hypothetical world. They believe that moral objectivity is unfounded by evidence in reality.

If I claim that it is wrong to kill my children, it is out of my desire to have them survive. It is not rationally justifiable to believe that this claim comes out of an inhuman and alien universal which exists without me.

Man can indeed do whatever he wants. That is true in reality. Morality only exists to try to control the man in question; and it is us who seeks to control him.

>> No.6970568

>>6970546
Yes I am saying man CAN do it, but I am not saying its RIGHT. And man made laws seek to control all men. No matter how you put it though, the only logical and self evident conclusion is that ultimately no matter what can happen in the world (read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory)) the only true ownership that exists is self ownership, and when humans go through enough suffering (usually out of their own doing) then eventually they will realize that if we want to live in harmony with nature we can not simply do whatever we want especially if it involves violence against others or living beings through any means, there are laws in the universe that we can not escape and once we realize that this is true and we have a deep understanding of it we can use the free will given to us by the creator (whatever you want to call it) to leave a positive impact on the earth and progress as human beings.

And to know if we are moving in the right direction we must ask ourselves a few questions.

Individually and collectively, are we moving toward the expression of the Polarity of Love, (expanded Consciousness and Awareness) and therefore toward Goodness, Order and Truth, or are we moving deeper into the expression of the Polarity of Fear (the contraction and shutdown of Consciousness), and therefore toward Evil and Chaos?
Based on our available knowledge of ourselves and the world in which we live, we must make an honest appraisal of where we stand as a whole. From where have we come? Where are we now? Where are we headed?
We must realize the significance of understanding our true origins. An accurate understanding of the past can greatly help us to orient our direction for the future.
Most important and significant of all, our very Compass for Direction, our moral compass, is our Emotions, the Sacred Feminine of the Triune aspect of Self. We should never seek to numb out our Emotions, for they are the bridge between our Thoughs and our Actions, and as such they are a buffer between what we think about ourselves and others, and the subsequent behavior that we enact into the world. Quite simply, our emotions are the most important determining factor to the type of world we are creating. Our Emotions serve as our moral and Directional Compass in life. We are meant to feel our Emotions deeply, and integrate them into our experiences of daily living.

>> No.6970576

>>6970568
You are trapped in a thousand spooked ideas about how eternal thoughts can exist without the minds that entertain them. No number of analyses that I care to perform could fully expand upon the lack of logical necessity in your post. You have taken a great number of false dichotomies as fact, mistaken the reality of evidence for free will (or you merely do not require evidence for your beliefs) and elicited the very beliefs that the creators of your fixed thoughts sought to have you elicit.
If you think that free will enables us to overturn causal realities then your position is revealed as even less substantiated. No evidence for free will, as it might exist distinct from the illusion of choice, exists.

I need to be in the same causal state that I currently am in. Alternatives to this state do not exist in our reality. You need to be in the causal state you are in. The necessity of current causal states is all we have deductive evidence for.

Stay trapped. I should have known better than to try to break through the limits of others.

>> No.6970582

>>6970576
You are severely misguided yourself or are attempting to misguide others, either way you are wrong and your own bias is preventing you form seeing the Truth.

Good luck anon, you are going to need it with that world view.

>> No.6970584

>>6970576
Also everything you have said points to satanism, they also dont believe in free will. Not that that is going to change your mind or anything just letting you know you are brain washed.

Stay stuck in the matrix buddy, the truth is out there whenever youre ready to break free.

>> No.6970608

>>>6970313
>this retarded definition of truth
It's not capitalised, by the way, stop being a fucking retard.

>> No.6970616

>>6970608
Do you have a better definition you would care to enlighten us all with? If not keep your fucking mouth shut.

>> No.6970627

>>6970616
The truth is what is factual.

>> No.6970632

>>6970627
Therefore what is.
Fuck you; youve said nothing different. Were on the same page so quit arguing over nothing cocksucker.

>> No.6970638

>>6970632
No, you said a lot more than 'what is', but you should have said what is factual. You also capitalised truth like a retard.

>> No.6970645

>>6970638
Because Truth is what is. Also it is capitalized to make a point. You are offering nothing of value to this thread, "hurr truth is a fact", well no shit. But do you have all the facts? List them off for me, oh wait you cant. So is it not a better interpretation to say Truth is the expression of all that exists? Since you cant specifically say all that which is, it simply is that which is. But this is probably too confusing for you even though it couldnt be any simpler.

>> No.6970657

>>6970645
I could list many facts, actually. Why does 'making a point' come before correct grammar.

>> No.6970664

>>6970657
Yeah but can you make the claim that you know the whole Truth of all creation? (Now im just capitalizing it to piss you off)

Also should grammar come before making all points even though some points are obviously more important than grammar? (Rhetorical question; dont answer; i already know the answer to it kek)

>> No.6970674

>>6970664
No, nobody knows the truth of everything, that doesn't mean there is no such thing as truth. Why would you think you have to know everything to know certain facts?

>> No.6970680

>>6970674
>No, nobody knows the truth of everything
Exactly my point you dumb motherfucker.
>that doesn't mean there is no such thing as truth
Now youre getting it, you fucking moron.
>Why would you think you have to know everything to know certain facts?
I dont think that, i never made the claim I did, quit implying that I made such stupid implications.

A human being's sensory organs are hard-wired to perceive information contained only within an extremely narrow bandwidth range compared to all that actually exists. Our ability to receive and process information through these organs is known as our senses. These include sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. There is also a sixth sense we possess called Intuition - a state of simple knowing, the ability to recognize an aspect of the Truth without consciously being aware of exactly how we know it.
The sensory organs we possess are not capable of receiving information that exists outside of their perceptual limits. We often use technology as an extension of our natural senses to become aware of information that lies outside the limits of our sense perception. But technology also has its limits, and so much information lies outside of the perceptual limits of any technology we currently possess, or may invent in the future. What I am claiming, is that we are capable of knowing the body of information which has come into manifestation and lies within the perceptual limits of both our senses and technology.
This means that we are most definitely capable of becoming aware of that which is happening both within ourselves, and in the manifested events of the world in which we live - also known as Earth.

>> No.6970684

>>6970680
You can't know that anything exists outside of your perception by definition, stop posturing.

>> No.6970685

>>6970684
HOLY SHIT LEARN TO READ.

>> No.6970691

>>6970684
Also how can you claim Truth exists and then say that you can't know that anything exists outside of your perception? Truth is independent of your perception. Also, just because you cant perceive that im scratching my balls right now does that mean its not happening? Through my own experience of me scratching my balls i can tell you it most certainly is going on.

>> No.6970697

>>6970691
I can perceive it, you mean that I can't see it. You're confusing necessary truth with contingent truth, don't do that in the future.

>> No.6970704

>>6970697
Thanks for the tip ill keep it in mind. Also i like how you pretty much ignored my previous post. Youve still yet to say anything of any real value. Unless youre just here to masturbate your mental skills. And if thats the case youve yet to realize what real intelligence is.

>> No.6970710

>>6970704
If real intelligence is redefining words, capitalising words, asserting your bullshit claims as facts and making sweeping general statements that are simply not true, I'd rather not be intelligent. Go read some real philosophy, like Kripke, instead of the pseudo-intellectual tripe you pass off as 'intelligent thought', let me guess, you like Robert Anton Wilson?

>> No.6970720

>>6970710
Never heard of either of the names you listed.
And just so you know so in the future youll rely on facts and not clever quips, intellect is not intelligence, intelligence comprises more than intellect, intellect is left brain understanding, true intelligence is holistic understanding with the right brain included in the process. Also, you claim im making "sweeping generalizations" (very popular term on 4chan these days), but its one thing to criticize what I have to say, its another to actually prove me wrong. But you cant because well, im speaking the Truth. Youre just here to make yourself sound smart but obviously im not fooled.

>> No.6970730

>>6970720
No, what you're saying is just unfalsifiable nonsense. The fact that you don't know who Saul Kripke, the most important living philosopher, is is testament to you philosophical illiteracy. That is not the definition of intelligence, by the way, you just pulled it out of your arse.

>> No.6970742

>>6970730
Truth is unfalsifiable.

>The most important living philosopher
And im the one making sweeping generalizations? KEK

Also you keep telling me im wrong but thats probably the best definition of intelligence youre gonna get. Unless of course you know a better definition?
Ive studied these things, you havent. I understand your precious ego is having a hard time dealing with the fact that your wrong, but dealing with information purely on the basis of how it makes you feel is a fallacy in logical thinking. Dont do that in the future.

>> No.6970751

>>6970742
How is truth unfalsifiable? Do you know what unfalsifiable means? How is that a sweeping generalisation? It's not a generalisation. Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

>> No.6970772

>>6970751
Not going to lie, i spoke too soon I did not in fact know what unfalsifiable meant, but I just read up on it and to be honest everything I have said can be proven with just a bit of research so yes you were making sweeping generalizations in asserting that everything I said was unfalsifiable nonsense, and it most certainly is not. With a bit of research you would know this.
Also why are you so up this dudes ass? Ill look into him but seriously claiming him to be the most important living philosopher sounds more like opinion than fact.
> Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
Yes and that requires using both the left and right brain hemisphere also it was a very simplistic definition at that. At least i acknowledged the usage of both hemispheres, something you probably have a very basic understanding of.

>> No.6970785

>>6970772
No, you can't prove definitions, stop being retarded, learn language. I don't see why you're so hung up on brain hemispheres, they have nothing to do with the definition of intelligence. You're just angry about being confronted for your pseudo-intellectual bullshit and now you want to nit pick a very vague science.

>> No.6970796
File: 332 KB, 486x350, mental-schizm.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6970796

>>6970785
No but you can prove the existence of the brain hemispheres and how they relate to your overall mentality and you know thats what I meant so quit playing dumb. Unless its not an act (high likely). And im hung up on it because there is legitimacy to it, if only you would do your research you would know that. Also I can already tell by your responses you are suffering from a left brain imbalance.

>> No.6970805

>>6970796
Oh, your 'knowledge' of this comes from bullshit facebook image macros. Got an actual peer reviewed paper, maybe?

>> No.6970813

>>6970805
http://www.ipn.at/ipn.asp?BGC

None of my "pseudo intellectual" shit there, as basic as it gets.

>> No.6970818

>>6970813
What the fuck? That isn't a scientific, peer reviewed paper, that's not even cited. I'd expect to see that shit on any click bait site.

>> No.6970819

>>6969586
https://philosophynow.org/issues/6/The_Necessity_of_Moral_Realism

>> No.6970829

>>6970813
I just looked in to the site more, it's about psychics, life energy and other nonsense. You're a fucking joke. This is fucking hilarious.

>> No.6970854

>>6970829
I stopped arguing with this person after they made that clear in >>6970568. I honestly don't know why you would come in here and argue with them unless you hadn't read the thread.

>> No.6970857

>>6970854
I just responded to his definition of truth, I didn't read much of the thread, no.

>> No.6970862

>>6970857
When I googled some of the pseudoscientific terms that the post I linked contained, I got this web page.

shamangelichealing com/divine-balance-the-sacred-union-of-the-divine-feminine-and-masculine/

I don't know whether this is their page or whether they just take what it claims as fact.

>> No.6970911

>>6970862
>>6970829
Youve done me a great service by proving me wrong, i humbly accept that i was wrong.

>> No.6971064

>>6969901
>Those are issues of definition
prove it
>Do you want me to paste the kid experiment?
no i want you to prove it, you pee pee poo poo babby