Atheism is a spook, as is religion. No I will not elaborate hahah

I don't have to explain anything. No one knows who the fuck Max Stirner is -- all Atheists turn into massive moralfags who try to reverse-engineer Christian morality to justify Bolshevism.

Nihilism is only a problem if you're still emotionally attached to the idea that the universe owes you a fucking mission objective.

GOD IS DEAD. THE SUPEREGO IS DEAD. THE SOCIAL CONTRACT IS A HALLUCINATION. THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE IS BULLSHIT.

If nothing has inherent meaning, then the only remaining metaphysical obligation is to max pleasure and self-satisfaction. Live your own heaven on Earth. Be your own God.

>>18754252
Nihilism is a problem, because it leads to
severe mental breakdowns.

>>18754284
On the contrary that’s what philosophies that try to answer nihilism like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Camus, etc do.
Once you have fully digested the nihilism there is no more stress, just zen.

File: 1780721057639380.png (143 KB, 600x600)

143 KB PNG

>>18754252
>then the only remaining metaphysical obligation is to max pleasure and self-satisfaction. Live your own heaven on Earth. Be your own God.
Just be yourself. Birds don't question their own existence, they just fly. Trees don't question their own existence, they just make oxygen. Bees don't question their own existence, they simply make honey. What do humans do? Humans think. It's what we do, maybe that includes questioning their own existence, but regardless, it's clear that our metaphysical obligation is to simply continue on with our existence and its many pleasures and limitations.

>>18754235
Spook doesn’t mean ‘not real’ it means not apart of your actualized self.
Max stirner did not in fact believe three year olds had figured out the secret to life.

What if your ego is selfless? Are you still an egoist?

>>18754245
Marxism doesn't necessarily clash with Egoism. If a communist classless society is reached people would likely become Egoists because it's more fun than being a leftist aka a secular Christian. The reason why people aren't Egoists now is because the state will throw them in prison

>>18754235
Explanation is a spook.

>>18754398
>Marxism doesn't necessarily clash with Egoism.
It does. If you actually believe in class conflict and identify yourself with the proletariat, then your ego has been captured by ideology. Of course you can not actually believe it but still be a performative Marxist if you think it's in your interest to do so. In that sense no ideology truly clashes with egoism.

So for example, an Egoist who recognizes that Marx was wrong and that Marxism will just lead to economic inefficiency and an authoritarian state can still perform as a Marxist because they want people to suffer.

>>18754386
Sort of. The psychological argument is that true altruism is not really possible because you're ultimately satisfying your desire to help people.

>>18754235
Same way you can be gay without turning into a woman

>>18754408
The purpose of Marxism is to realize a communist society. But once this society is realized there's nothing preventing people from being Egoists (or religious, or really whatever else which Marx was against). The prole-bougie dichotomy wouldn't exist anymore so it makes no sense to be class-conscious in a communist society

>>18754245
Christians don't have morals, only orders from yhwh

>>18754418
>But once this society is realized there's nothing preventing people from being Egoists
So what if someone wants to seize the means of production for themself and employ people to work it? Egoism is only compatible with ideology so long as the egoist desires the outcomes of that ideology.

>>18754503
>So what if someone wants to seize the means of production for themself and employ people to work it?
Why would other people want to work for him? In a communist society?

>>18756029
>Why would other people want to work for him? In a communist society?
Because he possesses the means of production.

>>18754235
Atheist and Abrahamic religions are jobber belief-systems that get mogged by more ancient pagan philosophies.
Like Platonism, Pythagorean mysticism, Aristotelian philosophy of eudaimonia. None of these require you to believe in a god, or require you to reject the idea of gods existence either. Subscribing to them can only benefit you as a person in life, and they function to compliment any religious belief system one might already hold in their heart anyway.
You give up nothing and gain a higher understanding in the end, where as with atheism or Abrahamic religions you necessarily have to make intellectual sacrifices in order to stay subscribed.

Theism = Judaism
Atheism = not Judaism
Therefore christianity is atheistic.

>>18756131
>None of these require you to believe in a god, or require you to reject the idea of gods existence either
But they do require you to believe in nonsense like normativity.
>Subscribing to them can only benefit you as a person in life
Incorrect. Believing in any normativity restricts the ego.

>>18756142
>But they do require you to believe in nonsense like normativity.
Logical reasoning isn't nonsense. What are you talking about?
>Incorrect. Believing in any normativity restricts the ego
Ego is 1 aspect of the psyche and it's important to keep it balanced. 0 restriction = psychic imbalance leading to deficiencies and behaviors of excess. I can tell you haven't ever taken a crash course on anything I'm talking about.

>>18756147
>Logical reasoning isn't nonsense. What are you talking about?
Normativity isn't logical.
>Ego is 1 aspect of the psyche and it's important to keep it balanced. 0 restriction = psychic imbalance leading to deficiencies and behaviors of excess
So what? If someone wants to behave a particular way, why ought they care if it's excessive according to virtue ethicists?

>>18756154
>Normativity isn't logical.
That's a unconvincing bare assertion. Why should anybody agree with you?
>So what? If someone wants to behave a particular way, why ought they care if it's excessive according to virtue ethicists?
Does psychic balance mean nothing to you? Do you not care about the state of your own mind, and how it might mutually influence the people around you? You should spend some time reflecting on parent/offspring relationship dynamics. These things are maybe more self evident in that context. The same principle of a healthy balance applies inward to our own psyche
as much to the relationship with our family.

>>18756173
>That's a unconvincing bare assertion. Why should anybody agree with you?
I'll answer this question but first define "should."
>Does psychic balance mean nothing to you? Do you not care about the state of your own mind, and how it might mutually influence the people around you?
Even if I answer "yes" to these question, this is an interrogation of my own desires. It doesn't answer the normative question.

>>18756180
Sorry the negative form confused me, that is: even if I answer "no" to these questions.

>>18756180
>I'll answer this question but first define "should."
It's synonymous with the word 'ought', which you used in your previous post. You know the definition.
>Even if I answer "yes" to these question, this is an interrogation of my own desires.
Your own desires are a mechanism that plays into psychic balance. You're not saying anything convincing here.
>It doesn't answer the normative question.
What question do you believe that is?

>>18756236
>It's synonymous with the word 'ought', which you used in your previous post. You know the definition.
The definition I use for normative, and the only one that exists, is that it is in contrast to descriptive. So when I say
>why ought they care if it's excessive
That expands to: what is the non-descriptive reason for caring if it's excessive? Which there is none.
>Your own desires are a mechanism that plays into psychic balance. You're not saying anything convincing here.
>What question do you believe that is?
You're treating psychic balance as something that people have a normative(non-descriptive) reason to obtain. What is that reason?

>>18756252
>The definition I use for normative, and the only one that exists, is that it is in contrast to descriptive. So when I say
>why ought they care if it's excessive
>That expands to: what is the non-descriptive reason for caring if it's excessive? Which there is none.
This is tautological nonsense.
>You're treating psychic balance as something that people have a normative(non-descriptive) reason to obtain. What is that reason?
You still haven't reflected on this in the context of a parent/offspring relationship. Do that because it becomes self evident.

>>18756314
>This is tautological nonsense.
That's entirely my point, normativity is nonsense. If you have a different definition, then please share it.
>You still haven't reflected on this in the context of a parent/offspring relationship. Do that because it becomes self evident.
I have done so and it did become self evident. Does it concern you at all that this reason is supposedly so obvious and self evident and yet you cannot tell me what it is?

>>18756116
How can he possess the means of production in a communist society?

>>18756331
By using force to seize them.

>>18756329
*did NOT become self evident

>>18756332
Maybe. I guess it's hard to envision what a classless society would look like but it's hard to imagine that an individual could just take a gun and topple the entire thing and return it to the earlier mode of production. Surely there would be some safety checks against this

>>18756343
He first uses persuasion to convince others to help him. But all of this is really beside the point, which is that such desire would be at odds with a communist society. A communist society cannot allow people to be egoists.

>>18756357
>such desire would be at odds with a communist society. A communist society cannot allow people to be egoists.
Does this mean that such a society would constantly exert effort to somehow police other people lest they become Egoists? Or that Egoist thoughts wouldn't even occur to people because the material conditions of such a society would prevent them?
I find the latter hard to believe. The existence of sex alone would cause people to become Egoists. How can you not covet your neighbor's wife if she has bigger tits than yours? And what about hypergamy? Would women suddenly be attracted to 5'10 balding Indians with a micropenis because the means of production are redistributed?

>>18756329
Your reasoning is tautological nonsense, genius. Normative ethics and meta ethics come in logically sound frameworks.
What philosophy do you subscribe to, if any?

>>18756386
>Normative ethics and meta ethics come in logically sound frameworks.
Ok, then you can give me your logically sound definition of "should."
>What philosophy do you subscribe to, if any?
Egoism.

>>18756378
>Does this mean that such a society would constantly exert effort to somehow police other people lest they become Egoists?
Yes. If everyone were Egoists, rather than Marxists, then society's condition of communism is contingent to people desiring it. If enough people simply desire for the means of production to be privately controlled, then the communist condition will disappear. So indoctrinating people into Marxism is necessary.

>>18756392
>Ok, then you can give me your logically sound definition of "should."
I'll answer this but first define "me"

>>18756419
Sure, the particular pattern of matter and energy that is typing this message.

I'll answer this but first stand on one hand and do the dinosaur

>>18756424
'Should' and 'ought' are synonymous verbs used to express advice, duty, expectation, or probability. That is the Cambridge definition that I use. Do you have a problem with that definition?
>the particular pattern of matter and energy that is typing this message.
Pretty reductionist definition of 'self', but alright. You should explain how egoism is logically sound with your definition while normative and meta ethics are somehow not

>>18756459
Yeah it's a silly game he started playing here >>18756180
>but first define "should."

>>18756464
>express advice, duty, expectation, or probability. That is the Cambridge definition that I use. Do you have a problem with that definition?
Excellent. I only have an issue with the "duty" part. All the others are trivial refuted by Egoism. So back to my question,
>If someone wants to behave a particular way, why ought they care if it's excessive according to virtue ethicists?
You could answer in a purely descriptive way that you expect that doing so will increase the probability of them obtaining psychic balance. But that advice is only taken by the Egoist if they desire to obtain psychic balance. If they don't, then they have no reason to avoid excessive behaviors.

But if you were to answer that they have a duty to try to obtain psychic balance, then that seems like a normative statement and you would need to define duty.

>You should explain how egoism is logically sound with your definition while normative and meta ethics are somehow not
Egoism is logically sound because it doesn't propose that people ought be Egoists. Except for ethical egoism which is retarded.

>Yeah it's a silly game he started playing here
It's not a silly game. I'm not playing at some semantic sophistry. That normativity does not exist and is undefinable without being reduced to descriptive meaning is at the core of my philosophy.

>>18754235
If you deny God (All-That-Is; the One without a second), you automatically identify with the ego.

So, there is no non-egoist atheist.

True altruism is to recognize your oneness with everything. It is to recognize that what is good for you is what is good for all.

This is logic.

>>18754235
One can only be truly good if not expecting any reward.

>>18756133
christians literally believe in the same god as the jew. They are abrahamic

>>18756490
Egoism is a teenagers philosophy.
>nothing matters unless I desire it
That's not logically sound, that's base and hedonism-coded. Desiring things against your self interest is akrasia, weakness of will, but an egoist will say "I should pursue it if I desire it" anyway. What a stupid philosophy.
>Egoism is logically sound because it doesn't propose that people ought be Egoists. Except for ethical egoism which is retarded.
Thats not even a qualifier for logical soundness in the first place and it doesn't demonstrate logical soundness of egoism. It's a philosophy which can easily undermine your own motivations, success, and well being.
>It's not a silly game. I'm not playing at some semantic sophistry. That normativity does not exist and is undefinable without being reduced to descriptive meaning is at the core of my philosophy.
Your desire that it does not exist actually has no bearing over the existence of normativity itself. Likewise for morality and virtue. You've demonstrated egoism lacks framework for self reflection on the nature of existence.

File: divine harmony.jpg (3.72 MB, 2311x1302)

3.72 MB JPG

>>18756499
Well said, anon.

File: nihilism.jpg (141 KB, 1200x995)

141 KB JPG

>>18754235
tbhfam every single Stirnerfan is a completely overly socialized, cookie cutter, rule following, good boy, standard left liberal who would never have the balls to step out of line in any of that. For all their talk about not being restrained, they are all unambitious and dont really rock the boat. The most they might do is lash out at safe targets of authority like the Christian God or maybe conservative politicians, but thats it.

Meanwhile if we take a look at life affirming nihiilist like Ayn Rand, who the stirnerist hate because shes an "evil" (its not a spook when we do it!) capitalist who promoted the idea of making a lot of money if thats whats important to you. Going further, Ayn once praised a serial killer for being completely unrestrained by morals or society and even the edgiest stirnerfag will point this out as how "evil" she is.

Stirnerfags are just proto-lelddit atheist. Basic bitch leftist who like to lash out in safe edgy displays of vulgarity before turning back to insufferable woke moralfags who wag their finger at you for being a white straight person.

>>18757146
>That's not logically sound, that's base and hedonism-coded. Desiring things against your self interest is akrasia, weakness of will, but an egoist will say "I should pursue it if I desire it" anyway. What a stupid philosophy.
No. Egoism is not hedonism unless the egoist desires to be a hedonist. An egoist can be disciplined and have long term goals.
>Thats not even a qualifier for logical soundness in the first place and it doesn't demonstrate logical soundness of egoism
What exactly do you want? I have demonstrated the logical unsoundness of normativity. So any logically sound philosophy must lack normativity.
>Your desire that it does not exist actually has no bearing over the existence of normativity itself.
My argument is not that normativity doesn't exist because I desire it to not exist. It's that normativity is defined as contrasted with descriptivity. So when someone makes a normative claim, it cannot be reduced to descriptive claims(you cannot get an ought from an is). If you do, then "normative" claims are just descriptive claims qualified by desire, like in my example:
>You could answer in a purely descriptive way that you expect that doing so will increase the probability of them obtaining psychic balance. But that advice is only taken by the Egoist if they desire to obtain psychic balance. If they don't, then they have no reason to avoid excessive behaviors.
But if you don't do this, then normativity becomes an incommunicable primitive and there is no way to determine the truth of normative statements.

>>18757155
Incorrect. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, eugenicist, Stirnerite.

>>18754332
None of them lived to old age btw

>>18754235
The way an atheist avoids becoming an egoist is by recognizing that science requires foundational assumptions. This means there is always room for epistemic humility. Besides, science cannot prove itself because of circular logic. (IE: proving unicorns exist when the foundational axiom is unicorns are assumed to exist).

Science was never meant to prove itself, though. It is a practical tool building logic off of the axioms, not a religion.

But in many religions, the structural purpose outweighs whether its true or false. That is why cultures and religions exist, because they tend to survive longer than people who try to optimize themselves out of existance.

Nihilism is okay, but many people forget that by making "the world is meaningless" their meaning, they immediately break their own rules by treating that fact with value (since even that has no meaning).

I think that absurdism is a great approach, because it shows how to take the world with a grain of salt. Defending any specific viewpoint with passion removes your flexibility.

File: chomsky.jpg (210 KB, 600x819)

210 KB JPG

Explain how a Christian isn't an Egoist.

>>18754398
The state is a spook anyways

>>18754332
That's just Buddhism. Nihilism presupposes nothing exists other than the material. Buddhism has other plans.

>>18757251
>I have demonstrated the logical unsoundness of normativity.
No you haven't.
>normativity is defined as contrasted with descriptivity
Of course. You have to understand 'what is' before you can explain 'what ought to be'.
>So when someone makes a normative claim, it cannot be reduced to descriptive claims(you cannot get an ought from an is). If you do, then "normative" claims are just descriptive claims qualified by desire, like in my example
>qualified by desire
That's egoist nonsense. A descriptive claim is a statement that asserts how the world actually is, was, or will be, free from moral or value judgments. It's not qualified by your desire

Egoism is pointless. Understanding 'what is' stems from being able to recognize patterns in nature. Knowing this means there is nothing that can truly be unexplainable, since ultimately we can all recognize patterns.

Unconditional "shoulds" are total nonsense

I should drink a glass of milk, conditional on that being something I want to do - makes perfect sense

There just being a "fact" that I should drink the glass of milk, unconditional of my subjective goals and desires - it total nonsense

>>18757575
>A descriptive claim is a statement that asserts how the world actually is, was, or will be, free from moral or value judgments.
That's right.
>It's not qualified by your desire.
I gave you an example of how a "normative" claim is just a descriptive claim qualified by desire. I'll post it for a third time because somehow you're still not getting it.
>You could answer in a purely descriptive way that you expect that doing so will increase the probability of them obtaining psychic balance. But that advice is only taken by the Egoist if they desire to obtain psychic balance. If they don't, then they have no reason to avoid excessive behaviors.
So the descriptive claim:
>Avoiding excessive behaviors increases the probability of obtaining psychic balance.
Gets qualified by desire.
>I desire to obtain psychic balance.
To become the "normative" claim.
>I should avoid excessive behaviors.

But if that's the case, then normativity is logically unsound. We have gotten an ought from an is.

So what's left? What other ground can you possibly stand on to make normative claims?

>>18757742
Virtue ethics is heavily teleological, meaning it is focused on a goal—specifically, eudaimonia (human flourishing). Therefore, any moral rule or "should" statement is inherently conditional upon that goal.

Egoism is juvenile by comparison. If a person had no biological or psychological drive toward a social, healthy, and rational existence, the "should" would lose its grounding. The obligation is conditional on the objective reality of what makes a human life go well.

Virtue ethics rejects rigid, universal rules. An action that is right in one scenario might be wrong in another. The "should" is always conditional upon the specific details of the situation, which requires phronesis (practical wisdom) to navigate. If you stand your ground against a minor insult that escalates into an unnecessary brawl, you aren't being courageous; you are being foolhardy. What you "should" do changes conditionally based on the stakes, your capabilities, and the environment.

Character traits are structured using subjunctive conditionals in Virtue Ethics. This links a person's internal character disposition directly to expected behavioral outputs given certain external triggers. It's always fun to watch an egoist try to wrap their brain around these things, fail, and claim it's "nonsense".

>>18757759
>I gave you an example of how a "normative" claim is just a descriptive claim qualified by desire. I'll post it for a third time because somehow you're still not getting it.
Descriptive claims are not exclusively qualified by desire. That's what you are failing to understand here. Is egoism truly so limiting that it doesn't equip you with understanding of hypothetical imperatives? Instrumental rationality? That's grim dude.
What do you think a goal even is?

>>18757769
It just seems super trivial that I should seek "eudaimonia", conditional on that being a subjective goal of mine
(also compatible with egoism)

>>18757785
>It just seems super trivial that I should seek "eudaimonia", conditional on that being a subjective goal of mine
It's not as trivial as making your end goal be the pursuit of desire. We all have flaws & shortcomings and often we desire to run away from them rather than dealing with them. This is the basis for forming bad habits and I don't see egoism providing framework to navigate away from that.

In virtue ethics, a bad habit is a repeated pattern of behavior that feeds into or builds a vice—a flawed state of character that misaligns a person's *desires*, emotions, and practical reasoning.
>(also compatible with egoism)
I think I tried to explain this to you in a different thread, some time back. But that's alright we got there in the end.

>>18757781
>Descriptive claims are not exclusively qualified by desire
I didn't say they were. I said that what people usually refer to as normative claims are actually descriptive claims qualified by desire.
>Is egoism truly so limiting that it doesn't equip you with understanding of hypothetical imperatives?
I am using a hypothetical imperative as my example.
>if you want to obtain psychic balance, then you should avoid excessive behaviors
And demonstrating how it's just a descriptive claim qualified by desire.
>What do you think a goal even is?
A state I desire to obtain.

>>18757769
>The obligation is conditional on the objective reality of what makes a human life go well.
That you share some traits in common with other beings does not mean that what is good for that category of being is what's good for you. Humanity is a spook.

>>18754235
Step 1: Convert to atheism.
Step 2: Immediately blow your brains out.
That's how. Any questions?

>>18754235
Because I don't want to.

>>18757840
>I said that what people usually refer to as normative claims are actually descriptive claims qualified by desire
That's fine for you to believe that but I'm not appealing to 'what people usually refer to' in order to make my arguments about Virtue Ethics.
>I am using a hypothetical imperative as my example. And demonstrating how it's just a descriptive claim qualified by desire.
Again that's fine for you and your example of subjective desire. That has no bearing on the framework of Virtue Ethics.

>>18757848
>That you share some traits in common with other beings does not mean that what is good for that category of being is what's good for you
No shit. Virtue Ethics is a framework for conditional obligations, and you're not such a special little snowflake that you are in a different category of being other than 'human'. You can benefit from Virtue Ethics even as an Egoist, because that compatibility is built in to the framework of the philosophy. Egoism doesn't function the same way though and gets mogged by Virtue Ethics for it. Egoism isn't compatible with other philosophies like Virtue Ethics is, by design.
>Humanity is a spook
That is the dumbest bare assertion I've seen you make yet. Human nature literally is humanity.

>>18758060
>You can benefit from Virtue Ethics even as an Egoist, because that compatibility is built in to the framework of the philosophy
Some Egoists can, maybe even most Egoists can. But that they benefit at all is qualified by their desires. If they don't desire the outcomes of acting virtuous, then it doesn't benefit them.
>Egoism doesn't function the same way though and gets mogged by Virtue Ethics for it. Egoism isn't compatible with other philosophies like Virtue Ethics is, by design.
Egoism is correct. That it is incompatible with other philosophies is because they are incorrect. Egoism is still compatible with any form of action, like if an Egoist desires to act virtuously then they can.
>That is the dumbest bare assertion I've seen you make yet. Human nature literally is humanity.
There are humans with strange mutations that produce very alien psyches. Psychopaths who only desire to hurt people and feel no empathy. Humans who experience no pain or suffering. Humans who are incapable of learning language. Etc. There is no universal human nature or experience.
>and you're not such a special little snowflake that you are in a different category of being other than 'human'.
Incorrect. I am unique.
>That's fine for you to believe that but I'm not appealing to 'what people usually refer to' in order to make my arguments about Virtue Ethics.
If your claim is simply that most people have certain conditions in common that will make them more satisfied with their life(having a family, security, skills, etc) and that virtue ethics provides a framework for obtaining those things, that's fine. I have no arguments there and that's perfectly compatible with Egoism. But if you're making the normative claim that people ought be virtuous, that the individual has an obligation to virtuous even even when it doesn't benefit them, then you need to define those normative terms.

>>18757808
>It's not as trivial as making your end goal be the pursuit of desire.
That's what my account of goals are. That's just true. People should be act in a way to achieve their goals. Else they would be irrational.
This leaves room pursuing virtues. If that's something you want to do.

I don't understand what you disagree about. If you're not going to say something like "we should pursue virtues" (regardless of our goals)
You mentioned teleology. But you haven't talked much about it, or moral realism - which I think is where people step into the nonsense

>>18758468
>If you're not going to say something like "we should pursue virtues" (regardless of our goals)
This is obviously what he wants to say but I think he's realized he's going to lose this argument. The sad part is he'll learn nothing from this experience and be back making the same claims tomorrow.

>>18756587
Jews don't believe in God the Father, they are the actual abrahamics.

>>18754332
Funny how miserable people tries to defend the source of their misery.

Nihilism is crap.

>>18760099
Nihilism isn't the source of their misery.

>>18754235
Everyone is an Egoist, it's just that some are more moderate than others

>>18758082
>Egoism is correct. That it is incompatible with other philosophies is because they are incorrect
You desire that tautology to be true, but it's not.
>Egoism is still compatible with any form of action, like if an Egoist desires to act virtuously then they can.
Acting against your own desire for others is the opposite of egoism, but it's virtuous nontheless
>There are humans with strange mutations that produce very alien psyches. Psychopaths who only desire to hurt people and feel no empathy. Humans who experience no pain or suffering. Humans who are incapable of learning language. Etc. There is no universal human nature or experience.
All of that is within the scope of human nature.
>Incorrect. I am unique.
You're a basic bitch
>If your claim is simply that most people have certain conditions in common that will make them more satisfied with their life(having a family, security, skills, etc) and that virtue ethics provides a framework for obtaining those things, that's fine
That's not my claim that's just a simple observation of human nature which almost all philosophies take into account.
>But if you're making the normative claim that people ought be virtuous, that the individual has an obligation to virtuous even even when it doesn't benefit them, then you need to define those normative terms.
That's not me, that's in your head

>>18758468
>I don't understand what you disagree about.
Often in life the best experience you can produce is by acting against your own desires for the benefit of other people. You wouldn't get it
>You mentioned teleology. But you haven't talked much about it, or moral realism - which I think is where people step into the nonsense
It's logical to organize our behavior towards goals, and often to reach those goals we have to act against our own desire and sacrifice for others. That is virtuous by definition and works in a ethical framework, no?

>>18759978
If you hit the strawman with more force that means you win harder

>>18762161
>That's not me, that's in your head
Ok great. So since you're not making the normative claim, any reason you give for acting virtuously can be refuted by my Ego not desiring the outcomes of that virtuous action. Without normativity, your advice reduces to instrumentality.
IE:
>why ought I be virtuous?
>>being virtuous will facilitate aquiring some state
>I do not desire to aquire such a state
>>then there is no reason to be virtuous

>You desire that tautology to be true, but it's not.
You have just affirmed it yourself by rejecting normativity.

>>18762214
>any reason you give for acting virtuously can be refuted by my Ego not desiring the outcomes of that virtuous action. Without normativity, your advice reduces to instrumentality.
That's incorrect. Virtues are constitutive of eudaimonia rather than external instruments used to chase a separate reward. Your ego wont be able to identify its own desires without virtues.
>You have just affirmed it yourself by rejecting normativity.
I didn't reject normativity and I didn't appeal to a normative claim in order to make my argument either. I'm not saying how things 'ought' to be, I'm looking at objective reality and examining patterns & our capacity to organize patterns within our own nature. We will form habits in life whether we desire it or not, that's just a reality I take an approach to through Virtue Ethics rather than through Egoism.

>>18762247
>Virtues are constitutive of eudaimonia rather than external instruments used to chase a separate reward. Your ego wont be able to identify its own desires without virtues.
Either eudaimonia is a descriptive state of being that I can either desire to obtain or not. Or it's a normative state of being that I ought obtain.

>We will form habits in life whether we desire it or not, that's just a reality I take an approach to through Virtue Ethics rather than through Egoism.
And some of those habits involve excessive or deficient behaviors that I prefer to virtuous behaviors.

>>18762278
>Either eudaimonia is a descriptive state of being that I can either desire to obtain or not. Or it's a normative state of being that I ought obtain.
Its descriptive and evaluative. It's synonymous with excellence, which I wonder how an Egoist would define
>And some of those habits involve excessive or deficient behaviors that I prefer to virtuous behaviors.
That reflects on your personal lack of psychic organization. You will always be chasing your lower desires as a consequence of Egoism

>>18762290
>Its descriptive and evaluative. It's synonymous with excellence
Is that a normative excellence or a subjective excellence? If it's the former then please define it.
>You will always be chasing your lower desires as a consequence of Egoism
What do you mean by lower desire? What determines the ranking of desires? As an Egoist this is easy, I desire some things more than others. Like I may desire to be physically attractive more than I desire to eat fatty food.

>>18762313
>Is that a normative excellence or a subjective excellence? If it's the former then please define it.
It's a measurable quality of being distinguished, superior, or outstanding.
>What do you mean by lower desire?
A non rational desire that is unshaped, untrained and ungoverned by reason.
A higher desire is a rational desire that is shaped, educated, harmonized with reason and practical wisdom, aimed towards excellence. Egoism has SOME kind of framework for this, surely?
>What determines the ranking of desires? As an Egoist this is easy, I desire some things more than others. Like I may desire to be physically attractive more than I desire to eat fatty food.
In Virtue Ethics it is ordered on a basis of how they harmonizes with eudaimonia. That is to say aligning human reason, emotions, and action so that living well becomes a natural, unified state of being rather than a daily struggle. Self-authoring our own habits and behavior objectively so that we aren't merely pursuing every desire like animals. 'Ought' you do this isn't really the point, rather it's an unavoidable question which Virtue Ethics doesn't struggle to answer.

Lower desires feed into self destructive habits, where as higher desires are complimented by virtues. Both higher and lower desires will influence our habits, but just knowing that doesn't automatically arrange them into any particular order. That's when the framework of ethics becomes necessary imo. Virtue Ethics focuses on internal equilibrium (optimal alignment and integration of our reason, desires, emotions, resulting in a state of inner harmony) rather than "being a virtuous good moral character" at any rate.

>>18762161
>Often in life the best experience you can produce is by acting against your own desires
This is just confused.

"The best experience you can produce" That's something I want. I wouldn't be acting against my own desires.

>>18762340
Donating to charity - low or high order desire? Rational or ungoverned by reason?

>>18754252
To max pleasure and self-satisfaction, start taking opiates and crack, then when it becomes unsustainable, knowingly overdose and die. You won't, because you know God is not dead, and chasing after pleasure is fruitless.

>>18754235
Under atheist materialism there is no self, just matter particles bumping around. Thus, there is no egoism.

>>18754235
People can and often hold contradictory beliefs.

File: samuel_beckett_1922145604(...).png (237 KB, 342x440)

237 KB PNG

>There are no photos of Max Stir-ACK

>>18762384
The self cannot be particles because _____

>>18762435
because it doesn't exist.

>>18762340
>It's a measurable quality of being distinguished, superior, or outstanding.
Superior according to what? Normativity or subjectivity?

For example, a power drill may drill holes more efficiently than a hand drill. But that is purely descriptive. In order to assign it value, you either believe in some sort of normative value to drilling efficiently, or you subjectively prefer to drill efficiently. I may enjoy the process of manual drilling and prefer not to use power tools. So if the excellence of eudaimonia is a subjective value, then you are just taking a winding road to Egoism. If eudaimonia has normative value, then you need to define those terms.
>Virtue Ethics focuses on internal equilibrium (optimal alignment and integration of our reason, desires, emotions, resulting in a state of inner harmony) rather than "being a virtuous good moral character" at any rate.
So what if you are a psychopath who's only desire is to hurt people?

>>18762381
Egoism does not entail hedonism.

>>18762363
>"The best experience you can produce" That's something I want.
Not necessarily in every context, no. It's conditional on things beyond your lower desires and wants.
>I wouldn't be acting against my own desires.
In some cases you would

>>18762373
>Donating to charity - low or high order desire? Rational or ungoverned by reason?
It depends: What charity and who runs it? What is the goal of the act in donation to charity, to merely be seen as one who donates to charity?

>>18762477
>Superior according to what? Normativity or subjectivity?
Superior according to where it lands on our hierarchy of human goals; in our will to govern our lower desires with reason.
>So if the excellence of eudaimonia is a subjective value, then you are just taking a winding road to Egoism. If eudaimonia has normative value, then you need to define those terms.
It obviously has normative value so does Egoism. We've been over this.
>So what if you are a psychopath who's only desire is to hurt people?
That's an example of somebody with a wildly out of balance internal equilibrium, chaotically disorganized lower desires/emotions, ungoverned by reason. Not someone who reflects eudaimonia

>>18762573
>It obviously has normative value
Excellent. Please explain what normative value it has.
>so does Egoism
Incorrect. Egoism is a form of normative nihilism. Except, as I said, for ethical egoism which is retarded.
>That's an example of somebody with a wildly out of balance internal equilibrium, chaotically disorganized lower desires/emotions, ungoverned by reason. Not someone who reflects eudaimonia
So what? Ought they be virtuous, despite having no desire to and not personally benefiting in any way, or not?

>>18762440
Obviously if the self doesn't exist, then the self doesn't exist. This would be the case regardless of particles and gods.

How do we go about figuring out what is virtuous and what's not?
Especially if we take cases that genuinely tricky, and not exaggerated examples about shooting up heroin

>>18762481
Read the reply chain. The dude said the point of life is pleasure etc.

>>18762741
My bad.

>>18762609
>Incorrect. Egoism is a form of normative nihilism.
Give your definition for normative because the way you're trying to use the word makes no sense. Egoism has normative value but it's limited to being grounded in individual self interest. Virtue Ethics has normative value but is not defined by normativity, it's just 1 approach (as is Egoism) you can take
>Ought they be virtuous, despite having no desire to and not personally benefiting in any way, or not?
Why do you care, as an Egoist? What difference does it make to one who is complacent chasing their lower desires like a dog? You don't have a framework for harmonizing your internal equilibrium towards excellence, organizing your desires and emotions with practical wisdom. The question - when asked by an Egoist - is performative.

>>18762643
>How do we go about figuring out what is virtuous and what's not?
You don't, if you're an Egoist. They don't even understand the concept of lower & higher desires

>>18763566
>Give your definition for normative because the way you're trying to use the word makes no sense
The way I'm using the word is how I understand all philosophers to use it. Which is that it is in contrast with descriptive. IE, you cannot get an ought from an is. My whole point is that such a thing makes no sense. How do you use the word?
>Egoism has normative value but it's limited to being grounded in individual self interest
If you believe this, then go ahead and explain what normative value it has.
>Why do you care, as an Egoist? What difference does it make to one who is complacent chasing their lower desires like a dog?
You simply don't understand Egoism at all. You seem to still think it means hedonism. I care about exposing the nonsense of moralists because I desire to live in a world with more Egoists.

>>18763665
It's not that deep, I want to eat cake - but also I don't want to get fat

How do you go about figuring out what's virtuous?

This whole conversation is just so stupid

When you donate to charity, are you doing so against your will? Are you making some kind of mistake, does it happen by accident?
Of course not.
You are donating to charity because you want to. Maybe it makes you feel good and virtuous. Maybe it achieve a goal you have, such as combating poverty.
This is not to say didn't do something nice, or make less of it. It just is an analysis of what humans do, and why they do it.
Get no real pushback on this, just language policing or silliness.


We've been provided with this frankly dumb, and contradictory take, that is somehow incompatible with acting in a way where you do things you want to do.
That actually you are doing things you DON'T want to (but also want to, cuz they are virtuous - and you're a virtuous guy) - it's just half baked nonsense

>How do you go about figuring out what's virtuous?
The reason I ask this. And get no principled answer.
Is because there is no fact of the matter of what's virtuous or not. It's just gonna bottom out in people's subjective goals and desires.

>>18764557
>its not that deep
For an egoist it's not, because the philosophy is shallow.
There is an order to your desires, a distinction between what we identify as 'base' and what we can identify as superior by contrast. If you have no concept of a framework for this then your desires are going to be disorganized and it will contribute to an imbalance in internal equilibrium.
Egoism has no concept of a framework for this at all.
>How do you go about figuring out what's virtuous?
As I said, as an egoist: you don't. Chase your lowers desires like a dog. That's it. That's your philosophy.

>>18764166
>The way I'm using the word is how I understand all philosophers to use it. Which is that it is in contrast with descriptive. IE, you cannot get an ought from an is. My whole point is that such a thing makes no sense. How do you use the word?
Conditional goals are what bridges the gap between 'is' and 'ought'. Egoism has no framework for setting goals or ordering your own desires & emotions, but you've decided that it's the ultimate philosophy anyway.
>If you believe this, then go ahead and explain what normative value it has.
'I ought to act according to my own desire' - that is a normative statement; normative value.

>>18764573
Your jumping on point is what's stupid. Why should anybody donate to charity? More often than not it's a scam.
Donating to charity is worthless and performative.
Go out and help people directly, if you really DESIRE to help people. Don't be a slacktavist coded moron.

>>18764587
>Is because there is no fact of the matter of what's virtuous or not. It's just gonna bottom out in people's subjective goals and desires.
You're retarded. Virtue is reflected in any character trait, habit, or principle of action that is instrumentally necessary for securing, protecting, and maximizing an individual's internal equilibrium.

>>18765118
>Conditional goals are what bridges the gap between 'is' and 'ought'.
How?
>'I ought to act according to my own desire' - that is a normative statement; normative value.
I have the same skepticism of this claim as any other normative statement. What does "ought" even mean here?

>>18765168
>How?
Hypothetical imperatives. By turning a normative command into a descriptive statement about instrumental cause and effect.
The fact you even need to ask this reflects poorly on the philosophy you subscribe to. It's self evident unless you've handicapped yourself from being able to see it. I suspect Egoism is such a handicap.
>I have the same skepticism of this claim as any other normative statement. What does "ought" even mean here?
Again this is a mark against Egoism that you cannot provide your own framework for an answer to this. Virtue Ethics defines 'ought' through the lens of character, and what a virtuous person would characteristically choose to do in a given situation, rather than by strict rule-following or calculating the greatest utility.

>>18765172
>Hypothetical imperatives. By turning a normative command into a descriptive statement about instrumental cause and effect.
What you have just described is normative nihilism. That seemingly normative statements are actually reducible to descriptive statements. Another example: "I should bake cookies" reduces to "I desire to eat cookies" and "baking cookies is instrumental to satisfying that desire." There is no normative value here, only subjective value. In this case, the "ought" has been dispelled.

>Virtue Ethics defines 'ought' through the lens of character, and what a virtuous person would characteristically choose to do in a given situation
What is the hypothetical imperative here? That if I desire to achieve eudaimonia, then I ought act virtuously? So if I don't desire eudaimonia, then I ought not act virtuously.

>>18765212
>What you have just described is normative nihilism
No that's just how reaching goals can be defined in the framework of Virtue Ethics. You are misunderstanding
>What is the hypothetical imperative here?
A conditional command of reason that tells you what to do to reach a specific goal. Its conditional on more than mere desire, though that is one aspect of the process obviously. How does Egoism make a distinction between rational and irrational desires?
>That if I desire to achieve eudaimonia, then I ought act virtuously? So if I don't desire eudaimonia, then I ought not act virtuously.
You don't even have a concept of what eudaimonia is. Egoism offers no framework for balancing internal equilibrium, aligning your desires and emotions, or the habituation of intellectual/moral virtue in general. It's a performative philosophy

>>18765118
>As I said, as an egoist: you don't.
Again this dodge. I am literally asking you how.
I am NOT asking if an egoist is able or unable.

>>18765118
>Donating to charity is worthless and performative.
More dodging. This is entirely besides the point of the discussion.
You are not engaging with any of the points I raised, that actually are problems for your position.

Just wasting everyone's time whining about the examples used

>>18765118
>maximizing an individual's internal equilibrium.
LMAO
you are such a fucking fraud

Do you think nobody notices that you are just swapping words around when pressed?
Now you're not saying 'virtue' anymore, but swapped it around with "maximizing an individual's internal equilibrium" (utter drivel)

I am asking how you go about figuring out what is virtuous/(maximizes an individual's internal equilibrium, jesus fucking christ)

You are still not answering. Just saying nonsense about how *I* certainly can't answer those question (questions I'm asking you, btw. They are not a part of my position)
And it's not like these questions are gotchas. They should just be the core of your position.

But as I said.
The reason I ask this. And get no principled answer.
Is because there is no fact of the matter of what's virtuous or not. It's just gonna bottom out in people's subjective goals and desires.

>>18765292
>A conditional command of reason that tells you what to do to reach a specific goal. Its conditional on more than mere desire, though that is one aspect of the process obviously.
I didn't ask what a hypothetical imperative is, I asked what the hypothetical imperative is that bridges the is-ought gap in virtue ethics.

>>18765300
>>18765302
>>18765304
That he is incapable of answering any question is a good testament to the unintelligibly of normativity. At least he makes for a good lolcow.

>>18754244
The claim also that the Ego and the Self is like spooks and creations and dreaming stuff that the imagining mind created

Still trying to figure out of voting for Brexit was virtuous or not, given the knowledge I had at the time

>>18765300
>>18765302
>>18765304
>>18765313
The 'is-ought-gap' is a spook. Virtue Ethics isn't limited by this dichotomy. Things like a "watch," a "heart," or a "human being" have a characteristic function or purpose. Because the concept of a functional item already contains evaluative criteria (e.g., a "good" watch is one that accurately tells time), knowing what a human being is inherently entails knowing how a human being functions well. Virtue Ethics grounds morality in the overarching factual reality of what it means for a human being to function well & flourish (eudaimonia), to have internal equilibrium and a governance of reason over your lower desires/emotions as a rational and social animal. The "ought" flows naturally from the realization of what fulfills human nature over a complete life. There is nothing that cannot be explained in this process; the dichotomy is dispelled

>if I "pretend" to be retarded then it makes Virtue Ethics look dumb!

>>18765452
Have you donated to charity lately?

>>18765455
You seriously think there's a fact of the matter as to what "a good watch" is, that exist independent of human needs and desires, what they want a watch to do, etc? Do we need to be Platonists
This is mediaeval and undercooked

Reducing virtue ethics to human flourishing is a trivial account.
Just say that you're into human flourishing! No need for this silly dress up game and pretending there's more going on. The fuck are all these words doing, if it's just human flourishing we're talking about?
Also incredibly unhelpful in cases of serious disagreement as to what constitutes human flourishing

>>18765464
No, I never donate to charity.
I always believed that to be a strike against my virtue. But I'm glad this thread cleared that up, and actually it's virtuous for me to be stingy

>>18762373
>>18765468
This guy >>18765118 is full of shit
Donating to charity IS a virtuous action.
I know this by consulting my virtuosity. Do not be fooled.

Valuing human flourishing is entirely compatible with egoism, and all kind of anti-realist positions

>>18765455
>Because the concept of a functional item already contains evaluative criteria (e.g., a "good" watch is one that accurately tells time)
What does it mean for something to have a function? It can't just be the intrinsic material condition of the object. A rock might be able to hammer nails, or weigh down paper, or tell the time, but we wouldn't say any of these things are intrinsic functions of rocks.

So then a function must be either what a thing is currently being used for or what it was created for. But that would defeat virtue ethics. If I am not currently using myself to obtain eudaimonia and/or my parents did not create me to obtain eudaimonia, then I ought not obtain eudaimonia.

>>18765467
>Reducing virtue ethics to human flourishing is a trivial account.
Virtue Ethicists don't do that
>Just say that you're into human flourishing! No need for this silly dress up game and pretending there's more going on. The fuck are all these words doing, if it's just human flourishing we're talking about?
Yeah lil bro human flourishing is such a trivial concept and who needs all those words anyway so true its just a vibe
>Also incredibly unhelpful in cases of serious disagreement as to what constitutes human flourishing
That's a problem with Egoism

>>18765468
Yeah because most charities are a scam. And if you truly want to help people you just go and help people.

>>18765475
>Donating to charity IS a virtuous action.
Not necessarily. It's conditional on many things

>>18765484
>What does it mean for something to have a function?
Having a function (ergon) means that a thing has a natural purpose, job, or characteristic activity that it is uniquely suited to do. When Virtue Ethicists talk about a "function," they do not necessarily mean an assigned job or a machine's utility. Instead, they use a teleological view—the idea that natural things have an intrinsic end (telos) or final purpose.
>A rock might be able to hammer nails, or weigh down paper, or tell the time, but we wouldn't say any of these things are intrinsic functions of rocks.
Rocks are defined as inanimate, non-rational objects that lack agency, internal purpose (telos) for flourishing, and moral status. Because virtue ethics focuses on the character and habits of a conscious agent, a rock cannot be functionally "virtuous" or "vicious" on its own. Some things just lack function
>So then a function must be either what a thing is currently being used for or what it was created for
>created for.
No. A function is defined as the characteristic activity or distinctive thing that a specific kind of thing is uniquely suited to do.

>>18765501
>Having a function (ergon) means that a thing has a natural purpose, job, or characteristic activity that it is uniquely suited to do
>A function is defined as the characteristic activity or distinctive thing that a specific kind of thing is uniquely suited to do.
So for example, a psychopath whose only desire is to hurt people is uniquely suited to be a serial killer. So being a serial killer is their function and the ought be a good one.

>>18765505
>So for example, a psychopath whose only desire is to hurt people is uniquely suited to be a serial killer. So being a serial killer is their function and the ought be a good one.
Very unbalanced and immoral person. We put dogs like that into cages or into the ground

>>18765512
So is that not the function of such a person?

>>18765520
You're asking about 'the function of a psychopath'? From my perspective their function is to be put into a cage or into the ground. Human beings who act like violent animals are treated like violent animals, that's just the way it is.
More than that, who cares?

>>18765521
>From my perspective their function is
So is something's function different from different perspectives?

>>18765527
>So is something's function different from different perspectives?
It can be but that's conditional on how the thing and its function in context are being defined. Function is not purely subjective and in Virtue Ethics is treated as an objective, metaphysical, and natural fact about a thing's nature or kind.

I think you need the functions to be mind independent and objective, else we're just talking subjective preference again

Aquinas never did figure out if it's the function of an acorn to become an oak, or squirrel food

>>18765534
That's the Virtue Ethicists perspective, yes; objective in its foundations. Practical application is context-dependent and subjective of course

>>18765529
>an objective, metaphysical, and natural fact about a thing's nature or kind
Ok, so what is the objective function of a psychopath whose only desire is to hurt people?

>>18765535
It raises interesting questions about the concepts of 'potential & transformation'.
Aquinas would've been more fulfilled as a Neoplatonist

>>18765539
>Ok, so what is the objective function of a psychopath whose only desire is to hurt people?
This context-dependent. How do you define 'function', 'desire' and 'hurt'?

>>18765536
In the case of a good watch
Do you need to be some kind of Platonist or what? (form of an ideal watch)

Suppose a world with no people in it, no one to tell the time
What kind of function foes a watch have with no one around read the time of it, is there a fact written into the fabric of the cosmos as to how fast it should turn? How does that work?

This is all utter nonsense to me without someone wanting watches to do certain things

>>18765543
>Suppose a world with no people in it, no one to tell the time
A world with no people in it to create watches...
>What kind of function foes a watch have with no one around read the time of it, is there a fact written into the fabric of the cosmos as to how fast it should turn? How does that work?
I don't know. How would a watch appear on a world with no people in it in the first place?
>This is all utter nonsense
You said it!

Turns out it just is the function of someone with my particular proclivities to shoot up on heroin and pursue short-term hedonistic desires

>>18765542
>hurt
Inflict a condition of pain and suffering on someone.
>desire
Hurting people obtains a condition of peace, happiness, and satisfaction within him. Not hurting people obtains a condition of stress, sorrow, and disappointment within him.
>function
You're the one claiming objective functions exist, so that's on you to define.

>>18765547
A watch is just a device with a seemingly regular cycle. The solar system is a naturally occurring watch with the orbit of the Earth being 1 year. Are you possibly retarded?

>>18765547
Look, it's not my fault that literally all the functions I know about that exist in the world. Got human minds that subjectively wants for them to do those functions.
So I cannot give any examples from reality.

You're the guy that believes in the kind of mind-independent functions, such a watch would have
Just because it's a made-up story, doesn't mean you can't make sense of the question I ask about functions

>>18765559
>So I cannot give any examples from reality.
examples of things with functions that no minds wants for, I mean

>>18765549
>You're the one claiming objective functions exist, so that's on you to define.
When did I claim that psychopaths have an objective function? That's your claim and the burden is on you to give a definition for your own silly example.

>>18765553
>A watch is just a device with a seemingly regular cycle
A device (noun) is an object, tool, machine, or mechanism that has been intentionally engineered or contrived to serve a specific purpose or perform a particular function.
>The solar system is a naturally occurring watch
Pass me the blunt because I want what you're having. Who intentionally engineered or contrived the solar system, then?

>>18765559
>You're the guy that believes in the kind of mind-independent functions, such a watch would have
No not at all lol. The function of watches are not mind-independent because they were intentionally engineered/contrived by-&-for human beings.

>>18765565
Are human beings also like watches, or do they got objective functions, regardless of what they subjectively want?

>>18765570
>Are human beings also like watches, or do they got objective functions, regardless of what they subjectively want?
Human beings are biological, not like watches.

>>18765570
>functions
Purpose?

>>18765572
I mean in the respect of what they should do being mind-independent or not
Because that's the thing I have problems with. I can't make sense of things, or humans, having objective functions and purpose

But it turns out the other things we talked about so far was mind-dependent and subjective, which is totally fine with me

>>18754235
Atheism leads to nihilism. One route is nothing matters so I will play life like its a video game. Like >>18754252

My take is apathy. Because all pleasure is fleeting and truly meaningless there is no incentive to do much of anything. I kinda just wish I was a tree or something. This starts to align with Buddhism which is desu probably the truest religion there is. I think people obsessed with the senses are still spiritual children. I'm bored of this reality. Feel like if I do have a soul its gone through far too many cycles.

>>18765573
>Purpose?
Eudaimonia? Purpose is reached by practicing and embedding virtues and practical wisdom (phronesis) into your daily habits. You fulfill your purpose not by mindlessly following a list of rules (like in deontology) or by simply calculating the greatest good for the greatest number (like in consequentialism).

>>18765576
>Because that's the thing I have problems with. I can't make sense of things, or humans, having objective functions and purpose
A good place to start is figuring out what characteristic activity sets us apart from plants and (non human) animals. Virtue Ethics are grounded in a teleological worldview where everything in nature has a specific function or purpose (ergon). A Virtue Ethicist would say plants function around growth and nutrition; animals function around perception and mobility. Humans share these, but our distinctive capacity is rational activity—living in accordance with or guided by reason.

A "good" knife cuts well; a "good" flutist plays the flute well. Therefore, a good human being is someone who performs the distinctive human function (exercise reasoning and moral agency) exceptionally well over the course of a lifetime.
The "objective good" or ultimate end for humans in Virtue Ethics is eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is achieved not by a state of feeling, but by activity of the soul (psyche) in accordance with virtue (excellence). This is the point where we lose Atheists and Egoists again hah.

In any case we can all observe that human beings have a distinct function apart from plants and other animals. Therefore, the distinctive function (ergon) of a human being is an activity of the soul (psyche) in accordance with, or implied by, reason. Performing a function is not enough; doing it well requires virtue. Just as a good eye or a good flute player performs their function with excellence, a good human being performs the activity of reason well. The human function done well leads to eudaimonia

>>18765565
>When did I claim that psychopaths have an objective function? That's your claim and the burden is on you to give a definition for your own silly example.
This was your entire argument. If people don't have objective functions, then they only have subjective functions. So if what people "ought" to do is based on their function, then it is dependent on the individuals perspective. You are once again back to Egoism.

>>18765565
>A device (noun) is an object, tool, machine, or mechanism that has been intentionally engineered or contrived to serve a specific purpose or perform a particular function.
If a function is determined by the intention of creation, then my function is not to obtain eudaimonia because that is not the intention of my creation.

>>18765868
>This was your entire argument.
No it wasn't. Show me the post where *I* made the claim that human beings have "an objective function". You're so confused. A psychopath is a person with a personality disorder and I never made an appeal to any of that to make my arguments.
>So if what people "ought" to do is based on their function, then it is dependent on the individuals perspective. You are once again back to Egoism.
Egoism is circular reductive nonsense.

>>18765869
>If a function is determined by the intention of creation
In the context of "device", yes
>then my function is not to obtain eudaimonia because that is not the intention of my creation.
Are you merely a device? Do you desire to be treated like an object, anon?

>>18765872
>Show me the post where *I* made the claim that human beings have "an objective function"
Not him, but
>>18765529
>Function is not purely subjective and in Virtue Ethics is treated as an objective, metaphysical, and natural fact about a thing's nature or kind.

>>18765872
>No it wasn't. Show me the post where *I* made the claim that human beings have "an objective function". You're so confused
My mistake then. So humans only have subjective functions.
>Egoism is circular reductive nonsense.
How so? You seemingly just affirmed Egoism yourself.

>>18765875
That wasn't me.

>>18765883
>uhhh it wasn't me
Lmao sure buddy I'm sure there's multiple retards arguing for virtue ethics ITT
If it really wasn't you, what the fuck is even your point then?

>>18765875
Objective fact =/= objective function

>>18765880
>My mistake then. So humans only have subjective functions.
There are objective facts about our nature, but you are correct that there is no objective order to subjective function. However, virtue ethics does posit an objective foundation and a structured relationship between reason, character, emotion, and action, even though the application to subjective experience is contextual
>How so? You seemingly just affirmed Egoism yourself.
Egoism reduces the context of subjective experience down to desire. Virtue Ethics takes desire into consideration and includes a wider scope of facts in the context of subjective experience as well.

>>18765883
This is a troll lol.

>>18765894
>Objective fact =/= objective function
You're sounding more and more retarded ngl
Simple question, is there objectivity in ethics and what does it supposedly look like?

>>18765903
>You're sounding more and more retarded ngl
That's the type of shit you say when you've run out of ways to address the arguments being made.
>Simple question, is there objectivity in ethics and what does it supposedly look like?
Yes, it's grounded in human nature, derived from shared facts about what human beings are and what allows them to thrive—analogous to how physical health has an objective standard for a biological organism. For example, exercising practical wisdom (phronesis) and temperance aligns with what it means to function well as a rational, social creature

>>18765894
>Egoism reduces the context of subjective experience down to desire. Virtue Ethics takes desire into consideration and includes a wider scope of facts in the context of subjective experience as well.
So then what is the contextual application to subjective experience of virtue ethics if not your desire to obtain eudaimonia?

>>18765908
>Yes, it's grounded in human nature, derived from shared facts about what human beings are and what allows them to thrive
So evolutionary morals? Solid view, I would agree with that. Too bad virtue ethics can't magically predict what is good and what isn't good in terms of evolutionary development. If you argue that we should just do what worked well so far that's fine, but it might backfire because people have different definitions of what worked well so far kek
>—
Sloppa

Inb4 another
>buh wuh about muh psychopath who wants to HURT and KILL people!
Murder is vice or a fundamental failure of character and moral virtue (such as justice, compassion, and temperance). A person who commits murder or believes killing innocent people is good demonstrates a complete lack of phronesis, rather than the exercise of it. Real practical wisdom requires aligning one's desires with the moral virtues, meaning a truly phronimos (a wise person) would recognize murder as contrary to human flourishing and justice

>>18765910
>So then what is the contextual application to subjective experience of virtue ethics if not your desire to obtain eudaimonia?
That's a good question. Eudaimonia is not about the fulfillment of arbitrary desires or short-term cravings; instead, it is an objective state of human flourishing, well-being, and living virtuously that will shape our habits if we aim towards it.

Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics, says eudaimonia is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue (arete). Humans may naturally desire the good, but raw or unexamined desires often lead people astray

>>18765911
>Too bad virtue ethics can't magically predict what is good and what isn't good in terms of evolutionary development
Egoism can't*
There is no magic involved in the process of making educated predictions. Virtue Ethics supports a more philosophically mature framework than that
>If you argue that we should just do what worked well so far that's fine, but it might backfire because people have different definitions of what worked well so far
Some people seemingly cannot be reasoned with, so there is that.

>>18765915
>Egoism can't
Egoism doesn't need to, you just do what benefits you the most personally
>Some people seemingly cannot be reasoned with, so there is that.
And how do you want to resolve that problem?

>>18765921
>Egoism doesn't need to, you just do what benefits you the most personally
That isn't always good in terms of evolutionary development. That's not a problem in Virtue Ethics though
>And how do you want to resolve that problem?
It depends on the person and to what extent they are unreasonable. How would an Egoist resolve that problem?

>>18765915
>Real practical wisdom requires aligning one's desires with the moral virtues, meaning a truly phronimos (a wise person) would recognize murder as contrary to human flourishing and justice
You're just back to humanity being a spook. There is no reason to act in way that benefits humanity over a way that benefits you as an individual.

>>18765925
>That isn't always good in terms of evolutionary development
Why would I care about that
>How would an Egoist resolve that problem?
Depends on how much that person is impacting me. Either the problem will take care of itself via legal and social mechanisms, or I'll act in self defense

>>18765926
>You're just back to humanity being a spook.
Humanity is human nature. Virtue Ethics asks 'what does it mean to be an excellent human being'
>There is no reason to act in way that benefits humanity over a way that benefits you as an individual
That's wrong. The reason would be that it cultivates a good character.

>>18754252
>the only remaining metaphysical obligation is to max pleasure and self-satisfaction.
No. When one sees the void, one lets light in, and starts dividing.

>>18765928
>Why would I care about that
Is this you? >>18765911
>Depends on how much that person is impacting me. Either the problem will take care of itself via legal and social mechanisms, or I'll act in self defense
How does 'the problem take care of itself via legal and social mechanisms' if the mechanisms ultimately boil down to people acting on their own desire?

>>18765939
>Is this you?
Yes, why?
>How does 'the problem take care of itself via legal and social mechanisms' if the mechanisms ultimately boil down to people acting on their own desire?
You seem to have the misconception that egoists can't build societies, and that rhe vast majority of people aren't already egoists. Anon, egoism has won. We live in an Egoist society

>>18765932
>Humanity is human nature. Virtue Ethics asks 'what does it mean to be an excellent human being'
Human is an arbitrary taxonomical category. I am not merely human. We can just as well ask "What is the nature of a psychopath? What does it mean to be a good psychopath?" Or in my case, what is my individual nature? What does it mean to be a good me?
>That's wrong. The reason would be that it cultivates a good character.
I prefer the character I cultivate through Egoism.

>>18765942
>Yes, why?
You appealed to 'evolutionary development' before I did, champ. Acting on your own desire isn't necessarily always good for that, is it?
>You seem to have the misconception that egoists can't build societies, and that rhe vast majority of people aren't already egoists
You are under the delusion that every functional member of society agrees with your philosophy.
>Anon, egoism has won. We live in an Egoist society
Nice Dunning Kruger strategy

>>18765587
>people obsessed with the senses are still spiritual children.

"Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them.

>I am bored of this reality.

Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor.

>>18765949
>You appealed to 'evolutionary development' before I did
You misunderstood me, that's just the origin of our ethics. But yes, evolution is inherently egoistic so once again I win and just do what evolution does
>You are under the delusion that every functional member of society agrees with your philosophy.
They might disagree, but that doesn't make them less of an egoist. Many people are egoists in denial (you) included most likely.
I think you don't really comprehend how rare true non-egoists are.
It's basically
>religious schizos
>suicidal empathetics
And that's kinda about it kek

>>18765948
>Human is an arbitrary taxonomical category. I am not merely human
Wow so deep bro.
>We can just as well ask "What is the nature of a psychopath? What does it mean to be a good psychopath?"
see >>18765915
>I prefer the character I cultivate through Egoism.
A character cultivated through Egoism is typically not socially pleasant, or educated.

>>18765952
>everybody is an Egoist whether they know it or not
Jordan Peterson made the same dumb argument about Christianity. It's no less retarded how you're doing it

>>18765954
>uhhh it's retarded also Jordan Peterson said it about this other thing
Weird detour but anyway
Can you refute it?

>>18765954
>Wow so deep bro.
Is this your argument?
>A character cultivated through Egoism is typically not socially pleasant, or educated.
I could argue this but it really doesn't matter. I can envision the character I'll cultivate through virtue ethics and Egoism and I prefer the latter.

>>18765955
>Can you refute it?
Many people are Virtue Ethicists in denial just doing it poorly (you) included most likely. Non Virtue Ethicists are so rare. Can you refute it?

>>18765957
>I can envision the character I'll cultivate through virtue ethics and Egoism and I prefer the latter
Lmao. Chasing your desires like a dog is more preferable than being an excellent person? This is why egoism sucks

>>18765959
>he can't
I accept your concession lmao
>Many people are Virtue Ethicists in denial just doing it poorly (you) included most likely. Non Virtue Ethicists are so rare. Can you refute it?
What's there to refute, we're in agreement, aside from the "many are" part. Sure you can pretend everyone is a Christian just a poor Christian in denial, but then you're just Jordan Peterson tier.
I never claimed many people are bad egoists, in fact most people do egoism incredibly well. So my statement is quite different from yours
>being an excellent person
Being an excellent doormat more like

>>18765942
>egoism has won

The ego tells spooks, it is for the good of spooks that the ego is going away. Unless the ego goes away, the Advocate will not come to spooks, but if the ego goes, the ego will send Him to spooks. When He comes, He will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because people do not believe in the ego; about righteousness, because the ego is predetermined, where you can see the ego no longer; and about judgment, because the the god of this world now stands condemned.

>>18765587
>far too many cycles
Don't think of it as a cycle. Think of it as a spiral. Spiral out. That's why its called spirit not cyclit.

Is it true that I should be virtuous (whatever that means), regardless of my subjective preference?

>>18766089
No. You need to know what virtue means, and that requires subjective preference. But the subjective premise is just the point. You need, an argument, wich is your neighbor, to have a valid proof of morality.

>>18766192
Where two or three gather in my name, there I am with them.

Truth requires a measure of two or three, which is the measure of the water turned into wine.

Yes. The void of nihlism has no meaning when all are one. Alone.

The light is good. Divide. This is king David.

Be fruitful and multiply.
Love your neighbor as yourself.

>>18766192
This is also why the proof of alcohol is twice the spirit. ;)
The miracles are everywhere.