>be edgy high schooler who believed that most humans were selfish, horrible beings that only>turned 20 and realize thats a stupid and cringe way to look at life>now 26, constantly bombarded by the worst of what humanity has to offer from the second i wake upmaybe im just a sensitive little sperg but man i just dont know how to NOT let this shit get to me, especially when i know that not every person is some evil psycho, but at times it feels like every good thing is just overshadowed by one giant negative thing that gets 5x more attention
people can be good when they're raised well and fed and comfortable. otherwise they turn to about. after listening to the stories about diddy basically openly molesting girls at parties and the bodyguards stopping people that didn't like it i don't see how you could conclude people are good or bad except insofar as it affects where their money is coming from
>>34137546Consider it an opportunity to exercise the virtues. Encountering bad behavior lets you practice patience, forgiveness and humility. If everyone were pleasant all the time, you'd never get the chance to perfect yourself in those areas.>>34137561People can be good anywhere. No outward circumstance can take away their ability to choose virtue over vice. The thing that separates the good from the bad is what they love. Someone who loves money and bodily comfort will always behave in an evil way, whereas someone who loves truth, justice, and right reason will always have good behavior, even when it puts him at a material disadvantage. History is filled with men who have sacrificed themselves and died for the sake of principle. That wouldn't be possible if we were all slaves to money, comfort or fame.
>>34138268Stoicists are cringe. It's the original slave morality paul borrowed from.
>>34138314All morality is a matter of serving a higher principle. Anyone who thinks that truth and reason should serve him, rather than that he should serve truth and reason, has no morality whatsoever by definition. Such a person would be a nihilist or moral relativist.
>>3413754630-40% of people are goodish to very good in any population.
>>34138341Morality is healthy vs unhealthy, not giod vs evil.That which affirms life is healthy.
>>34138372Good vs. Evil is healthy vs. unhealthy, in the sense that it's always morally healthy to choose good and always morally unhealthy to choose evil. If you're talking about the body's health, then that's simply foolish beyond belief. That would mean that it's morally good to subvert the wellbeing of others for the sake of your body's survival. It's no different from saying "anything that's good for me is good", which is the definition of nihilism or amorality. But obviously nihilism is objectively wrong, because the body's survival has no bearing on what's morally good, often times the morally correct choice is to sacrifice your body and survival for the sake of others. Either you base your morality on pure, objective, impartial reason, or you have no morality whatsoever. There is no in between or compromise.
>>34138414Morality is subjective because it relates to humans (subjects).Objective morality can only be about rocks and tables.
>>34138433Saying that morality is subjective is the same as saying that it doesn't exist at all. If it's subjective, then there are no limits, rules or boundaries of any kind. Which again is the same as nihilism. But it is objective, because it relates to reason, and reason is purely objective in every sense.Next you'll likely claim that reason isn't objective, which will collapse everything you could ever have to say on the matter because if reason can't come to sensible and objective conclusions then that means there is no such thing as a sensible conclusion and truth is inherently unapproachable, which would include your very own argument and make anything you have to say automatically untrue. Either reason does approach truth, which makes it the measure of all things including morality, or reason can't approach truth in which case nothing can and truth can't be determined, thus making your own argument untrue according to your own premises.
>>34138268its not exactly about simply being good and simply being evil. "evil" people can do good things and "good" people can do evil things. i guess its more of the reason why some people justify something so horrible, that is probably as close to "objectively" bad as you can get. i guess an example would be something like the current state of warfare after ukraine. i see videos of these random people i dont know getting blown up for land that will ultimately be worthless thanks to UXO and i go "man this shit fucking sucks", but i talk to some people and they go "man this shit fucking sucks... but not because theyre dying, it sucks because theyre being blown up by drones instead artillery or something". or shit like alex jones harassing the parents of kids who were killed in that one school shooting. i guess its more about empathy and apathy than good and evil, and how it seems like every day we inch closer to a world full of people who cant fathom any point of view other than their own
>>34138268>>34138341>>34138344>>34138433From a logically view, as an autistic fucker myself, it seems the answer is that we are dominated by emotions and feelings and not some dualistic of both logic and emotion, and that some people just shouldn’t exist.Your average DND fellow on tg tho isn’t a bad guy or an artist in something awful art place, some people are kinda cool
>>34138461Idealism claims the universe is mental. Materialism claimd the universe is made of matter. Aristotelianism is about observing and measuring. You're a platonist nerd, who contributes nothing. Moral realism is a fringe view for a good reason.
>>34138485moral relativism is a fringe view. moral realism is the view that 99.9% of humanity has had since forever.
>>34138470>i guess its more about empathy and apathy than good and evil, and how it seems like every day we inch closer to a world full of people who cant fathom any point of view other than their ownThat's more or less what good and evil mean. Good means being impartial, having the ability to see things from a passionless and objective stance, and having the maturity to choose what's better even in situations where it doesn't benefit you personally. Evil means being so clouded by the passions that you can't see anything other than through the lens of your own personal desires.
>>34138485Idealism, Aristotelianism and Platonism are all in complete agreement and don't differ from each other in any way. They all fall under the same umbrella of Rationalism, which is to say the belief that logic is a fundamental part of existence. Materialism is opposed to Rationalism and rationality in general. It's a superstition based on the refusal to use logic and reason.
>>34138495Moral truths are constructed through rational procedures. They don't exist outside of human culture. They're obviously relative to us.
>>34138536That's not a coherent position. You don't "construct" anything through logic or reason. You can only discover. Mathematics, for example, aren't a construct. Its principles were discovered using reason, not invented. Reason always applies to things that exist fully outside of us and human culture, because to utilize reason inherently means stepping outside of yourself in order to yield to an objective standard. Even if humans never existed, or if humans were to go extinct tomorrow, 2+2 would still equal 4.
>>34138549Most math is masturbation about nonsense that doesn't even exist
>>34138566what a fucking retard
>>34138570Mathemathical truths are conditional, not absolute. They depend on axioms.There's some case to be made for physics being real because it applies to our universe. Most math does not apply to our universe.
>>34138627Mathematical truths are absolute because they depend on axioms. To be axiomatic is what it means for something to be absolute, they're synonyms. Anything that's mathematically true must apply to our universe by definition, because reason is part of our universe. If something doesn't apply to our universe, then that can only be because it falls outside of reality, which is to say "is false". Our universe doesn't begin and end in material substance, but it also includes immaterial substances such as true and false or rational and irrational. If your next claim is going to be that "true and false" don't exist essentially, are only constructs and can't be determined objectively, then again it's necessary to point out that you've collapsed your own argument and made it clear that you don't believe your own words are true.
>>34138645>Anything that's mathematically true must apply to our universe by definition, because reason is part of our universe.Here's where's you're being retarded. Adjust gravity slightly and your equation doesn't apply to our universe anymore. There are infinite ways to do math that's not psysics. Physics is math about the universe we exist in.
>>34138649Sorry, but that's where you're being retarded. Gravity doesn't rely on a set equation, it relies on a principle. Which proves my point exactly. You could take calculations that work here on Earth, and with minor adjustments to the base values they'd work just as well on Mars. Because the principle behind the equation is what's immutable, not the equation itself. Basically what you're doing is the equivalent of if I were to say "If you have three apples and eat one apple, you'll have two apples. This proves that math is objective.", to which you would retort "But what if I ate TWO apples?! Now your equation doesn't work and math is subjective!". Obviously the answer is that you'd update the equation to include the fact that you ate two apples, making the answer that there's one apple remaining. This reaffirms math's objectivity and immutability because it shows that the principles behind the numbers are eternal. It doesn't undermine it in the slightest.
>>34137546same herethe quality of the people i interact with keeps getting worse the more money i earn>>34138549>That's not a coherent position. You don't "construct" anything through logic or reason. You can only discover. Mathematics, for example, aren't a construct. Its principles were discovered using reason, not invented.this isn't entirely true. it arguably holds for proofs of theorems; e.g. once you agree on the definitions of the natural numbers, addition, equality and the rules of logic itself, it always follows that 2+2 = 4.however, we (mathematicians and logicians) *decide* the axioms of our logics/foundations according to very pragmatic criteria. e.g. we want theorems provable within them to correspond to "reality" in some very loose sense - i say "loose" here because there are theorems provable using the axiom of choice or one of the common extensions of ZFC that are not necessarily intuitively true for reality. this is not simply "discovery" process - our desire for our axiom systems to reflect reality certainly influences our choice of axioms, but it is not the sole contributor and a fair deal of "invention" is also involved.this process is also not trivial for the entirety of mathematics. in the early 20th century, despite many thousands of years of mathematics before it, there was a genuine crisis of foundations when mathematicians and logicians realized that they weren't really sure what kind of axiom system they want mathematics to be based upon. there were different schools of thought, some of which would even arrive at different definitions for something as fundamental as the natural numbers, and mathematics eventually converged on one common system that we still use today. despite this convergence, some vastly different foundation systems are still being used in specialized domains for pragmatic reasons (e.g. synthetic homotopy theory).
>>34138669Haha, >>34138681Agrees with meYou don't have access to moral or mathemathical truths
>>34138681cont.even when you agree on a foundational system and a logic, you still need to *decide* which definitions to study and which theorems to prove about them. we pick definitions as pragmatically as we pick axiomatic systems: some definitions we choose to represent reality, others we choose to make mathematics itself more convenient.if a definition isn't pragmatically useful in any regard, it usually is never studied, even if it technically exists within the foundational system of choice.
>>34138681Theorems and natural numbers are all that it really needs to hold true for. Anything else is more like a question of notation, than a question of whether or not reason and math are objective. It's like the question of whether or not we should follow the PEMDAS order of operations, or something else. It's arbitrary, all that really matters is that we agree on something and follow the same order so that we come to the same answers. But the principles behind numbers themselves and how they relate to one another are not mutable, we don't arbitrarily choose those, no one decided that two and two add up to four, it simply does and we have to follow reality's lead.
>>34138686Not only does nothing he said agree with you, but even if he did the fact that you're appealing to some random passerby for authority on your position proves that you have no position. Humanity does have access to moral and mathematical truth. If you believe that they don't, that means you also don't believe you have access to the knowledge that we don't have access to truth. Meaning you disagree with yourself. You lose, objectively. There is absolutely no coming back from such a devastating self contradiction.
>>34138686to be clear, i disagree with both>Most math does not apply to our universe.and>Anything that's mathematically true must apply to our universe by definitionthe foundations we've chosen for mathematics have an *incredibly* good track record of predicting reality relative to pretty much every other scientific field of study. logicians will also find a way to calm your nerves about some of the less plausible theorems that are derivable from our common foundations by making minor adjustments to the common system of logic and restricting it a little bit (mathematicians usually don't care as long as a logician tells them that what they're doing is still fine though).there's however no inherent reason to believe that any conclusion derivable from our set of foundations should apply to reality. it's all pragmatics at the end of the day.
>>34138686Holy fuck you're pathetic.
>>34138723We were originally arguing about morality. My claim is that the moral realist does not have access to objective truths, but claims he does.
>>34138723"True" and "applies to our universe" are tautologous. If it's true, it applies to our universe. If it doesn't apply to our universe, it's not true. My position isn't that anything that can be stated mathematically becomes true, but rather that anything that isn't true falls outside of what we should consider legitimate math.
>>34137546Get off social media or stop using it first thing in the morning. Algorithms are designed to make you feel hopeless so you keep scrolling.
>>34138741>My claim is that the moral realist does not have access to objective truthsThen your claim is untrue, owing to the fact that you don't have access to truth. You've adopted a self defeating position.
>>34138703>Theorems and natural numbers are all that it really needs to hold true for.there have certainly been schools of thought that disagreed about the natural numbers (e.g. ultra-finitism). these schools are usually inherently "computational" and the usual argument goes like this: according to our common system of foundations, there are infinitely many natural numbers. which of these can you actually *compute* in reasonable time (e.g. before the heat death of the universe)? there are certainly numbers in that set for which we know that they exist by definition in ZFC, but which you'll never be able to compute. since schools like ultra-finitism only regard objects which you can actually construct in reasonable time as "existing", they disagree about the definition of the natural numbers.(this isn't a common school of thought, and they definitely don't disagree about 2+2=4 as that would be an insane divergence from reality, but it shows how even when you think about natural numbers, there are pragmatic arguments in favor of a different definition)>Anything else is more like a question of notation, than a question of whether or not reason and math are objective. It's like the question of whether or not we should follow the PEMDAS order of operations, or something else. it's not just notation. there are real semantic differences here, especially as you move to more advanced mathematics.
>>34138760>i found a contradicionYou didn't. Saying that's it's impossible to know if a god exists does not imply a contradiction.
>>34138795I did. If I ask you how you arrived at the conclusion that we don't have access to truth, the only two things you can say are "reason" or "i made it up". If you say reason, you contradict yourself. If you say anything else, you admit that your position is unreasonable, unfounded and therefore wrong. Your position is incoherent and can't sustain itself.
>>34138745>but rather that anything that isn't true falls outside of what we should consider legitimate math.i don't think i agree. mathematicians certainly make an effort to do mathematics within a foundational system that allows them to predict reality (and to use definitions that correspond to something tangible in reality), but not all things we consider "legitimate mathematics" are like this. some real mathematics is also just totally off the rails and studies objects for which we have absolutely no reason to believe that they correspond to anything in reality. these areas usually don't live too long due to obvious funding issues, but calling them "illegitimate" would be quite a stretch because it's serious mathematicians doing serious and sound mathematics.
>>34138804>some real mathematics is also just totally off the rails and studies objects for which we have absolutely no reason to believe that they correspond to anything in realityIt doesn't need to correspond to our physical world, if it's real mathematics then it corresponds to something true in principle. Perhaps I've explained it poorly, but I'm not saying it's not real math if it doesn't apply to physical reality. I'm saying that reality and truth include the non-physical. Perhaps geometry would be a better visual representation. For example, there is no such thing as a straight line anywhere in the world, nor has there ever even been a representation of a straight line. No matter how perfect you get it, there are jagged edges. A single point is another good example, since a point has no breadth or depth and can't be represented accurately by anything visually or physically. But both of those do exist, they are true, and they can be used to explain and express universal geometric principles that are also always true. So it's not "anything that doesn't exist physically falls outside of math", it's "anything that isn't true falls outside of math". Which is a self-affirming position because obviously if it isn't true then that makes it untrue, which means it doesn't apply to anything.
>>34137546Up till mid 2016~ people had a sense of morality, after that they were just following the momentum, 7 oct masked off the entire earth as violent animals who want to legitimately kill other people for sport. (Charlie kirk was just americans being slow as usual, this shit was done to jews constantly but no one cared because they're jews)
>>34138821Just admit that moral and mathemathical realism are false. It's easy.
>>34138848You lost your argument, this discussion has nothing to do with you and isn't even a disagreement.
>>34138857I won. You made a bunch of arguments that prove the opposite of what you think.
>>34138848getting blown the fuck out at every turn really rattled your cage, huh?
>>34138848>>34138869NTA but you honestly did lose. Better to take your L than to act this way, it's gross.
>>34138879All my posts were shorter than his. I won.
>>34138821i think we need to discuss some more examples so that i understand your position.which of the following are "true" / "apply to our universe" in your view?1. i've proven one of those "weird" theorems about a "normal" object that we agree corresponds to something in reality in some way using the axiom of choice.2. i've defined a "weird" object for which i have absolutely no clue how it corresponds to anything in reality, and i've proven some theorems about it for which i have also no idea about what they might imply in reality.3. i've set up my own foundational system with a different (non-equiconsistent) set of rules from ZFC that can also be justified in terms of reality in some way, have defined objects within it and proved theorems within it.4. i've set up my own foundational system with totally nonsensical rules (e.g. mutually inconsistent ones that makes every statement true, or something non-trivial that lets me define really really strange objects and reason in very strange ways that is not recognizable as anything resembling our logic).(FWIW, i've understood your point as saying that all of these are "true")
>>34138821Tldr math is a toolPhysics is a toolMath is a tool used in physicsPhysics is a tool used in engineeringEngineering is a tool used to make things human will useThing is a tool used by humanTo do what? Biological imperatives usually, but sometimes things that are against it too, just depends on scenario, perhaps one wants to be economical and that means sacrifice small gain for a later greater gain, yadda yaddaMorality is a tool too, concepts of justice, fairness, this makes it so you get what you deserve, nothing less, not getting ripped off by other humans, game theory tool when having to deal with other humans and their defecting and immorality -> esp when needing to co-operate with other humans/society to enable biological imperatives met at higher efficiencyThey all exist outside of humans, but humans investigate and capture these things, then make them tools when needed
>>34138843i didnt want to bring up politics and current stuff to avoid the thread going off topic but yeah man, some of the stuff that has changed how i view people and humanity in general has been responses to recent events. i try not to let it get to me by reminding myself that a lot of these extremely insane takes come from bot/agitators, but when i see actual people parroting these insane takes it makes me question that. i try not to look down on people but covid up till now has changed how i look at the world with how gullible some people are, how confidently wrong and hostile people can be, and how easily it is to justify atrocities to some people.
>>341388911, 2 and 3 would be true insofar as they don't contradict themselves or any principles that are less dubious than themselves. Obviously, there's also room for a situation where one of those "weird" theorems seems to be true for some time, only for it to be realized later that it actually can't be true. That situation doesn't call logic itself into question, it only ever calls the fallible human utilizing into question. If the rules of 4 are genuine nonsense and self-contradictory, then there wouldn't be anything that could be true about it. Unless you mean the rules don't contradict themselves in principle, but have only been made to appear as though they contradict themselves in an attempt to make the whole set of rules as obtuse as possible, almost like an intentional puzzle, in which case it would be following true reason albeit in a very obscure way.Perhaps the simplest way of putting it is that reason is nested within truth, because reason is the process by which we apprehend truth, and truth itself is synonymous with "our universe" or "everything that is". Since mathematical, logical and geometric truths can be proven using reason, that makes them part of "our universe" even if they can't be recreated in matter, since our universe is made up of more than just matter.
>>34138923I find that saying the obviously correct virtuous thing in a dry tone will bring a lot of lurkers out of the woodworks after you spearheaded the effort, there's good people, they just need to refocus the narrative. A sort of sanity beacon in this fuckshit world>Mass shooting happenes>"Their fault for ("collectively" doing [controversy]) (being [flaw])""I think you're a monster for treating the deaths of everyday civilians so callously">*Immediate chorus of approval and change in tone for the entire thread*Works very consistently, feels like some paladin shit where you smite the evil out of an entire forum
>>34138948alright, i see.>If the rules of 4 are genuine nonsense and self-contradictory, then there wouldn't be anything that could be true about it. Unless you mean the rules don't contradict themselves in principle, but have only been made to appear as though they contradict themselves in an attempt to make the whole set of rules as obtuse as possible, almost like an intentional puzzle, in which case it would be following true reason albeit in a very obscure way.i can definitely define foundational systems for both of these. "self-contradiction" is after all also just a feature of the logic you define, and you can define logics where a contradiction doesn't tear down the whole thing by principle of explosion (these are known as "paraconsistent logics" - i've only ever encountered them in philosophy and in some variations of fuzzy logic, which was sometimes used in control systems e.g. for japanese trains in the past, and they aren't very well studied).imo, if you accept 1, 2 and 3 and also an obscure but not inherently self-contradictory variant of 4 as "true", you should also accept the self-contradictory variant as "true". a self-contradictory foundational system certainly isn't very useful and doesn't allow you to derive anything interesting, but despite that it does exhibit some interesting semantic properties that we can study: for example, whether it admits the principle of explosion.in a stroke of irony, gödel's second incompleteness theorem actually *prohibits* us from proving that the foundational system we use in mathematics isn't self-contradictory, so even though we believe it, we can't prove it within that foundational system and know for certain (provided that you trust the axioms to reflect reality).
>>34139011>you should also accept the self-contradictory variant as "true"If I accept it as true then I also have to accept it as false, because it contradicts itself. If the statement itself is saying that the statement is not true, then by accepting it as true I'm accepting it as false. If I refuse to accept it as false, then I'm not accepting it as true. It doesn't work, no matter how you slice it. That's why the law of non-contradiction is the first and most essential axiom of logic. I suppose we could say it's true in the sense that the statement itself exists within the universe, and that it's worth observing the statement, but that's not quite the same as saying that the statement is true.
