>>18221866
Karl Popper is

>>18221866
>founds german idealism
>founds kantian ethics
>"solves" empiricism and rationalism
>creates modern philosophy
hes the greatest philosopher just by looking at portfolio, that fact that all philosophers use the terms posteriori and prori proves it
its kinda like how every nba player wears jordans

>>18221916
>ethics
>idealism
>"solves empiricism vs rationalism"
lol. synthetic a priori is word salad memery used by him and groveled at by philosophers to cope with the fact that science has made philosophy irrelevant
>nooo we can learn new stuff just from thinking about things! things we had to empiracally observe to know about (shut up!). were not irrelevant!

Science has brought understanding to neural activity, quantum mechanics, particle physics, relativity, etc while philosophers still cant figure out that dualism is retarded

KANT WAS THE PROTOINTELLECTIDIOT; FROM HIM DERIVED ALL THE OTHER GERMANIC IRRATIONAL SOPHISTS LIKE HEGEL, SCHLEGEL, SCHOPENHAUER, NIETZSCHE, MARX, ET ALII, WHOSE FANTASIES HAVE CAUSED SCHIZOPATHS WITH POWER ALL OVER THE WORLD TO RAVAGE THE WORLD.

>>18222142
Pope John Paul II understood Kant far better than you ever will, and respected post-Kantian philosophers much more than you ever could.

File: OK.gif (918 KB, 250x250)

918 KB GIF

>>18222147

>>18222148
Learn to understand things before you criticize them.

Neo-platonist idiot who brought back retarded mysticism with his dumbass noumenal world. Sorry but magic just isn't real lol. Germany is the birthplace of white guilt.

>>18222142
This

File: cover_issue_906_en_US-427(...).jpg (449 KB, 2481x3508)

449 KB JPG

Nah, it's the nonce who invented an entire philosophical framework to justify his perversion and then the entire Western intellectual establishment took to his ideas to justify theirs

>>18222277
Kant was the intellectual forefather of Hegel, Schopenhauer, Peirce, AND Frege. Kant didn't just influence Continental philosophy. He influenced all posterior philosophy, psychology, anthropology, and a great deal of economics and even the development of formal logic. Even the most naïve empiricist theories of our times have to engage with Kant or one of his intelllectual descendants just due to how massively influential he is.

File: ayn_rand_1_fs.jpg (237 KB, 640x399)

237 KB JPG

>>18221866
> the most overrated philosopher
The obvious answer is Ayn Rand. Objectivism is a teenage libertarian's wet dream that conflates selfishness with virtue. It's a philosophy for people who unironically say taxation is theft and think Atlas Shrugged is deep.

Honorable mention to Nietszche for being the mascot of every edgy 16-year-old who thinks God is dead means there are no consequences for being a dick.

>>18221877
Hardly anybody mentions Popper

>>18222387
Foucault is underrated if anything.

> he was le pervert
Still no actual argument against his ideas.

> entire Western intellectual establishment took to his ideas
Good feat for Faucault, even his opponents who hate postmodern neomarxism or whatever just repeat half of his ideas anyway and seethe about language being shaped by powers that be.

>>18222517
Yeah that's fine and all but magic isn't real no matter how many philosophers parrot Kant.

>>18222527
Humans are not tax cattle.

>>18222540
It takes an absurd leap to go from transcendental idealism (which requires that we accept that we can never know the thing in itself, an extremely strong claim that forbids us from ever claiming we know anything real for certain) to believing in anything mystical or magical.
Transcendental idealism ends roughly on the same spot as where Hume's radical empiricism ends, except with a few minor concessions, such as being able to know the "I" or the "here" and "now" versus "there" and "then".
Atheism, as it is taken by most people, is really just the tip of the iceberg for Kant, and a true examination of Kant's system would tell us that
>Man thinks of causes and effects, even though we can only ascertain phenomena (stuff we can perceive)
>Man looks for the ultimate, even though he can never know whether the universe is ultimately finite or infinite
>Man ultimately needs a sense of right and wrong, which is why a belief that there must be a "reward", even if only in the form of the belief in the Afterlife, is necessary to justify acting the right way
>Even so, Man cannot know whether God exists, much less whether there is a life

Kant's three Critiques explore these topics at much greater detail and with many more deductions and inferences stated explicitly. Even his strongest critics and enemies will admit that he was extremely solid in terms of his chain of arguments. I highly suggest you to at least read the SEP entry for Kant's CPR if you haven't done so.

>>18222559
He modernized plato's world of forms. He rejects reason as an absolute.

>>18222533
>Argue with a child rapist's self-justifying sophistry in good faith even though he had none

Nah. The wordcel just played language games in bad faith, only winning move is not to play.

>>18222887
>only winning move is not to play
And yet people play his game all the time using words like discourse or pretending that academia shapes langauge. Curious.

File: 0871.png (42 KB, 654x877)

42 KB PNG

>>18222125
>philosophers still cant figure out that dualism is retarded
It's not that bad, its retardedly high but could've been worse, the real gut punch is moral realism on 62%

>>18223238
moral realism/naturalism is correct

>>18223238
Moral Realism is when moral statements are made true by something else than people's preference, right?
I never understood how it's even supposed to work

>>18223263
If we take a moral statement like "downloading a videogame whose developer has long since gone defunct, but the IP was bought by some holding company is immoral"
What exactly makes that true?

It's so easy to understand for me, if I think of it was made true by subjective preference and opinions
I just don't why anyone would think there's some fact written into the fabric of reality about the moral status of videogame piracy

>>18223347
its not about truth, its about mind-independence
a moral act like killing is fully external, its consequences are also external and measurable
we can analyze the external world and find that some things are evil, its not subjective preference, the thing would be evil even if all humans didnt exist/died off.
whats your normative ethics? im a consequentalist

>>18223369
I don't understand what it means for digital piracy to be evil in a world without humans ¨

what makes it true that piracy is evil?

>>18223447
i didnt agree that piracy was bad, i brought up killing
im not sure if digital piracy is moral/amoral/immoral for now, in the future i might find out if i properly analyze it.
as for the answer to "why x is bad even without humans existing"
i would argue in terms of potential for actions to happen, you know how you cant say that computers for example are man-made instead of natural because the possibility of the material being arranged in that order to create a computer exists even without humans and before humans, as well as the materials themselves also exist naturally, so if the possibility of the object exists then from my perspective so does everything else bundled with that object. so in this case the possibility of an event like a living being killing another living being is still possible even if humans dont exist (and even if living beings also dont exist, because in the future they could due to abiogenesis being possible), to me what constitutes something as immoral is the definition of wasted potential (i.e something that could be better taken advantage of but isnt e.g if there is potential for x to exist but something avoidable prevents it, then that would be what immorality is based on), in other words its picking the incorrect choice.
all of this is to me, mind-independent and external, humans dont get to choose what is external and part of the universe, i believe in epistemological realism so moral realism is quite easy for me to believe in also.
its important to note that i still believe in context-dependent morality in the sense of "killing is immoral" but "killing in self defense is either moral or amoral, not immoral", this is still compatible obviously because the two situations are different (new information was added in that changed things), im not an universalist in the sense of "all killing is wrong", but i do believe that in the first example "killing an innocent not for self defense" is always wrong regardless of culture etc

>>18223447
>>18223523
im also a gastronomic realist if that interests you lol

>>18222541
In all practical terms they are.

>>18223524
I do not understand this view, where you're evaluating 'potential' from the perspective of no-one

>wasted potential
>could be better
Wasted according to who?
Better according to who?
No-one , right? - Which makes no sense to me. What you're even saying there

This all cashes out so neatly and unmysterious on my view, where "better" and "waste" are explained by people's goals and preferences.

>>18223569
>Wasted according to who?
wasted is objective because it can be measured, for example entropy and energy
>Better according to who?
when realists say that something is better they are saying its not better because a human says it is, but rather that is simply is better and humans can observe that it is better
such as when you say 2+2=4 youre not saying that it is, rather youre commenting on an objective fact youre observing.

File: Manlet_hours.jpg (4 KB, 238x211)

4 KB JPG

>>18221866
>Everyone is and should be seen as equal!
>Except anyone who isn't the same race and gender as mine!

>>18223607
I don't understand how you can make sense of the term "waste" without supposing that things have a "purpose"
what determines a thing's purpose/waste except people's intentions?
none of this stuff makes sense to me

On my view
If I bake a cookie and hand it over to you as a delicious treat, it's my subjective intent, goal and wish for you to enjoy the cookie. It would be a waste it you dropped it on the ground. Simple.

I don't know that a world with a single cookie floating alone in space, that the cookie would have a purpose or could be wasted

On your view that's not the case? Cookies got a purpose independent of humans who bake and eat them?

>>18223656
when someone is raped and they experience the mental and physical suffering of such an act
and compared to the alternative timeline where they werent raped, where they experience content and peace due to no such act happening to them
i would argue that one of these is clearly a waste of potential in the sense that there is way less physical and mental suffering (which is physically real in terms of neurons, nerves etc), i call it wasted potential but maybe thats the wrong term, its more so that we can measure the consequences/effects of multiple actions and determine one would lead to objectively greater utility, immorality would then be the act of not choosing the best option of utility

im not sure what meta-ethics you subscribe to, but in if someone says murder is good and starts killing people what then?
i would argue humans have evolved to be able to detect morality that is present externally (outside of them), the same way they evolved eyes to be able to notice photons that are external/outside of them

File: honxinygawyb.png (889 KB, 1111x597)

889 KB PNG

>>18223607
I am fully convinced that so-called math is actually mental masturbation. The only thing it really allows us to do? Create meaningless symbols that confuse us. If we could somehow get rid of these symbols, all our problems would be solved. This is no different than most religions and their God. A bunch of made up nonsense that doesn’t even help us deal with the serious problems of life. If you think about it seriously, math is a dangerous pseudoscience that claims that 2 + 2 = 4. Who cares if we believe it or not? We still have bills to pay, families to feed, and shelter to provide. When was the last time you used this «equation» in your daily life? I guarantee you it will do you no good. Math is not some kind of truth, but a dangerous cult dating back to Plato and ancient Hellas. We need to leave it behind and move on to the more practical and useful science of mechanics, which can be applied to real world problems and which doesn’t use «computational» tricks to protect us from reality. Don’t lie to me about bitcoin and the digital age. Your abstract nonsense is only useful to confuse and mislead ordinary people and has no place in our world. Math is a historical mistake that has brought nothing but misery to humanity. Without useless mathematical nonsense, humanity could have developed much faster than it does now. We must get rid of math and its false knowledge.

>>18223712
>if someone says murder is good and starts killing people what then?
What about it? I would disagree. Obviously.
He would think he should be doing that. I'dd rather he'd not.

But it's not like there's anything preventing him from doing so

Stuff like this occasionally happens in the real world

>>18223736
no im talking about what we should do about him im asking if we are relativists how do explain it?
is it moral? immoral? how come most people would disagree with murder being bad?
i would say one argument for moral realism being that, there are so many isolated cultures/tribes around the world for many thousands of years yet they all develop very similar moral systems (killing, rape, stealing etc is bad), its almost as if they are observing an objective standard that shows these things as bad, the same way almost all cultures around the world have 2+2=4
>>18223731
it depends what you mean by math, obviously numbers are real you can count objects around you
stuff like addition and subtraction is quite simple and easily understood, you just take two things and add them to another two things, and now count out this new structure of four things
but at some point you reach a place where a lot of math is just theoretical stuff, and very hard to follow, im not quite sure at this point in time that 0 and infinite are real and are just constructs of the brain

>>18223759
>its almost as if they are observing an objective
almost as if they are a social creature whose survival depends on social cohesion and cooperation*, point in case most of them don't care about killing outsiders whatsoever.

>>18223763
that still doesnt tell us whether its mind-independent or created by humans
would you agree at least that there is objective truth out there?

>>18223759
>if we are relativists how do explain it?
With extreme ease

I'm perfectly fine with using force to impose my preference on others. I think it's fine to put would-be murderers in prison, or even kill them
I value MY preferences, not necessarily the preferences of other people

I'm not a relativist, I'm an anti-realist
Besides, there's nothing about moral relativism that entails that you have to value other people's morality
You could just care more about YOUR morality, rather than the morality of other people. I think that perfectly describe how we see how people act in the real world

>>18223772
>that still doesnt tell us whether its mind-independent or created by humans
true, which is the point, nothing can tell us that
>would you agree at least that there is objective truth out there?
Hard to say, for me whatever exists out there is completely inaccessible to us, so for me it ends up not mattering much, whatever the world is it unfathomable to an ape's brain, and most certainly indifferent to its states of pain or pleasure. Doesn't mean that I myself don't care, quite the contrary, but I really couldn't say so of whatever is out there.

>>18223759
>almost all
It could be literally everyone, and it wouldn't imply moral realism
it would just mean everyone agreed, it could still be people's preferences that makes murder bad - just everyone has the same preference

Notice that this is only rhetorically effective when talking about moral issues where everyone agrees, and would not work on cases of serious moral disagreement or ambivalence
in cases like digital privacy, or the cookie

I think near universal agreement about stuff like murder being bad, is explained both by human biology and people being trained/raised to believe murder is bad
that seems a much better explanation, than whatever you're gesturing towards, you haven't really said what it is

not sure how your theory makes sense of a few people that are totally okay with murder, where do they fit in?

>>18223772
what's the difference between objective truth, and regular truth?

>>18223791
>I'm perfectly fine with using force to impose my preference on others. I think it's fine to put would-be murderers in prison, or even kill them
what happens when you dont have force and instead a person with bad intentions has force on their side? (e.g society and its courts now starts believing that rape is good and punishes rape victims if they speak out)
>Besides, there's nothing about moral relativism that entails that you have to value other people's morality
obviously, if moral realism is true then some people are just wrong, in the same way how people who say 2+2=5 are wrong
>>18223800
>Hard to say, for me whatever exists out there is completely inaccessible to us, so for me it ends up not mattering much, whatever the world is it unfathomable to an ape's brain, and most certainly indifferent to its states of pain or pleasure.
this is where i completely disagree, your worldview is very alien to me and i dont fully understand it
i dont think humans are "mere apes", and i do believe external objective truth is accessible
i believe in full mind-indepence of all reality, and that there is objective truth that is present in all of existence
>>18223813
>I think near universal agreement about stuff like murder being bad, is explained both by human biology and people being trained/raised to believe murder is bad
so you dont think its mind-independent but rather are an ethical subjectivist/cognitivist?
>not sure how your theory makes sense of a few people that are totally okay with murder, where do they fit in?
murder is objectively immoral and those who say it is are simply incorrect and are immoral
same way people who say 2+2=5 are incorrect
>>18223817
i guess im referring to mind-independent truth claims that humans cannot control, in other words its no up to human preference, unlike say for example someones favorite movie, which can still be true but is not this "external mind-independent" thing that cant be controlled

>>18223831
>you don't think its mind-independent
I think human minds depends on factors like human biology, how we are raised, how we are trained, etc

I still think good and bad, are essentially words for what humans like and dislike. I just think what we like and dislike depends on a lot of other things

>>18223831
>what happens when you dont have force and instead a person with bad intentions has force on their side?
Probably stuff I wouldn't like.
Too bad so sad.

Stuff like that happens all the time in the real world. I'm being 100% serious.
I don't understand what point you think you're making by bringing up these examples of crimes and atrocities that actually do happen

Would I prefer if they didn't happen, and everyone just had my values? Of course!
But doesn't this just go to show that our world is one where what's moral is decided by people's whim and the people with force

>>18223863
well personally i dont believe in metaphysical minds, rather i believe in physical brains
but mind-independent just means anything that does not require for there to be a mind to exist, im against quantum mumbo-jumbo, i dont think observers create reality or whatever
reality is much bigger than us
>I still think good and bad, are essentially words for what humans like and dislike
but what if what we dislike is actually objectively bad, so youd be confusing cause and effect here
the cause is x is objectively bad so the effect is we dislike it
>>18223874
>But doesn't this just go to show that our world is one where what's moral is decided by people's whim and the people with force
not really, i dont think we humans decide the objective reality of what is good and bad so that doesnt really mean anything to me

one thing that helped me become a moral realist was the idea of truth
i believe in objective truth and that those who dont live by truth are annihilated by the delusions they believe in (e.g human who thinks lions are not dangerous and are peace loving animals, goes up to a lion and gets killed, or a person who delusionally thinks he can fly, ends up jumping off a cliff and dying), so those who dont follow truth end up being destroyed, i would think that since evolution is a self perfecting process in that regard (anything not good enough is destroyed), and that we as living beings ever since abiogenesis prioritize survival and existence which lead to reproduction, that nature is telling us that survivability is the key and that to reach survivability we must abide by truth, in a way some facts do lead to greater survivability, these facts can be moral facts as well, or at least facts that would have moral implications (e.g killing measurably leads to lower trust in a tribe and lower survivability rates)
so if we dont follow this truth we will be annihilated, that is a good motivator to follow this fact which has moral implications then

>>18223831
>i dont think humans are "mere apes", and i do believe external objective truth is accessible
Yeah that's where we differ, I don't assign any special attribute to humans, "living" beings or anything else, just like how everything you see and hear a computer do can be traced back and explained by the logical gates and bits in it for me all physical beings' behaviors could be explained by particles' behaviours.

>>18222125
Natural science leaves the existence of consciousness wholly unexplained. The phenomenal binding problem deepens the mystery. Neither classical nor quantum physics seem to allow the binding of distributively processed neuronal micro-experiences into unitary experiential objects apprehended by a unitary phenomenal self.

>>18224041
in this case do you think language is invented or discovered?

>>18221866
No, Aristotle is. He just repackaged Plato with added enshittification.

>>18223894
I think the way you use the word bad and immoral, you could just say suffering (or whatever causes suffering)
Then yeah, it would be trivially true, that killing someone is bad - in the case it causes suffering

But, morality concerns what we should, and shouldn't, do.
Suppose I don't care about suffering (or, more narrowly the life of this 1 other person). If I could literally get away with murder, and stood to gain from it.
Why shouldn't I kill?
Why is it objectively factually true that I should not kill?
What does that even mean to say I shouldn't kill, even if I want to do it, don't care about the consequences, or there are no consequences

If murder is too extreme to imagine, swap it with literally any lesser action you think is immoral

>>18224561
To be clear, I am asking all those ? to shine a light on what I think is intelligibility issues for objective morality
they are questions that I've never had answered to my satisfaction

I've yet to have someone explain to me what is meant by saying it's objectively true that I *should* do something I don't subjectively care about

>>18224561
well its important to note that the question of "is morality objective" and "should i do/not do moral/immoral acts" are different
there surely are people that believe objective morality yet still commit immoral acts either unconsciously or consciously, because simply believing in objective morality does not stop you from committing immoral acts, same way being a math expert doesnt stop you from miscalculating a problem.

its also important to note that objective in this instance refers to mind-indepedence, in other words independent of minds (i.e a fact not relying on our minds to be true)
so for example if we take a non-moral factual statement like ice melts in heat, that is true regardless of whether we or our minds exist, this is an example of epistemological realism
now we just have to apply that to moral statements to create moral realism, and i dont see why its not possible to do so, continuing
>Why is it objectively factually true that I should not kill?
youre basically asking how to bridge the is ought gap and the only way to do it in a simple and easy way is to introduce a 3rd part that would be a normative premise that connect the is and the ought, example:
premise 1: murder objectively and measurably decreases survivability rate of society by introducing paranoia, fear, anxiety, and lowers the trust in society which causes chaos
premise 2 (normative premise): we ought to improve survivability of our tribe/species
conclusion: we ought to not murder
in this case you assume my opinion that living beings should prioritize survival and not be annihilated because its antithetical to living beings since abiogenesis (due to teleology that living beings purpose of life is to reproduce/remain alive)
but you can also make a different point as well
p1: murder causes someone that doesnt want their life to end's life to end
p2: we ought to respect other peoples safety
c: we ought not to murder
this is more so based on harm based morality if thats your thing

>>18223238
only 3.82% of people understand how the world works according to this

>>18224069
People who cant understand that the brain can and does create what you thibk of as "consciousness" is proof more that you dont fully appreciate or understand how complex the brain is that anything.
>I, ME, dont know, so it must be magic

>>18224101
all the greeks are "very influential and smart for their time but completely wrong about everything"
aristotle is better than plato at least. arguably the smartest and best of them were epicurus, democritus, and diogenes. but plato is the biggest retard of them all.

the idea of forms made me laugh out loud when i first learned about it

I got filtered hard when I tried reading Kant but Dan Robinson's lectures on him on youtube were very interesting. Kant was obviously very ahead of his time.

>>18222125
Pretending that science is divorced from philosophy is like a child thinking an object doesn’t exist anymore because it left the room.

>>18224747
Pretending that philosophy still has anything to add is like Blockbuster thinking they can still do business renting VHS tapes.

>>18224635
Just seems like a very weird premise to accept

My view: "I should act in a way that achieves my personal goals, desires, aligns with my subjective values. "
Is super clear and un-mysterious.

But the objective view: "I should act in a way that respect other people's safety, even if I don't care about that. And it conflicts with my goals and values. I should still do it..."
It just a big question mark for me. Makes no sense.
WHYYYY should I do it. Seems like I'dd just be irrational acting in a way that thwarts my goals

File: file.png (250 KB, 640x540)

250 KB PNG

>>18224766
youve commited goomba fallacy
no one said any of that
also i already said subjective doesnt refer to "simply different from other peoples views", it refers to mind independence

File: 1479534779443.jpg (31 KB, 660x574)

31 KB JPG

>>18221866
German philosophers have been a disaster to the human race

>>18224786
I think we're agreed on the mind-independence stuff, that's also how I think about it. I got no problems with this part.
I think morality depends on human minds, I'm a moral anti-realist (I also agree with you that human minds are human brains - identity theory of mind).
Moral realists think moral depend on something else than minds (what?).


It just seems to be an entailment of moral realism/objective morality.
that there would exist facts about what I should do, regardless if I care about doing it or not (because they are mind-independent facts)

Without the *shouldness* it wouldn't be morality, it would just be regular facts, right? It's not ethics or morals without the normative content
else it's just facts about what causes harm or suffering, etc
It's specifically the normative stuff I object to. I got no problems about there being objective facts about harm.

I did not mean to say anything more than that
It's just that this is already too much for me, I don't think it makes sense.

I don't think the Gooba fallacy applies, as I'm just trying to interact with what is the bog-standard "objective morality" view

File: 1613859465180.jpg (41 KB, 318x246)

41 KB JPG

>>18224732
>>18223238
Yeah what the fuck. I genuinely believe you have to be in a state of deep existential cope to believe in functionalism. How do relatively smart people actually contort themselves into believing this shit. The others can ofc be ignored because those just straight up crackpot garbage

File: file.png (13 KB, 243x410)

13 KB PNG

>>18224827
>Moral realists think moral depend on something else than minds (what?).
moral naturalism for example takes moral facts to be part of reality, same way the fact that ice melts is part of reality, and that through analysis you can find out what this fact is https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/

>it wouldn't be morality, it would just be regular facts, right?
do you believe moral facts are any different from regular facts?


if you already believe in objective facts then all youre missing is bridging the is ought gap, youre actually way closer to moral realism than you think
heres my opinion on gastronomic realism:
when i say that favorite ice cream flavor is objective what i mean is that the actual physical properties that make up ice cream flavors can be detected by non-human objects and remains universal for every ice cream made of the same exact ingredients
yet we still have people who have different flavor favorite why is that? its because there is another part of it which is the taste buds, but the taste buds are arranged in a way that can also be universal, meaning if everyones taste buds were the same (assuming same exact genetics, and since people claim taste buds change as you get older that people were the same exact age also) and eliminating any idea such as past experiences of individuals being traumatized because they for example choked on an ice cream that was a specific flavor
with all things being equal would not every person have the same exact favorite ice cream flavor? my answer is that they would
in other words it is objective yet still relative because all measurable effect are external and universal, but people still have different opinions due to having different physicalities, so basically its mind-independent but still creates differences of opinion, i assume at some point taste qualities for what makes some flavors objectively better could be identified later on
picrel philosophies ive found interesting pls compare