Morality doesn't exist, just like witches don't exist. It's a fiction. All moral claims are false.
>>23535127Okay fair enough. But certain paradigms of morality can be useful in getting desired outcomes. No?
>>23535127You’re a moron
>>23535127Enjoy being a faggot, I guess. The rest will go on as usual. And there isn't shit you can do about it.
>>23535127Globohomo preaches moral relatavism and moral facts at the same time depending on when it's convenient. When you want your thing they tell you morality is subjective, personal, relative, and can't be forced onto others. But when they want their things they're suddenly non-negotiable moral facts. If you ask any questions you're a Nazi. Which is bad.
Do you believe disgust exists?
>>23535156>It's all a social construct and if natural disgusts exist they're completely random and not linked with genes. And even if they were we're all equally mixed!
>>23535156Of course. You disgust me.
Ethics is just the name we give to the sum of all value-judgments of the dominant elite at any given time and place. Ethics is whatever conceived and enforced as such.
>>23535225...whatever is conceived and enforced as such, meant to say.
>>23535127The fruits of atheism, denying that morals exist because they're evil but don't want to admit what they love to do is evil.>>23535147The only "morals" they have is they hate the living God and His moral law. If you reflect God's moral law, they'll tell you morality is relative while at the same time claiming you're "amoral" for telling evil and wicked men to repent and stop committing evil (like sexual immorality, they're practically all slaves to that sin).
>>23535127>There are no moral facts. Only interpretations. Everything is relative bro. Obey no one. Question everything.>Except for racial segregation, transphobia, homophobia, anti-democracy, closed borders, banning pornography, flat Earth conspiracy theories, and telling women they can't have sex or get tattoos. Those are fucking non-negotiable universal evils!Why are normies like this?
>>23535257Because they're group thinking chattel. Look at how quickly the "current thing" went from pro-tranny to pro-ukraine, to pro-palestine. What's next? Probably screaming about climate racism and child liberation.
>>23535257They're brainwashed to believe in the scientifically and mathematically impossible creation mythology of evolutionism.We haven't observed one good mutation nor one good mutation surviving and spreading through a population. We haven't observed even one change of kinds, yet they claim entire kingdoms and phylums change, they claim creatures can outgrow their clade. All we ever see are variations within a kind and they claim that proves one kind can become another kind. They can't refute this so they often kvetch about the term "kind", but plenty of evolutionist professors understand the term just fine. We have never seen a single mutation that introduced novel or new information to the DNA genetic code, which evolutionism states happened zillions of times, it hasn't even been observed once; mutations only mutate and distort and scramble the information already present, just as natural selection can only select from information already present. They have to take a leap of faith but they don't even see where they're taking it because they were brainwashed to think it passes the scientific method, but it fails it every time and it fails all mathematical tests. They show them finches becoming finches and they conclude that man came from apes. And if man's just an animal, and life is just nature's accident, and nothing exploded into everything; then there are no morals. They also use the same argument to defend sodomy and sexual immorality, they claim man is just an animal and animals sometime sodomize each other, so then man should lower himself to live like a beast of the field.The bottom line is without morality being absolute, it's really just one man's opinion. And if it's just one man's opinion, then it's not a moral. And for morality to be absolute, it must come from outside of man; but they tend to call everything a social construct.
>>23535257Ethics are a social phenomenon. It doesn't need to be logical.
>>23535274>They're brainwashed to believe in the scientifically and mathematically impossible creation mythology of evolustopped here
>>23535127I was a fan of this kind of thing back when I was younger and ignorant.The big issue here is "what is morality". If you take morality in the sense the Greeks/Christians/etc meant it, Moral Nihilism is destroyed.
>>23535277Nice cognitive dissonance. Can't make any arguments so you have to shut off your mind and remain willingly ignorant of the actual scientific and mathematical facts.The only way evolutionism survives is deliberate ignorance like you just displayed, and indoctrination in the schools, and censorship. You're such a pathetic coward, normalfag.
>>23535282>Nice cognitive dissostopped here
Claim: All moral claims are falseRefutation:1. If all moral claims are false, then the claim "torturing babies for sexual pleasure is wrong" is false2. "Torturing babies for sexual pleasure is wrong" is, in fact, a true claim3. Therefore moral nihilism is untrue If you want to refute me, you have to, by definition, accept that you would condone rape and baby torture.
>>23535416>If you want to refute me, you have to, by definition, accept that you would condone rape and baby torture.Well, the Muslims on /lit/ already defend raping kids. I wouldn't be surprised if someone were to argue against what you said.
>>23535282Why don't you religious tards actually make a reasonable debate, like you could so easily just advocate for a scientific anti-realist position, accept the theory of evolution for its instrumental value (in making predictions) but as having no realist implications (whereas your God and his creation story does).Instead you just get backed into this corner of debating science on its own terms and looking like a psuedoscientific fucking retard.
>>23535127I had sex with my cousin, impregnated her and she got a abortion when we were 16. Im 22 now and we still share pseudo romantic feelings towards each other, and even rapeplayed once.What do you think of that OP?
>>23535274Holy mother of based. Anyone who believes in evolution in 2024, is an NPC with 0 soul and 0 critical thinking.
>That the world has a mere physical but no moral significance is the greatest, most ruinous and fundamental error, the real perversity of the mind and in a basic sense it is certainly that which faith has personified as the antichrist. Nevertheless, and in spite of all religions which assert the contrary of this and seek to establish it in their mythological ways, that basic error never dies out on earth, but always raises its head from time to time until universal indignation once again forces it into hiding.t. Schopenhauer
>>23535274>We haven't observed one good mutation nor one good mutation surviving and spreading through a population>We have never seen a single mutation that introduced novel or new information to the DNA genetic codeThat's just completely false though, we have directly observed new mutations coming into existence:You have the Lenski E. coli experiment, where bacteria evolved the ability to digest citric acidGeorgy Shaposhnikov created a breed of aphids that could eat plants they normally couldn't, which evolved so much they couldn't even breed with regular aphidsYou have a bunch more with microbes and insectsYou also have dog breeds, which are genetically distinct from each other, and yet most did not exist 200 years agoYour entire thesis doesn't even work without these examples: We know that mutations happen, we know that they're passed down genetically. With enough population and time, it stands to reason that one of these mutations would improve genetic fitness, and thus spread through a population. And since populations can become isolated from each other, it also stands to reason that populations would eventually become distinct to the point that their genetics are incompatible>The bottom line is without morality being absolute, it's really just one man's opinion. And if it's just one man's opinion, then it's not a moral. And for morality to be absolute, it must come from outside of man; but they tend to call everything a social construct.But morality isn't objective.>You can choose either for your child to die, or for some other person's child to die. Who do you choose?It is morally wrong to let your own kid die in this case, because they're yours. Since the morality of the situation depends on who you are, it is by definition subjective. Everything is taking part in a battle for existence, and morals are an adaptation humans have made that have helped them stick around.
>>23535426not OP, but you're a fag conditioned to care and treat these things like series of events because of moralfag standards. You're simply stuck and stupid.
>>23535441Some dead incel faggot won't force my beliefs into hiding lol. ALL MORAL CLAIMS ARE FALSE.
>>23535477>Lenski E. coli experiment,stopped reading therenigga thinks made up shit in a laboratory is proof of anything
>>23535527Do you have any proof it's faked? The experiment has been going on for decades, and a lot of people have worked on it, have any of them blown the whistle and called it fake? Or have you gone to the university of Austin and looked at it yourself?
>>23535541you need to prove that evolution and mega mutations exist in the realm of nature, not on the laboratory of some good goy scientistsince evolutionist claim that evolution is a gozillion million process there should be a gozillion million proofs and therefore not be difficult to find them
>>23535562What about fossils? Isn't that proof of evolution?
>>23535562You just moved the goalpost, you said we've never seen a good mutation move through a population, I provided an example, and you said that only mutations in nature would count. Fundamentally there's nothing in a lab which would cause the very nature of genetics or natural selection to change, so I shouldn't need to give an example in nature, but I'll do so because why not:>Viruses change their genetic codes extremely quickly>Bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics>Humans are observed to have ~70 novel mutations a generation>Fossil record showing slow, consistent changes in various species, including humans
>>23535127>Morality doesn't exist, just like witches don't exist. It's a fiction. All moral claims are false.>I'm racist.>YOU FUCKING EVIL BASTARD.
>>23535646This. The "I don't believe morality" cucks simply can't help themselves. When they see anything they think is "racist" they call it "evil".
>>23535578why would they befossils belong to complete organisms, not to some monster in the middle of their mutative evolution
>>23535578Creationists claim that there is no evidence for evolution from fossils as there are apparently no fossils showing any 'transitional' states between species. There are no fossils of any animal within an 'in-between' state between vertebrates and invertebrates, for example. While there are certainly ideas going around about how mutations from one to the other may happen, it is still an unsolved even among those who believe in evolution.
>>23535423Both evolution and God are fake.
>>23535257Because they’re hypocrites. It’s “mean and nasty” according to them, but they lack the foresight to understand that the first statement opens the door for the second one. Like women, they’re incapable of making logical deductions.
>>23535276Define “society” then
Just be a decent human being.
>>23535127>witches don't existproofs?
>>23535493I know, I dont treat them amorally aside from the cheating aspect but im just trying to paint a picture to OP
>>23535127>Fire is hot
>>23535657I'm OP and I'm deeply racist.
>>23535676>>23535684What? Every organism is an 'in-between' transitional example. Our species and taxonomic classifications are not ontologically real. They are human made up classifications for what is a messy world of natural selection. Every single organism is itself a product of, and through its behavioir is enacting natural selection.
Companions in guilt argument = Moral nihilism refuted.
>>23535796The origins of vertebrae evolutionarily speaking is entirely speculative. There are 'missing links' of which fossil should, according to the theory, be abundantI understand the theory of evolution, and I'm not even saying it false. I'm just mentioning what creationists are saying.
Even with God there is no morality. Who says God is perfect? Is your Dad perfect because he created you? If God said sticking a iron rod in your dickhole is the ultimate good that doesn't make it true.
>>23535127Morality exists just like politics exists because every government, church, and big business has a code of ethics, and these institutions necessarily use rational ideas of morality to make decisions and policy. Morality is a code of right and wrong, and it is also the study of how to make these codes.
If morality is absolute, why do transphobes exist?
>>23535708This anon gets it. The middle ground is the answer. We are the gods in a fallen world so we have lost our spiritual and magical powers.
>>23535127>>23535132How do you choose between different paradigms of morality? In virtue of what are some "better" (more good) than others?The problem is, once you knock out the target of practical reason (the Good) by saying goodness is completely illusory, you no longer have any coherent way to advocate for any sort of pragmatism. It's incoherent. Perhaps you might say, "oh no, we determine what will be considered good here pragmatically!"Well then you need a standard to rank different definitions of "good" so that you can figure out "which good is best." But this entails another type of good by which you determine which good is most pragmatic. But then this second order standard will need to be judged by some third order standard, and so on.This is why moral nihilism, in its pure form, is incoherent. It's essentially self refuting as well.Why should we agree with it? Because it is true? But then why is the truth "better" then falsity? It isn't, there is no good.Why should we argue in good faith? It can't be because it is good to do so.You might say: "no, but knowing truth is pragmatically valuable! Look at technology."Pragmatically valuable according to what standard? Again, you get to an infinite regress.But most "moral nihilists" are actually just relativists. They say "the good exists, but it is different for everyone. It is just whatever you prefer."But Plato showed this doesn't work ages ago. At some point, every heroin addict thought doing heroin was preferable (and so good). Does this mean it must still have been good for them to start doing heroin even though they themselves admit it has ruined their lives? If "this is good" just means "I prefer this," then people can never be wrong about what is good for them. Aside from this being ostentatiously false, it leads to the problem that you can never criticize anyone for arguing in bad faith or wronging you, since, so long as they want to do so, this is good for them.Other deflationary models of ethics might work a bit better. Eliminitivist models are garbage.
>>23536042>But most "moral nihilists" are actually just relativists. They say "the good exists, but it is different for everyone. It is just whatever you prefer.">At some point, every heroin addict thought doing heroin was preferableThe counter argument here would be that not everyone knows what they prefer, nor do they determine what they prefer. There are hypothetical ideal worlds for every different individual, but none of us know precisely what our ideal world looks like nor how to achieve it.
>>23535127Yep, they're entirely invented, just as everything in life is and was. So what? Why does that make them false?
>>23535127>Morality doesn't exist, just like witches don't exist. It's a fiction. All moral claims are false.Wrong. Try again
>>23535583I'm not that anon I was just pointing out how hilarious it was that your response to his answer was a massive dose of copium about muh experiments in a lab. If is this is the "proof" evolution is based on, things are looking grim for that retarded theory when more people start to discover their level of bullshit.>But muh bacteria is now stronger...! Give some solid proof that a bacteria became a dinosaur. Because evolution suckers are telling people out there that's what unironically happened.
>>23536697nigga u never heard of mendel? The state of your education fellow baiter
Irrelevant, if there isn't I'll just insist there is and that it's objective. The claim changes nothing and I don't really believe anyone lives according to this bullshit outside of the type of people that flew to Epstein's island.
>>23535127I just punched you in ur face u fuckin feggit. Did u feel it or are u gonna lie?
>>23536697>If is this is the "proof" evolution is based on, things are looking grim for that retarded theoryThe bacteria (and other examples) obtained novel mutations, then said mutation spread throughout the population. If that happens over a long enough period of time, then new species will have been created and macroevolution will have occured.>Give some solid proof that a bacteria became a dinosaurSure.>Earliest known dinosaur: Nyasasaurus parringtoni>It is highly similar to the slightly older Dinosauromorphs>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Avemetatarsalia>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Archosauria>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Archosauriformes>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Archosaurommorphs>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Diapsids>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Sauropsida>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Amniota>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Reptiliomorpha>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Early Tetrapods>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Tetrapodomorphs>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Rhipidistia>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Sarcopterygii>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Osteichthyes>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Teleostomi>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Gnathostomata>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Early Vertebrata>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Early Craniata>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Tunicates>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Cephalochordates>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Chordates>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Deuterostomotes>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Bilateria>Who are highly similar to the slightly older earliest Eumetazotes>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Choanozotes>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Opisthokonta>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Early Eukaryotes>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Archea>Who are highly similar to the slightly older Prokaryotes>Prokaryotes are the common ancestor of dinosaurs and bacteriaSo either one of three things is true:-The theory of evolution is correct, as suggested by the fact that we know that random changes in the genome can happen, that beneficial changes in the genome spread through populations, and that there is a lineage of fossils that slowly morph over time into the lifeforms we know today-It is pure coincidence that lifeforms keep appearing in the fossil record that are similar to slightly older lifeforms-There is some other third theory I'm not accounting for (please, I would love to hear it)Evolution as a theory would have predicted slow morphing from the earliest lifeforms to the ones we know. Other theories, don't incorporate evolution, would've denied that would happen
>>23535127Imagine we had to live together on some plot of land somewhere. As men we're able to collect more resources than we spend. Even moreso when working together. Less when interfered with. It would just naturally occur to us that to take from each other would effect ourselves negatively and to help each other would be positive.
>>23535127I don't think it's even possible to reach you from way up here. You're so far down, you see.
>>23535274time
>All moral claims are false. let me go ahead and rape your mother then
>>23537433I don't like you raping my mother because it's not conducive to my happiness and due to useful widely agreed upon moral conventions we have. Not because of "moral facts".
>>23537433>"The only reason I'm not raping people is because morality says I'm not allowed to".Christ. I feel sorry for you.
>>23535800It's not. I just accept the conclusion, there is no bullet to bite, I didn't believe in objective epistemic norms to begin with.
>>23535127 (OP)>>23536042Moral claims were already refuted in the 19th century, it's just a handful of religiniggers and analyticucks that hold onto them.>>23535800Yes, it is true that many facets of epistemology would have to be thrown out with morality. That's because taking truth/falsity as an objective given at all is a moral approach to epistemology. This would indeed mean you should throw out the moral approach. But other approaches exist, and they work, and we use them all the time - such as any nonpropositional knowledge, anything distributed, or many kinds of "knowing how"
>>23537433I don't want you raping my mother for the same reason I don't want a wild lion, tiger, or bear raping my mother. Most people accept lions, tigers, and bears don't have free will or morality and we deal with them just fine. We don't just let them do whatever they want.
>>23535257Question those as well, dishonest potstirrer.
>>23535127Laws don't exist, they're just a social constructLanguage doesn't exist, it's just a social constructMoney doesn't exist, it's just a social constructEconomies don't exist, they're just social constructsSee how meaningless this statement is?
>>23535127No. morality extends from natural phenomena, developed over the last 150000 years of our brain-growth-existence. We developed these things called 'feelings' and were lucky enough to be able to describe them with words AND connect the physical actions that produce them. All natural phenomena can be described as moral, it's just up to you to expand or contract your view of who is being served by a specific morality.
>>23535156Of course. Disgust is a deeply ingrained visceral reaction. It is nearly insuppressible.
>>23535156Yes, as an immune reaction. But I've yet to see anyone talk about morality as a byproduct of the immune system.
>>23536100But this is to essentially rewrite the meaning of the word "prefer" such that it can lack any reference to cognitive content for the person who "prefers." This is essentially just defaulting on the emotivism, especially since the realist can just as well claim that in an ideal world everyone comes to know the transcedental Good and so the ideal converges on the Good itself.To be sure, there are good epistemic arguments for pragmatism in various cases. There are also non-pernicious forms of relativism. What is good behavior for a 12th century knight or a 18th century priest, or a modern school teacher might all vary. But these don't make the mistake of trying to appeal to pragmatism while denying practical reason any object.>>23538474"Knowing how," definitely entails some sort of normative measure, see Plato's Statesman. Imagine you ask me to fix your ripped suit. I wipe my ass with it and give it back to you. You're probably going to say I've not been a very good tailor, but of course this requires some form of normative measure. Likewise, you need some measure to say running down school children is not good driving.
>>23539111Well, a lot of moderns would like to divorce practical and moral reasoning and make the good of "good versus evil" different from the good of "good and bad."I don't think this is actually philosophically tenable. This was tried since ancient times and it just doesn't cash out.On a side note, it's worth noting that the tree in the Garden of Eden gives man knowledge of "good and bad," not "good and evil" on any accurate translation.
>>23539126Basically, there aren't two analogous terms used for practical/moral, neither are they equivocal. I've never seen any good demonstration that they aren't univocal.
I tend to agree with MacIntyre that Enlightenment ethics is clearly defective and that Nietzsche's critique of it is devastating, even if a lot of his stuff is just shit flinging and genetic fallacies. I also agree with him that the classical tradition is on much firmer footing against Nietzsche. However, it's a little weird that he was a Marxist before becoming a Catholic and totally misses how Hegel is very much as exemplar of the classical tradition.Nietzsche, for his part, doesn't really deal with Hegel at all. He does deal with Plato a fair amount, but it's a pale strawman "two worlds" Plato who is very easy to dismiss. He somehow misses the decidedly Dionysian Plato of the Phaedrus, who breaks into ecstatic poetry on love, and settles for attacking the vision of Plato(nism) of anti-Catholic Lutheran peitists.
Can we begin with defining "morality" before we even get to its existence.
>>23535132Without the concept of some sort of objective morality, the notation of "desired outcomes" changed a lot.Now, it's just YOUR desires and nothing more. It's not the ought to be or the value...>>23535229Nope. Ethics is a brench of philosophy. You confused it with morals.>>23535241> The fruits of atheism, denying that morals exist because they're evil but don't want to admit what they love to do is evil.If there is evil, why does God it let exist?>>23535274Read a fucking book.We have observed a lot of useful mutations. E.g. bacteria becomes resistent to antibiotics.
>>23535541He or she is just a morron, as any fucking creationist know to humanity. They note that they are unable to believe in evolution and a God at the same time. As they need a God for some reason, they refuse the evolution.Other Christians like catholics have no objectio against evolution on the base of their faith.>>23536042> How do you choose between different paradigms of morality? In virtue of what are some "better" (more good) than others?That is not the point of error theory.Error theory, as I was teached, is the idea that moral in the common sense is a error. The people who talked and argued for moral have been believed that they make recognitions into something real.In fact, there are no moral truths. They just used amora complicated way to talk about their desires, their wishes.>>23536697> If is this is the "proof" evolution is based on, things are looking grim for that retarded theory when more people start to discover their level of bullshit.You are the one who are retarded, anon.Evolution is a good explaination for the seemingly telelogy in nature. Even if there is not evolution in truth, alone the possibility disproofes a lot of argumentes for the existens of a creator. Period.
>>23539276>Even if there is not evolution in truth, alone the possibility disproofes a lot of argumentes for the existens of a creator. Period.Evolution does not "disproof" the cosmological arguments for God. Period. I think you don't even understand the theistic arguments.
>>23535127And the sky is blue go fuck yourself
>>23535127You are free to reject morality, just don't complain when your society decides to string you up on the town square.
>>23539187Who exactly is drug resistant bacteria "useful" for? Surely not the people infected by it.The bacteria? Do they have thoughts such that things can be "useful" for them?
>>23539523I am routinely amazed by what a bunch of psueds /lit/ are. You think you're really fucking clever, don't you?
>>23535127Nietzsche did it better
>>23535257Slave morality and the ascetic ideal
>>23535416a comment: killing babies is wrong but i would argue it is wrong not from a platonic/essential/"objective" POV, but because of overwhelming social consensus (which is ultimately subjective) reinforced by natural selection. In simple terms, it is fundamentally subjective, but 99% agree on the same things, so it "might as well" be objective, even if it is not purely so. Apply this to other assertions.
>>23535733the burden of proof is on the positive claim
>>23538672couldn't one say that they DO in fact exist because they have been constructed into existence? I suppose the problem is in the ambiguous meaning of "exist", where this word is being used to describe both things that are observable AND known to exist regardless of human experience, as well as to describe things conceptualized by the mind and present in the societal exchange of ideas, BUT strictly born out of the human mind.
>>23539578People twist themselves into all sorts of knots because they are stuck on this positivist idea of " objective" meaning noumenal or "without reference to any subjectivity." This leads to absurdities like, "well we can't objectively say Babe Ruth was a good baseball player," because people use an incoherent model of "objectivity," which entails that anything relevant to social practice cannot be objective. It's ridiculous.It's also ridiculous to say that nothing objective can be said about the human good. For instance, it is objectively true that being enslaved as a child, raped, tortured, and then fed to a crocodile is not good for a person. Assertions to the contrary are contrarian or so up their ass on "truth must be truth without any reference to mind," dumb shit positivism as to be irredeemable. But of course Enlightenment morality is largely incoherent because it wants to talk in terms of eternal rules. Aristotle talks in terms of the human good, and readily allows that such good is achieved through and filtered through human culture. Plato, despite the lable "Platonic" being held up as some sort of form of "noumenal good," also readily acknowledges that the good is filtered through the polis and human social practice. What Plato is talking about in the Republic, obliquely because words always refer to merely relative good, is the absolute good. The absolute is not reality, as opposed to appearances (the positivist dichotomy) but of course instead always includes ALL appearances and reality. This is why Plato's divided line is still all ONE line. Also, Doxa is as "opinion" is a very bad translation to the extent that opinion is taken to mean "having no real tie to reality."
>>23535127Schopenhauer was right, morality is almost entirely dependent on compassionmorality is an evolutionary mechanismthere are several moral codes backed by our biology (Graham's moral foundations theory)nowadays our morality is tainted because we don't live in small societes we're designed to function so it's harder to process empathy, in big cities our neighbours feel like total strangers moral circle is expanding (Singer 1981), as a whole we (generally) begin to feel compassion even to animals, whereas 500 years ago it was unthinkable beside maybe few overly highly empathetic individuals like Francis of Assisi. we can assume people will be more moral in the future. it may not feel like it because we're still learning to use tech for socializing and adapting to population-dene environments, but historically communication and living space borders between cultures were a major empathy blockage factor
>>23539523read The Selfish Gene.. Guy explains why.
>>23539613>>23538672Human constructs exist. Even your most hardcore physicalist acknowledges the courts and economic recessions are real observable phenomena. It would be pretty retarded to argue otherwise unless you're going to make some sort of claim like "all is illusion/Maya and all reality is changeless/Brahma," yanno, something like Shankara or Parmenides.
>>23539646No he doesn't. Anthropomorphizing mindless things doesn't mean they somehow have purposes. Genes likewise cannot be "selfish". They have no self to begin with.
>>23539657well, even if you remove the anthropomorphisizing language, the underlying mechanism remains true. Call it "by chance" or justify it with whatever argument, but the mechanism by which natural selection of genes works is still there.
>>23539641Wrong. Good, Beauty, and Truth are transcendental, convertible properties of Being (along with Unity). If Goodness were not "in things," then we could never explain action vis-á-vis intentionality. But then this would be to say that man has within himself the sui generis ability to act without cause, and also to suppose that contingent comes into being ex nihilo, for no reason at all.Plato glimpsed this. Aristotle began to codify it, Aquinas fleshed it out, and Pryzwara further refined it.The only way around this is something like causal closure, which says that there are no intentional acts, that our intentions never cause us to do anything, alá eliminitivism. But this runs into insurmountable epistemic problems. For one, if our acts are never determined by our intentions, then natural selection can never select for an accurate subjective representation of anything in the world. Nor should sex or eating "feel good" or pain "feel bad," since how they feel never can have any affect on what actions we take. But then supposing this is true, we have no reason to trust our perceptions. Yet it fairly obviously isn't true. Obviously, our decisions lead to actions, not to mention how well evolution seems to explain why we enjoy some things and dislike others, which implies that how subjective experience "is" is something selected for, because intentions do affect action.Obviously, biology is involved. The anima, soul, principle of life, or whatever you want to call it, is "biological" and human nature clearly is also something we would place in the realm of "biology."Plus, if Truth or Unity is denied, there is no epistemology. The Beautiful meanwhile emerges from, but is not reducible to the True and the Good.
>>23539709our intentions are generally clearly determined in biological factors and available wisdom, when it comes to simple muscle movements we can predicts them in people's unconscious before conscious intention is formed. biologic factors shape unconscius behaviour which then infects conscious mind. we can't prove absolute truths so I think yes, our perceptions are always blurred and we can only assume what is more likely to be grounded in our reality based on redundant experimental data pointing to some patterns, concept of wisdom is also flawed but we still use it in practice with obtainable benefits, it's a matter of semantics. evolutionary basis of morality is more likely to shape our reality, even if some absolute values are involved there's no problem to follow them as it's also a way to rationalize moral stances, there was some experiment that even recalling ten commandments by an atheist before making a choice results in a more ethical choice
>>23539111I dub your retardation the "woman argument". Doing what YOU say is not "moral" or "normal" behavior
>>23539167Nietz spends a lot of time shitting on idealism in general, and hegel is caught in that more indirectly. He also openly recognizes that the greeks we study (plato/socrates), do exactly have that dual problem. He hypothesizes that they inherited an older heroic tradition and that is the best part about them, but due to decadence they began falling into two worlds/idealist behaviour during Plato's time.And, adding on to what you said about Mac, he criticizes Nietzsche for falling into enlightenment individualism, which is decidedly not what N is doing>>23539168not really. it's self evident to the dumb people who assert its existence, and an arbitrary shifting definition to those who deny it.
>>23539709>we could never explain action vis-a-vis intentionalityyeah, we actually can't do it. This is christnigger doctrine that justifies guilt. You can have an infinite amount of intentions behind any action. You can gas every kike because you love them, or because you hate them, or because they are dirty, or because you're bored, etc, or because you believe in the eternal shining sun of Communism. There's no determination or link between a thought and what action it causes. >Natural selection can never select for an accurate subjective representationI wouldn't say "never", but this is generally true. We have had to spend thousands of years - well beyond any human lifetime - refining cultural subjective and world representations. Without this refinement, we believe in retardations like animism, like the sky being angry at us, god impregnating a virgin woman, etc. Not to mention that following feelings without value usually leads people to become obese, addicted, ill.What we do instead is pass down a series of value judgements that people follow mostly blindly and authoritatively. Have you ever spoken to a "normal" person? You can almost perfectly predict what they're going to say on any subject. Like the literal NPC meme, they don't do any thinking. Their brain obviously makes many machinations, but all events, ideas, possible thoughts, etc have already been drilled into them via a basic fear mechanism, and which show up as parental/social value judgement. They do all of this automatically. They will even automatically force others to do as they do. The worst part is that much of high level thought also follows this kind of tradition, as again, it too has been going on for thousands of years and follows the same patterns. The epistemic problems are indeed dire.
>>23539833Isn't it kind of a given the intentions are biological. People are biological. But I think he's talking about causal closure, which says intentions have no causal efficacy, which is indeed self-refuting.
I make moral claims all the time. I'm an antinatalist. I say stuff like "procreating is wrong". I never even thought of metaethics before I studied philosophy. Before I studied philosophy I understood "wrong" as the usual meaning - "not to be done, bad, improper behaviour, people shouldn't do it, etc". And generally for reasons of harming others. Only when I study philosophy do these questions like whether "stance independent moral facts" even arise. I've become increasingly convinced that most of philosophy is just esoteric babble that has no relevance to ordinary language and meaning, and might even be meaningless.
>>23537845>has to rely upon the concept of morality to argue HAHAHAHA FUCKING MIDWIT RETARD!! HOLY SHIT!
>>23539303LolThe cosmological argument is different from what I mean and even it is under attack.If life evolved by chance, its no mystery why life fits so good into this world.
>>23539523Hello my IQ 80 friend,in the context of my posting, the term "useful mutation" means "a mutation that increased the evolutionary fitness of the organism with the mutation".And "evolutionary fitness" means how good the organism can reproduce in a given enviroment.After all, the meaning of words doesn't meddle with the reality this words describe. We can define a term however we want. It's just pragmatism.I know you need more in order to understand, so I provide you two movies:https://youtu.be/N3tRFayqVtkhttps://youtu.be/w4sLAQvEH-M
>>23539657> No he doesn't. Anthropomorphizing mindless things doesn't mean they somehow have purposes. Genes likewise cannot be "selfish". They have no self to begin with.I answer, because a similiar argument was made by David Stove.The "selfish" gene is a metapher. Metager is defined as:> A metaphor is an imaginative way of describing something by referring to something else which is the same in a particular way.https://www.collinsdictionary.com/de/worterbuch/englisch/metaphorDawkings wrots his book as a contribution to the discussion about the question "Who is the carrier of natural selection in biology? The group, the individual life form or the gens" and Dawkings argued in favour of the gen as the subject of selection.In fact, his viewpoint has got criticism from many different angles. In the year he wrote the book, no one knows about epigenetics, for instance. Other viewpoints claimed something called the "Baldwin effect". Or Mayers theories about some kind of directed evolution.The genes itself doesn't have any intention. Neither selfish nor selfless. But during the process of selection, they act as if they have the intention to make as many copies of themself as possible.It's because a part of the genetical code that makes itself more ofter copied, appear more often.
