/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>6419

>denying that the nadir of western civilization wasn't when we were most Christian.

Read "the Darkening Age."

>>6433

Read "Fuck Off and Die."

>>6433

>The dark ages happened because the majority of people were Christian at the time.

How fucking retarded can one person get.

The collapse of the Roman empire happened due to an invasion by Finno Mongolian pagans, Christians straight up had nothing to do with driving people into the dark ages, anything done like Wars between European nations was due to mostly family disputes, attempts to unify tribes, or tribes killing each other. Multiple Christian scholars helped advance science, philosophy, and Math, a lot of discoveries were lost because of how underrated the dark ages are and weren't rediscovered until the 17th century.

>>6438

He probably doesn't read, he just buys books and shoves them up his ass.

>>6433

Also the Darkening Age was literally a biased propaganda piece the likes of Black Athena, it's grossly overestimated like the idea of the Christian Dark Ages in general.

>Hey look a few bad things happened so it's all Christianity's fault, now become a atheist liberal goy

>Hey look a few similarities in cultures from Egypt and Ethiopia in Greece I guess that We Wuz Kangz is real now, all of white people's achievements are disqualified, go out and chase BBC you fucking gentile sluts

"Extra-dimensional" is just a designation for things not naturally understood. "Spiritual substance" or "supernatural" would be equivalently valid. Saying something is "another dimension" is just a deceptive way materialists try to insinuate everything is of material consequence.

>>2404

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.

>nihilism is the one true path

kill the non-believers!

>>2440

keirkegaard pls go

>What are your thoughts on the case made by Sam Harris which says that moral problems can be solved with science by showing which action is best for human well-being.

He's an idiot who merely presupposes that what is best for human well-being is what is moral, and calls it "morality."

The notion that one must "own one-self" in the ancap version of property to not be a criminal in one's own body and that ancappery is therefor the only logical conclusion rests on the premise that said ancappery is already intertwined with the fabric of reality. It's like arguing that one must believe in creationism, because the very existence that allows them to deny creationism is testament to them being created by god.

It's liberalism brought to its final conclusion; humans being nothing but their own commodities with the world being their ideal market.

>>6296

Well looky here it's a retard. In free market ethics it is recognized that every person owns themselves, not that one "must" own themselves. It is necessary and true that you are the owner of your body by the existence of your particular will which is attached to that particular body. Being that no other may use their particular will to move another's arm by that arm's particular qualities, no other will but that one intrinsically attached to it may claim ownership over that arm. Likewise with all of the body. You get the definitions backwards. Property is based off of this understanding, not the other way around.

What is an "ontological status"?

And why do you think that you might hit upon an argument against determinism this way? Because it's a rather roundabout way, because when you're dealing with probabilities you're already somewhat removed from a purely deterministic domain.

But anyway, I'm merely acquainted with those things you've mentioned, but if the issue is that you either can't associate probabilities to certain events, or that you can't predict higher or lower order moments of their probability function, or that if we insist on associating probabilities with such events they don't work out the way they were supposed to, that doesn't immediately lead to some argument against determinism unless this unpredictability can be proven to be a real property of the things in question. This might be the "ontological status" you're looking for, I dunno.

But I don't think there's any determinist or sympathizer which believes that everything everywhere must be predictable to everyone, otherwise they might as well worry about e.g. non-computable functions, but I don't see anyone sweating those either. Any issues relating to all those things: non-computability, non-measurability and unpredictability are more likely to chucked all into the same basket, labelled "mathematical nonsense abstractions".

>>6370

>But I don't think there's any determinist or sympathizer which believes that everything everywhere must be predictable to everyone

I disagree. I think there are lots of people who claim that all natural phenomena are inherently predictable/computable.

If something is non-measureable, it's either:

>not-yet-measured

Something which is complely possible to measure, but we either dont have the means, or simply haven't bothered to measure it. Irrelevant to the question in hand.

>relatively unmeasurable

Something which is apparently unmeasureable due to the limitation of human perception, but can be indirectly measured due to it's relation with other, measurable, objects. A simple example of this in the field of physics would be radiation.

>absolutely unmeasurable

Something which is completely impossible to be comprehended by the human perception. Now, here we fall into the dillema you proposed: Are absolutely unmeasurable formally unmeasurable (ontologically, by essence) or materially unmeasurable(impossible to be measured simply by the limitation of human perception)? Well, due to the inherent nature of the object of this question, it's impossible to determine weather it's material or formal, thus making this discussion irrelevant.

>>6366

What is the ontological status of a set, its elements, and functions defined on them?

>>2807

> Objectivists have ways of dealing with the poor, too. True the poor have no right to charity-

Such ways include what? Child labor?

>and how is (lower effective tax rates for the rich) important?

Her philosophy is idealist, not pragmatic. It is not grounded in reality and does not address real world problems. It is not good to allow paradox of thrift which happens when the rich accumulate most of society's resources. It is not efficient if you you believe in decentralization, or educating a workforce to allow them to make good decisions independently like ants in a hive mind. Nor does unchecked rising income inequality make the greatest number of people happy.

I respect Marx more because he at least studied Russian Economics and tried to react to mathematical problems. Ayn Rand was personally so emotionally scarred by the Communist revolution that she uncritically thought the polar opposite had to be true. Like a religious person scarred by the extremes of religion who switches to the other extreme of Atheism overnight for emotional reasons, she does not seriously consider that the middle ground could be true. She closed her mind to outside ideas and stopped studying because she thought she already knew all she needed to know.

>they'd still be better off than under a socialist system

A degree of socialism can do a lot of good outside of Ayn rand's world that has been taken to a delusional extreme.

>stealing money from a thief is not the same as stealing money from someone who worked to earn it

She admits the thieves won't use the money more effectively. She also believes thieves won't voluntarily return money, but believes the Objectivist leaders will be above corruption or mismanagement when they attain power and wealth in the new world order. Her philosophy is so broken she had to leave this gaping ethical loophole or it would fall apart.

>>2839

>Such ways include what? Child labor?

Increased real wages, charity, increased standards of living in general.

>Her philosophy is idealist, not pragmatic. It is not grounded in reality and does not address real world problems.

Except it totally does. She's a classical deontologist. I don't see many lever the same criticism against Kantianism.

>Nor does unchecked rising income inequality make the greatest number of people happy.

Freedom does.

>she does not seriously consider that the middle ground could be true.

What middle ground would that be? Let only half the population commit robbery, as opposed to all of it?

>A degree of socialism can do a lot of good outside of Ayn rand's world that has been taken to a delusional extreme.

Can't recall a single socialist measure that did any good when compared to complete deregulation.

It follows that if my Objectivist masters cunningly coerce me, or overcharge me for a product I need to survive (water), I am within my rights to steal my property back from them. Now suddenly we have class warfare between the rich and the poor who see every transaction as their property.

It isn't class warfare if you don't turn it into class warfare. Your "master" stole from you? Take it back from him. Do not take it back from the rich idiot who didn't fucking steal from you.

>The overarching problem is she wrote an unrealistic book where everything is skewed in favor of the Objectivist and he can do no wrong. The Objectivist is always right in this fictional reality.

You know Atlas Shrugged isn't her only book, do you?

>I do not think classic literature would consider it heroic that a person "didn't have to saPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2862

>Can't recall a single socialist measure that did any good when compared to complete deregulation.

You're using a false dichotomy. Ever heard of democratic socialism? Its why Finnish schools are awesome.

https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/capitalist-us-vs-socialist-finland/

Power plants are natural monopolies and are better run with government regulations. Deregulation leads to Enron scandals.

Also deregulation is not enough to fix society. You need to smash companies apart again and again when they inevitably consolidate if efficiency is the goal. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/14/business/la-fi-lazarus-20130215

>Citation, please?

Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, and nearly any philosopher frim that era.

>>I have not been convinced anarchism is viable.

>I have.

Citation please?

>Do not take it back from the rich idiot who didn't fucking steal from you.

Rich idiot better man up and selflessly give me some fucking water from his swimming pool or I'm gonna start a communist revolution, chain and blow his brains out. He doesn't deserve to live if he's not using his resources to help me to get water. Objectivism would lead to a Communist backlash.

>Nazis

Schindler is not an Objectivist. He was a shitty businessman his whole life, and was only good at corrupting officials for government contracts during the excesses of war. Hardly the paradign of Objectivist efficiency.Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2873

>You're using a false dichotomy.

I'm not. I mean any measure that involves regulation, no matter how small.

>Its why Finnish schools are awesome.

They are awesome because they are the least authoritarian school system. The US schools don't teach competitiveness, they teach obedience.

>Power plants are natural monopolies

They aren't. You can still choose between different ones.

>Deregulation leads to Enron scandals.

Regulation - and there's already a shitton of regulation - didn't prevent the Enron scandal. It didn't prevent the economic crisis, neither in Europe nor the US. It is, however, a huge pain in the ass for entrepreneurs everywhere.

>You need to smash companies apart again and again when they inevitably consolidate if efficiency is the goal.

A free market would do that on its own. Economy of scale, cartels being inherently unstable... that kind of stuff.

>Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, and nearly any philosopher frim that era.

I know this idea isn't new. I'd like to have it explained, instead of being referred to a book. That's just cheap.

>Rich idiot better man up and selflessly give me some fucking water from his swimming pool or I'm gonna start a communist revolution, chain and blow his brains out. He doesn't deserve to live if he's not using his resources to help me to get water. Objectivism would lead to a Communist backlash.

So would democratic socialism, because looters gonna loot. Communism must be killed as an idea, slowly and steady, to get rid off it. Democratic socialism does a piss poor job at it. Instead, it makes concessions to the revolutionaries who want to put everyone and everything into the gulag.

here's Chomsky himself saying french and german philosophy are bullshit

>>6364

also is there any charts for other figures of traditionalism and in general?

>>6372

Chomsky's just being a racist there.

>>6385

French/German are not races.

Besides he's not anymore harsh than half the people in this chan.

Make her watch Rick and Morty

Completely agree with your assessment of government schools OP, kudos for your future efforts here..

You might try the Tuttle twins https://tomwoods.com/ep-1054-salon-outraged-kids-learning-about-ayn-rand/, or the "kids" books on Taoism (Tao of Pooh for example) by benjamin hoff.

Otherwise, I would suggest Socratic dialogue, effectively asking basic questions to try to get to the root of the matter, which should help show here some of the obvious flaws in cultural marxism & whatnot..

Good luck.

>>5917

You can begin to teach them critical thinking and other vital learning skills like how to assess the trustworthiness of a source of information almost as soon as they can talk.

The sooner a child learns how to learn efficiently the better off they will be for the rest of their life.

Don't. It doesn't work that way.

>>6368

Tbh it'll be really primitive level of critical thinking but even that is better than nothing, and better than what our theist parents gave us.

In your head.

>>6157

That's lust, not love, Dr. Brown

The old bestseller "the road less travelled" had a good take on it IMO, something like love is that which leads to selfless service to another, which nicely bypasses the whole warped idea of abusive yet "loving" relationships.

Physical/hormonal effects tend to fade, calling such things "love" is a misnomer IMO.

Well, I don't really know if this is going to contribute to the conversation in anyway but, I recently watched the movie "Good will hunting" and got to the scene where Will and Sean sit on a parkbench and discuss love and what they said pissed me off to no end.

Not because I didn't understand but because the argument "you can only understand love when you find someone to love more than yourself" is utter horseshit.

You can't possibly love someone "more than yourself", if that's the case you're simply substituting the love you should have for yourself with the love of others.

We each have a responsibility for our own well-being and if you can't find it in yourself you're not gonna find it in others, I would go even further by arguing that it's practically immoral to expect others to play the role of substitutes for the love you were never able to find in yourself.

>>6290

Please elaborate.

I myself have had about the same experiences.

Last weekend at work i was hoping to get a day off from work, but wanted to get that extra-long day at the same time too. Once i began working, within 5 minutes my co-worker sprained his ankle, and we all got a day off anyway. We all got paid for the day (it was an extra early day, we all were at work at 5 o' clock).

Was that godly intervention? No, but i spent the rest of the day at home being productive as fuck, using all my energy i had intended for job.

I think of it as... luck. It just happens. I appreciate it, but do not thank to anyone, like god.

>>6290

I think I can relate to you, albeit it is impossible to say really since I can't really put it into proper terms either. I can't really describe it without sounding pretentious, even though this isn't the case at all, if anything it has been a very humbling experience. By now I can at best describe it as a feeling of depersonalization, it seems to me in retrospective, as if I was able to experience existence with a lack of personal involvement, and as such neither thoughts nor emotions really dominated this condition, it felt more as if anything was involved, yet did not have a real effect on me to the degree where it would distort my comprehension of the moment. I suppose it might have been similar to the Buddhist concept of an epiphany, but I do not have intricate knowledge of Buddhism, and as already said, it's difficult to put it into words, so that might be completely false.

>>6298

I've tried LSD years later, and it wasn't really the same, granted I'm not some seeker fag that takes hero doses, so there's that part I can't attest to, but it was very much different for me. LSD merely distorted my mind and made me incredibly susceptible to my emotions, which is a very interesting feeling, but not the same as what I've described above. However I don't consider Psychedelics by themselves to be a real tool to gain deeper philosophical insight, but in my experience they can be helpful to gain a better understanding of ones own mode of thought.

that's interesting OP. sometimes you can just feel how God is doing something amazing and how it's all working out. it's really cool. if you would like to check this out, it has some related material in the text portion of the thread (in the mewch link) that you will probably strongly relate to. maybe.

>>6320

I know what you're talking about. Its what should be an overwhelmingly intense emotion, except it doesn't overwhelm you; instead it clarifies things and you feel very sober and collected and not the least bit stressed.

>>6298

I'm not OP, but Psychedelics aren't close to the experience OP is describing. Its closer to the feeling the day after an ayahuasca trip, or in the hour or so of perfect clarity you get following a psilocybin trip.

>>6290

hey OP I think you might like this thread. my previous comment reccomending it to you was deleted I think. I just updated it.

>>6320

What value has life?

That's really what it all comes down to.

There have been steppe hermits in Mongolia who have lived more fulfilling lives than any celebrity or talentless hack with so much disposable income they could practically buy their own micro nation.

You aspire to be "great" not to live.

That's why you're miserable because that's what it is.

The stars in the sky should humble you not frighten you.

>>6279

Fuck stars.

>>5519

top kek

I know a Nihilist who argues that Nihilism is awesome whenever its about himself or Nietzsche but then goes and claims that Trump is a nihilist as if thats a bad thing

"Nihilist" is just another word for "Im too smart to believe in anything"

Ego is the Enemy by Ryan Holiday is an extremely easy read(even I who felt like I didn't have much of an attention span loved the simple analogous style).

The author has a stoic diary book out, and some other interesting nonfiction with a very logical style like the Obstacle is the Way. Probably the closest I've read to a modern stoic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqaU5TQw_i4

Interview with him to give you an idea of what he's like.

If you want deeper, then anything by Seneca and Marcus Aurelius's Meditations are the core of stoicism.

>>5608

>So, your wife is cheating on you with Jamal. Boo hoo! Suck it up, and deal with it!

Literally philosophy for cucks.

I'm a daily practitioner of Stoicism, so I can recommend you a few things. It's a wonderful way to orientate your life. The foundational books (i.e. the ones that outline the basic tenants) I could recommend are:

Meditations by Marcus Aurelius (free on Project Gutenberg)

The Enchiridion and Discourses by Epictetus (my favorite, also found free on Project Gutenberg as 2 separate books)

Letters from a Stoic by Seneca (there are a lot of different letters he's written, which you can also find free online but they all have different titles)

For more modern applications of Stoicism:

How to be a Stoic by Massimo Pigliucci

Stoicism and the Art of Happiness by Donald Robertson

A Guide to the Good Life by William Irvine

And books by Stoics but not 100% Stoic:

The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck by Mark Manson

The Obsticle is the Way by Ryan Holiday

There are 2 main websites where you can get some great info too:

Howtobeastoic.wordpress.com (By the Professor Massimo Pigluicci who wrote the book above)

Modernstoicism.com (By Proffesor Gregory Sadlet who has a great YouTuibe Channel about Stoicism and Philosophy)

DailyStoic.com (By Ryan Holiday, the author of the Obsticle is the way book above)

>>6282

Stoicism doesn't have any hard or fast rules about determinism, I'm not sure where you got that impression. Instead Stoics believe that the Logos (Universe/God/Gods/whatever) manifests itself as a universal causal network where men's actions are a part of this cause and effect web bringing about a specific outcome. A lot of scholars have debated this specific issue Dorothea Frede and Massimo Pigluicci (the later most recently), and none of them have ever associated Stoic concepts of logos with predetermination. Instead it's a complex view of causality in which "fate" isn't a linear series of events but instead a whole "network of interacting causes." Cicero's "Cylinder" analogy is a good one that explains this on a "cosmic scale." On a personal scale though I prefer Cleanthes' dog and cart analogy. His analogy is a good one to visualize. He described us as a dog tied to a moving cart by a long leash. The leash gives us enough leeway to determine our own path by moving to one side of the cart, behind it, to the other side, stop for a bit, etc, but the cart's still moving regardless of what the dog does. As the dog we can fight against this leash and be dragged along in misery or we can choose to be happy and use our limited span to enjoy the journey. Stoics don't believe in absolute determinism other than we can all say in our own lives we can "absolutely determine" that we're all going to die some day.

>>6313

I'm not sure where you've got the impression that you've replied to anything but a post randomly shitting on another.

its = possessive

it’s = it is

This just reads like metaphysical masturbation without any actual substance or understanding. It reads like you don’t know what you’re talking about, even if you think you do.

Go into more depth about the concepts you’re taking for granted: time, number, unit, metaphysical principle, logic, science, all that shit—and maybe something slightly cohesive will come of it.

>>1484

Because Atheists are actually Agnostics.

>>1510

Not Op, but I guess he's talking about atheistic materialism, which in itself is a rejection of metaphysic concepts and reduces reality to empirical positivism. As such morality, as argued, itself could at best be a biological imperative, and as such practically interchangeable or alterable through evolution or genetic engineering. I'd argue that such a reduction is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of morality, which is not meant to be a system that only reflects favorable circumstances for a society, but a universal a priori set of rules for the human experience, that did not rose from necessity, but dictates necessity and as such formed it. I'd argue that this due to the overly complex nature of Morality, and the spiritual impact necessary for it to function being to complex to be a mere assembly of chance. I'd say the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of the actual functions and capabilities of evolution from the side of the atheistic materialists. To address your point of differentiating morality from other concepts, I'd argue that morality is a base experience, that is not learned but experienced, and as such is contained in the necessary structure of the human experience itself. Equality and fairness on the other hand, are imposed concepts, they are not part of the necessary structure of the human experience but are instead of intellectual origin. In short a human derives morality by itself, as the sense for it isn't learned but felt, while the concepts of equality and fairness have to be intellectually derived to be grasped. In contrast to OP I would not make the argument that atheists reject morality, but that they misjudge it's scope and validity due to their inherent materialism.

But a different question that came to my mind while writing that. Is there a possibility to separate atheism from materialism, or is it possible to combine atheism and spiritualism? I'd argue that spiritualism is always a form of deism, just that the deity isn't personified in this context. And since atheism must reject all forms of deities, it can only hold it's ground through the reduction of reality to materialism. Finally there is no real distinction between materialism and atheism.

>>1485

>>1485

If morality isn't a "higher power", what is?