No.76071
so why exactly is stirner popular amongst leftists? he is so far away from their collectivist cuckoldry that his argument against property is based on individual defense of it. his whole schtick is antileftist. their equality shit is an easily definable spook since it is based on an obsession about others. are leftists just retarded?
No.76074
>>76071
Leftists have quite a bit of narcissism for collectivists. Also, you have to remember that the leftist white-guilt complex is worn as a badge of honor among them, because they've convinced themselves that eternal self-flagellation is the way to save the world.
>are leftists just retarded?
I think you know the answer to that already.
No.76077
>>76071
All I know about spookman is that he goes around calling everything non arguments.
No.76088
>>76077
This. It's a hilarious meme, but I don't see how it applies to anything seriously, not that different from posting soy tbh.
No.76098
>>76074
>because they've convinced themselves that eternal self-flagellation is the way to save the world.
yeah even if it contradicts everything they say they stand for.
>>76077
that is the meme. the whole idea with stirner is putting the self above everything, and i mean everything. so arguments are below the self. or should be.
"I am my own only when I am master of myself, instead of being mastered by…anything else"
this is in direct contradiction to socialist idiots who praise this equality thing where they put it philosophically above themselves.
No.76099
>>76098
>yeah even if it contradicts everything they say they stand for.
>you don't need to own guns, the police will protect you!
<The police are all evil racist sexist misogynists gunning our vibrant urban yoof, and they should suffer for that!
>We need to use Keynesian policy to stimulate consumer spending and "fix" the economy
<Consumerism and needless spending on frivolous things is an evil manifestation of capitalism and should be stopped
>Women should be sexually liberated! Free the nipple! No more slutshaming!
<Revealing clothing and large asses in video games is objectification and institutionalized misogyny.
>You should be more tolerant of other cultures and appreciate all they have to offer to the world!
<Stop appropriating that culture, racist!
>If you don't see race you're ignoring the problem, and that's racist
<If you pay attention to race you're being discriminatory, and that's racist
Leftists aren't exactly known for their internal consistency, anon.
No.76108
>>76071
Leftists believe the only two ideologies that exist are Capitalism and Socialism. For them it's a light switch and it can only be one or the other, so since Stirner was AntiCapitalist, that automatically makes him a leftist in their eyes nevermind the fact that folks like Tolstoy and other "left heroes" were AntiCapitalist but ideologically were NOT socialist shits or otherwise attracted to that sort of rancid feces.
No.76114
He was a part of a group of philosophers alongside Marx and Engels, and his ideas had a lasting effect on left (and right) anarchism and libertarianism.
No.76130
>>76099
>>76108
I shitpost on leftist boards calling them ayncraps or porkies or whatever, they actually take the bait and argue amongst themselves, I think it only works because of these divisions
No.76131
>>76108
Tolstoy was a socialist, though.
No.76132
Only imbeciles who think equality means sameness would claim that individualism is against equality. In fact, equality is the precondition of individualism. All individualist anarchists understand this. The "collectivist cuckoldry" is a strawman constructed by reactionaries who are the real cuckolds. Thinking that someone is superior to you just because of their birth circumstances (born to be the heir of the throne, to be an aristocrat, or even just the obsession with skin color) is the most pathetic expression of masochism that you can witness in a political ideology.
No.76158
>>76132
>equality means sameness
that is what it means tho. equality means same/idenitcal/ etc. like in math 1=1, 1!=2.
>equality is the precondition of individualism
except it isn't.
>Thinking that someone is superior to you just because of their birth circumstances
you do realize you can think you're superior to others too right? but the fact is ppl are unequal because of circumstances of birth, such as genetics, prenatal conditions which give rise into differences of ability. now admitting this doesn't mean you're a cuck. you're only a cuck if you sacrifice yourself for others. knowing ppl differ in ability is simply knowledge which you can use to your advantage.
No.76161
>>76158
>you're only a cuck if you sacrifice yourself for others
False and gay. A cuck is a weakling that lets everyone walk over him out of fear of being called racist or sexist. He is a selfish creature and a far cry from true nobility.
No.76164
>>76161
> A cuck is a weakling that lets everyone walk over him out of fear of being called racist or sexist
sounds like some faggot sacrificing themselves to the collective religion tbh.
No.76167
No.76235
>>76158
We are talking about philosophy, not mathematics. Don't confuse the two just so you can spread your authoritarian cuck ideology. In philosophy it's closer to "oneness," for example, for Christians it means that we were all made in God's image, for liberals that we are all citizens, for most libertarians that we are all owners of ourselves, etc. For individualism it means that everyone is an individual, unique in itself and in its whole not comparable to anyone else. The individualist can say "I am a superior cook to you" but not "I am superior to you" because that would contradict their basic presumption, which is equality in uniqueness.
No.76236
>>76167
He was.
You faggots read so much /pol/ brainpoison I bet if you read Marx you would also claim that he was a conservative or something. You have no idea what socialism is.
No.76240
>>76235
One cannot be both incomparable and equal to others.
No.76250
>>76240
wow what an insightful post you fucking retard. you realize that words have different meanings in different contexts? fucking dumbass
No.76254
>>76235
>We are talking about philosophy, not mathematics
you mean you're misunderstanding the definition of the term.
>Don't confuse the two just so you can spread your authoritarian cuck ideology.
i'm not the cuck here. my ideology is egoism to the point where i only favor things with the best outcome for me. if that is authoritarianism so be it. if authoritarianism gives me the best outcome i'll be authoritarian. i'm not cucked in the head to be a little sissy over ideals. muh individualism means nothing to me if others stand to gain over me.
> for Christians it means that we were all made in God's image
so the same in that they are made in god's image.
>for liberals that we are all citizens
again so same in that they have citizenship.
> For individualism it means that everyone is an individual, unique in itself and in its whole not comparable to anyone else.
so they are the same in that they have the characteristic of being unique, again it's like in math. they are identical in the characteristic of being some speshul snoflake.
>The individualist can say "I am a superior cook to you" but not "I am superior to you" because that would contradict their basic presumption, which is equality in uniqueness.
no it wouldn't. being superior means being different to their inferiors thus it doesn't contradict uniqueness, it's another facet to it. your ideas are dog piss and stupid.
No.76265
>>76250
Thanks, I put a lot of soy into it.
No.76280
>>76254
This is how it starts, and it ends with pics related.
>your ideas are dog piss and stupid.
If you truly stood above him, you wouldn't call his ideas dog piss. This really makes me think that you are suffering from some form of inferiority complex.
No.76296
>>76071
His philosophy is a cycle of futility, which I can demonstrate:
1.) Stirner claims that everything is a construct, human or otherwise
2.) Logically, this means that nature is the "Descartes Base", or the foundation of the house of logic that we constructed civilization on
3.) If everything is a construct, we must act naturally like animals. This means trading, survival of the fittest, going your own way, etc. is acceptable; essentially, a roundabout argument for AnCap
4.) N-no it's different because nature is a construct as well
5.) Point out that animals can love one another and mourn the dead, trees can cooperate and communicate with one another…essentially, that the base of civilization is not a construct, but a part of our genetic coding
6.) Cycle back to point 1 above, and repeat
No.76299
>>76236
Have you ever read Tolstoy?
No.76313
>>76296
tl;dr he was a pseudo-soyboy who spent his time writing-pseudo blogposts in pseudo-coffeeshops before any modern soyboy thought it was cool.
No.76329
>>76280
>t. armchair psychiatrist
No.76366
>>76296
Striner didn't make a distinction between constructs and genetic coding, whatever they are.
No.76372
>>76366
Yes he did, by default. Stirner was most likely I'll informed about genetics, because of the era in which he lived. Nevertheless, constructs and genetic coding are mututally exclusive concepts. If you are genetically wired to protect personal property, or to believe in God, than religion and the NAP are not "spooks"; They are part of the human condition, plain and simple. If we take this concept further, all Stirner is doing is arguing that free-will does not exist. You boil down and extract is argument, and there it is. I will not comment on that, but what I will say is that Stirnerism is an outdated philosophy best left in the distant past. The fact that /leftpol/, and other socialst forums, need to drag an irrelevant corpse out to argue, shows that they have nothing meaningful to contribute. AnCap and libertarian philosophy has evolved, with the torch being passed on. We went from "The Road to Surfdom" to "Economics In One Lesson" to "Free to Choose" to Ron Paul. They drag out irrelevant fools, or 200 year old arguments.
No.76376
>>76372
We aren't genetically wired to believe in God, and Stirner's views are not incompatible with private property or the NAP. They are, however, incompatible with the views of lolbertarians that believe civilization will dissolve without the existence of a state with absolute power to enforce spurious claims of ownership. Your property is anything you can and will enforce your property claims over.
Please stop trying to shoehorn misunderstood scientific phenomena into your personal beliefs in order to justify them as some sort of universal truth.
No.76378
>>76376
>Stirner's views are not incompatible with private property or the NAP
>Their argument is "private property, and the right to it, is a spook"
>We aren't genetically wired to believe in God
[Citation Needed]
>lolbertarians that believe civilization will dissolve without the existence of a state with absolute power to enforce spurious claims of ownership.
That is not what libertarians believe at all, you lying sack of shit. Also, why is it "misunderstood scientific phenomena?" Genetics and evolution are well established fields, with a plethora of mathematical evidence to back them up. Not everything can be a spook, otherwise the concept of "spook" itself becomes a spook.
No.76380
ITT: people who never read Stirner pretend to be experts of him.
No.76389
>>76380
Fuck Stirner, and fuck you
No.76391
>>76378
>Their argument is "private property, and the right to it, is a spook"
In the sense that you can't own anything that you're not holding in your hand, yes. That doesn't mean that you have no claim to the thing that you're holding at this moment.
>[Citation Needed]
You made a claim, I just disputed it with the same level of evidence that you provided. When you provide proof that monkeys believe in God, I'll admit that you're right.
>That is not what libertarians believe at all, you lying sack of shit.
Not libertarians in the sense of non-authoritarians, but in the sense of Gary Johnson-fellating armchair "libertarians" and minarchists who believe that the state must exist in order to enforce property rights.
>Also, why is it "misunderstood scientific phenomena?"
I was pointing out that you, specifically, do not understand it. I'd explain where you went wrong, but I'm not going to sit here and type out a textbook so you can just go "TL;DR LOL" and continue to be a dumbass.
No.76392
>>76391
>Gary Johnson-fellating armchair "libertarians"
I'm gonna assume you're a left leaner, and grant you the little bit of respect that you deserve. Please don't take puppet intellectual faggots and tout them as the be-all-end-all kings of Libertarian thought. Not actual libertarian (Friedman, Rothbard, Hazlitt) would say you need a state to do anything. This is the whole point of the NAP, and the 2nd amendment/whatever your country has that allows you to brandish a weapon for self defense.
>you can't own anything not in your hand
>what is bitcoin
No.76397
>>76392
>Still missing the god damned point
Jesus Christ. I originally referred to them as "lolbertarians" in order to distinguish from ancaps and other genuinely libertarian schools of thought.
>what is bitcoin
Something that you have the ability to take immediate possession of in a meaningful sense via a wallet on a flash drive. Nice try, though.
No.76400
>>76392
>nobody ever stole bitcoins
No.76421
>>76071
because stirner disliked private property just like them
No.76435
>>76400
>Stole
Stealing is a spook. If you're not able or inclined to protect your property, it was never your property in the first place.
No.76437
>>76400
>stole
if you can take it - it's yours
No.76438
>>76435
>>76437
>throws into gas chamber
Rights are a spook!
No.76439
>>76438
>Rights are a spook!
True, apart from those rights you create for yourself. Nothing is keeping everyone else from getting fed up with your shit and throwing you into the gas chamber next, though.
No.76461
Language is a spoodhdwuwbshywhqqbsvsbspoodhdwuwbshywhqqbsvsbshs s spoodhdwuwbshywhqqbsh 2h2vy few18 e's 3 cn2ish
No.76464
>>76439
Perfect so long as the egoist is not bound by the "but muh spook" spook, he may be spook free.
No.76472
>>76438
>The tiger that assails me is in the right, and I who strike him down am also in the right. I defend against him not my right, but myself.
No.76477
>>76472
As long as you don't try to argue with the tiger about if its spooked or not
No.76478
>>76464
What right do have to say that when your still spooked by the "soy makes people gay" spook?
No.76500
>>76477
>Implying you're a tiger
Cute.
No.76531
>>76372
Stirner did not make any distinction between those two. He did talk about essential proprieties in general.
I am neither God nor Man, neither the supreme essence nor my essence, and therefore it is all one in the main whether I think of the essence as in me or outside me.
No.76563
>>76479
>stirner rick
my fedora is spinning by itself
No.76595
>>>/pol/11271556
>>>/leftypol/2399159
Communists sicken me.
No.76615
>>76380
this
>But that of mediocrity, of the happy medium: a bit of birth and a bit of work, i.e., an interest-yielding possession. Possession here is the fixed, the given, the inherited (birth), the interest is the exertion on it (work), thus working capital. Only no excess, no ultra, no radicalism! Birthright, certainly, but only hereditary possessions; work, certainly, but little or none of one's own, but rather the work of capital and of the-submissive workers.
>But as the saying goes, "In suffering, one grows smart"; so finally the laypeople grew smart, and no longer believed in the medieval "truth." A similar relationship is found between the bourgeoisie and the working class. The bourgeois and the worker believe in the "truth" of money; those who don't possess it believe in it no less than those who possess it; thus, the laypeople like the priests.
>The bourgeoisie liberated us from the command and arbitrariness of individuals. But the arbitrariness that springs from the conjuncture of conditions, and which could be called the contingency of circumstances, remained; favoring fortune and those "favored by fortune" still remain.
Quotes taken from The Ego and its Own, read the fucking book if you want to comment on it you damn brainlets. Stirner dedicates a whole chapter to critique the bourgeois-liberal state you /liberty/friends cling to with all your power (yes, even you self-professed 'ancaps').
No.76647
>>76615
>commies dont understand stirner
<no look here, he says commie shit
if there were some commieshit there you would have a point
No.76654
>>76563
you're posting on a board dedicated to Fedora: the Ideology
No.76674
>>76615
I've read Stirner, but didn't like him very much. His egoist rhetoric impressed me at the time (it wouldn't anymore). His argumentation, however, was obtuse, more polemical than logically stringent, and hasn't aged well at all. In the quotes you posted, he did nothing but argue from standard narratives, just with a bit more cynicism mixed in than most.
No.76852
>>76378
Stirner isn't against the concept of property, profit or anything of the like. He is against property that is founded upon sacred norms. That's a world removed from leftists chimping out about how rent and property are theft. In fact, that is anti-egoist since it is a property norm based on nothing but values.
Incidentally the LTV is incompatible with egoism as well, since egoistic value, is by nature not intrinsic.
No.77649
>>76074
>left
>white-guilt complex being worn as a badge of honor
>self flagellation
Where in the hell did you deduce that from, don't pull assumptions out of your ass and present them as arguments.
Especially when left for the sake of genuine egalitarianism tends to be particularly opposed to idpol.
I can understand the case with liberals, but otherwise it seems just delusional.
No.77658
No.77682
>>76852
>He is against property that is founded upon sacred norms. That's a world removed from leftists chimping out about how rent and property are theft.
This. Stirner shouldn't be the friend of marxists and ancoms, yet somehow, he is. Probably their fetish for destruction at work. Write something smart sounding against the bourgeoisie and they'll keep inviting you to dinner parties.
>>77649
>Especially when left for the sake of genuine egalitarianism tends to be particularly opposed to idpol.
Tankies, liberals, stirnerites, ancoms, I don't care. None of them can put up a principled defense on anything, because none of them has principles. If the US has too many transsexuals, that's bourgeois deviancy. If it has too few, that's the patriarchy oppressing everyone. The fact that it just hates principles is one of the main defining traits of the left.
No.77689
>>77682
>Write something smart sounding against the bourgeoisie and they'll keep inviting you to dinner parties.
That's all it is, narcissistic pretentiousness.
No.77691
>>77682
Principles are implied by statements like those. I don't have any principles related to the number of transexuals, so won't make either claim.
No.77698
>>77691
>Principles are implied by statements like those.
Not necessarily. Not, for example, when people can fluidly switch between them, as we can see with feminists. You just can't please them, because they don't actually have any rational demands. They run entirely on unbridled emotion, and it's not much different with most other leftists. That's why I call it unprincipled. Doesn't mean their actions don't have a logic, but it's one that is very far removed from that governing the perfect conduct as envisioned by thinkers like Plato, Aristotle or Saint Aquinas.
Of course, some leftists are virtuous. They're few and far in between, and they certainly aren't virtuous because, but in spite of the fact that they're leftists. Lassalle, for example, was an honorable man.
>I don't have any principles related to the number of transexuals, so won't make either claim.
Which is fine. It's good and healthy not to force oneself to have strong opinions. You don't have to be an expert on everything, or even on most things.
No.77732
>>77658
Stirner is against the socialism spook, the communism spook, the property spook. He is not at all opposed to becoming a capitalist, raising a corporation, exploiting consumers, etc. Should the ego be personal ambition variety it likely would go the route of capital gain. The USSR is dead after all.
No.77733
>>77732
* of the personal ambition variety
No.77734
>>77698
When people are confronted with what appears to them as irrational behavior, people react differently. Some attribute it to mystical forces, society, institutions. Some claim that the behaviour is rational, but the ends or means seem strange. Striner had the individual's role, but claimed even less about the process: It is not the idea of liberty that develops itself, but men develop themselves, and, of course, in this self-development develop their thinking too. This is not a renouncement of principles, virtue, etc, but it is a different fundamental source for them.
No.77735
How come nobody seems to notice current system of shadowgovernment where more and more people get mkultrad and forced to obey commands coming out of a central computer infacing with cellphone apps?
Who is familiar with gangstalking groups expanding membership pools and becoming a real paramilitary organization in plain sight in every western nation until a critical mass is reached for takeover?
Methods of persuasion, drugs, electronic energy weapons, electronic mindcontrol in existence since 1980.
Joint task force and Special Operations Command silently killing people "accidents and natural causes"
Truths?
No.77881
>>77698
Regarding the feminists would that be due to the different factions of them so you can't argue against them otherwise they'd claim it's not real feminism?
No.77882
>>77698
>Lassalle, for example, was an honorable man.
Jewish Nigger Lassalle is no comrade of mine
No.77884
>>76071
Have you even read his book? He espouses some pretty good pro-worker rhetoric, and is obviously a left wing anarchist. Though "left wing anarchist" would've been a meaningless term at the time, since anarchism was inherently anti private property. I wasn't untill mid 20th century that right wing autists decided that you can be an anarchist while sucking your boss' dick.
>>76074
>Also, you have to remember that the leftist white-guilt complex is worn as a badge of honor among them, because they've convinced themselves that eternal self-flagellation is the way to save the world.
I have yet to meet this self-flagellating white guilt leftist that basement dwelling channers seem to think dominate the surface world. I have no doubt they exist in America, but they are in no way representative of any socialist/communist movement. They are all liberals.
>that is the meme. the whole idea with stirner is putting the self above everything, and i mean everything.
And communism is obviously in any rational worker's self interest.
No.77886
>>77698
Marx on Laselle
>It is now quite plain to me — as the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify — that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses' flight from Egypt (unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a nigger). Now, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow's importunity is also nigger-like.
No.77888
No.80573
>>76098
I'd like to necromance Stirner just to see him debate Molymeme and record it for posteriry
No.80575
Agorism is just black market egoism if you look at it from the right angle
No.80588
>>80573
Stop bumping old threads, I've been waiting for this shit to die.
No.80626
>>80588
don't tell me what to do property.
No.85579
All of these poorly informed posts. As someone who would fall into the Egoism catagory and loves the likes of Stirner and Nietzsche, let me explain.
>>76071
Leftists read the German Ideology and hear Karl Marx talk shit about Stirner, and will begin to laugh at him as well. Inevitably, they will eventually read the book. At this point they will either agree with Marx and meme Stirner to the ground or agree with Stirner's points and begin a slow shift to Stirner from, per se Ancom. Stirner resonates in places such as /leftypol/ because other than his obviously firm stance against collectivism, he criticizes society in ways that much of the left agrees with. He understands Marx's logic and even uses a few of the same points, albeit turning them on the communists and pretending Marx was a civil rights protester whilst Stirner was a southern riot cop.
>>76132
There's a difference between equality of collective identities and equality because everyone is one individual and the value of everything is nothing because value is a construct, therefore we are equal in our worthlessness. You claim there's no difference when they are opposites. Race is a part of the abstraction of nation so equality of creative nothings is ridiculous, especially when in that sense it DOES mean that they are the same, even if one claims they are equal but not the same. The idea of humanistic equality is preposterous and is directly fighting true equality. Stop being an armchair.
>>76376
Except they are incompatible with private property as he denounces private property and the idea of spiritual ownership.
“My power is my property. My power gives me property. My power am I myself, and through it am I my property.”
There's also the really witty and clever leg analogy, but I don't feel like typing it out. He says property is a spook, and that what is essentially our property is what we control. Not to say he was opposed to strict and clear private property, but he did say it is still abstract and an idea that is agreed upon.
You please stop trying to shoehorn misunderstood thinkers into your personal beliefs in order to justify them as some sort of universal truth.
>>76366
Well no fucking shit, but if anything genetics and human psychological studies have seemed to follow trends he did establish. Armchair
>>76380
Genius.
>>76391
>In the sense that you can't own anything that you're not holding in your hand, yes. That doesn't mean that you have no claim to the thing that you're holding at this moment.
You can make a claim but it is meaningless to those who do not recognize it. The one who controls something is the owner. The one who does not isn't
>You made a claim, I just disputed it with the same level of evidence that you provided. When you provide proof that monkeys believe in God, I'll admit that you're right..
Valid
>Not libertarians in the sense of non-authoritarians, but in the sense of Gary Johnson-fellating armchair "libertarians" and minarchists who believe that the state must exist in order to enforce property rights.
Well, you do need a state to enforce property rights
>>76438
They are. My rights are determined by my might
>>76392
>>76108
>>76074
>>76098
>>76099
>>76161
>>76240
Armchairs
>>76114
>>76236
>>76158
>>76164
>>76235
Not armchairs
>>76254
>>76296
50-50
>>76372
Unique brand of strange. You make valid points but almost all of them can be turned on you. I would put you in 50-50
>>76615
Not uninformed but Stirner was not a leftist. He was just Stirner. You also cut out where he turns on the socialists
>>76674
Clearly didn't see Stirner's playful attitude or understood his censorship evasion or his point behind writing the book like it wasn't the Bible which was and is a trend
>>77732
Corps are spooks too because they are immaterial. They aren't bad but they are but an idea.
>>77884
You're a fucking idiot.
>>80575
Got a chuckle
>>80588
Nope! Fuck you!
<3
No.85626
>so why exactly is stirner popular amongst leftists? he is so far away from their collectivist cuckoldry
Maybe it's a sign that your person of straw is utter bullshit, OP.
No.85683
>>76071
Some times I like to pretend to be a Anarcho Individualist just so I can pretend to be an insufferable cunt, and piss of my opposition by just calling their arguments, no matter how valid, a spook.
No.85704
>>76077
I'll lend you a hand. After Descartes proved that the base of logic is "Cogito Ergo Sum", this led to the inevitable need for a new philosophical framework. Whereas normal philosophers (Camus, Sartre, Kierkegaard, etc.) tired to enlighten the world on the final problems of philosophy, Stormer rejected everything. God is a spook, race is a spook, the free market is a spook, everything is a social construct. Unfortunately, this idea fails for 2 reasons: 1.) Because nobody on Earth can disprove the existence of God/God's, we cannot eliminate a religious framework, 2.) Stirner fails to take genetics and human nature, as well as universal human truths, into account.
In essence, Stirner chewed up and Spit out a retread of Descarte's Philosophy, and did it poorly. The reason the lefty idiots like him is because it's a nuclear argument. If everything libertarians hold dear is a spook, then we cannot argue with them. Yet, Stirner cannot disprove private property rights, free market activity, and the fact that socialism cannot account for the lack of a market calculator.
No.85706
>>85704
>universal human truths
No.85708
>>85704
But the concept of property is unnatural and requires an irresistible external power to enforce. In reality, you don't own anything you can't keep, which is why private security companies exist. The concept of property only holds water when you have a state (or parents) to run crying to when you notice someone else holding your toys.
No.85712
>>85704
If is not necessary to know if God really exists to know that, if He does, the individual is antecedent. Stirner was also right not to take Cognito Ergo Sum as a universal truth, because thinking and existing are not concepts that can be isolated from each other, therefore there can't be a cause and effect.
No.85715
>>85708
The concept of property requires no external force because it stems from within yourself. Whether or not you can enforce it has nothing to do with the fact that the idea exists and that the idea springs up from inside every human being, in every new generation. Within these bodies there are ideas, and ideas are spookproof.
No.85716
>>85715
>ideas are spookproof
I've got bad news for you, anon
No.85719
>>77884
Retard libertarianism and ancap is pro-worker.
You are not pro worker. You are pro bureaucrat, the guy who "distributes the wealth" controls the wealth.
No.85721
>>85706
>No universal human truths exist
>Thus, the fact that there are no universal truths becomes a universal truth in and of itself
>This negates the original statement "there are no universal human truths", with unbreakable logic
No.85724
>>85708
>But the concept of property is unnatural
This depends on how you define property. For instance, is IQ considered property? The neurons in your brain, are those property? Let's enter a Socratic dialogue, if you will. Einstein was one of the smartest men on earth, a true genius (if you don't like him, just add Newton in, instead). Einstein used his genetically distributed neurons to create relativity, and other concepts, that made him money. In essence, he was trading property (IP) for money and status at a University. Nobody on earth could steal his neurons, or suck out his IQ; it was natural, part of Jewish genetics, and was enter-able in a free market of ideas. Let's take it one step further. If Einstein writes a physics publication, of his own accord, with his own IQ, is that not a natural extension of his genius? Is it not a natural extension of his own intellectual property? His thoughts and reaching out into the physical world, through a physics paper, that becomes his paper, his research, his property.
Is this not the same for a carpenter, entrepreneur, or baseball player? Private property is simply an extension of innate intellectual property, which cannot be taken away. The guarantor of IP is your ability to continue living; even as a vegetable, you are still a guarantor of your own IP. Thus, we can say that IP can prove private property exists, and that private property is a natural extension of IP.
No.85725
>>85724
>For instance, is IQ considered property?
No.
Well, that was an easy argument to refute.
No.85726
>>85725
So, you don't own your own intelligence? Who owns it? You haven't even tried to argue any of those positions.
No.85749
>>85721
What is universal truth, what is its source and what the fuck have evolved monkeys have to do with it, nigger?
No.85750
>>85719
>Pro-worker
Get back to /leftypol/ with your cucked class theory, scum.
No.85751
>>85724
>how can 2 same ideas be developed simultaneously
No.85754
>>85579
>“My power is my property. My power gives me property. My power am I myself, and through it am I my property.”
Sounds like self-ownership (i.e. private property)
No.85761
>>85726
Intelligence is a trait that I have. I can't own it any more than I can own the blueness of my eyes. You could argue that I own my thoughts, but then you'd be wrong. Information (sometimes incorrectly referred to as "intellectual property") is not property. A book or a flash drive that contains information is property, but the information it contains is not. So-called intellectual property laws are just state-granted monopolies, and are inherently against competition, innovation, and the free market.
No.85844
>>76071
Finally someone says it. Stirner's egoism is not left, nor right.
No.85846
>>85844
Left/right distinction is faulty anyway, he's technically apolitical, so ancap fits just fine
No.85848
>>85846
t. Leftist in denial.
No.85851
>>85848
How's is it leftist? I said he fits ancap ideology just fine. As a compliment, if you happen to be an autist or moralfag as if these were not interconnected. It is for any sorts of leftists to rely on morals in making decisions, though other socialists are neither an exception.
No.85860
>>85851
>It is for any sorts of leftists to rely on morals in making decisions, though other socialists are neither an exception.
What planet do you live on?
>It is for any sorts of leftists to rely on morals in making decisions
This couldn't be more wrong, leftists never relied on morality, only the semblance of it. They pay lipservice to it, but that's it. Look at the conduct of any actual leftist. Most of them were anything but principled. They had strong reactions to "injustice", sure, but being pissed at other people takes no morality, especially if you're so selective about what qualifies as an injustice.
Sounds to me like you're mistaking gut reactions and ethical principles. Not sure why I see you emotivists so often lately, but it's really tiring me. One would think you'd at least be chill but nope, you're both boring and mean spirited.
>"What's that, I cannot fuck babies?! MORALITY ISN'T REAL YOU GODDAMN TYRANT !!!"
It's like your conscience won't permit you to do anything moral, which is just irritating.
No.85874
>>85860
>What planet do you live on?
The one where people promote self-worth of labor.
>This couldn't be more wrong, leftists never relied on morality, only the semblance of it.
<Dat no true morality, cus they are leftists.
>They pay lipservice to it, but that's it.
"Any means necessary" can easily be a continuation of moral application. It shouldn't be about people themselves, or is it another "wrong" moral flavor?
>They had strong reactions to "injustice"
Which is the direct definition of morals, assumption that anything is "wrong", "unjust" or "improper" with no basis to it except appeal to emotions.
> if you're so selective about what qualifies as an injustice.
No different from any other moral systems, some are more consistent, some are less, all have no basis in reality, so to exist they will be shilling it in one dishonest way or logical fallacy or another.
>I cannot fuck babies
How is this strawman relevant? It's like every damn moralfag in here uses "think of muh children" as an argument. Children are fucked even nowadays with all the witch hunting, if you don't believe, go on tor, i dunno.
>MORALITY ISN'T REAL YOU GODDAMN TYRANT
Not an argument, GTFO, this is the main point of christian socialism, you'd better change that flag with this rhetoric.
>It's like your conscience won't permit you to do anything moral
<HOW DARE YOU NOT AGREE WITH MY MORALFAGGOTRY
No.85878
>>85874
>Dat no true morality, cus they are leftists.
It's not true morality because it's not true morality.
>Which is the direct definition of morals, assumption that anything is "wrong", "unjust" or "improper" with no basis to it except appeal to emotions.
Pretty sure that is not part of the definition:
>with no basis to it except appeal to emotions.
It also isn't how morality was viewed for most of human history, nor is it how most people see it nowadays, I presume. Why not just present your case for emotivism instead of repeatedly claiming you have one?
>all have no basis in reality, so to exist they will be shilling it in one dishonest way or logical fallacy or another.
Look up argumentation ethics and virtue ethics. After Virtue and Ethica Thomistica are good places to start on the latter. Yes, I'm telling you to read a book, and yes, deal with it.
>dishonest
You, of all people, shouldn't care.
>How is this strawman relevant? It's like every damn moralfag in here uses "think of muh children" as an argument.
Maybe because that's relevant? I could've just as well used raping the elderly as an example. The point is, you are fine with all these things. You don't care about them, or you act like you don't care.
>Children are fucked even nowadays with all the witch hunting, if you don't believe, go on tor, i dunno.
And if it was up to you, it would be legalized, from what I can tell.
>It's like your conscience won't permit you to do anything moral
>HOW DARE YOU NOT AGREE WITH MY MORALFAGGOTRY
You completely missed the point. When your conscience won't permit you to be a moralfag, what does that make you? I'd say a hypocrite, or at least severely confused.
No.85884
>>85878
>It's not true morality because it's not true morality.
Well, i've got nothing to say, you pulled this circular reasoning out for myself, i didn't even have to do anything.
>It also isn't how morality was viewed for most of human history, nor is it how most people see it nowadays, I presume.
Most people a shit, appeal to authority and general public is not a valid argument.
>your case for emotivism
My case for psychological hedonism*
Assuming that humans are autonomous beings with motivation based on pleasure as a mechanism, which aids survival.
>Look up argumentation ethics and virtue ethics.
Look up disproof of your arguments yourself, i'm too good to do it myself.
>You, of all people, shouldn't care.
It's personal, i just dislike dishonesty. And moralfags.
>The point is, you are fine with all these things. You don't care about them, or you act like you don't care.
True, if i don't care it(which i said not), it does not mean i do them, as said your strawman. I just oppose the attempts to enforce them, or any other such laws, as an ancap, pic related.
>And if it was up to you, it would be legalized, from what I can tell.
As an ancap, i oppose those who try to illegalize anything, as continuation of opposition to a centralized state system, which is required to outlaw it. Again, pic realted.
>When your conscience won't permit you to be a moralfag, what does that make you?
What does that even mean? I've spent most of my life trying to view people as absolute objects, independently acting, as much as possible. Myself. As a choice. Hated myself for not being able to, though reached something, but will never be able to completely abolish it without rebuilding cognition, which i cannot do now, unfortunately.
Also
>won't permit you to be a moralfag
There are different kinds of moralfags, you know? Some specific type, or as a moralfag in general, bound to associate yourself with other humans?
No.85901
>>85884
>Well, i've got nothing to say, you pulled this circular reasoning out for myself, i didn't even have to do anything.
Not circular reasoning. Not even a tautology. It is one in form, but it was intended as a rhetoric device. I really hoped this wouldn't be lost on you.
>Most people a shit, appeal to authority and general public is not a valid argument.
It isn't supposed to be a conclusive argument, more like a hint. Your view is a complete minority view. Few people have a real understanding of the nature of ethics, but most presume it's not a matter of their own feelings. And again, that is a hint, not an argument. Most people would think you're full of shit, even more in past times. You can go ahead and say they're retards, but then you're dismissing the majority view without really giving an argument.
>My case for psychological hedonism*
The view you shared was emotivism, that moral judgements are just subjective judgements of how you feel about something, and that there is nothing objective to them. Psychological hedonism is distinct from that.
>Look up disproof of your arguments yourself, i'm too good to do it myself.
The reason why I posted the books is because I made extremely bad experiences talking to emotivists. They're not interested in an honest discourse. They ultimately resort to insults, which is no surprise, because if you have manners and a strong sense of justice, you are not content with "morality doesn't exist" when you realize that you have no idea what morality is. It's not sexy these days to infer the character of a person based on what academic position he holds, but that doesn't make it invalid to do so.
>It's personal, i just dislike dishonesty. And moralfags.
Also icecream, and yet you're not railing against icecream. Instead, you object to people distorting the truth. That is a weird thing to do for you. I'm also willing to bet that you have a poor opinion of mothers smothering their newborn children and serial murderers collecting eyeballs, and that your reaction to these things will be a stronger sense of disgust than that of accidentally picking the wrong flavor of chocolate at the store, or of hearing a bad joke from a friend. Even though you dress all these reactions up as just a personal and entirely subjective opinion, your reactions are strongest on issues that most people would agree are moral in nature.
Not that this contradicts what I said above. If you pick emotivism as your position, there's gotta be a reason for it, but thankfully, no one can ever be truly consistently wrong.
>True, if i don't care it(which i said not), it does not mean i do them, as said your strawman.
And here again, you point out that you don't do these things. Why would you do that? If anyone said that my favorite flavor is banana and not strawberry, I wouldn't take that as vicious slander. I plain wouldn't care. Neither would you, I assume. But when someone says you like to murder babies, you object. Why? Is that just irrationality on your part, or is perhaps something more to your reaction? I would say the latter.
No.85902
>>85884
>>85885
Okay, lest anyone say I didn't present my view, I'll do so succinctly. Again, I doubt you'll care much, but I will be very happy if you do. Guess you could say I believe in the good in people.
Why do we say something is good? It's always because it lives up to its nature. For example, a clock is good if it accurately shows the time. A car is good if it drives fast. That's not just limited to artificial objects, though. A lion is good if it can hunt well, meaning that if it can hunt well, it is good at being a lion.
We cannot always reduce "X is good" to "X is expedient", neither in the form of it being expedient to us individually, or to people in general. Imagine that some brilliant scientist invents the fastest and safest car of all time, and it also carries an unlimited amount of passengers. At the same time, though, another scientist invents a teleportation device that can take you wherever you want in an instant. You have no need for the car anymore, none. No one does. Would you say that the car is now a bad car? No, you wouldn't. You'd say it's a good car, but you have no need for any car, good or not.
We also cannot always reduce "X is good" to "X fulfills whatever purpose I assign to it". It is coherent to use a clock as a hammer and still call it a bad clock, no matter how well it fares as a hammer. Then you can say it's a good hammer, but a bad clock.
Lastly, we cannot always reduce "X is good" to "I personally like X". It is perfectly coherent to say your girlfriend cannot cook and still get nostalgic about her cooking. The food still sucks as food, but you like it for very personal reasons. When you tell people as much, they will understand you. You will not contradict yourself at all.
So, this is how we use the word "good". It's really not as mysterious as is commonly claimed, and in fact just about everyone understands it intuitively. I have never seen a nihilist who was lost when I talked of a good car.
To say a human is good, then, is to say that he fulfills his human nature. What that nature is is a contentious point, but really not as contentious as is commonly claimed. For example, just about everyone figured out that flying by flapping your arms is not human nature. Anyway, this is where metaphysics comes in, which enables you to learn what human nature is.
No.85903
>>85724
Einstein was also a socialist by the way.
No.85918
>>85902
"good" has many definitions, and most of them have nothing to do with morals. Generally, by "good" we define some traits of an object as positive, i.e. "effective", "fast", "deadly" etc. By trying to use that to prove morality is just using semantics to swap meanings.
No.85922
>>76071
>falling this badly for the ancient "leftists are against the individual" meme that has been succesfully spread by mccarthyism
>still falling for it even when you notice leftists support an individualist philospher
are lolbergs just retarded?
No.85923
>>85901
>Not even a tautology. It is one in form, but it was intended as a rhetoric device. I really hoped this wouldn't be lost on you.
Hmm it could be that your rhetorics are too complex for others to grasp but have you considered the possibility that you might not actually be the rhetorical genius you imagine yourself to be, but a fat ancap shitposter who gets his supposed rhetorical talent largely from shitty imageboard memes
No.85927
>>85901
>Not circular reasoning. Not even a tautology.
A is B because A is B. What is it then?
>Your view is a complete minority view.
You cannot start using demagogue tricks just because "it's a hint". You know, libertarianism is also not a very popular movement, so what now, you should repent and change your flag?
>The view you shared was emotivism, that moral judgements are just subjective judgements of how you feel about something, and that there is nothing objective to them. Psychological hedonism is distinct from that.
My view is moral nihilism, and it is backed by psychological hedonism. I actually never heard of emotivism before you called it. If they are the same, i might agree, but if they are not, it is just another strawman.
>The reason why I posted the books is because I made extremely bad experiences talking to emotivists.
Git gud?
>They ultimately resort to insults, which is no surprise, because if you have manners and a strong sense of justice, you are not content with "morality doesn't exist" when you realize that you have no idea what morality is.
Well, you are the one who uses strawmen and ad populum here, so it's only natural for you to be called piece of rotten shit.
>Also icecream, and yet you're not railing against icecream.
Because we're not talking about iceceram? I hate many things, you know? Though i like ice creams, especially in summer.
>Instead, you object to people distorting the truth. That is a weird thing to do for you.
Because i like complete and consistent discussions as a way to satisfy my need of social interactions?
>Even though you dress all these reactions up as just a personal and entirely subjective opinion, your reactions are strongest on issues that most people would agree are moral in nature.
My exact point is that "Our sincere moral judgments try, but always fail, to describe the moral features of things.", whatever they are, it does not matter anywhere in the world outside of my own mind. Absolute most people are disgusted by the sight of intestines, or shit, or rotten food, does that mean these things are also immoral and are proof of objective morality? Also, you're using ad populum again, stop with that.
>And here again, you point out that you don't do these things.
Because you stated exactly that contrary? If we were talking about ice creams, and you said i liked chocolate ones, while i did not, i'd also object.
>I plain wouldn't care. Neither would you, I assume. But when someone says you like to murder babies, you object.
Well, i do not really care, true. I wouldn't do that myself, as i hold no interest in that, but i doubt i'll ever enforce it, if not for some other reason.
>perhaps something more to your reaction?
If you have scientific proof of objective morality, along with its source, you'd better give it instead of throwing rhetoric questions trying to look enlightened. Many people have tried, scientifically, or a lot less scientifically, but all have found none. If you have, i don't remember you getting a Nobel prize and be praised by moralfags throughout the whole world.
No.85928
>>85902
Also
>The reason why I posted the books is because I made extremely bad experiences talking to emotivists.
I've got a theory that you can accept moral systems only if you already have some similar emotional prejudices in yourself, to build the whole morality around, but a nihilist explicitly refutes all moral arguments as holding no basis, and there any ethical studies fail, as their main direction are attempts to find a case of accepted morality within the person, to build the moral system on it, as the basic prejudices are generally similar within people, as, based on emotions, the ones gained through childhood being the strongest and hardest to rewrite, are not very different due to simplicity of a mind of a child. This would also explain the whole panic about psychopaths, as when this trick is applied to them, it can persuade them into a very different moral system, as there would be very different points of contact reached.
Though, i've never found anything on that topic on the internet(yet), so it is mostly my guesses, i hope someone might find them interesting.
No.85938
>>85903
Yes, and his essay was shit. He was excellent in his own field, but that doesn't make his economic points valid. Specialization, you know?
>>85918
>"good" has many definitions
True. I never disputed that.
>and most of them have nothing to do with morals. Generally, by "good" we define some traits of an object as positive, i.e. "effective", "fast", "deadly" etc.
And why do we call them positive? Because they are according to the nature of that object. A deadly poison is a good poison, a fast car is a good car, while a deadly workout is the worst workout imaginable.
Ethics is just the science of what a good or bad action is, or a good or bad person, or how to become a good or a bad person. Emotivists are disappointed you don't bring some grand deity into the whole thing, or that the natural law doesn't spontaneously burn murderers and frauds to death. Well, that is their misunderstanding. I am not fazed by it.
>>85923
>urmom a gay xD
That is what your post amounts to, really. I am not even hurt, just incredibly disappointed at your low standards.
>have you considered the possibility that you might not actually be the rhetorical genius you imagine yourself to be
I am no rhetorical genius, what I said was standard-tier. It only takes some mild autism, as opposed to severe autism, to understand me.
>>85927
>A is B because A is B. What is it then?
Come on, I told you it was a rhetorical device. Like if we had this exchange:
>You say I'm fat because you hate girls with an attitude!
<I call you fat because you're fat
Same device. That's tautological only if you're a complete autist about how language works.
>You cannot start using demagogue tricks just because "it's a hint".
If you want to have this talk in formal logical language, please go ahead and start. We're both human beings and I'm not going to apologize for treating you like a human being and not a computer. You should be mature enough to do the same, instead of opening a list of fallacies and checking which one my argument falls under. Not everything people say is a formal argument.
>My view is moral nihilism, and it is backed by psychological hedonism. I actually never heard of emotivism before you called it. If they are the same, i might agree, but if they are not, it is just another strawman.
Jesus. It is the same, and I don't care very much how you call it. Your view is emotivism, look it up. Don't care what you call it.
>Git gud?
That is not a "demagogic trick"?
>so it's only natural for you to be called piece of rotten shit.
This is not a "demagogic trick", either?
No.85939
>>85927
>Because we're not talking about iceceram? I hate many things, you know? Though i like ice creams, especially in summer.
So if I told you that chocolate ice cream is the worst, you'd also call me a
>piece of rotten shit.
Or am I mistaken? You'd be just as offended?
>Because i like complete and consistent discussions as a way to satisfy my need of social interactions?
God Almighty, give this nerd a girlfriend so he stops wasting my time. You want social interaction? Go on fucking facebook. Better yet, go outside, listen to the story of some old man, or give a poor child a toy car. If you seek
>complete and consistent discussions
from a
>piece of rotten shit.
then you have serious problems.
And just for the record, none of this pertains to the discussion we have no. It says nothing about whether or not emotivism is a correct position. What it says is that you should get some friends.
> Absolute most people are disgusted by the sight of intestines, or shit, or rotten food, does that mean these things are also immoral and are proof of objective morality?
>Also, you're using ad populum again, stop with that.
Okay, you wanna know why I drop things that look like fallacies? It's because you are not ripe for a rational discussion. You are not ripe. Again, you are not ripe. You are a shitty philosopher, you are a bad debater, your attitude is shit, you don't want to learn, go home and read a damn book. You are not the kind of person that I can engage with on a rational level. How old are you, sixteen? Learn shit and then come back when you're twenty, that was about the age I held any opinion worth defending online.
As for this:
>Also, you're using ad populum again, stop with that.
I actually made a concession to your position, for the sake of debate. I could just as well have said:
>your reactions are strongest on issues that are moral in nature
Except for the fact that this would've sounded like I was looking at this from within my own ideology.
>Because you stated exactly that contrary? If we were talking about ice creams, and you said i liked chocolate ones, while i did not, i'd also object.
And you'd call me a
>piece of rotten shit.
Because you get so mad about people liking ice cream you don't like!
>I wouldn't do that myself, as i hold no interest in that, but i doubt i'll ever enforce it, if not for some other reason.
So you would skin and murder babies if you could, and if you had a slight suspicion you might like it?
>If you have scientific proof of objective morality, along with its source
Did that above, succinctly, but longer than you deserve for your bad attitude.
>you'd better give it instead of throwing rhetoric questions trying to look enlightened. Many people have tried, scientifically, or a lot less scientifically, but all have found none.
That is what is on you to prove. Saying "they failed" is not the same as demonstrating it. So, go ahead, show me why Aristotle failed, or Plato, or John Stuart Mill, or Saint Aquinas, or Sam Harris, or Murray Rothbard, or Hans Hermann Hoppe. Pick any one of them and demonstrate why their proofs are insufficient.
>If you have, i don't remember you getting a Nobel prize and be praised by moralfags throughout the whole world.
This is almost enough to diagnose you with asperger-syndrome. Why would they praise me, if they don't think the issue is that pressing? Remember, they already believe in morality. They won't praise me for solving a problem that they don't see, whether it's a real problem or not.
>>85928
And that, once more, is a formulation of your position, not an argument for it.
No.85944
>>85939
>Ethics is just the science of what a good or bad action is, or a good or bad person, or how to become a good or a bad person.
Nope, it assumes absolute values, while what you describe are relative. Poison is good for murder, but bad for the victim, fast car is good for a driver, but bad for one who gets hit by it.
>that the natural law doesn't spontaneously burn murderers and frauds to death.
Ethics assumes that murder is bad, without relation to another object/being. Also, again that "emotivist" strawman?
>That's tautological only if you're a complete autist about how language works.
And you simply stated it, without a single fact to back it up.
>Not everything people say is a formal argument.
And it means anything you say that is not an argument does not matter in a discussion, you will not prove an argument with it.
>Don't care what you call it.
Neither do i, so i'll stop by ethical nihilism. To prevent further strawmen.
>Git gud?
<That is not a "demagogic trick"?
It was response to whining "i couldn't argue with them". What should i say?
>This is not a "demagogic trick", either?
Again, no argument to refute either.
No.85945
>>85939
>So if I told you that chocolate ice cream is the worst, you'd also call me a
If you told me that chocolate icecream is superior because most people prefer it, i might. It's not like i was trying to really offend you with that, it's common language on imageboards, you know?
>Go on fucking facebook.
Nah, i'm fine here. I like my social interactions in the shape of a philosophical discussion.
>from a
>piece of rotten shit.
>then you have serious problems.
Come on, no need to be so butthurt, insults won't make you any worse that you really are.
> It says nothing about whether or not emotivism is a correct position
Didn't i say that ethical nihilism is reinforced by psychological hedonism and science in general?
>you wanna know why I drop things that look like fallacies? It's because you are not ripe for a rational discussion.
<You are not into this discussion, so won't try to keep it
Yeah, it's my fault for you to do that, sure.
>your reactions are strongest on issues that are moral in nature
>are moral in nature
Ithis is the exact point of debate, so making conclusions on the ideas in question is just shilling. You tried, but still failed.
>So you would skin and murder babies if you could, and if you had a slight suspicion you might like it?
If i knew i got something worth the risks, maybe. I cannot pretend any scenario except blackmail, which is generally too risky to do on a regular basis anyway.
>Because you get so mad about people liking ice cream you don't like!
I didn't like your shilling more than accusation in child murder. I just corrected you on the latter.
>Did that above
"There is a book" is not a proof, especially not a scientific one.
>Pick any one of them and demonstrate why their proofs are insufficient.
They argue for morality using moral arguments. They also have little to do with science, and those who do still haven't proved that morality exists objectively, as it is not a scientific field and is not included in modern scientific theory.
>This is almost enough to diagnose you with asperger-syndrome.
Oh yeah, the diagnoses over internet is the one thing that was lacking. I sometimes wonder if i might start collecting different ad hominems as a hobby.
> Remember, they already believe in morality.
And that's all they have, really. A belief, acceptance without reason, personal feelings to reinforce it. Those who push morals actually do care though, as is met with someone who disagrees with them, the oly thing they can do is shill it with moral panic and whatever other manipulative actions they perform. They tried to do it with science, specifically the theistic ones, but didn't get too far. Those who are interested in solid proof of their claims would praise you if you provided it to them. It' not like all moralfags are believers with no interest in proof within real world, aren't they?
>And that, once more, is a formulation of your position, not an argument for it.
Yeah, i just posted it in case some other guy might be interested. It's not like it can be proven without actual scientific research.
No.85955
>>76235
Only the divine spark in man is in god's image. The rest of man is of the world and something to be overcome.
Why the fuck is there no Anarchoprim flag on this board btw?
No.85970
>>85945
How is nihilism reinforced by science. How can it be tested for falsifiability?
No.85973
>>85970
Easy. You do an experiment, and see if this provides meaning to the world. Every time I have tested it comes back negative.
No.85974
>>85973
"meaning to the world" sounds like you are trying to quantify something subjective as an objective measurement.
No.85976
>>85974
I am observing anon. The law of science comes down to observation. All objective measurements come down to me looking at the result of the test.
No.85986
>>85976
How do you observe someone else's subjective "meaning"?
No.85988
>>85986
I keep testing but I cant find it anon. Maybe they can write a paper and submit it to my journal of Nihilism.
No.85995
>>85970
Nihilism is a negative position, so as long as source of objective morality is to be found, it will stand. Nowadays, it is even further reinforced by scientific discoveries, check out neuroscience, psychological egoism, maybe some social studies about morality, its distribution and its effects, maybe morality from perspective of evolution, if you are interested.
No.85996
>>85970
Also, the scientific method itself is kind of nihilistic, as it does not make statements, but observes and accepts the way things are, not creates laws, but defined them based on our ability to overcome them.
No.86002
>>85995
>Nihilism is a negative position
Scientific method is fine at dealing with negatives. It's a constructive system. If there is no evidence for something you don't wait forever you just say its not true.
No.86006
>>85988
But how are you testing it.? Which instruments? Which definition of "meaning"?
>>85995
>Nihilism is a negative position
Exactly so only the existence of "meaning" can be falsified, and not nihilism. Just like atheism cannot be tested, but the existence of God can. Thus science can only be applied to this "meaning" and not nihilism.
>check out neuroscience, psychological egoism, maybe some social studies about morality, its distribution and its effects, maybe morality from perspective of evolution
How does any of this support nihilism?
No.86007
>>86006
>How does any of this support nihilism?
By explaining the mechanisms that cause people to become moralfags. It is the same as with proving that atoms are attracted to each other by magnetism when before it was "god who did it", in context of atheism
No.86008
>>86006
>but the existence of God can.
Woops, my error. I meant that the existence of God cannot be (or at least not yet known to be) falsifiable, thus currently science does not apply to theism nor atheism.
No.86009
>>86007
>By explaining the mechanisms that cause people to become moralfags.
Could you provide examples?
No.86010
>>86006
>so only the existence of "meaning" can be falsified
Not really, we ASSUME that what we see is real, but it cannot be proven, it's just our whole experience reinforces this position, but it does not mean that experience is real, and so on.
>but the existence of God can
Depends on what a theist calls "god", as it is generally defined in a way to be unfalsifiable as well.
No.86011
>>86009
Strong emotional experiences create strong bond with the circumstances under which they were experienced, and these emotions, when applied onto others, create an urge to prevent/enforce them.
No.86012
>>86008
>thus currently science does not apply to theism nor atheism.
Yeah, but it does not act like there is one, which is what theists want, so the negative position(atheism) kinda prevails. Also, okkam's razor can be taken into account.
No.86013
>>86012
>Yeah, but it does not act like there is one,
those who rely on science do not act like there is one*
No.86018
>>86006
>Just like atheism cannot be tested, but the existence of God can
That is not how the scientific method works. It is a constructive system. You don't say "well there could be a dragon next to me it may be invisible", you say "there is no dragon next to me". Should you have some evidence of an invisible dragon next do you for example fire appearing out of nowhere, then you can postulate the existence of an invisible dragon.
No.86054
>>85995
>Nihilism is a negative position, so as long as source of objective morality is to be found, it will stand.
I told you in another thread that you haven't disproven a single ethical philosopher. You haven't disproven Plato, Aristotle, Rand, John Stuart Mill, Rothbard, Jürgen Habermas, Rawls, or anyone else. You only repeatedly claim that there is no objective morality.
>Nowadays, it is even further reinforced by scientific discoveries, check out neuroscience
And the fact that the brain has faculties concerned with doing math shows that math isn't real?
>psychological egoism, maybe some social studies about morality, its distribution and its effects, maybe morality from perspective of evolution, if you are interested.
How is any of this an argument? Show us your research, your evidence and the conclusions you drew from it. Everything else is uninteresting.
No.86060
>>86054
>I told you in another thread that you haven't disproven a single ethical philosopher.
Didn't you run away to mama there?
>You only repeatedly claim that there is no objective morality.
Because you haven't proved there is.
>You haven't disproven Plato, Aristotle, Rand, John Stuart Mill, Rothbard, Jürgen Habermas, Rawls, or anyone else.
I was not arguing with them, you know. You "read a book" non argument will lead to nowhere.
>And the fact that the brain has faculties concerned with doing math shows that math isn't real?
It shows that math is created by humans, and not an inherent trait of the world, same as fantasy, bible, science fiction or leftist theory.
>How is any of this an argument?
It was not, i just pointed out the field that one might find interesting, as i had no goal to prove nihilism, as it is impossible, the same was as atheism, as it was already stated in this thread. You're braindead so it's pointless to deal with you anyway, go claim back into the asshole you was born from.
>Everything else is uninteresting.
Toy you, there is no pint, you've admitted that you're a shill yourself.
No.86068
No.86069
>>86068
>i am my own boss
>no ego
Maybe for you, but in general?
No.86090
>>86060
>It shows that math is created by humans
<running is not real because the human body can do it
No.86093
>>86090
Okay, better wording, exists within human mind. Math is still completely different from morals anyway as it is descriptional, while morals make statements. Math is the same as speech, or language, an abstract construct, while morals are not.
No.86096
>>86093
>physics is not real because its just a projection in the human mind
No.86118
>>86096
Physical laws are real, while physics is just a description of them, physics as a scientific field remains subjective, as it is based on our own observation and interpretation, and is very often incorrect because of that, though it improves.
>is not real
Subjective =/= unreal, subjective means exists within our mind. You wouldn't say an idea is not real, you'd say it does not describe reality, or incompatible with it.
No.86119
>>86118
>Physical laws are real
Are they? All I see is your subjective observation.
>while physics is just a description of them
Descriptions coming from subjectivity
>you'd say it does not describe reality
IDK anon are you saying that your subjective description is not the same as my subjective description? How subjective.
No.86120
>>86119
>Are they? All I see is your subjective observation.
True, it still might be a simulation, and everything except yourself isn't real. And i might be a just couple of scripts.
>IDK anon are you saying that your subjective description is not the same as my subjective description? How subjective.
That's sophism already, though we can compare them to know that.
No.86138
>>86120
>though we can compare them to know that.
Can we compare them? Nope! We can only subjectively observe communication derived from the other persons subjective observation.
No.86148
>>86138
I didn't mean observation, but simply the description of it, which can be compared through communication.
No.86182
>>86148
Again no.
>We can only subjectively observe communication derived from the other persons subjective observation.
No.86201
>>86182
>We can only subjectively observe communication derived from the other persons subjective observation.
We can subjectively observe communication that contains the description of one's observation, so that we can compare their descriptions based on the assumptions of reality of this communication and actors.
No.86233
>>86201
> so that we can compare their descriptions based
Again no. We can only subjectively observe their supposed description of the subjectively observed observations.
No.86241
>>86233
>We can only subjectively observe their supposed description of the subjectively observed observations.
< based on the assumptions of reality of this communication and actors.
The conversation about subjects is pointless without these subjects.
No.86247
>>86241
Ah you mean subjective assumptions!