I don't see how the move to assert an analytic identity between "good" and "that which promotes well-being in the long run" brings us closer to an account of moral naturalism. Well-being is not a natural kind term, and it seems like any attempt to assert a synthetic identity between "that which promotes well-being in the long run" and some natural property would just run into the same problems as an attempt to assert such an identity between "good" and some natural property.
I’m not totally sure, but it’s safe to say in this case that the move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.
>>25276004Most attempts at quantification of morality always end up utilitarian somehow.
>>25276004Sam Harris not only is a resident of the crystal palace, he's also its chief ambassador.
>>25276004If I state "Pain enters my consciousness with the characteristic of 'badness'", have I reported a fact about reality? Is it possible to provide objective facts about subjective experience (I.E. I am currently seeing the color white)? Either you are having that experience or you are not. It is not an opinion or a subjective analysis, it is a statement of fact. Having established this, it becomes axiomatic that the characteristic of "badness" is something to be avoided. The concept of "should" only enters into the conversation regarding how best to avoid "badness".
>>25276004>jew lecturing goy about moralsIt's all so tiresome
>>25276004Naturalism is idiotic bugman shit anyway. Why do I want to swallow a bunch of early-modern theological presuppositions meant to secure voluntarism as uniquely "scientific?" The world view has only remained dominant because everyone is indoctrinated with it from birth, and they are only indoctrinated with it because making the human good unknowable and speculative is an essential presupposition of liberalism, the hegemonic ideology.The ideology bottoms out in nihilism and eliminitivism.
>>25276890What is the human good?
>>25276890>>25276900I've often wondered if this is basically just an IQ test. Like, have you not lived long enough to compare different eras of your life and evaluate which era was preferable to live in? To analyze what characteristics contributed to the fact that it was preferable over another? How can a thinking person seriously ask the question "what is the human good?" You ought to already know or at least have an idea of what contributes to it, and if you don't, you're probably too stupid to converse with honestly for the reason I just outlined.
>>25276979You didn't answer the question fren.
>>25276900Gaaaaaaahd Did It.
>>25276890>The ideology bottoms out in nihilism and eliminitiv-ACK!?
>>25276979Many people are pathologically depressed, and that for dietetic reasons beyond their cognitive scope.
>>25276569I think this way of looking at it would only work towards a relativist account of moral facts, which is what Harris wants to avoid.
>>25276993Language is by its very nature referential. If you have no frame of reference (or are dishonestly pretending you don't) then no explanation will satisfy you. Again, I reference this topic being an IQ test (you failed by not working any of this out yourself).
