what are the four schools of philosophy?

Why did you choose a shit tier major like philosophy instead of a manly science like physics, chemistry or engineering?

>>1365278
Fuck if I know. Never heard of such a thing.

>>1365293
Because philosophy best suits my talents and goals in life. I still have a lot of respect for people who major in those fields, though. I won't try to defend philosophy as a better choice for the vast majority of people--it's just a better choice for me.

How does it feel knowing you will never make any significant contribution to society?

Considering your existentialist views, what are your views on the Free Market?

how big is that pretty dick of yours?

penis

How does it feel to have a degree that serves as nothing more than a certification that you read some books? How do you think this makes you employable?

>>1365307
Feels the same as anyone else, really. The list of "significant contributors to society" are few. I don't have any delusions of grandeur. I'm not trying to change the world.

Besides knowing a bunch of theories and the history of some philosophers, many of whom spent their lives working on philosophies which are obviously not true, what do you know that the average hardened internet surfer doesn't know?

I'm pretty sure if you've studied the subject your own personal view will be the same as everyone elses: agnostic atheist, non-compatible determinist, nihilist etc. What do you know that we don't which has any value whatsoever?

What non-philosophy books do you like to read?

Do you have a personal library and if so, what's it like? How do you organize it/is it mostly philosophy?

Why is Nietzsche such a joke

>>1365319
Five and a half inches. I'm pretty fat, though; I hear that it'll some times increase in size with a loss of weight.

>>1365315
Existentialism was something I was interested in as a younger teenager. If you had asked me then, I would have said that I generally support a libertarian approach to a free market. I was pretty big on "making a meaning for life" for yourself.

>>1365321
It's necessary to become a professor. I wouldn't bother if it wasn't.

>>1365332
>Lots of not true stuff
This is obviously true; however, I like to think that modern philosophy is at least going in the right direction

>What do I know that most people don't
Forgive me for saying this, but I believe that I have a more solid justification for what I choose to believe and what I choose to not believe. In the world of internet-arguing, this is a very important thing.

>agnostic atheist
I go between this and non-cognitivism

>non-compatibilist determinism
Hard to say. I don't know enough science to really judge correctly.

>nihilist
In what respect?

I'm in business and I'm trying to get my name out there. Do you think delivering toilet paper with my face and what I can do for them on every sheet of toilet paper be a good idea? I'd deliver door to door myself.
I thought it might be a good idea because they would see my face at least twice a day or more.

Thanks

>>1365339
>What non-philosophy books do you like to read?
I have read various pop-sci books like Hawking and Dawkins
I also used to read various popular novels such as Dostoevsky, Camus, Sartre, etc.

>library
I have a few shelves worth of textbooks (mostly math and philosophy), a few shelves of philosophy books, and then various classics mentioned above.

>>1365348
>I WANT TO B PROF. OF BULLSHIT SUBJ WHEN UNIVERSITIES ARE RIDING A GIANT BUBBLE
You realize this right?

>>1365343
Hard to say. I would say normalfags would psychoanalyze him as a typical beta loser trying to rationalize his beta-ness. I think he was just a bit eccentric. His philosophy is easily abused (it doesn't require much stretching to do so). At the end of the day, I'd still sit down and have a beer with the guy.

>>1365384
Your name would quickly become associated with shit and piss.

>>1365392

>Dawkins

Dawkins is disciplined in neither philosophy nor logic. How can you stand reading his atheist tripe?

>>1365376

You don't know enough science, so you don't take a position on one of the most important fundamentals of life (whether we have free will)? Or do you have some non-scientific way of cancelling it out/proving its existence to yourself?

"Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived."

From the wiki page, but this nihilism of the most general sense.

>>1365398
>useless subject
Useless in what sense?

>academia
I know that the state of academia is a little bit tenuous. I have a few Plan-B's, though.

Every philosophy professor I know is happy as fuck. I'd like to live that kind of life. On the other hand, almost every philosophy professor I know advises against putting all your eggs into the philosophy-degree basket.

whats so good about Wittgenstein?

>>1365405
That's why I mentioned him as non-philosophy. I don't really care for his approach to religion or atheism, but I think he can be respected as a biologist who teaches evolutionary theory to plebs like me.

>>1365407
I think that free will is a question of science and not necessarily philosophy. The most we philosophers can hope to do is explain the problem and then let science answer it. I'll just say that I lean towards compatibilism based on what I consider identity and free will to mean.

>Existential nihilism
I do not believe there is any objective meaning to life, no; however, I do not consider myself a nihilist in any other sense (ethical, epistemological, etc.)

>>1365433
He helped move philosophy away from hardcore positivism and reinvigorated a nearly-dead philosophy of language. I don't know much about his "later" philosophy. I'm more familiar with his earlier work.

Would the world be a better place if everybody were a philosophy major, and I don't mean it as in "HURR THE WORLD NEEDS DOCTORS/ENGINEERS/GARBAGEMEN."

>>1365449

So if you're not an ethical nihilist, what do you believe? If you think that it's not true that there are no inherently evil actions, does that mean you believe in objective morality?

Also (I'm looking to be educated here, not to attack you), what are your definitions of free will and identity which can be protected even under determinism?

http://www.dead-philosophers.com/

Don't know if you've seen these OP, but if you haven't I thoroughly recommend you go to the archives and read through all of them. I haven't laughed so hard at anything like I did at those in a while.

>>1365404
>>1365404

Why would normalfags think that Nietzsche tries to rationalize his betaness? In what sense do you think that Nietzsche's philosophy can be easily abused?

Wait a minute. You're interested in existentialism, but you say you don't know much about continental philosophy?

Clearly you haven't learnt quite enough about philosophy

>>1365468
No. The world would be a better place if people studied formal logic, though. There is a lot of stuff in philosophy that people can do without.

>>1365472
>Ethics
I'll admit that I waiver between objective morality and a form of non-cognitivism (which can be considered nihilistic). As far as the objective side goes, I won't go into the normative aspects, but meta-ethically it looks something like this:
Ethical propositions are true in light of logical reasoning and we are obligated to follow them because we are rational beings. Essentially, it's similar to mathematics. Just as there is an objectively correct way to reason about numbers, there is an objectively correct way to reason about behavior. This type of ethics strips "good" and "bad" from all its religious connotations and is essentially atheistic (does not require a god)

>identity and free will
Essentially, we are physical beings and every process that governs our behavior is physical; as such, to say that our actions are not our own because they are governed by physical laws is non-sensical. It seems that determinists want to say that we are passive observers trapped in a physical body just watching it go through the motions. This isn't the entire picture, though. If you have specific questions, I will answer.

So what will it be like to be rejected by law schools, who only accept polisci majors?

>>1365421
I'd be happy too if I got payed to do nothing all day, get real faggot. Stop trying to rationalize why you aren't contributing to society you leech.

What do you think is the number one problem plagueing our society right now

inb4 niggers

>>1365524

>law schools, who only accept polisci majors?

That's complete bullshit and you know it.

>>1365528

>payed

How did you end up studying philosophy? Whenever I tell people I'm interested in philosophy and taking philosophy courses they take it as some kind of a joke and look all surprised. Also people are usually like owhh I hate philosophy, I get a headache if I think too much. That's like one of the stupidest things I've heard.
How is studying philosphy? What kind of people do you think it suits for? What are you going to do for a living?

>>1365524

philosophy majors usually score higher on the LSAT and thus are proportionally better represented in law school than political science majors who are more abundant in number and mediocrity

>>1365486
>Betaness
On the face of it, Nietzsche was a grand schemer who didn't really live out an alpha life. People often accuse him of not really being the ubermensch that be promoted. Additionally, he is very much an iconoclast who goes against Christian values.

>Abuse
Your typical "Everyone is shit and no one is living the right kind of life" mentality. A lot of people who follow Nietzsche believe that they're the next Ubermensch. I don't believe that Nazism isn't justifiable under Nietzsche, though.

In the end, I think that Nietzsche should be cherry-picked for some of the more positive messages that he preaches. Instead, we just get a bunch of self-righteous retards who believe that they are on the correct path.

Don't all ethical systems seem to converge into consequentialism if they don't have objective moralities?

That is, without a god, we seem to want to base deontological maxims on what society wants. And society wants what is best for them, thus, the only reason an ethical system should operate is if it is bringing the greatest consequences to society.

I still don't get deontology.

>>1365537
Kill yourself, seriously bud

>>1365545

>self-righteous retards

So true

Do you know any fellow philosophy majors who think "happiness" is a viable goal instead of a tool?

>>1365524

Econ major here.

How does it feel knowing you will never surpass my 177 ubermench-mode LSAT score?

>>1365563

I think you're mad that you got proven wrong.

>>1365524
Most law schools are pretty easy to get into. Try stressing over graduate school.

>>1365473
I'll bookmark this. Thanks.

>>1365495
I say this because I know next to nothing about existentialist metaphysics (Some Sartre and Heidegger for example). Existentialism was a past interest in mine and I haven't pursued in further than their ethical views.

>>1365539
It all started when I was an angsty teen discussing religion on the internet.

>Other people
I tend to avoid discussing this topic with anyone outside of philosophy or academia in general. It's just best that way.

>What's it like
Lots of reading, writing, thinking, and talking. It's fun if you enjoy the subject.

>Who is it best for
People with strong analytical thinking skills. People who like to read and write. People who don't mind being wrong. People who want to eventually be right.

>Job
Philosophy professor. Anything else is likely a bad plan.

>mfw your entire major was covered in a 101 level ethics course of a real major.

How is your major even a thing?

>>1365585
>philosophy professor
So your highest aspiration is to be paid to contribute nothing to society and act smart all day. You little man-bitch, Conan would be ashamed of you.

>>1365528
>get real faggot
On a small scale I'm contributing just as much as the average person. I'll become a teacher and likely inspire at least a few students to better understand the world around them and why they believe what they believe. I think that counts.

>>1365571
Yes. Me.

In this thread: a guy with a big ego and it got even bigger once he got his stupid philosophy degree.

What do you think of scientific materialism OP?

>>1365585

Sounds like it's something that might be my thing. But you can't really get a profession with a degree in philosophy.. Though it's always good to educate yourself.

>>1365594
I don't understand why you people think I'll contribute nothing to society. As I've already explained, I'll contribute just as much as the average person. Unless my plans completely fall through and I end up homeless.

>>1365586
I don't think that's possible, son.

>>1365560
>Don't all ethical systems seem to converge into consequentialism if they don't have objective moralities?
Typically. What other route would they go? The one exception is religious morality which, technically, is relativistic.

>I still don't get deontology.
Typical deontology usually says that ethical principles are grounded in rationality and have nothing to do with what society wants at large. As I said before, it's like solving a math equation except the answers are related to behavior.

why are you wasting your best moment in life, your youth, with this bullshit rather than partying, getting laid, and actually having fun? too scared of failure?

>>1365515

I think in the terms that people usually use 'free will' and 'choice' non-compatibilism is the answer. These people don't have the power they think they have over their actions, they are under the impression that if they made a choice (in a closed system) and the system was to be perfectly recreated that they may make a different choice. This would actually be evidence of true randomness, but they see it as free will in that they think the differing result would be due to their purposeful decision to change their mind.

In less misleading terms, I think that while 'you' are infinitely specific given your exact physical composition and experiences (which also manifest themselves physically in the brain), and nobody would make the exact same choice as you in a situation, the fact remains that if time were reversed (hypothetically) you would make the same choice an infinite number of times, and the only reason you would ever change your mind would be due to randomness at a quantum level. I don't think this uniqueness has anything to do with free will, and I don't think it's possible for a situation to play out differently with all of the same variables, so I don't understand where compatibilism comes from. I've asked many people but I've never really been given a specific answer, only that they use a different definition of free will, without defining what it is.

>>1365623

Your definition of fun may be to party and get laid, but this is not necessarily true of others. I didn't enjoy those activities given their downsides and consequences so I don't do them anymore. I find other things fun, so pursue those instead.

>>1365599
Hardcore scientific materialism (usually referred to as positivism) as more or less fallen out of fashion. I, however, lean strongly towards it because I think it has the best (and simplest) explanatory power.

>>1365613
Philosophy professor. Getting a degree in philosophy nowadays is almost strictly about preparing you to work in philosophy.

>>1365598
Why do you think I have a big ego?

>>1365620
You are basically leeching off the system preaching your crap to kids who just want to fulfill core requirements for their real majors. Then they go off to get real jobs while you're still at school.

They say those that can't do teach, what does that say about your degree if the only option you have is teaching? Figure that one out faggot.

>>1365642

Someone has to teach it, and it's better if it's someone who is genuinely interested in teaching it, as they may do a better job of teaching the next generation of students.
Philosophy may have little value, but it still has some value in the wider world, and so he will contribute through his students.

>>1365623
There is plenty of time in life for philosophy and partying.

>>1365624
>These people don't have the power they think they have over their actions
I can definitely agree with this. I don't think that there is any type of mystical causation which allows what is colloquially known as free will. Causation is either determined, random, or somewhere in between (probabilistic).

>definition of free will
Basically, as I see it, free will is when you, as a biological and physical being, are the cause of your actions. As I said before, what YOU are is physical and biological, so there isn't any reason to say that the causal processes going on within you are not apart of you.

>>1365642
I don't know why you're so angry. I'll help people learn to think properly. How does that not contribute to their lives?

>>1365642

Even modern philosophy is the causal force behind many other social sciences. Although it may seem of little use when judged from a narrow scope, recognize that it is the central hub of ideas which influence wakes of science, such as physics (although less so nowadays, they have almost fully departed) and the social sciences.

Philosophy of religion is tearing at the foundation of religious doctrine, but more important are political philosophy and ethics, which have great impact upon our economy, our politics, our laws, etc..

Hey, I'm sitting in my pilosophy 101 right now. We're goin over the free will defense to the existence of evil.

I now realize that I do not have a question.

>>1365657
Are you telling me that you honestly see value in analyzing the rationalizations of egotistical proto-beta failures? Do you want to better understand how pathetic you are?

>>1365631
Cuz u come in here and say u r getting ur masters and u want to falafel all over the place and on everyones face.
All you do is teach kids how to be an asshole and have a general discussion that people don't give a fuck about two minutes after the discussion.

>>1365630
but doesn't it worry you in the least, don't you even think daily about sex, and that you're not getting it as much as other guys? that you're not experimenting some of the best feelings in life, aside from sex, like the ego boost you get for a week after knowing that you can pick a random girl and get her in your bed?

And doesn't it bother you that what you don't do now in terms of sex, you will only have a harder time to do the older you get? how can you stay home on weekends and read books knowing that?

not even a troll, i usually troll this board with these questions but you seem like a guy who is giving serious answers to this.

And then you post some stupid picture of a twonk in a bath robe. Is that supposed to be you right now?

>>1365272
What do women want?

>>1365659

Physics is the base of everything, including Biology. Therefore you can say that humans are an entirely physical being, right? All of the biology can ultimately be predicted by a detailed enough understanding of physics. Therefore the causal processes that occur to you aren't semantically any different to those that occur to a rock, or (if you do think biology is different) to a single celled amoeba. Does your definition of free will apply to these also? A rock and a single celled amoeba are also compelled to obey the forces which act upon them, and the processes going in within them are a part of them as much as the ones in me. If they don't count, where is the line at which a being or object gains this definition of free will?

>>1365673
Point out the fact that God is perfectly free but never does any evil. God could have simply created beings with the capacity for free actions but incapable of evil.

>>1365684
That's Hume pretending to be a Muslim.

What sort of jobs are/were you looking at? If you've got one, what is it? I'm planning to study philosophy myself at Cambridge in a couple years time. If I can't get in, one of the other Russell Group ones.

Also, does my argument work?
>Libertarian free will defined as being able to originate thoughts, intentions etc. without them being determined by physical causes, yet not random, so you are ultimately responsible for your thoughts and actions
>God logically requires this sort of free will as a supreme being that precedes the existence of anything else
>This sort of free will relies on there being a logically impossible alternative to something determined or undetermined (random, in which case you aren't responsible for it)
>Therefore God is logically impossible

Also, which to you is the best epistemological theory?

Also, how does this motherfucking picture work?

>>1365405
Idk whether you're trolling, but Dawkins is almost certainly smarter than you , anyone in your family, or anyone you know, little teenage internet virgin.

>>1365670
>PHILOSOPHY IS MORE IMPORTANT THE ECONOMICS, CULTURE, BIOLOGY, MATH, CHEMISTRY, GEOGRAPHY, and ALL OTHER THINGS THAT ACTUALLY AFFECT THE WORLD
How fucking dumb are you?

>>1365675
You still haven't told me why you're so mad. It's not a rhetorical question. I don't barge into your job at Burger King and tell you how you're worthless to society.

>>1365631
What about how it relates to marxism?
Also, what about the problem with the definition(forces are not materials, quantum physics)?

>>1365709
>I don't have a job that matters therefore no-one does.
Nice job projecting faggot

>>1365703
>Job
Philosophy professor. Plan B is probably an actuary.

>argument
I would question the second premise. You might want to conclude that libertarian free will is impossible for God.

>epistemology
Depends on what aspect (justification, belief, structure of reality and our interactions with it, etc.)

>>1365718

Ahahhahhaha op is getting owned. I tried owning him but I didn't do very well.

>>1365703

How would that picture not work? I don't see anything wrong with it?

>>1365682

I occasionally think about sex, maybe seriously think about it once a week or so. How much other guys get it doesn't really matter to me, I don't see why it should be based on other people's experiences, only on whether I feel frustrated at my own, which I don't. If you were content with your current sex life, then moved into a culture where everyone had sex half or twice as much, would you adjust your sex life to conform to theirs?

I don't consciously feel like I need the ego boost because I feel I have a good idea of who I am. I understand that there are some women who would sleep with me and many who wouldn't, and proving that wouldn't really mean much, because I'm already so confident that this is true.

It bothers me that I may be setting myself up for disappointment in the future, where I may end up marrying someone who's already well used/experienced, and who may not be so interested in sex while my libido may rise. I guess since I enjoy books and staying home right now I think I should live in the moment. I shouldn't live my life based on what other people are doing, rather on what I personally enjoy. I shouldn't risk sacrificing my hobbies for a hobby that others enjoy, because for all I know I'll never enjoy it to the extent that others do.

>>1365703
Mathfag here. That picture isn't actually a triangle made up of other shapes, it's a quadrilateral. That two small triangle have differing slopes, so together they do not make a single hypotenuse for the large triangle, thus they form 2 separate sides. You have a quadrilateral, not a triangle.

>>1365699
it woudn't really be free will and free action if it didn't include "evil" actions. Evil is just a term we made up to categorize a way of acting.

i think free will doesn't exist untill a certain age, like 16 years old for some people, and for some others never. Untill some day these persons realize that they are fully responsible for the situation and envoirement they live in, and that only them by their own actions have the potential to change everything to fit his will. Some people never get this "think-outside-the-box moment" and some other do and from that point on "free thinking" starts.

I was a huge nerd untill 16yo when i had this moment, and right now i love my life and how i switched it around, my friends my girlfriend my house etc. i just made a clic one day and realized this wasn't the lifestyle i wanted and changed completely to my will, not society's will, how is this not free thinking?

>>1365686
Sex, drugs, and rock n' roll in various degrees and forms.

>>1365718
It was a little joke, my friend. My point is that, in the long run, why criticize me specifically for not contributing to society when by and large the average person will not contribute much more either?

I'm a math major, but im really enjoying philosophy so far and I'm wondering how common this crossove is (it seems like you at least also share this interest).

>>1365714
>Marxism
Hardly know enough about it to give an honest opinion

>Definition
Materialism has been replaced with physicalism. Instead of saying everything that exists is matter, everything that exists is physical (takes up space, affects other physical things, affected by time, etc. etc.)

Free will =/= concious free will

>>1365759
Very common both historically and now. Philosophy of mathematics is a thriving field. Knowledge of set theory and logic and more or less contingent upon one another. If you do enough research, you could easily find a mathematics-oriented philosophy professor and do independent studies under him

>>1365748

Because you were determined to make that choice, your upbringing, environment and genetics would always have resulted in you making that "choice", regardless of how many times you repeated the scenario.

Every part of your argument can be torn apart, but honestly the whole thing is so pitifully flawed I can't be bothered to touch it specifically.

>>1365759
I'm doing math/philosophy major aswell

Man, you guys are pathetic. You're picking on OP because he "won't contribute to society" as if any of you actually make a fucking difference. Look at your fucking selves first and then judge other people. Had it not been for philosopher, your so dear capitalism, that you seem to defend as if it's not the worst thing mankind has brought upon itself, would not even exist.

>>1365696
Physics is derived from pure mathematics.
Math itself depends upon axiomatic principles and logical consistencies.
Logic is a subset of philosophy.

>>1365789
I am actually double-majoring in philosophy and math as well. Unfortunately, because I'm such a social fuckup, I'm pretty far behind in math, so I tend to not mention it in these threads.

I've lost track of some of these questions. If I didn't answer you and you still want an answer, ask again.

>>1365756
>"The average person will not contribute much"
There you go projecting again. Here's a surprise, most people don't fucking work at McDonalds. This bullshit construct - "the average person" - you seem to know so much about doesn't fucking exist. Accept that your tiny little fucking monkey brain cannot hold in it the passion and suffering of the billions of lives that exist on this planet. Accept that most of these people have to fucking struggle for a living and work to keep what they have, while you, you spoiled shit, want to get paid to be talking about something that might as well be religion. You fucking vampire, you scumbag, you LEECH.

>>1365696
The typical answer to this is that the dividing line is "consciousness" or awareness of action.

>>1365803

Physics is formulated empirically. Physics is in the linking between theory/model and observation.

>>1365814
I don't mean to imply that the average person works at McDonald's. The average person, whether it be an engineer, lawyer, judge, plumber, or whatever will only likely affect the people around him. The same applies to me. I'll affect a few people here and there just like anyone else.

Let's ask a new question:
What do I have to do to be considered a good human being? Give me sufficient conditions. Don't just tell me what I shouldn't be doing.

>>1365814

The average person staples papers for a living at Dunder Mifflin or cleans toilets.

>>1365837
What should you do? Find a tall building and figure the rest out yourself.

Can something be created from nothing?

I ask because the core of existentialism is the inherent meaninglessness of human existence for the individual, and responsbility for choosing/creating his own path. Dedication to these 'missions' in life has often been said to be the essence of what it is to be a man, to live for your purpose.

However, how does one create or choose a life purpose if there is no reason for your being: How, or does one create something out of nothing?

>>1365842

I've been on 4chan for a long time, but I don't think I've met many people who are more vehemently angry than you.

>>1365848
I think that these two issues are separate. The existentialist isn't taking away something from literally nothing. The existentialist is deriving meaning from his very real and personal experiences.

As far as if something can come from literal nothingness, I don't see how that's possible.

>>1365852
Welcome to the real side of humanity. You are 1 in 7 billion people and I could give two fucks about what happens to you. People die everyday and everyday some people progress and others don't. Go fuck yourself.

We are all here to die.

Double majoring in History and Philosophy, feels good man

I'll be pursuing history related stuff but god damn if philosophy isn't good for teaching people how to think and write

>>1365852
Seriously. I hope he doesn't attend my university. I'd legitimately fear for my life and the lives of others in my major.

>>1365885
It's good to hear that you've discovered the practical side of philosophy.

>>1365884
I'm glad that we more or less agree on something. Like I said, in the grand scheme of things it probably doesn't really matter which career path I go down.

So in that one ethic s question do you pull the lever to squish the one guy versus doing nothing.

How do you make money? Is it true that liberal arts are a waste of time?

I'm thinking about college so I was wondering.

>>1365903
Depends on which ethical theory I side with on that particular day, probably. I vacillate between deontology and emotivism. With deontology I do not pull the lever and with emotivism I do.

In the end, I'd probably just react on instinct and pull the lever.

>>1365916
How do I make money now? I live with my mother. I have relatively meager expenses and I help her around the house (she is physically disabled) so I'm not exactly a leech

How will I make money in the future? Hopefully I'll get a job teaching and make a few extra dollars publishing.

Are liberal arts degrees worthless? Yes, if you don't put in the right amount of effort. It isn't worth it unless you're really good at the subject in question. A lot of "useless philosophy degrees" are gotten by people with ~3.0 GPA's who didn't bother trying to publish anything or get in good with professors.

How does it feel to pay for a degree that involves doing something that human beings do on instinct every day.

Getting a degree in Music doesn't make you a musician, getting a degree in Art doesn't make you an artist, and getting a degree in Philosophy doesn't make you a philosopher.

>>1365955
Human beings think rationally on instinct everyday? Where do you live?

>Being a philosopher
I won't consider myself one until I start getting paid to do this shit.

I majored in engineering because I can do math, but I really don't like it. I like history much more, I could spend hours learning it. Is this just grass is greener? Anyone else in a similar position?

>>1365784
The envoirement and my upbringing led me to the point were i made a choice to go with free will from then on? guess what, thats what i just said! From that moment onwards you've got real free will, not before. As said, some people never experience that and some other do.

>>1365995
From the various stories I hear, history is a pretty risky route to go--even moreso than philosophy.

I'm extremely interested in philosophy and have been looking to talk to someone extensively about Emerson. Would you care to email about it or chat about it?

>>1365965

Making it through the day in modern society usually requires many instances of rational thought. I was more referring to peoples seemingly innate tendency to question the nature of reality. To philosophize.

And I certainly don't think you have to be paid to be a philosopher. Any more than an artist has to sell his paintings to be considered a creator of art. You are a philosopher because you regularly ask yourself the Big Questions.

>>1366012
I don't give out my e-mail or anything on 4chan. Not because I'm paranoid or anything, I just don't really care for that sort of thing.

If you have specific questions about something broad, I can probably give you my opinion. I don't really know anything about Emerson or those related to him.

>>1366015
What philosophy does and what people do on a day-to-day basis are pretty different. It requires a different skill set to make it in academia than it does to make it in middle/lower class America.

As far as intuitive notions of philosophy go, how people reason about these topics is usually wrong or misleading. Unless someone is educated, I find that people are generally wrong about epistemology, metaphysics, ethics (to a lesser extent), language, logic, and a whole other array of topics. Since studying academic philosophy, I've changed my mind on every single subject mentioned above.

>>1366044

Well, if you're interested in Nietzsche, you should definitely read some of Emerson's essays at some point. Nietzsche was very fond of him and cited him as a very thought-provoking and influential man in his work. Emerson was a generation before Nietzsche and while he never identified as an Existentialist, he did hang around the Transcendental Group- some of his friends included Margaret Fuller, Henry David Thoreau, Hemingway, and Bronson Alcott; they all spent much time at his home. He was invited to join Brook Farm as well (the utopian commune that George Ripley began) but declined. He was not just a philosopher, though he did pine after the works of Kant, Wordsworth, and always celebrated many works by Montaigne, who is never stated to be his 'favourite' philosopher, but in my opinion he showed the highest regards to.

Anyway, he's very interesting, and possibly my favourite essayist and philosopher, if one could call him that.

>>1366155
I am vaguely familiar with Emerson's views because my high school English class did a unit on transcendalism. While I more or less support the ideas of reverence for nature, conservative attitudes towards materialism, and self-reliance, I'm not really all that interested in that approach to ethics anymore. I've even lost interest in Nietzsche because of his fundamental approach to philosophy. I might give him a second glance at some point, though.

>>1366221
That was OP who wrote that, if context didn't give it away.

Leo Strauss
Martin Heidegger

or

Rorty

read them OP?

Why is Aesthetics almost completely overlooked as a philosophical subject in modern times, when the ancients considered it one of the major topics?

More of a sociological question I know, but I'm curious.

Tell me about Heidegger.

>>1366252
>Strauss
I know next to nothing about this man

>Heidegger
Nazis and working with your hands

>Rorty
Pragmatism

Sorry to disappoint but you were fairly warned in the original post.

>>1366292
As I said in another post: Nazis and working with your hands. And really confusing text. That's about all I can say.

>>1366267
If I had to guess I would say it's because most theories about aesthetics have heavy connotations of continental philosophy. Modern philosophy typically is only interested in epistemology, metaphysics, and logic. If you want to succeed in grad school, you're pretty much required to know these fields well. As my logic teacher has said, one of the first questions you will be asked in a grad school interview is how well you know your logic.

Most philosophy majors I know despise philosophical mysticism.

Do you admit the limits of rationality when it comes to understanding the nature of the world? Is there a place of feelings in philosophy?

>>1366325
You'll probably find that I have a slightly more radical opinion that the philosophy majors you disagree with. I think that philosophy and science joined together have great explanatory powers.

OP I'm fairly interested in philosophy so where's a good place to start at?

>>1366599
Read at least one introductory book first. What my intro to philosophy class gave me was:
Ultimate Questions: Thinking about Philosophy by Nils Ch. Rauhut

Almost any text is fine, but generally you want something that will introduce you to the various branches of philosophy instead of specific philosophers.

Next, I would look into various anthologies of essays concerning whatever subjects interest you. If they are geared towards undergrads, the essays will typically be very accessible to someone with minimal philosophical background. Good examples include Blackwell's guides, Cambridge Companions, and Oxford Handbooks.

After you've educated yourself in whatever fields you desire, you should next look into both higher-end contemporary essays and past philosophies. If you understand a good chunk of modern philosophy before you read earlier philosophers, you will walk away with a better grasp of what they have to say.

If you just want something that briefly covers the history of philosophy and is inexpensive, I'd suggest A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell. Some of what he has to say is a little bias, but it's a decent text usually.

If you attend a university, I would suggest looking up philosophy courses that interest you and see what textbooks they are using. From there, you can torrent whatever you like. It isn't always necessary to attend the classes to learn about the subjects.

>>1366599
Additionally, if you have any friends with legitimate interests in academic philosophy, you'll find that discussing these things with them will be of great benefit.

>>1366724
Thanks dude, all the best and that.

Bumping for more questions.

This is now an "ask a stoned philosopher anything" thread.

>inb4 stereotypes.

Damn, r9k. Why are you so fast all of the sudden?

>>1368280
You're supposed to be the one answering questions, remember?

>>1368313
That is a very good point, guy.

I suppose I would have to say that it's because r9k is the best place to be on the internet.

Why is there being instead of nothing?

>>1368365
Because there is no possible world where there is only an empty set since mathematical realism is false.

That's, like, the best answer I can give you philosophically; but really, this is a question for the scientist if all of existence is contingent.

How would a Kantian deal with choosing from a set of wrongs?

>>1368409
This is one of the primary objections specifically aimed at Kant.
Kant's response is that given sufficient moral reasoning, you could come to find out that there is no contradiction at all since morality must be completely consistent as it is grounded in reason.

In theory, this is completely true, but it's still kind of unsatisfactory.

>>1368381
Oh, so we have a set-theory guy? Fun, I like your type.

In algebra a variable such as "x" is defined as an unknown or an undetermined, but what does this really mean?

>>1368427
>no contradiction given sufficient moral reasoning
fair enough, how about a case where a mother has to choose which of her children is killed?

I meant a worst-case scenario like this where the choice is mostly preference driven.

also blox

>>1368440
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking as it seems like a very obvious answer. X is just a symbol such that, when replaced with another symbol (the solution), some mathematical proposition which contains said X will be considered true. I hope that's not incoherent as I am slightly disoriented.

>>1368466
I think you would probably have to come up with a better example. If she is choosing which child a murderer kills, the decision does not matter as she is not responsible for the moral decisions of the murderer.

If she is choosing which child to save from a natural cause, it is also arbitrary because the moral maxim adopted ("I'm going to save this child") is logically equivalent to the moral maxim you adopt when you choose the other.

>>1368466
Also, about your definition of deontology, does it necessarily have to depend on reason alone? you see the way I read it was that deontology boils down to principled driven behavior and whether a person preforms right action is contingent on whether it is consistent with the principle. This way its possible to describe people following the word of god in the form of the 10 commandments are deontological reasoning.

>>1368517
I described what I think is the most defensible kind of deontology. The kind you describe sounds like it could be more open to relativism, at least relative to the situation (or state of belief) that is.

>>1368508
I was wondering about this particular example. Since there were things like this during the holocaust. Where the parent was made to choose who lived and died and if they didn't, everyone would be killed.

I was wondering how a Kantain would handle such a situation. Given sufficient time to come up a good, non-consequentialist, reason that is.

I'm doing an elective in Logic this year, what should i expect?

Is it going to be analyzing argument and learning various fallacies?

>>1368546
Kant would respond basically the same way he responds to the axe-murderer problem: Your moral responsibility ends where the decisions of other rational agents begin.

>>1368559
>What to expect
Depends on your university and how rigorous the logic is there. Honestly, you'll probably just be learning basic propositional logic which involves learning logical rules and applying them to proofs.

>fallacies
You will likely have a section entirely dedicated to inductive reasoning, which deals with fallacies.

There is a small chance your teacher will not fuck with deductive logic at all and you will just learn about stupid fallacies and shit.

Logic is pretty damn fun and interesting if you got the knack for it.

Has the study of philosophy ever accomplished anything?

>>1368540
>relativism
how so? if the relatavist thesis is that:
>differences among beliefs indicate that morality is subjective
>since morality is subjective, do what is culturally relevant.

my interpretation of deontological reasoning is that:
>being good is characterized as following a rule
>the rule is (logical consistency when universalized[Kant], 10 commandments, code of hamarabi)
the rules are not culture dependent as in the relativist thesis, because if you don't follow them you are just wrong.

>>1368485
Not the answer I was expecting, but okay.
Lets have more fun. I think most scientists would agree with this statement.
In order to observe (and potentially understand) the universe a being must use tools (eyes, brain, telescope, computer, etc.).
However, it is impossible to build a tool large enough to observe the entire universe at once.
So, considering this is to objectively observe the universe? If so, how?

>>1368590
Yes. It defeated global skepticism and has contributed very much to the field of logic. Also, there have been minor cases where published philosophy papers have saved lives (for instance, an ethics paper which convinced several higher-up doctors to stop letting diseased infants rot in a room and left to die).

>>1368563
that sounds like a Kantain wouldn't be able to choose based on any principles they had. I guess this is why choosing from a set of wrongs is so fucking hard for Kant.

>moral responsibility ends where the actions of others begin
how about helping people in Rawanda, would Kant also have to stand by and do nothing?

>>1368610
Depends on the shape of the universe, right? We could structure some cube-shaped thing that could receive light simultaneously from all sides or something. But I don't know why it matters if it's impossible to observe the entire universe simultaneously. Your questions are confusing, man.

>>1368592
How are these principles grounded? In the case of something like theism, they are grounded in the existence of another mind (God). The Code of Hammurabi is also predicated on relativistic reasoning. Kant's principles are derived solely from logical reasoning.

>>1368616
>global skepticism
WTF is that?

>>1368620
If the choices are ethically equivalent, Kant would just tell you do whatever pleased you the most.

>Africa and shit
Kant justifies moral punishment/justice by saying something like: If a murderer murders someone, he has given up his rights as a moral being or something like that. I don't remember exactly but it came off as slightly ad hoc to me.

>>1368681
The idea that any truth is up for grabs and that knowledge cannot be gained.

>>1368673
>how are the other principles grounded
why does it matter? Following a principle or set of rules is the core concept of deontological reasoning, which is what I am trying to generalize. I don't claim that any one grounds for rules is better than another. Just that appealing to the way Kant does things is not an exhaustive explanation what it means to be a 'deontologist'.

I welcome any correction you think is necessary to make this description more exhaustive.

OP

Did you believe in God before you majored philosophy?

Do you believe in God now?

Has anything changed?

>>1368695
>murder gives up his rights as a moral being
thats a dangerous road to tread on for Kant. wasn't it Kant that claimed that the foundation for moral standing was their ability to follow principles of volition?

if thats the case, he would be contradicting himself.

>>1368695
>If a murderer murders someone, he has given up his rights as a moral being or something like that.

I'm writing a research paper right now on the treatment and rehabilitation of people suffering from personality disorders, with a focus on borderline and antisocial personality disorder.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that when people are mentally ill, they're treated as sub-human and held to the same moral standards as any other person. I feel that until someone is made cognizant of their actions, they can't be held accountable for them.

If a murderer was completely incapable of controlling their actions at the time they took someone's life, and at a later date become sane, do you believe that that person is inherently evil? If they still desired to kill but refrained from doing so once they understood the repercussions of their actions, does that not make them a moral being?

What do you think is the metaphysical foundation of morality?

Do you think transcendental synthesis is possible?

What do you think is the reason that the smartest blokes disagree with each other on virtually everything?

Who's your favorite composer?

Who's your favorite novelist?

>>1366015
I don't really care about how "valuable" any philosophy degrees are, but the claim that people naturally know how to think is absolutely wrong.

Thinking is one of the hardest things for humans to do, they are generally not great at it, although the majority do it a little better than most other mammals.

>>1368744
If deontology is to be considered in moral realism, it's meta-ethics must be objective. So unless you can observe wild ethical principles out in nature, the only way to derive them is from pure reason.

>Click on thread, thinking OP will be bullshitty retard, who like most undergrads do no really grasp their field
>Holy shit OP is ballin and shares most my views.
Ballin

dubl dubz for teh lulz

>>1368809
>What do you think is the metaphysical foundation of morality?
Either ethical principles are grounded in logic and reason (and thus share the same metaphysical status as any other logical principle) or ethical non-cognitivism is true and ethical propositions aren't even sensical. I can't decide which is right for me.

>Do you think transcendental synthesis is possible?
No.

>What do you think is the reason that the smartest blokes disagree with each other on virtually everything?
I'm not entirely sure. Probably stems back to what influenced them to begin with. Usually it's a disagreement on the fundamentals.

>>1368809
>Who's your favorite composer?
Not sure. I'm pretty new to classical music and its related genres so I don't feel comfortable answering that just yet.

Who's your favorite novelist?
Strangely not sure of this either. I enjoyed existentialist novels and have a soft spot for Douglas Adams.

>>1368761
I've never believed in God. The only thing that has changed is that I've become totally comfortable about my religious (or lack of) beliefs.

>>1368824
>moral realism
why is deontology necessarily about discovering already existing truths?

in what ethical framework would you put stuff like the 10 commandments?

So you went to college and paid some pretentious douche bag to throw a textbook at you that teaches you how YOU think.

>What is self discovery?

OP, you are retarded.

>>1368918
>why is deontology necessarily about discovering already existing truths?
Because it seeks to uncover ethical principles. I know that's a bit tautologous, but it always identifies itself as realist.

>10 commandments
I would label these and theism-based morality in general as "Moral relativism with a might makes right attitude"

>>1368831
Check them.

>>1368786
Kant would say that those who cannot think as rational, moral creatures cannot be considered within the realm of moral discourse. He would consider any action done by someone like that to be on the same moral level as a dog--maybe less.

>>1368936
Jokes on you. Your tax dollars paid for it.

>>1368774
I actually agree with you. I think it was just an ad hoc solution to the potential of anarchy or having no justice system.

Good on you OP. Fellow philosophy major here.

I can't be bothered reading the whole thread, so tell me, what is "beauty" to you? What is "justice"? Also, what do you make of the current state of the world?

>>1368951
>I would label these and theism-based morality in general as "Moral relativism with a might makes right attitude"

What makes the 10 commandments relative? Because someone thinks murder is okay? Lets be honest here.

>>1368702
How has global skepticism been defeated? Would you care to demonstrate the proof?
It is never possible to demonstrate something with a 100% certainty. Some may argue for "knowledge" that isn't certain, but then that's nothing more than justified belief. Why call it knowledge at all?

>>1368977
All the more reason to loath a worthless sack of shit.

>>1369007
Because it is grounded in the existence of the mind of God. It's just that, since God is really powerful, we trust his normative statements over our own. In reality, there isn't anything that really forces us to side with God on ethical issues. Unless you want to say that the 10 commandments are true independently of God's existence and he's just giving us sage advice, it's all predicated on the existence of a mind--that's the very definition of "relative"

>>1368983
>Beauty
No idea. I don't know the first thing about aesthetics. I should have included that in the shit I don't know about

>Justice
Either bullshit or the act of behaving completely rationally when making decisions. On the days I'm a moral realist, I subscribe to Kantian meta-ethics.

>Current state of the world
I probably have the typical attitude of my demographic. I tend to not think about it--which is probably a bad thing.

>>1369048
>Ask an opinion on subject
>I dont know enough about a basic concept to make a simple statement

This is why you are useless.

Regarding the trolley problem

What stance would i be if I allow the 5 people to be killed - with the reasoning that only two people would have the blood on their hands rather than 6 people having to live for the rest of their life with knowing they inadvertently killed someone.

regarding the fat man scenario where 5 people are going to die by train and I say he shouldn't push that fat man on the train tracks. What stance would i have.

regarding the fat saboteur - I would say he should push the fat evil man saving the five people. How would that be justifiable though.

and last the fat man has hidden a bomb
how do i justify torturing him to save millions yet not push the fat guy on the tracks to save the 5 guys?


my high school philosophy homework

>>1369042
I love you, too.

>>1369028
By giving a solid set of necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge, we have shown that knowledge is possible: Most notably in mathematics and science. For S to know some proposition P:
P must be true objectively
S must be justified in believing P. This means that P must be acquired through reliable processes. A reliable process is a process which reliably gives truth. It is not necessary to have cognitive access of said process.
S must believe P.

Justified belief is not necessarily knowledge because it lacks the truth criterion.

>>1369048
>forces us
The most serious injury a philosopher can endure is one of logical inconsistency. Otherwise, nothing forces anyone to do anything unless you subscribe to some notion of a determinist thesis, which judging by your preferences you dont.

Go out in the street and ask someone what their principles are and then find a hole and make them realize that they aren't logically consistent
>mfw they look confused and continue doing w/e they want.

>>1369063
If there's one thing philosophy will teach you it's that you don't know jack shit about seemingly intuitive things. Where you can't say shit, stay quiet.

>>1369095
>Trolley
Sounds deontological since you seem to be saying that the principle isn't trumped by the lives saved.

>Fat man
Same as above

>Bad man
Not any stance in particular. You just believe in some form of retribution of justice. That is compatible with nearly any ethical theory.

>Bomb
Utilitarianism or the same reasoning as above. He has violated some ethical principle and his wrong must be turned right whether he likes it or not.

>>1369048
>Because it is grounded in the existence of the mind of God. It's just that, since God is really powerful, we trust his normative statements over our own. In reality, there isn't anything that really forces us to side with God on ethical issues.
How does this make it relative then? You're avoiding the question.

>Unless you want to say that the 10 commandments are true independently of God's existence and he's just giving us sage advice, it's all predicated on the existence of a mind--that's the very definition of "relative"
You're not serious are you? Why are you avoiding the question?

>>1369095
I got one better:
suppose you are a doctor and you have 5 patients,
1 homeless drifter with no relatives who is in perfect health and a great candidate for organ transplant for your 4 other patients who are productive members of society. Do you kill the homeless man and save the 4 others?

Well I haven't read any of the thread, but I'd like to ask a question OP (or whoever else). Feel free to just quote relevent reponses if already asked.

What is your take on virtue (normative) ethics? I've always found the idea particularly appealing.

Do you believe that the importance of the person, as a epistemological and ethical 'unit', is undervalued or overlooked in modern philosophy?

>>1369096
>objectively
We don't have objective access to anything, we are subjects. Objective = external to the mind.
>A reliable process
So you're a reliabilist.
That is far from conclusively proven true. To claim it is is very misleading and ignorant. There is the generality problem for reliablism amongst others.
You also say it's not necessary to have access to the evidence. You need to defend this externalist position.
In short, you know less than you think.

>>1369096
Also
>Justified belief is not necessarily knowledge because it lacks the truth criterion.
Justified true belief is not viewed as a sufficient account of knowledge, hasn't been for a long time, see Gettier problem.

>>1369146
I don't think you know what relative means.

Relative means that the truth is contingent on a mind.

If the truth of the 10 commandments is contingent upon the mind of God, the 10 commandments are relative.

>>1368951
>tautological
yes, but not 'just a little'. there is no non-arbitrary reason to define deontology as discovering objective facts.

>>1369200
Externalism offers a solution to the Gettier problem. I described it in my definition of justification.

>>1369201
You are equating God to a human being.
How does this make any sense?
Please stop avoiding the question.

>>1369211
See this post.
>>1369189
>>1369189
You haven't defended your externalist position. You can't just say "I am a moral realist, THEREFORE that position is true".

>>1369208
I suppose the best reason is tradition. It's always been described as realist along side of (and not necessarily as a result of) the normative portion.

>>1369224
Relative doesn't mean relative to a human mind. It means relative to a mind in general. God is described as a mind.

I'm not avoiding the question

>>1369201
>relative
>contingent on the mind of god
are you serious?

the relativist thesis, if you don't agree attack the thesis first.
>people disagree about moral norms
>there is no objective superiority that any single person can claim their norm has
>since norms are equally subjective, there is no objective morality

people who believe in god, claim that their beliefs are JUSTIFIABLY superior, therefore 'gods reasoning' does not fall under the relativistic blanket. in other words there is a non-arbitrary reason (god is omniscient) that people say that religious is the correct value to have. secondly, if some culture does not follow the prescriptive norms of your religion they are wrong, which is not possible under any coherent form of relativism.

This, by definition, makes it NON-RELATIVE.

>>1369228
Externalism is an argument about definitions. The only defense is that it offers the best account of what we mean when we say "knowledge."
Internalism discounts knowledge whose source material was forgotten and a whole slew of instances of which we would consider knowledge. Plus it solves the Gettier problems by pointing out that reliable methods were not employed in the thought experiments.

>>1368786
http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_questions_about/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology

>free will and/or ethical responsibility

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_belief
http://www.cengage.com/philosophy/book_content/1439046948_feinberg/introductions/part_2/ch04/Three_S
keptical_Huemer.html

>>1369279
So you admit finally that global skepticism hasn't been "defeated", implying completely disproved.

Also how do you reply to the new evil demon problem for externalism? Let me asnwer for you, there is no good reply to it.

>>1369244
>best reason is tradition
well, ok. I buy that.

however, there again is no non-arbitrary reason to choose something that is traditional to something like what I think deontology is.

>>1369273
Moral relavitism is the meta-ethical claim that the truth value of moral propositions are contingent upon minds. That's the only claim relativism makes. It doesn't matter if people disagree about whatever. It doesn't state what people will think one way or the other since it's entirely metaphysical.

The claim that God's moral judgments are better is only true if moral propositions are true objectively. If they are true objectively, then God does not dictate morality; for if he did, moral truths would be dictated by a mind and thus be relative to a mind and thus be relativistic. The only reason to accept God's arbitrary moral reasoning (it must be arbitrary since it is derived solely from his mind and no objectively truth) is that he is just stronger.

>>1369312
As it's a definition, we are both entitled to label whatever necessary and sufficient conditions you want. You may want to at least draw a distinction between what you believe deontology to be and what others believe it entails. It's not far from the truth or anything (you haven't said anything false, in particular), it's just a point of confusion.

>>1369322
Not the person you're replying to but the reason to accept etc. seems obviously because God is the highest authority, the supreme being, etc.
Also I imagine Christians would argue God is not a 'mind', God is God, you know, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.

>>1369255
You are equating God to a human being.
What don't you understand?

>>1369310
The answer is that, by definition, the guy isn't justified. He is obviously blameless, though.
I must be really convinced my externalism because I see absolutely no problem with saying he's not justified.

>>1369300
BROBOT

Thanks.

>>1369322
>that he is stronger is arbitrary
thats not exactly what my claim is (omniscient, not stronger) but I will be content as long as you recognize that being all knowing is not an arbitrary condition for accepting someone's moral proscriptions above someone else's who is not omniscient.

>relativism is a meta-physical thing
It seems were debating with different definitions of what relativism is

>>1369361
I don't understand why you think that. It has nothing to do with being a human mind or any kind of mind in particular. God has a mind. That's it. I don't know why you would disagree with that. I'm simply laying out definitions at this point. I don't know what you're confused about.

>>1369383
>>1369347

Omniscience is defined as knowing the truth value to moral propositions.

What gives truth value to moral propositions? God's mind? HMM?!?!?!

Saying "Well God is just different lol" doesn't make any sense.

>>1369407

Omniscience is defined as knowing the truth value to ALL propositions.

>>1369391
But God has access to everything being all knowing therefore he knows things objectively.

>>1369407
>god is just different
>the alpha and the omega
>the start and the reason for all things
>the creator of the universe.
actually, yeah that sounds pretty different. if he/she/it existed that would be the being to ask for objective advice.

>>1369439
But if moral propositions have no truth value (non-cognitivism is true) then God does not have any opinions on morality because morality isn't something you can know about.

The alternatives are that ethical propositions are contingent upon his mind, thus relativism; or that they are contingent upon objective facts external to God's existence.

>>1369448
God cannot have objective knowledge about morality unless moral truths are contingent upon objective facts independent of minds.

>>1369391
Re-read your posts.
You are equating God to a human being. You seem to think God is equal to a human being in that his objective authority is meaningless because it's just another opinion.

How can this be when God created the heavens and the earth? How can this be when God is the author of creation? How can this be when God is omniscient?

What do we know that God doesn't?

You should read math books. Math is much closer to philosophy than you think.

>>1369457
God is described as the alpha and omega, he is everything, therefore nothing is external to his existence.

>>1369471
I have a rule about discussing things with theists:

Once the theists resorts to "God is magic xD!" I abandon the conversation.

Anything else I have to say about this would just be repeating what I've already said.

>>1369489
That is non-sensical. See the above posts.

>>1369476
I'm going to start that eventually. I plan to do a major in math as well.

>>1369506
It's really fun stuff and pretty mindblowing, but mostly because the way math is taught is totally retarded.

>>1369464
free will destroys that argument. you can think molesting and raping an infant is good. that doesn't effect that truth that it's wrong.

>>1369506
Why is it nonsensical? The rules that apply to us don't apply to God if such a being exists. I'm not even a Christian, you're just an idiot.
You're denying that the Christians' own description of God is the proper description.

>>1369527
Then I guess you're a moral realist. But you're one regardless of your theism.

>>1369530
Because it does not give proper necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of God. It's metaphysically incoherent. I'm not God. You're not God. That rock isn't God. Etc. etc.

>>1369491
>>1369491
>Once the theists resorts to "God is magic xD!" I abandon the conversation.
Ad-hoc.
You've avoided my questions right from the beginning and resort to Ad-hocs because you could never defend your position from the beginning. Everything I said was in context of God existing and God's traits.

Traits you simply refuse to adhere to because it destroys any argument you have.

>>1369563
Reason doesn't apply to such a being though. God is beyond time. The rules of our reality don't apply to him.
That is the definition of God. Are you a retard? It's incredibly simple to grasp.

>>1369471
different anon, but can OP answer this question?
>What do we know that God doesn't?

>>1369581
>Simple to grasp
>Not logical at all

Pick one.
Christ, you may as well be a Christian.

>>1369464
>God cannot have objective knowledge about morality unless moral truths are contingent upon objective facts independent of minds.
you lost me.

so let me negate your logic since this would be logically equivalent I trust you will not object; from what I can make out of your argument is the following:
>objective facts exist outside of any 'observer' (how I rephrased 'mind')
>moral truths are built on/out of objective facts
>god can have factual knowledge about morality, if two above are true

well, even if I believe this argument

I believe I can still hold my original thesis that
>there are objective facts about morality
>humans are epistemically weak
>a higher authority is needed for normative rule
Since humans are epistemically weak, it follows that another source of information is needed
>rules are right making
>people are moral in so far as the follow the rules
>religious reasoning is type of deontological reasoning

I think the only leap is that appeal to a higher authority instead of appeal to structure of logic is needed to confidently assert my point.

>>1369617
This is a perfectly sensible solution to keeping God, morality, and an appeal to God for morality. It is also, as far as I can tell, perfectly consistent with the Bible, a lot of Christian philosophers, and what you and I have both said. Thanks for working through it by yourself.

>>1369617
I need to qualify
>another source of information
you don't derive a new set of rules everytime you test a maxim against the universalization condition, so you rely on a pre-existing rule to
>when in doubt test against logical consistency if universalized.

Hey OP, fellow philosopher here. How many times have you been called a "pseudo-intellectual" in this thread and all that nonsense? I'm glad to find another person with interest in wisdom and philosophy in you.

>>1369680
I haven't been called that specifically yet.
I've been told that I'm wasting time and resources
That I should die
That I'm a leech
That I'm stupid, wrong, and an idiot

This is the most hostile thread I've ever had, though. Usually people are pretty mellow.

>>1369527
>free will
is an a metaphysical notion that may or may not be compatible with your notion of moral right and wrong. The problem with free will is one of moral responsibilty and if someone is right for being blamed for violating a moral norm. If the said norm is projected or objective does not matter.

>>1369642
a fun little debate. even as I don't think we were in disagreement from the start, but logic chopping is always good practice.

>>1369699
>4chan
par for the course

>>1369743
Yes. I am not exactly a master at expressing myself all the time; plus, my state of mind sometimes interrupts thought.

>>1369699
>hostile
I don't think it was that bad. you were correct to disregard beliefs with no logical backing. such an argument is truly a waste.

1. What are you going to do once you graduate?

2. What do you think of ontological arguments for God's existence?

3. Is there a good proof for Pp-->NPp, one of the axioms of S5?

>>1369699
Oh I see. You see, even much to my detriment, I respond to every single post in my own threads so as not to be accused of "picking only what I want to respond to," and that jut seems to make things even more hostile. I'm quite convinced that many people on r9k are really out to get each other.

>>1369822
1. Graduate school then hopefully be a professor

2. Clever but ultimately false

3. It's an axiom so it's taken as self-evident. Metaphyiscally, it seems intuitive because logic is the same in every possible world; thus, if something is possible in one possible world (pP) then it is possible in all worlds (npP).

It's also interesting to note that a man named Henry Gensler has set up modal logic in such a way that it is provable under his system through a ruductio.

>>1369834
I think it just comes from being on the internet so long. All people who have been on the internet as long as we have tend to have hardened skins from witnessing all the anonymous abuse that goes on. It's just a part of the culture that shouldn't always be taken seriously.

can someone answer this question since the op won't.

What do we know that God doesn't?

mootblox

>>1370003
If God is omniscient then we wouldn't know anything God doesn't know.

I wonder if this is an original comment?

philosophy, semantics

>>1369872
>calling an argument false

Good luck with grad school, son

What do you think about Carl Schmitt's critique of liberal democrac normativism?

Serious question, I am writing my senior thesis on this.

>>1372460

*democratic

Jesus christ

I've only started taking Phil 101, but I enjoy it so far.

I have a few questions though. Right now I am studying Descartes, and I find his reasoning about the existence of God solid--that the existence of the idea of God itself implies that God must exist, because the idea of God has a higher level of reality than any finite object in the universe, and thus man could not have come up with the idea of God on his own--it had to come from somewhere else.

Sorry if this question is amateurish, as like I said I'm still a newbie. I'm genuinely curious.

OP, I find reading about other peoples philosophies boring as fuck. So I make my own, and live by them. I don't give a shit how smart they are, their existence is of little importance to me.

>>1372691

The only problem is that famous philosophers are famous because they were fucking smart as fuck.

They came up with shit you could never think up in a million years, shit so complex it would take you a while to understand, but once you did, you would step back and go "Holy monkey balls I never thought from that perspective before!"

But you don't care, because you're an idiot.

Also, where the fuck are you, OP. I want to talk about the friction between Rawlsian normative liberalism and Schmittian sovereignty. God damnit why do people abandon their own threads after a fucking hour.

>>1372727

I feel that if I were to think strongly about what ever any of these people have to say, a little bit of my character would die and logic would take over my emotion in which point the very fabric of life would become tasteless. There is a reason why some of these people were recluses and generally apathetic robots.

>2012
>epistemology
xD

>>1372419
Why? It's the general consensus that ontological arguments are unsound

>>1372691
This sounds pretty boring to me, ironically; but I guess I can't really complain.

>>1372460
I'm not familiar with it and I doubt you're still on to explain it to me.

>>1372676
This argument is dubious because there isn't exactly anything mystical about the definition of God. Typically, God simply differs in scale and not in kind from us; and where he does differ in kind, definitions are murky and unclear.

>>1372727
What this man says is true.

>>1372752
I realize that all the big questions are more or less solved, but it's still pretty interesting.

Also, more questions, guys.

>>1365790
Nice point 99% now run back to class, lunch is almost over!

>>1372816
To be fair, most philosophers (maybe not nowadays) would have disagreed with the sentiments of OWS

>there are 1 devil and 1 angel
>you cant differentiate which one is which
>you came to a fork road
>you can only ask 1 question from either the devil or he angel
>the devil will answer your question with a lie (eg: am i breathing? no)
>the angel will answer your question with truth (eg: am i breathing? yes)
>you can only ask one question to either the devil or the angel but you dont know which is the devil nor the angel
>one way lead to hell and the another lead to heaven
what / how do you know which is heaven or hell?

>>1372855
this is the oldest fucking logic thing
fucking everyone knows that shit
just ask whoever what the other guy will say if you asked him which way to heaven, then do the opposite

>>1372855
This seems too easy. Maybe there is something I am missing.

I would simply ask one of them if the law of identity is true.

>>1372864
really? you can only ask one question and you are gonna go with that? then risk going down the wrong path?

>>1372907
This is why I think I am missing something. If I ask something that is absolutely true, the angel will definitely say yes and the devil will definitely say no.

What am I missing?

>>1372911
thats how my friend asked me. word by word and i still cant figure out the way to get me to heaven.

>>1372924
Will the other person say you are the angel, then negate it.

HAHAHAHAHA All op knows is philosophical history.
Ever had an original thought in your life OP?

>>1373226
Yeah, son. If anything, I'm more geared towards contemporary philosophy and its future.

The meaning of red is just how people use the word red.

But, people do not use the word red to mean "how people use the word red."

How, then, can the meaning of red be how people use the word red?

>>1373201
no they wont butt in on your convo. you'll have a one to one convo with whoever you choose.

>>1373241
I don't exactly see the dilemma here. If you derive the conclusion from premise 2, you've contradicted premise 1. Somewhere there is a confusion

>>1373247
So Wittingstein must be wrong?

>>1373258
In other words I'm asking you OP what is meaning?

>>1373258
I am not familiar with later Wittgenstein so I am not able to say whether you are correctly formulating his argument. However, my reasoning is that if P & Q is true, then Q -> ~P is necessarily false.

>>1373262
As I am not educated in a lot of contemporary philosophy (The most I am familiar with is Kripke), I'll just say that I have a more or less intuitive notion of meaning: It's all conventionality.

>>1373281
What I meant to say was that I am not educated in a lot of contemporary philosophy of language.

>>1373281
>I am not familiar with later Wittgenstein so I am not able to say whether you are correctly formulating his argument.
Whatever, forget witt.
I'm asking you personally: what is meaning?

>What I meant to say was that I am not educated in a lot of contemporary philosophy of language.
You don't need to understand any of what these niggers said.
You personally OP: What is meaning?

>>1373300
Meaning is contingent upon how an individual subject uses a word. The usage is learned through upbringing and acculturation. There isn't anything objective about it as it is all conventional.

>>1373314
So meaning is use.
Then address this post:
>>1373241

>>1373328
I cannot address it as it is an invalid argument.

>>1373372
SO your definition of meaning must be wrong.