It seems rock solid. Totally impenetrable. How do you even argue against rational Egoism?
>>25006451Ethical egoism has been completely and thoroughly debunked.
>>25006451Sure:>The Republic, Phaedrus, etc.>The Ethics + Politics (supported by De Anima, the Physics, and Metaphysics)>The Enchiridion >The Consolation of Philosophy >The Divine ComedyEtc.Those are just some highlights. Even the Epicureans could explain why the selfish man who valued sensible goods was actually just a deluded fool who strive after vein and ultimately unstable goods, but Boethius can do much better, even in the early Stoic phase of the Consolation.Indian and classical Chinese thought refutes it well too. Only the presuppositions of modernity (no teleology) makes egoism impossible to defeat
>>25006545The person who yolks reason, logos, to the passions becomes a slave to the passions, ignorance, and circumstance. But the slave is powerless to attain their own happiness and relies on good fortune, whereas Socrates, Boethius and Saint Paul are sublime in prison awaiting death, and Laozi and Saint Francis, or the Desert Fathers and Hindu sages flourish in the wilderness with nothing.
Society does not serve me enough personally, but I like it existing so I participate.This too is permitted.
>>25006549See also pic related. The Islamic sages understood this as well, particularly the Sufis, and also the need for virtue in order to attain understanding (and so to even know what is truly good, as opposed to what merely appears good, and thus to be able to attain true goodness for oneself and others).Liberalism and consumerism simply assume man is free so long as he is not constrained, and so make him a slave to his appetites, marketing, etc.
>>25006527I just got this book for Christmas. What am I in for?
>>25006451people aren't individuals and philosophy doesn't function if only one person believes in it
>>25006527From what I have read, his argument is more or less this:>S claims that acting in your own self-interest is rational>accepting S regardless of action can be against your own self-interest>therefore, S is self-defeatingThe third statement seems to smuggle a definition of rationality that S does not claim. It implicitly says>S is only rational if accepting S is rational, by the definition of SS does not claim this. You would be acting rationally according S by rejecting S, if rejecting S yielded a better outcome. Take the example of your car breaking down in the desert. You could disbelieve S, truthfully promise to pay, then believe in S at some later point so that you may go back on your promise which was at the time truthful. He calls this "rational irrationality". The implication being that course of action is somehow defeating S. Under the rules of S, however, each action taken was purely rational. Changing your disposition from S to something else is no different than any other rational action.He explicitly acknowledges this:>These claims answer the other question that I asked. When S is applied to these people, it is what I call indirectly self defeating. Does this make S fail in its own terms? Does S condemn itself ?>The answer is No. S is indirectly self-defeating because it would be worse for these people if they were never self denying. But S does not tell these people to be never self-denying, and it tells them, if they can, not to be. If these people are never self-denying, this is worse for them. This is a bad effect, in S's terms. But this bad effect is not the result either of their doing what S tells them to do, or of their having a disposition that S tells them to have. Since this is so, S is not failing in its own terms.Basically, he doesn't try to refute Egoism. He just says that Egoism demands that you shouldn't believe in it in certain cases.This is not a problem. >>25006545>>25006549>>25006557None of those things refute egoism in any way. They weren't even aware of the concept. They say nothing about or relevant to egoism. You spam this shit in every thread.
>>25006747To add, to continue to cling to Egoism when it is against your self interest to do so is explicitly against the principles of Egoism. Doing this is placing the idea above yourself (i.e. it is spooked).
>>25006451The refutation of egoism is that the "ego" is an illusion.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualismhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WKqO16mkGE
>>25007106To argue this you would first have to:>Prove that things outside of myself can be consciousIn other words, disprove solipsism. This is an impossible task. But even if you did that, you would then have to:>Prove that other instances consciousnesses are the same instance of consciousness as mineAnother impossible task. You can't exactly switch consciousnesses to check if the fundamental experience of experience is the same for all instances of consciousness. And even if all consciousnesses are identical... that does not mean they are the same consciousness.>Prove that I should define "self" as this observer, and not the collection of memories, personality, thoughts, etc. that actually drive my interests and actionsAgain, impossible. "I" is that which separates me from everything else in existence. What is unique to me, in other words. Why in the world would I include this universal constant in my definition of self? That's not what that word means or what it is used for.Open individualism simply asserts something non-unique as unique without argument.But let's say I agree with all of that. You still would not have proved Egoism wrong. Changing the definition of self does not refute the idea that acting in your own self-interest is rational.
>>25006747Plato discusses egoism.
>>25007144He discusses a primitive concept of self-interest that doesn't qualify as Egoism. His argument basically boils down to "doing evil is bad for your soul, doing good is good for your soul". This isn't an argument against acting in your self-interest, only an argument on what your self-interest actually is. Obviously a complete picture of self-interest would not neglect what is supposed to be the most important part of you.And, of course, Plato's arguments are rooted in time, culture, and assumptions that are no longer taken for granted. That there is a "soul" or "good" or "evil" as Plato defines them are certainly not givens any more.Obviously it's not Plato's fault that the Egoism hadn't been developed, but he is not relevant as a "refutation" given that he is arguing against something that is decidedly not Egoism, against which his central point doesn't even conflict.>justice in her own nature has been shown to be best for the soul in her own nature.
>>25007194The Good always related to the whole. So your interest, (i.e., having what is *truly* most desirable) is not "self-interest."Also, it's certainly egoism as the term is generally used, but I assume we are doing some sort of No True Scotsman where "real" egoism is some particularly steelmanned version. But this probably is irrelevant because the number one way people steelman egoism is to claim that whatever anyone does, even self-sacrifice, is actually self-interest, or by claiming that whatever is good/desirable is clearly in line with self-interest. But this just makes egoism a vacuous tautology, in line with how many forms of Homo oecononimicus, the self-interested utility maximizer are utterly unfalsifiable because everything, even chopping your own dick off for lulz, can be "rational utility maximization."I suppose this is like the ethical equivalent of Hemple's Dilemma. Egoism just turns out to be whatever is best. Convinced by Patristic arguments? Theosis is recommended by egoism! Whereas, say what you will about the Platonists or Patristics, but they can paint a substantive picture of the Good.
>>25006451With irrational egoism.
>>25006747>Take the example of your car breaking down in the desert. You could disbelieve S, truthfully promise to pay, then believe in S at some later point so that you may go back on your promise which was at the time truthful.How is this not just misology? And how will a person who "switches" rationalities like this and shifts the nature of practical reason to suit their current feels ever be able to tell real from merely apparent goods?
>>25006451Yes
>>25007207>what is *truly* most desirable) is not "self-interest."Yes it is? The fundamental reason why it is "Good", as it is argued, is because it benefits you. If it did not benefit you the argument would fall apart.Again, this is a definition of self-interest that does not align with Egoism.>No True Scotsman where "real" egoism is some particularly steelmanned versionEgoism is fairly clearly laid out by Stirner. You're doing a strawman where egoism is wanting to kill and rape and eat too many burgers or whatever.>claim that whatever anyone does, even self-sacrifice, is actually self-interestThat's psychological egoism, which I don't care for and Stirner did not argue for.>claiming that whatever is good/desirable is clearly in line with self-interest>they can paint a substantive picture of the Good.Ethical Egoism posits that "good" is what is in your own self-interest. Rational Egoism posits that doing what is in your own self-interest is rational. That is all.>But this just makes egoism a vacuous tautologyNo it doesn't. Acting in your own self-interest is not a given, assuming you reject psychological egoism. People are convinced to act against their self-interest all the time. The aim, then, is to recognize that ideas are to be used for their utility in achieving your self-interest, not as higher goals themselves. If an idea conflicts with your self-interest, drop it. If an idea benefits your self-interest, use it.>>25007216>How is this not just misology?Because it is an "irrational" action taken with a purely rational aim. Calling it irrational doesn't take the whole situation into account. This sort of thing is plainly displayed in game theory. Take the ultimatum game. Player 1 proposes an offer to split X amount of money. Player 2 can either accept this offer, or reject it. If Player 2 rejects, both players get nothing.A perfectly rational Player 2 would accept any positive offer, and would not care between accepting or rejecting an offer of 0.A perfectly rational Player 1, then, would offer a 100:0 split. Except this isn't what happens in real life. Player 2 knows that Player 1 knows that Player 2 can choose to irrationally reject an offer that benefits them. And Player 1 knows this (etc.) Thus the players are playing a meta-game that takes into account the irrationality of opposing actors. In other words, It's not actually irrational for Player 1 to offer a split worse than 100:0.>ever be able to tell real from merely apparent goods?You already cannot distinguish with certainty something that only appears to be rational from something that is rational. The degree to which you are able to be rational has nothing to do with what being rational actually means. A bit of self-deception doesn't change anything, especially given that a scenario like this basically does not exist in practice.
>>25006451* everything is about sex* sex is about family* families are the building blocks of nations* nations exist for God's purposes
>>25006451There is a God or something that can be considered so
>>25006549>The person who yolks reason, logos, to the passions becomes a slave to the passions, ignorance, and circumstanceOne might say they'd have some egg on their face
>>25006451Yes but you wouldn't get it.
unbelievably retarded thread from OP. The entire concept of egoism is pure evidence of everything Wittgenstein saying being correct.Part of the problem with certain "truths" is the idea that they must be disproved before proven, so some retard can arbitrarily define everything in an emptily hollow way that circularly validates exactly what they wanted to validate as true.In this way, certain "truths" are true, so that they can be treated as such and all the validatios that come with that, not because any actual concept of truth is being appealed to.In this case. The only answer is to DEMAND engagement outside ones ownself, because LANGUAGE by its very fundamental basis implies something outside a "oneself". It cannot be private. You don't even need to suscribe to Wittgensteinism. Its just that once you understand certain things about the way retarded human beings engage, Wittgenstein offers a clarity that pulls it all together.The way to engage with "thought" like this is to simply propose something, and then demand engagement.Simply put not everything needs to be "cared" about. Not everything needs to be "justified".If a schizophrenic thinks that a completely innocent person is actually someone who has been fucking with their life for months. What matters, isnt whether this can be "justified". What matters is whether that person can engage with you and/or society in a manner where they can understand beyond themselves. Because to deal with others, you need that capacity. This isnt about empathy.Ultimately if the schizophrenic cannot communicate with you, and cannot engage with your capacity for dissatisfaction with said perspective. Then it doesnt matter what it "justified". We treat that person in the end the same way we treat a rabid dog that bites somebody. You put them down.The more "humane" action would simply be to detain or jail them. But thats it.I've gone through so many philosophies. So many arguments and debates. I've seen a whole host of stupid retarded shit, that is proposed in a way that exists deliberately to not be debatable. Wittgenstein gave me a clarity on how to understand "How can something so blatantly be wrong, be put forth as correct, even when I can debunk every claim?" I've alluded to it here and there, but my solution isnt something that Wittgenstein proposed. It is my own conclusion.All meaning is underpinned by language, and even logic, does owes its "truth" to language. Not axioms. Thats all Ill say for now.I'm tired of arguing over retarded shit like this entire thread is about.Maybe in the future when I read somebody worthy of building on Wittgenstein or going beyond like Kant did to every preceding philosophy's assumptions. Then Ill have a possibly less "hostile" perspective on things.
>>25007484>I have no argument, here's a wall of seetheok
>>25006451>rational Egoismoxymoron
>>25006451people generally don't know what they want
>>25007333>"Egoism" actually means my particular meme philosopher.>"Rational" actually means "any sort of calculative action to get what you want.">Yes it is? The fundamental reason why it is "Good", as it is argued, is because it benefits you. If it did not benefit you the argument would fall apart.No, read Plato. There isn't any "self" at all of the wicked who solely seek after "self-interest," only a warring bundle of appetites and external causes, the "civil war in the soul." Notably, when Nietzsche looks inside himself this is what he claims to find as well. Not a unified self to please, but a waring "congress of souls." Hume, who makes "reason a slave of the passions" likewise finds no self to serve, but only a bundle of sensations and drives. Hence, reason and "rational action" becomes merely a calculative faculty that is hijacked and used for this or that irrational appetite depending on which is strongest. This is why any morality must be grounded in innate sentimentalism.
>>25007484>Language isn't private.The private language argument(s) rely on the assertion that in order to know if a word applies to something you need something like "third person verification." Wittgenstein hardly read any philosophy outside his narrow analytic bubble, so for him the presuppositions of empiricism are entirely transparent. They are like tablets handed down from God. But obviously, plenty of people throughout the East and West have disagreed with this standard. But more to the point, the entire claim that language has to be public in the way Wittgenstein claims here is based on this presupposition, and it should be obvious that it simply assumes the conclusion.Yes, sure, if the only way to tell if a word applies to something is by public criteria of verification than public criteria of verification are required for language. That isn't so much an argument against a "language of thought" as it is assuming an empiricist perspective that simply discounts it from the outset.Likewise, the rule following argument only makes sense on a sort of empiricist account of learning as inductive pattern recognition. If the intellect is informed by real forms, knowing magnitude and multitude, that the underdetermination of rules by observations isn't that big of a deal. Certainly, we would never reach the absurd conclusion of Kripkenstein, that we can never know if we are doing addition or any infinite number of operations or not. Arguably, all Kripke's reading of Wittgenstein provides is yet another reductio against empiricism (as if an epistemology that collapses into radical skepticism or the radical voluntarism of "pragmatism and 'usefulness' all the way down" hasn't already proved it is just a shit epistemology).Note that empiricism itself was originally developed, in its ancient form, with the GOAL of radical skepticism because it was thought that a lack of beliefs would help promote ataraxia, and avoid passions. That empiricists either come to skeptical conclusions or else have to locate knowledge in social conventions (e.g., use) is utterly unsurprising.
>>25007760>The private language argument(s) rely on the assertion that in order to know if a word applies to something you need something like "third person verification."You have never read a single word of Philosophical Investigations.Lol, see, this is why I didnt want to waste my time explaining the actual basis. When retards like this can just "say things" with zero accountability, because of what the nature of Language inherently allows. Then it doesnt matter.I knew your statement was worthless from the very moment you said "Rely" and you don't even understand why. I wouldnt even need to know that you dont know what youre talking about and are a fake retard larping as if he has read or understands any philosophy he attacks. I was very very suspicious when I saw your weird comment earlier trying to attack what YOU THOUGHT were platos arguments with all the "S this, S that, S isnt this, S isnt that".But now, I'm even more assured that you uttered nonsense.Just be glad that language affords you this capability to continue to say absolutely nothing of any relevance, or basis, and pretend as if you have, particularly because there is nobody who will do the right thing, to strip you of the inherent capacity to never be allowed to be "wrong" because you're not trying to be right in the first place. Youre simply trying.
>>25007760>Likewise, the rule following argument only makes sense on a sort of empiricist account of learning as inductive pattern recognition. If the intellect is informed by real formsLike what the fuck is this slop im reading? I seriously cant tell if he believes the words hes typing? What the fuck is he talking about? Ive literally read the book and it is not remotely clear that hes referencing anything I've ever heard Wittgenstein say. Wittgenstein would use retards like you as an analogy interlocutor to demonstrate the folly of, almost like Plato did thousands of years ago, except plato bothered to drum up a simple setting and story, whereas, Wittgenstein just quotes a made up person, representative of the type of arguments hed hear people make based on Tractatus."Rule following argument", "Intellect informed by real forms", "Magnitude and Multitude".I dont understand how you could be so stupid to blatantly expose yourself as having never read Wittgenstein. He never talks like this. And even if theres somehow substance to the words youre using, that as far as I can pierce, make no actual reference to any argument Wittgenstein put forth in PI. It doesnt matter, because you would have fundamentally missed the point of PI, by communicating it the way you are, instead of simply using the fucking words and analogies he usedI scrolled down this shitty vomit of text waiting for you to mention "Pain" once, as its one of the biggest analogies supporting the private language argument.Its stupid to even call anything Wittgenstein shows an "argument" because thats not how Philosophical Investigations is formulated anyway, its formulated like a series of questions hes presenting you with, that when pieced together yourself, paint a picture.
>>25007755You just said "no", then made a bunch of moral statements about how morality "should" be, according to a supposed state of self which you simply assert is le bad, again according to the moral system which you are pretending to justify according to its own values.In the first place, if you weren't spooked you wouldn't have "conflicting" interests, i.e. ideas possessing your brain and telling you what to do and what to think like schizophrenic delusions. >>25007793>what YOU THOUGHT were platos arguments with all the "S this, S that, S isnt this, S isnt that".>platos arguments>platoThe blue text lines at the tops of posts are replies. If you hover over them, you can see which post another post is replying to. Hope that helps!
>>25007484>>25007793>>25007804>claims to understand Wittgenstein and the futility of words>Still produces a deluge of slop, expecting people to care what a retard thinksShiggy wiggy diggy wag wag :D
>>25007793>No counterargument, just seethe.Bud, that's a very common, milquetoast criticism of Wittgenstein that's been around for ever.I throw you another one to seethe at. Avoiding metaphysics and thus assuming nominalism as a sort of "neutral default" and claiming one is "just describing" or "doing therapy," isn't actually avoiding metaphysics. It's just dogmatically assuming a particular metaphysics. Wittgenstein gets away with this in certain camps because they share his dogmas. Yet it should be obvious that if we refuse to explain the causes of what is found to be useful, or merely handwaved to an opaque "form of life," then really all we have is an extremely thin metaphysics where the "language community" makes everything what it is according to an unexplainable usefulness. This is particularly true when paired with the claims of On Certainty, which situate truth as a function of language, not as being qua intelligible.But if anyone explained this metaphysics in a straightforward way, without all the obfuscations, it would seem absurd. Yet you can see why people like it. It democratizes being and truth, which is what liberals love, particularly progressive liberals. *We* decide what is true and real. But not individually, but as a community. I mean, it's ridiculous, but it goes with the dominant ideology so people suck it up.
>>25007804>I do not know basic terms in the history of philosophy or the common phrases used to refer to themes in Wittgenstein's work.>This means you haven't read Wittgenstein.
I suggest every Stirner fag to read everything he has written, it's all incredibly good"but love is not justified against freedom, because in freedom only self-determination becomes truth-- Stirner, Preliminary Remarks on the Libesstaat
>>25007484>MidWittgenstein namedropStopped reading. GTFO.
>>25006451well I'd say we are pretty lucky that God exists
>>25006747>Basically, he doesn't try to refute Egoism. He just says that Egoism demands that you shouldn't believe in it in certain cases.>This is not a problem.This certainly seems like a problem to me? Im not fully familiar with the argument but it the way you phrased the broken car scenario, it seems to exclude the possibility of simply lying about your beliefs? If so, Egoism seems to result in a belief that requires you to truly not believe it sometimes in order to work properly. But how can you make yourself truly believe or not believe in Egoism in a controlled manner without secretly still believing in Egoism on a meta level? It essentially just means Egoism only works if you happen to get lucky enough to believe or not believe it at the right time without you controlling it.
>>25007755>Not a unified self to please, but a waring "congress of souls."I agree with this. I also think most schizo’s are just angst-ridden individuals who realize the same thing but are incapable of dealing with said realization calmly.
>>25007806Everyone has conflicting issues and inner turmoil. You too, anon.
>>25008413>m not fully familiar with the argument but it the way you phrased the broken car scenario, it seems to exclude the possibility of simply lying about your beliefs?Yes. The thought experiment is that you are unable to lie without getting caught.Arguably, you could resolve this issue in a million other ways (learning how to lie, shortening your time horizon, making a binding promise/contract, realizing that reputation can benefit you, realizing that you should actually just pay because it is the rational move/nash equilibrium, etc.) but the point of the thought experiment is to bring up a scenario where merely believing in Egoism is a detriment to your self-interest, so I won't talk about those.>Egoism seems to result in a belief that requires you to truly not believe it sometimes in order to work properly.I think this is a good thing. If a belief demands that you continue to hold it even when it betrays its principles, I don't think it is sound. >But how can you make yourself truly believe or not believe in Egoism in a controlled manner without secretly still believing in Egoism on a meta level?I don't know if you actually can do that. Of course, if you can't change your belief on the fly, what does it matter if changing your belief is good or bad for your self-interest? It's an action you can't take, no different from any other impossible action. >essentially just means Egoism only works if you happen to get lucky enough to believe or not believe it at the right timeHow can you blame Egoism for it not working when you do something that it explicitly tells you not to do? Also, I don't think scenarios like this actually happen in real life. I have never been in a situation where my true belief on anything has ever been revealed unwillingly, let alone a situation where that is consequential, let alone a situation where the only method of resolving the problem is changing that belief.In any case, Parfit has a section on this (picrel). Whether believing a theory is good in its own terms arguably has no bearing on the theory itself.
