>Thinks studies and polls have value because he trusts them blindly >Refuses to engage with any idea that isn't backed up by a "source" aka your ideas are invalid unless the group agrees >Believes in love, good/evil dichotomy, women are equal to men in all ways, morality exists, everyone's opinion is valid >Rejects the ideas of any thinker who doesn't toe the line regarding the current political climate >Rejects the ideas of any thinker who doesn't champion positivity, optimism and giving life meaning
A lot of this is applicable to just academia in general. So annoying to have to go find a source for something that you know offhand but don't know where it is said. Happened with a lot of Joyce quotes when I was writing my dissertation last semester.
Elijah Cox
Academia is for professionals, of course you need sources for quotes in a disertation.Making up quotes is so easy it's terrifying, so is misremembering them. If you think it is so bad read Karl Kraus to see what a culture of not backing up claims can do to a country's cultural life.
Robert Clark
>Academia is for professionals Professional pseuds. Name one academic who wasn't a useless faggot.
James Gonzalez
Henri Poincaré. >inb4 literally who I won't be surprised that you haven't heard of one of the most towering scientists of his time who even inspired entire literary movements and was discussing philoosphy with actual philosophers on a daily basis.
Nice how you dodged my recommendation of reading Kraus, I guess you have a talent for avoiding any kind of effort that would lead to self-improvement.
Carson Lewis
>believes morality exists
Damn, I guess 99% of great writers were novice readers. Very strange.
Jaxon Watson
>Nice how you dodged my recommendation of reading Kraus This is a board for casual discussion, either state what he says or don't bother bringing him up. This isn't a university debate club, we're just shooting the shit. In the time it'd take to read him the thread would die anyway, this is why "read X" is a stupid thing to say on Yea Forums.
Jason Allen
Yeah that was the only problem with OP's post, believing that morality exists is nowadays dissidence
Samuel Long
>This is a board for casual discussion, either state what he says or don't bother bringing him up. This is also a board for recommendation (experience tells me that's the best part of Yea Forums actually). And you could at least have bothered to ask for a title. You're clearly trying not interested but here's is a TL;DR of decades of writing >the printing press is the cancer of the world, not only it distorts facts for copyselling purposes, it contaminate the public opinion with those distorted facts and over time creates a circus of bloated statement that lead to general hysteria >this is a borderline ontological crime since it ultimately corrupts language which is every man's privileged acces to his inner world, to external reality and to the spiritual reality above it >the press is a profanation of language basically He was very prescient, the press did devolve into a carnival of dshonesty in his lifetime. This eventually lead to the Nazis who restricted liberty of press but who were nonetheless, according to Kraus, its heirs in their habit of prostituting language. Their LTI (lingua tertium imperium, a kind of novlangue they devised for the 3rd Reich) as thorougly analysed by another Germanfag named Klemperer.
>In the time it'd take to read him the thread would die anyway, this is why "read X" is a stupid thing to say on Yea Forums. Nobody cares about these dumb ass threads, they're mostly worthless, you'll get dozens of times more value from actually reading a book recommeded here than from engaging in discussion without reading anything. Use this place for what it does best, namedrops of interesting author you wouldn't hear about otherwise.
Michael Cox
True. At least OP is redpilled on women though.
Evan Taylor
>And you could at least have bothered to ask for a title Why? If you want to recommend something then state the title in the first place, what are you a fucking woman? Waiting to be asked? Jesus christ...
Dylan Evans
>women are equal to men Incel detected. >Rejects the ideas of any thinker who doesn't toe the line regarding the current political climate /pol/ detected.
Dylan Ward
>Use this place for what it does best, namedrops of interesting author you wouldn't hear about otherwise That's not what Yea Forums does best, the whole appeal is the discussion of ideas that every other website only refuses to allow/doesn't care about
Aaron Bailey
t. deranged right-wing freak who gets butthurt every time people ask him for a source instead of accepting his ramblings as truth.
Lincoln Baker
present evidence that the races or sexes are the same give me a source since you love them
Jeremiah Diaz
Novice reader detected
Bentley Nelson
brainlet detected. sources don't matter, they're a product of groupthink
Joseph Campbell
>Henri Poincaré. Glad to see some of Yea Forums still standing tall
>morality doesn’t exist That is akin to saying that in any given situation, there is no certain action that you should do, or even that one action is preferable to another, which is plainly absurd. There exists a path that will benefit you, and that is the moral path. Just because you don’t know the path doesn’t mean it isn’t there. You know parts of the path, but not the whole. You know that some actions are immoral, but when it’s difficult to make a good judgment, rather than admitting that you have imperfect wisdom, you just excuse yourself by claiming there is no morality at all.
Zachary Lewis
present an antisource for sources not mattering
Colton Hughes
Literally >muh feelz
Tyler Nelson
Source's are literally just "this group says it's so". They have no value or use beyond appealing to group think.
Leo Morris
>That is akin to saying that in any given situation, there is no certain action that you should do, or even that one action is preferable to another Yes, this is true. >There exists a path that will benefit you, and that is the moral path That's what you believe, not me.
Riddle me this, you see 3 cops gang raping a woman. What is the moral path here?
Tyler Williams
Aren’t you a source as well?
Camden Kelly
You’re correct but a midwit for feeling the need to write this Is the pic from some adaptation of the count of Monte cristo I haven’t seen?
Caleb Myers
sauce on user being a sauce?
Mason Allen
Nope, I claim no objective truth, merely my own thoughts that I honestly believe in
Bentley Murphy
2002 movie
Nathaniel White
Nice binary thinking A group "saying so" has SOME value Certainly MORE value than your asshole "saying so"
Jace Gutierrez
More like anyone who browses 4channel, bar all the mentally deranged trannies.
Mason Martin
>Riddle me this, you see 3 cops gang raping a woman. What is the moral path here? this is exactly what I’m talking about: >Just because you don’t know the path doesn’t mean it isn’t there. You know parts of the path, but not the whole. You know that some actions are immoral, but when it’s difficult to make a good judgment, rather than admitting that you have imperfect wisdom, you just excuse yourself by claiming there is no morality at all. Just because you present a dilemma with unknowns does not mean there is no morality. Or are all actions equally moral for you? I’m assuming you eat multiple times a day, so why is it that you don’t murder multiple times a day? Because you know it is wrong, and will likely lead to your suffering. Since we cannot know how to perfectly benefit ourselves in every situation, that simply means we lack the necessary knowledge to make the decision.
If you want to deal in cold hard facts, go to /sci/, art is inherently feels = reals
Colton Scott
I'm asking you specifically since you claim to be moral and know objective morality. Well?
Dylan Wilson
>A group "saying so" has SOME value Nope
Ethan Perez
Yep
Adrian Bailey
Who claimed to be moral and know objective morality? Do you believe that all paths in life are equally preferable or not? Why do you live such a similar life to everyone else unless you grasp basic moral principles?
David Russell
>so why is it that you don’t murder multiple times a day? Because I'll go to prison for decades. Because I don't need anything in this world that requires murder. Because I go out of my way to avoid other human beings and therefore develop no grudges or enemies.
Not because of some imaginary objective sense of morality.
Jacob Smith
It's a simple question, stop dodging it.
3 cops are raping a woman, what do YOU do? What is the moral thing to do?
Angel Jenkins
>Why do you live such a similar life to everyone else unless you grasp basic moral principles? The threat of prison.
The bother of interacting with other humans if I get caught.
The fact I have everything I need so why would I go out of my way to commit crimes?
Jaxon Perry
Shoot the cops They are abusing the power given to them by society to violate the basic rights of a member of given society, rights they are sworn to uphold and protect It really is not that hard because they wore a uniform you stupid bootlicker, if anything it is easier to figure out who is absolutely wrong
Aaron Reyes
right, OP is just projecting the fact that he hates women & wants to be a nihilistic racist
Hunter Carter
t. read Nietzsche once
Liam Clark
high fives
Matthew Peterson
Morality is based on self-benefit though. You are affirming its existence.
Isaac Ward
Ur an idiot
Wyatt Campbell
Morality concerns what we should and shouldn’t do. Shouldn’t we always try to do what benefits us the most? The problem is that we don’t have perfect knowledge, so we don’t know the most moral action. However, we do have an intuitive grasp of bad actions, such as murdering random people on the streets. Ultimately, it is a faith-based system of action, since we don’t know everything. Yet, causes have their effects, and time tells what actions are truly the most moral. So it makes sense that there IS objective morality, only that it is not always universal and constant. Under a materialistic, secular system of morality, lying is wrong as a rule, but perhaps it may benefit you in the long run to lie every now and then. Therefore under secularism, moral laws cannot be treated as fixed or applied to every human.
Ian Jenkins
>It really is not that hard because they wore a uniform you stupid bootlicker Would you shoot knowing you'd deal with the fallout of killing 3 police officers and all that entails? I don't think you're being realistic about how difficult a choice this is.
Aaron Gonzalez
>Shouldn’t we always try to do what benefits us the most? So you're saying stealing is ok as long as you get away with it. Murder is ok as long as you get away with it. Rape is ok as long as you get away with it.
Oliver Barnes
Why are you people still on about this? If humans don’t know how many atoms there are on the moon, does that mean there is no such thing as objective truth? Surely there exists an exist number at any given time, but your reasoning would imply that the number doesn’t exist!
Jason Lewis
You're mistaken in assuming there is a 100% right choice to make in all situations.
A man kidnaps you, your wife and daughter. He tapes you to a chair with a gun in a vice on the arm rest and says to shoot either your wife or daughter. Whoever you don't shoot will be freed along with you. You have 30 seconds or he shoots all 3 or you.
Austin Roberts
I’m saying that you should always do what benefits you the most. It would not be wise to live such a risky life as it could harm us either in this life or possibly the afterlife. But let’s just assume there is no afterlife. Then there is no reason to say that certain moral laws always apply. Surely it is possible for someone to go down a certain path through committing what’s generally considered wrong, and yet benefit much more than had he done the “right” thing. We set up these moral laws because they are generally true and guide us well in benefiting ourselves. But they cannot be treated as unalterable unless you claim they are given to us by God.
Dylan Richardson
Both decisions are tough, but that does not mean they are equally beneficial in the future. I don’t know the future, so it makes the decision almost impossible to make. How are you not understanding this? It is possible that I might kill my daughter and give birth to a son who goes on to make me very happy, and this might be preferable to killing my wife, which could result in my inability to find a suitable wife in the future and make life hard for my daughter.
Brayden Miller
>thinks morality doesn't exist >subjectivism >hedonist >only thinks entertaining literature can be good >denies God's presence in what he reads, believes only science and proven facts can be worthy of merit (any work with discredited beliefs, usually outdated science, are "bad") >religious but does not humor the atheistic thought processes that are found in many of old work, doesn't realize they were intrinsic to God's existence and the culmination of his being into western beliefs >reads modern novellas, especially after 2000 (mega cringe) >reads female authors as he would male authors, claims women can't write >contrarian or mainstream taste >bookshelf is full of /pol/core books >e-books >physical books are all in great condition with new and good looking editions >no reading chair
Henry Wood
So in other words, there is no right choice and therefore morality doesn't exist
Joshua Bailey
What kind of retard are you? One that watched too much Saw I guess What is so hard to understand of his point? The fact you dont have enough time or information to make a decision does not mean there is not a best decision Why do I allow myself posting during US times?
No, there is a right choice, but we don’t always know what it is. Similarly, just because we aren’t omniscient doesn’t mean that there is no objective truth. I don’t know where you disagree with me. Do you not think that in any given situation, there are multiple pathways, with some being more preferable to the others according the agent? Surely you do, since I assume you make moral choices all the time. Even to eat is a moral choice, as it benefits you. I think that at any given time, there is a floating arrow above our heads that objectively tells us what we should do. This arrow calculates the future and knows which action will lead to our greatest benefit. But we cannot see the arrow, we can only guess. Some guesses are easy, such as that we probably shouldn’t kill people. But just because there are tough decisions doesn’t mean the arrow isn’t there, pointing in the right direction. Life is like a chess game with infinite pieces, and we are so limited in our calculations and experience. That does not mean there aren’t good moves and bad moves.
Adam Anderson
>No, there is a right choice, but we don’t always know what it is. Then morality is worthless when it really matters
Andrew Diaz
I am not that user, but please stop posting and just think about what he said. Do you really fucking believe that an all mighty being that does not abide by reality is taken aback by a morally grey hypothetical? By your, "intellect"? You just gave me second hand embarrassment with your literal community college tier 18 year old nihilism arguments.
God, forgive this user for his arrogance, stupidity, and utter lack of self awareness; he knows not what he says.
Nicholas Perry
Well, I personally am a Christian, so I believe that there is a handy guide book of universal, fixed morals to follow in any given situation. These moral lead to eternal joy in the afterlife, so they outweigh all secular morals. Yes, my system is faith-based, but so are all moral systems without perfect knowledge. But even if you’re an atheist, you can still view morality as a guide to self-benefit and improvement. It’s nice to know why some things are right or wrong rather than believing in a circular morality (“it’s the right thing to do because it’s the right thing to do”).
Julian Evans
>if I punch that guy he’ll probably punch me >if I don’t punch him, I’ll probably be safe. Maybe I can even be friends with him >better flip a coin
>is more interested in being "right" and cool than curious and open >never rethinks opinions, never questions own line of reasoning >does introspection in order to find "the truth" instead of learning to be honest with himself >thinks others are weak when they can't cope with existence >finds empathy as something pathetic; is somehow surprised when others don't empathize with him >is more interested in categorizing than engaging >has never said "yes" to the text, judges actively and critically as he reads, as though criticism and forming an opinion of the text is the main pleasure of reading >Mistakes self-obsession for character and callousness for intelligence
Obviously not. Discussions about what is right and wrong don't become worthless because of your weird hypothetical scenario, which by the way isn't even close to showing that morality is not real. Whatever might be the right choice, it is undeniable that the man who straps you in the chair and forces you to make that choice between daughter and wife is evil.
Thomas Thomas
>it is undeniable that the man who straps you in the chair and forces you to make that choice between daughter and wife is evil. evil AND immoral
Aiden Thomas
expert reader here: >Thinks studies and polls have value because he trusts them blindly i think they have value, but dont trust them blindly >Refuses to engage with any idea that isn't backed up by a "source" aka your ideas are invalid unless the group agrees of course ideas dont need a source but a controversial falsifiable claim will be taken much more seriously if backed by some kind of data >Believes in love, good/evil dichotomy, women are equal to men in all ways, morality exists, everyone's opinion is valid love is real (and a lot of significant works of literature attest to it!), good/evil can be a dichotomy if you are speaking spiritually though its obviously not in atheistic morality. if everyone's opinion is not valid why is it bad to ask someone whos ideas seem invalid to you for a source? >Rejects the ideas of any thinker who doesn't toe the line regarding the current political climate an intelligent non reader would agree >Rejects the ideas of any thinker who doesn't champion positivity, optimism and giving life meaning plenty of legitimate reasons to do this i think
Carter Morgan
painfully obvious that youre ~17 and just read nee chee for the first time
Zachary Torres
Novice reader isn't the term I'd use. Useful idiot perhaps.
Bentley Taylor
>Refuses to engage with any idea that isn't backed up by a "source" aka your ideas are invalid unless the group agrees >Believes in love, good/evil dichotomy, women are equal to men in all ways, morality exists, everyone's opinion is valid I know this is bait but still, try to be more cautious of these things
Jace Torres
>Thinks studies and polls have value because he trusts them blindly I only trust certain authors that I believe beyond a reasonable doubt would intentionally write to mislead me as to the real nature of things. Statistics and empiricism is incredibly important though, however easily it can be used to mislead when the specifics are manipulated.
Jose Murphy
>Statistics and empiricism is incredibly important though It's worthless trash >Why? You said it yourself, its incredibly easy to corrupt the results.
Colton Ramirez
>>Refuses to engage with any idea that isn't backed up by a "source" aka your ideas are invalid unless the group agrees The purpose of sourcing claims is to try to extrapolate how you arrived at your conclusion. It has nothing to do with social credibility.
Pseud-tier list my dude.
John Campbell
>>Rejects the ideas of any thinker who doesn't champion positivity, optimism and giving life meaning
Why is this bad
Daniel Lopez
Because it's childish and pathetic that "wahh bad fee fees" turns you off an idea.
Brayden Walker
>The purpose of sourcing claims is to try to extrapolate how you arrived at your conclusion No, it's to try to play a game of "hah I have caught you in a falsehood, I win". The only people on Yea Forums who ask for sources do it because they know people are too lazy to go look for one and they can say "got you".
The pseud is you for being a passive aggressive vagina.
Aiden Baker
>becoming jaded over the incel pseuds to the point where you abandon a major part of the reasoning process Weak willed. Ignore "gotcha!" fags, they don't even want discussion, just to feel superior.
James Gray
Did you stop believing in Academia and sources after a tranny or a nigger outdebated you?
Charles Jenkins
>a major part of the reasoning process For faggots in universities. Just because it's done doesn't mean it's not fucking idiotic.
Thomas Reed
No, I stopped believing in academia and sources when whistleblowers came out and said "we basically manipulate the data to say whatever will get us the most government funding".
Adam Bennett
>Thinks studies and polls have value >Believes(...) everyone's opinion is valid. You're the only one saying everyone's opinion is valid. All science and evidence do is trash baseless opinions. Why is it that incels are giving up on science as of late?
Noah Campbell
Would love to see that.
Caleb Anderson
You mean "uhhh source?!"
Caleb Foster
I need a source on why I should disregard sources before I disregard sources?!
Thomas Morgan
Yeah well look what this “source”-obsessed culture has become and where it’s heading.
Isaiah Thompson
Yea, but how is that negative? I'm perfectly able to discuss a philosophical idea without sources, but when it comes to policy, I'd rather have them. You see, I believe the value of knowledge, whether philosophical or scientific is its ability to explain ''reality'', and sources guarantee just that.
Gavin Murphy
>and sources guarantee just that. No they don't. It's incredibly easy to manipulate a study or experiment to get the result you want to get.
Levi Peterson
>Believes in love What if you believe in life after love?
>user has no faith in science, love, nation, women, countrymen, studies/universities >most of all, no faith in god Well then that means you only believe in yourself. But how could you believe in yourself if you don't believe in anything else? What belief is there to be had with your "gut" if nothing else around you is not real?
You are a jaded, angst ridden young man, much like the ones who follow MGTOW, theredpill, and pol, and also the lot that were easily sucked in to many ideologues hands to be used as pawns throughout history (Youths recruited into the Nazi movement, communist regime, etc). I implore you to stop that way of thinking. Find God and lead a happy and simple life rather than the confused, lost, and angry one you are living now. If you continue living the way you are now, you will lose your free will and individuality; traded away for a false sense of belonging, promised by a false god (Your ego and pride, the greatest sin).
Learn to value science and the opinion of others once more. Yes, there are shills and agenda pushers, but do not become jaded and damn it all. Instead, call them out and correct their lies with truths.
Samuel Cox
But you haven't given me any reason to believe that Academy is manipulating those studies, even though you said there were 'whistleblowers' saying it. Of couse your bullshit sounds right to you if you validate your own premises, despite reality.
Joseph Kelly
Woah you're quite the cynical rebel user! I
Nathaniel Cruz
>Morality is based on self-benefit Thanks, I just got brain cancer.
Signs of someone who relies on their own thinking. ITT so many arrogant litards showing their superiority complex even though the definitely feel the same.
James Reed
like this unimaginative, sarcastic postmodernist turtleneck and oliver peoples glasses wearing deadpan
Juan Cook
Based and true
Samuel Butler
>I delivered despite expecting user not to care >no comment on the rest of the post >user calls me a woman but can' be bothered to read half a paragraph on an intresting German writer Thanks for proving my point. Why do you even engage with Yea Forums threads if you're going to not care about actual discussion? Anyway I hope some user will at least benefit from my earlier post. For those interested on the LTI Klemperer's book on that topic is simply titled LTI. The guy is Viktor Klemperer, not Otto Klemperer or Werner Klemperer. For Kraus most of what he wrote is in his periodic Die Fackel (the Torch).
Yea Forums is mostly terrible at discussions. You get some interesting takes here and there, but if you take out the memes, jokes, shillposting and other various forms of retardation you're left with maybe 5% of the board (generous estimate). And most of the good posts in that remaining 5% actually convey opinions akin to that of a competent academic (ie someone who study their subject with care and dedication).
Thanks user. We don't discuss enough the philosophy of the few philosophically based mathematicians here.
Joshua Foster
This is startlingly accurate.
Dylan Jones
>Why do you even engage with Yea Forums threads if you're going to not care about actual discussion? You're not entitled to a reply and everything you right is not worth replying to.
Nicholas Parker
I'm not entitled to them but I get them anyway. Why not simply ignore my posts? Reread the part you've quoted, I'm not puzzled people don't answer me, they do, I'm puzzled they answer without adding anything. Your own post only examplify it further.
Luke Robinson
can someone make a virgin/chad for this
Lucas Brooks
also Girdle, Grothendick, and von Neumann
Kayden Lee
*von I-simply-computed-the-infinite-sum Neumann
Jaxon Wilson
here’s my thought, and i suppose theyre informed by kant
i shoot neither, because i can’t choose, and refuse to submit my dignity. this is the only moral choice that is consistent with thou shalt not kill. my wife and daughter understand this.
however, i married a good woman. she urges me to shoot her, and let our daughter live.
this is not the right decision because i submit to act, by my own agency, immorally (killing). but i choose to live with this sin for the sake of my daughter. it will haunt me to the grave and i will never reconcile it. however, this sin is categorically different than a cold blooded murder, because the impetus of my killing was not borne out of self-love, but rather sacrificial. my sacrifice is to bear the weight of my sin so that my daughter may live. i imagine this is the sort of morality complex soldiers at war feel. it is somewhat alleviating
>Only easily made moral decisions qualify as clear moral decisions. That's a terrible argument. And he's claiming that there is an objective morality, but the nation's legal system doesn't line up with it, particularly when it comes to enforcement or its enforcers.
Zachary Kelly
Ouch. This post makes me want to be a better reader :
