A) The World Is

A) The World Is.

B) I think.

From these two postulates, I can establish all human ethics.

Does Sup Forums doubt me? I'm here for the next 47 minutes.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=8hyQDQPEsrs
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Gee, somebody's REALLY excited about their philosophy degree...

Here's a postulate for you
Cogito ergo ur a faget

You're a faggot 20 something who thinks he knows things. Sage.

Most of the other 6.5 billion people on the planet also think, therefore they can also establish all human ethics.

wow ur really blowing my mind here dude holy shit

No degree in philosophy

Did you sage?

Then you must be looking for one.

if you're so smart then why didn't you predict all this abuse?

Systematic ethics is idiotic. Your conscience (your true one, not the shame based one implanted by indoctrination) exists to lead you to follow the will of God. It's all you need. Your conscience is where all of the initial morality in a man comes from. The idea of ethics just binds you to a stupid legal system.

What premises will you be using for this?

Does this true conscience come to you from birth? And if so, does it require any training?

If not, why are children brought up in poor environments with no moral guidance more likely to be immoral?

Karma?

Or are you missing something?

>Mark Rothko
You surely want to troll us, right?

The two I stated, if you choose to have a dialogue.

>If not, why are children brought up in poor environments with no moral guidance more likely to be immoral?

Except poor environments are shown not to be a large factor. Poor whites in America have similar crime rates as rich whites in America.

With those two premises you can't conclude anything though. Unless you're not using formal logic

You are coming as a true fedora master. Cringe worthy, trying so hard to show your rad ninja mental skills.

No shit, sherlock.

It does matter. Church is important to help train the conscience of man.

Except ESTABLISHING all human ETHICS is
different to CONSIDERING personal MORALS.
Ethics are imposed institutionally.
Morals can exist within a fluctuating landscape of moral consensus.

That's a very narrow field. You seem to be suggesting that ethics is god-given, but also racially dependent.

Please reconcile this for me.

Which Church? How would you know it was the real one?

The world is what people think about it.

/thread

Were you asking a question that invited debate, or stating supposed fact? If the latter, thank you.

If the first, please elaborate.

I'm not the one you responded to about God's will. I'm just telling you that poverty does not lead to higher crime.

I'll defer you to 19:26 in this video for a useful little graph
youtube.com/watch?v=8hyQDQPEsrs


Also stop talking like a faggot, nobody cares about how smart you think you are.

The world is made up of facts, not things.

But that's literally wrong.

You wouldn't be here if you didn't care.

I don't believe that poverty causes crime.

In this entire thread, OP has not made a single argument for anything. Instead he's only been trying to challenge people with empty rhetoric.

Do not ever reply to leafs.

Sage

Whats wrong with that?

A fedora ninja, sensei of the mind

How so?

The world is.

I think.

These are my premises.

If I think, I may know.

If I may know, it's possible to not know.

But the world is, and I may not know whole or parts.

Facts are, axiomatically, things that can be known.

Wisdom here.

This is some pseudo intellectual cringe right here.

LMAO. Actual philosopher here. Let's see what you've got, Spinoza lite.

Define think

Actually, that "B) I think", is a bit fallacious.
"Thinking" isn't the highest human state, because "simple" consciousness, is a cut above.
A little example, would be to "remember" something. What comes to mind, is not a thought like "this happened", but a variety of images, feelings, recollections of smell, touch, and sound - after reliving those, then you may put it into thought - but human reality, extend far above those pesky lines in our head.

Lots of problems here, but here's the key one:

What kind of analysis of knowledge are you using? Surely not a naive true belief account, which is all your premises buy you. At minimum you need to go JTB, but the justificatory link won't come out of your premises. So you don't seem to have the resources to rule out skepticism.

Go read some Hume, then move on to Wittgenstein and Russell. When you're ready, you can tackle Putnam and Nozick. Until then, this is cringeworthy pseudo-philosophy.

This is the philosophical equivalent to modern art. Go read the republic or something, get your basics down.

Shouldn't you add hegal and kant my dude?

I make rational judgements, outside of sense experience.

Watch me: I close my eyes and make mathematical truths happen.

Did I do that on accident, or because it was conditioned behavior?

If the latter, how was I conditioned so, and could I have been conditioned some other way?

Is it possible I could think 2+2 equals otherwise than 4? Or that two logs are different from one?

The world you live in is made of facts?
The world itself is made of facts. Physical facts.
That's it.
We don't have to be afraid of a mammut invasion or getting destroyed by a local catastrophy.
We aare beyond that fate right now.
The world is what we are thinking it has to be.

>religion isn't the will of the world. We made religion to make our own world
>philosophy doesn't circle around the world. It circles around the people.

I've read Kant and Hegel, and they really don't seem to have anything to offer to serious modern debates on epistemology. As much as I want to give continental philosophy a shot, it just can't compare with the rigor and insight of analytic philosophy.

Er... "You think"?

Pic related...

This is confused. Do you make the mathematical facts, or do you just come to know them?

>A)
fucking leaf
>B)
gone

There's no ruling out skepticism, you boy. If there was, we'd have never gotten past the Greeks.

Wittgenstein nearly had it figured out, actually.

>Watch me: I close my eyes and make mathematical truths happen.

Which "maths" are you using?

LMAO get that pleb-tier conty shit out of here.

You need to be beaten over the head with a volume of Ayer and the Tractatus until you renounce continental mystical sophistry once and for all.

Do you think that Truth is as much epistemological as it is ethical?

In that truth must always be good, and not only be factual, factual being something which is provable.

>Implying Moore didn't rule it out once and for all.

Here's one hand, and here's another, famalam.

>continental mystical sophistry

Are you not conscious?

>beaten over the head with a volume of Ayer and the Tractatus

Are you certain A=A?

hehe

oh come now, if he had posted a pic of sartre I might agree with you, but heidegger was extremely rigorous. not so much as Wittgenstein, but still.

>Are you certain A=A

>never read Russel

>Except poor environments are shown not to be a large factor. Poor whites in America have similar crime rates as rich whites in America.

^This

If you compare whites, we tend to all have the same innate morals. Of course, there aren't immoral whites who kill their conscience and animals who are born without them. But those people are also immune to any learned ethics you'd try to teach them.

Other races have a different conscience because they have a different place in the world. Black men belong out in the jungle, spearing bushmeat. You'll never get them to grasp western ethics (except the mongrels who inherited white ethics from our bloodline).

Humans aren't one size fits all and neither is our conscience. Universal ethics is impossible.

No, why would I think that? I've never heard of such a view.

This view would rule out the possibility of evil, which i think is either a) implausible, or b) downstream from the notion of truth.

Yes, the world is made of facts.

The world of my own sense experiences is subjective.

None of this means anything dire or nihilistic, or even positivist. It asks for a recognition of other minds.

>Never read Derrida...

>Not keeping up with developments in first-order logic
>Thinking "nothing" is an entity
>Rigorous

Heidegger needed to be beaten over the head with a copy of Frege's Grundlagen until he renounced metaphysics once and for all.

I come to know them. My mistake.

>metaphysics

I suggest you actually read Heidegger's critique of phenomenology.

Not to mention his demolition of 2000 years of Western philosophy.

LMAO I hope your literature professors think you're cool, because that's the only value Derrida ever produced for the enterprise of human knowledge.

Language, Truth, and Logic. Then read it again. Then "On Sense and Reference". Then "On Denoting". Then read all three again. Then "From a Logical Point of View". Then thank me for liberating you from your shallow continental posturing.

Yeah, fuck that.

How would truth being an ethical quality rule out evil?

I make the (confused because I'm only starting to believe it) claim that truth must also be ethical because of the consequences of belief or things that we communicate.

If I say that black people commit 49 percent of all violent crime in america, I would be stating something factual, but is this the truth? I say that it isn't the truth because the truth has a teleology to it, that we are motivated by it, have invested interest in how it motivates us, and if the consequences of whatever is factual are negative, than it can't possibly be true because truth can only create positive reactions.

But I'm still working this out, and I'm leaving things out for readability. pls no bully.

>doubles
Who gives a fuck about human ethics when kek is god and we are blessed with his gracious digits?

Have you read even basic analytic philosophy? Heidegger is the laughingstock of literally all philosophers who have ever contributed anything to the academy. What has Heidegger contributed to any of the sciences?

You forgot about the inhabitants of the earth. They are part of the world and right now intervening in the shape of the world.
It will always be a quite round (ok not that round, more of a rock shape) but we interfere in it and shape it for our own benefits.
Also, it's subjective but objective seen it's true that man shapes and creates this world.
We are thinking individuals. We intervene in this world (physicallly).
We are the world's pinnacle form either destryoing this planet or living in it.
We think what the world is and got the technology to end it.

It's rather strange you think analytical philosophy and continental philosophy are in any way comparable.

They are two different subjects, with very different aims.

Another "actual philosopher" here. Go ahead and try. Don't copy paste early Wittgenstein, he won't help you.

...

>needing A at all
kek

Do you have any potential (that you have been told, or think yourself to be) controversial beliefs, we can discuss?

Can you list some of the most interesting topics of thought you have had, we can discuss, or what you think the most interesting topics are (totally, or for you lately)?

Objectivist?

/thread

Test.

MOTHERFUCKER.
We're being filtered, boys.

Most of what I'm interested in nowadays in highly technical academic stuff related to cognitive science. So, I'm interested in the relationship between cognitive content and phenomenological content, and whether or not a functional analysis of phenomenal consciousness is possible.

In other words, I'm wondering whether we can make sense of the notion of our thoughts having meaning as a kind of way for our thoughts to feel, and whether or not we can make sense of our mental states feeling one way or another as a kind of highly complex role our mental states play in linking our behavior to our environment.

I'd love to discuss that stuff, but unfortunately it's pretty jargony and accessible only to a specialist audience.

Some controversial beliefs are that we can know for certain that the external world exists, and that there are nonphysical objects like properties.

Fair enough.

Is the claim that facts must be ethical, or that knowledge must be ethical? If facts - the states of affairs that make all possible true propositions true - must be ethical, then nothing that is not ethical can be a fact, and evil is impossible. That seems wrong. At minimum, the question of whether or not evil exists should be a separate question from the nature of truth.

That's the worry.

Demonstrate the existence of the external world. "Nonphysical" is as meaningless as "physical" as you SHOULD KNOW.

Okay, but analytic philosophy aims to deliver true answers to philosophical questions. So continental philosophers should preface their work with "WARNING: The following text is not intended to be literally true, and should not be interpreted as an attempt to seriously answer any questions. The author(s) of this text will not be held responsible for any false beliefs formed by the reader on the basis of interpreting any sentences found in this text as assertions."

Give me nothingness and it will spontaneously manifest reality.

This is what atheists believe. That reality is empty and meaningless and has a kolmogorov conplexity of zero. What is it with these faggots who fetishize and worship nothingness and reductionism to near-nothingness

It's not nothing, it's the unknown.

Better to admit you don't know what is going on about reality, than to submit to a comfortable explanation, made to ease the anxiety of death and the sense of disorder of the world.

We don't know what is going on, and no one is sure about what really is reality and nature.

1) Here is one hand, and here is another.
2) If here is one hand, and here is another, then the external world exists.
3) The external world exists.

The only way for the skeptic to challenge the argument is to challenge (1) by objecting that I don't know that here is one hand, and here is another. But then it's reasonable to demand the skeptic's analysis of knowledge, to see whether or not it buys his skepticism about whether or not here is one hand, and here is another. Whatever analysis of knowledge he gives, it is legitimate to challenge that analysis with counterexamples. Invariably, the skeptic will defend his analysis by drawing attention to cases of beliefs that are knowledge about the physical world, e.g. 'here is one hand, and here is another'.

Or the skeptic can claim that he doesn't himself know what knowledge is, at which point we are off and running on an interminable regress of skepticism about the meaning of "knowledge".

So, as you see, neither option leaves the skeptic's response to (1) intact, and the argument goes through.

Die juden sind unser...

What are you talking about?

I was hoping you would first tell me what you meant by the external world, since if you meant simply that I perceive my hand as something not immediately given in consciousness that would be granted.

I thought you meant to show something akin to a metaphysical realist thesis.

I can easily attack two once you tell me more about what YOU, and not Moore, mean by the external world.

Further reading: On Certainty.

>Is the claim that facts must be ethical, or that knowledge must be ethical?

I can't remove factsor knowledge of any kind from any ethical property because there is no such thing as a quality or statement that is effectless, -anything communicated has a consequence.

Even with a statement such as this, there is an intention, it isn't to hurt you or 1 up you, but to come to an understanding, I endeavor to convince you, because what I believe, I believe is also could. I could be wrong, but my intention is to do good, to create it.

So in the example in my previous post, someone on this site would mention that statistic of blacks commiting so much crime, because they are frustrated and angry, and are attempting to forcefully, by use of incontravertable facts, shut up whoever is arguing with them.

Facts and knowledge then must possess the intentions of who is communicating them, which can be discovered through the context of which they are communicated, so what is true must also have the intention of goodness.

Epistemology and methaphysics aren't really my bag, but that's Soames' interpretation of Moore, and I think it's excellent.

I take the external world to just be the truthmakers for any true proposition, but I wouldn't want to tie myself too closely to this claim.

Haven't read much later Wittgenstein, but it's on my list. Thanks.

Here, I have ALL ethics boiled down for you in two simple statements.
A) The world is gay shit
B) You're all a bunch of faggot niggers
Prove me wrong.

Does this make you feel better

>>>
> Anonymous (ID: WS4oXYGI) 08/10/16(Wed)18:35:12 No.84799517▶
>Here, I have ALL ethics boiled down for you in two simple statements.
>A) The world is gay shit
>B) You're all a bunch of faggot niggers
>Prove me wrong.

Radically Research into genetic Engineering including creating wierdo semi-functional test subject animals and humans.

End goal is to attain cheap, practical immortality.

Moral or immoral.
Provide reasoning and direct derivation from your postulates.

>In other words, I'm wondering whether we can make sense of the notion of our thoughts having meaning as a kind of way for our thoughts to feel, and whether or not we can make sense of our mental states feeling one way or another as a kind of highly complex role our mental states play in linking our behavior to our environment.


Can you say anything more specific about this, I do not entirely follow, but I think I get some gist. What are some specific question, problems or mysteries in this, or what do you think? And phenomenological content being that which is outside cognitive content, outside the mind? and/or cognitive content referring to only exactly what the 'mind-user' explicitly invents entirely 'by itself'? Sorry, for the messiness, but I am interested, and with a little more clarity think I can grasp better.

1. Define "The World"
2. Define "I"
3. Don't use tautologies

Ok, I just looked it up, I see. My bad.

Make sense of mental states feeling one way or another; that is an interesting statement. Because there is physical feeling, and then potentially what you refer to as cognitive feeling? Cognitive feeling, being judgement, or depending on judgement, and also potentially physically caused feeling by producing particular thoughts?

When you say mental states feeling, what exactly do you mean by that? Like, thinking about something you like, lets say a sunset on the beach, can make you physically feel good?

Mental state feelings like, shame, disgust, happiness, etc, interesting what those feelings even are or mean, the different levels of feeling, like physical pain, or sickness, and then those more abstract ones, but also quite real. And ultimately you are maybe wondering, the relations to the chemistry of it?

Wait wait wait. The world IS!? HOLY FUCKING SHIT BROS

really makes you think

>really makes you think

The Thread.

why is everything you philisophers discuss so depressing and meaningless?

because of a complete lack of authority.

this is the problem of all existentialism, even Kierkegaard existentialism which seems like theology without a god. You are not the complete authority over yourself. I don't plan on supporting that claim though because tired.

How could it depress you if it didn't mean anything? Does "aksdfhi33888 niggers" depress you?

Anyway, you probably don't understand it yet. Pick up Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, or Descartes' Meditations. It's fascinating stuff.

your list of axioms is incomplete

C) A FUCKING LEAF

You're on the right track. Don't have enough time right now, but if this thread is still alive in a few hours I'll go into more depth.