Could you please show any evidence of your statements?

That’s an enforcement mechanism, not a proof of an inherent value system that makes it wrong for me to take what I want.

Because that doesn't exist, philosophy brainlet.

It's not wrong, but he wont like it, and the police will shoot you if you violate the law.

What if you are rich enough to bribe them?
Social contract is also not essential

if morality is not real, then guess what, neither is science friendo

this is your brain on STEM

Then the scientific method is also moot since it isn’t “real” by your standards.

>but dude how do u know anything lmao
>morals exist
>metaphysics exists

Attached: 4A7F28B3-6229-49C2-B791-1770032D227C.jpg (800x450, 44K)

Sure, please define evidence in a non self referential way

>This is what "philosophers" actually believe.

Attached: oys7flxnqt011.jpg (2544x4000, 906K)

...

how can they not exist? I think your definition of exist is quite limited and arbitrary

gonna need some evidence to the contrary buddy boy

I'm specifically pertaining to enquiry within the physical realm. Your minds eye and intuition is all internal and can only be proven to yourself. Your consciousness is what builds metaphysics and morality(morality not simply being applied ethics but other things like what makes a claim or theory reasonable). Things which science is dependent on. The fact that you trust the scientific method is specifically because you consider it intuitive or sensible. Any facts determined from this method cannot be derived otherwise.

>morality is only applied ethics

Attached: IMG_4744.png (207x243, 6K)

Then that's reality bucko.

>science is dependent on morality
>science has to be intuitive or you wouldn’t believe it
philosophytards lmao, nice try I guess

Please explain to me how you empirically prove the empirical method is the only source of truth.

Attached: 1547400186541.jpg (700x696, 465K)

>but dude, morality is a practical matter, it should not be treated as science because it isn't!
>it doesn't matter that we can't prove a system to be more real than the other, morality is about practical situations, and the torture and killing of innocent people is wrong (and it doesn't matter if it's really "wrong" or not) and harmful to a civilization
>you can't create a happy, civilized enviroment without ethics
The STEM philosophy CHAD who gains 200k per year coding mobile app games thus sets forth his word:
>Well then, you proved nothing as always. It doesn't matter if it's a practical issue. Practical issues should be settle by science. Think about engineering for example, it's a practical issue governed by the laws of physics and mathematics.
>But even then, let's think about the issues you proposed, using a philosophical framework, so we can end this debate once and for all.
>Your system unnevitably comes to this:
>Existence is better than non existence.
>Happiness is better than sadness.
>Joy is better than suffering.
>Your system is wrong on many levels, but i shall make a point about the last two arguments. Human, for centuries, have based their morals on strict laws, "preventing" joy and happinness, under christian morals for example.
>Yet, the west thrived continuously, and the rates of depression and suicide, were inexplicably lower than now.
>The problem is that humans paradoxically enjoy, suffering. They enjoy sadness. They were built for Africa's desert plains. They fought for their lives against nature. They saw their dear comrades die of starvation. Human existence IS suffering.
>On the first argument, though, i think this is a silly matter. I believe you should read on the antinatalist lit-
The Philosophy BRAINLET interrupts the STEM MASTER, showing his lack of education, for he hasn't even gone to a real colllege. He is a "self taught" "philosopher", who read "Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, the list goes on..." he claims.
The philosophy BRAINLET, thus utters:
>b-but you can't..... you can't know nuffin......
The STEM CHAD decides to not waste his time with this BRAINLET again, and goes back to coding a new update for Clash of Kings. His phone rings. It's his hot wife and her hot friend asking him to get home quicker. CHAD is in an open relationship (for him only, his wife is prohibited to talk to males), and is going to enjoy a life full of sex, money and happiness.

Morality isn't real you fuckers. I could rape and murder someone right now and the world wouldn't give a fuck. Morality is basically how effectively power between biological organisms organizes itself so they all fulfill their desires (or the most powerful.)

It's no different than a physical mechanism, like a char engine or a forrest.

The evidence is right in front of you fuccboi. The hand punching you doesn't give a shit whether you can see it or not.

Attached: serveimage-15.jpg (1280x720, 88K)

Imagine arguing that people should be able to take all your stuff because they have more money than you, thinking that this sounds smart and pragmatic

Perhaps my phrasing was a bit poor as I got mixed up refuting the other claim. The intuition develops a morality. The morality is not a code of practically applicable normative claims but also an axiom on which you base reasonability. Therefore science stems from morality which stems from intuition. Nevertheless you are being a bit of sophist focusing on poor phrasing.

Well if you define real as "has causality" then suppose that someone is raping a child so you shoot him. Would you say your morality killed the guy and thus has causality and is real by the definition giving above?

The rates of suicide and depression are quite high actually and given you choose an anti natalist framework if your initial claim is correct then suicide is a good thing.

>do you have any evidence for that unjustified statement?
>sure, just look at these other unjustified statements people made before
beginning to wonder if philosophylets are actually retarded

this is your brain on christcuckery

Why are they unjustified and why is yours not?

how does it feel to know that all the money you spent on adult kindergarten was to learn nothing of value and believe in lies? you've wasted your life buddy, your pride and worth as a human being rests on a lie. you are useless.

I'm a comp sci major. Philosophy is just a hobby. Nevertheless you are resorting to ad hominem.

how are all of u this dumb? “””should””” doesn’t matter

Physical reductionism is brain cancer holy shit

The Philosophy BRAINLET doesn't understand he's agreeing with the STEM CHAD.
>"of course the rates of depression and suicide are higher in the west right now. We've lost the will to live. There are no more the old European spirit. The conquering spirit. The die for your country in was spirit. No more cock and ball torture by the church. You're free to have sex whenever you want, with whoever you want. There is nothing hold your conciousness back. You can rationally delude yourself to do anything. There is no more real suffering. The kind of suffering humans were built on. Death, starvation, wars, social exclusion. All the traits human evolved to struggle with, were set back then, in Africa, and live within our genes until now. Not acting on those impulses are what drives our rate of mental illness so high. You are an animal. A collection of chemicals. Your "awareness" comes from electrical signals within the chemical soup that calls itself "chemical soup" known as the brain. Stop acting like you're some kind of transcendental entity and that your depression is caused by some enviromental problem. It isn't. Accept it, take your meds, and you shall be free."
Thus the STEM MASTER said.

>the world wouldn't give a fuck
Maybe if you lived with medieval raiders but I'm quite sure if the world found out they very much would care.

Why are you telling me what should and shouldn't matter if it doesn't matter, retard?

How can you argue morality and philosophy are not real when they are literally the motors of our societies, look at the fucking pyramids, do you believe science got them made? yes, but science cant justify their existence at all

You need a telos to have any goal-directed behavior. Only a complete fool would maintain that one end is as good as the next.

>if I redefine morality to mean whatever I want it to mean I can win this internet fight
you do you man

I'm not sure how this goes against morality. Morality has never claimed to be a scientific enquiry. It's a practical one. It's about bringing out the best enviroment for humans.

I’m telling u what does and doesn’t matter jfc

But you just said the brain is a collection of chemical matter. How does it not depend on the environment then? By your words sadness immediately depends on the environment. And there are many whose meds don't cure their depression. Do you assume meds will inevitably be constructed that will solve this? You do not have evidence for that. Nevertheless you have changed the topic to biological determinism when I was talking about the nature of suffering and retracted your original statement on depression and did not address anti natalism.

dreams and thoughts are the wind and science are the sails that we use to navigate the ocean of reality

Why should I listen to you? All your arguments are bad and stupid.

>be king
>want big stupid pyramid
>tell people
>you get big stupid pyramid
this is your philosophy. this is the extent of your morals.

I'm simply explaining what people mean when they say morality is a pre requisite to science. If you are merely arguing that my phrasing and choice of words is poor then I concede.

Why do you want it? You dodged the question.

Do you think people can more easily reach their dreams in the scientific paradigm of today?
I would disagree. Science is completely powerless ir actively harmful without social and ethical direction.

so how can you say they are not real when they get you a big stupid pyramid built that lasts 3000 years?

doesn’t matter, the pyramid is getting built

But that wasn't even the objection.

ur bad and stupid

>philosophy doesn’t matter
>b-but that wasn’t the objection

But it doesn't matter if I am, it only matters if you are (and you are)

science is a tool, it doesnt do anything unless we want it to, the problem with modern society is that is literally out of our control now, we have surrendered control to capitalism. Think the mickey mouse wizard apprentice segment of fantasia.

>That’s an enforcement mechanism, not a proof of an inherent value system
there's no inherent value in anything, you can shove your stone tablet up your ass you monkey

How can you be so sure?

It doesn't need to be out of our control. We can rearrange society to take back control of science from the few and the corrupt.

no u

>from the few and the corrupt

thats not what i meant at all, capitalism is a decision making algorithm, we have automated decision making, there is no one at the wheel running this thing.

wtf I love being a nihilist now
I never thought about it that way, so I guess I'll stop doing things for reasons now.

Capitalism isn't an algorithm, because an algorithm is a sequence of steps to obtain some result.
Capitalism is a world system and mode of production. It has no goal or direction in and of itself. It is production for the sake of production. All producers in the capitalist system produce as much as possible to obtain profit only so they can fund more production. There is no algorithm here. An algorithm would imply some degree of economic planning and societal goals. That's what we need to avoid chugging right off the cliff just ahead.

What would suggest otherwise? Which inherent value system do you latch on to?

Philosophy is a science and was the first science.
Without it no science would exist. Nowadays it serves the same function, creating new sciences.

0.1/10

Name one (1) science philosophy has “””created””” in the last 100 years.

Alchemy, which then led to chemistry
>Islamic and European alchemists developed a structure of basic laboratory techniques, theory, terminology, and experimental method, some of which are still in use today.

>in the last 100 years
behold: the philosopher

oh my bad, and no I'm not much for philosophizing

Whatever I say won't be good enough for you.
Psychology, Sociology the list goes on

>Science can't answer this question and therefore the question is flawed

Alright stemtards explain why my dad doesnt love me scientifically

He did