Provide a refutation

Then there's zero point in caring what neocons like MacIntyre think.

Nietzsche destroyed him

he destroyed Nietzsche who was just another product of the same decay he criticized

Well I heard him being referenced by Christians so he's on my to read list, but I'm not sure what's his argument.

Vatican II

Exactly what was stated. He's a neoconservative (this is where the Christianity comes in). He's making a quibble within the broader Liberal tradition by arguing that virtue ethics are necessary to maintain Liberalism, because we can only achieve Communism (in the "post-scarcity no one has to work" sense) by maintaining and continuing Liberalism.

This sounds absurd if all you're going off is vague terms but let's remember that Christianity is the grandmother of Bolshevism. All Marx really did was remove Yahweh from Hegel, and Hegel was very deeply Christian. "The End of History" is just Christian Eschatology but without Jesus. All MacIntyre (and the Neocons who aren't Jewish) is really doing is just putting Jesus back into that materialistic Hegelian framework.

Is it really that controversial? He ultimately advocates being virtuous and shitting on the current retarded post-modern zietgeist. Basically the end state of 90% of functioning adults over 25

MacIntyre isn't even a Neocon, he's all-but still a full-on Communist even after converting to Catholicism. But he's a professor so it's to be expected.

Nietzsche agrees and claims to be a part of the decay he criticized.

Do people ever actually read Nietzsche?

I'm saying that's the reason that MacIntyre doesn't see him as a solution to anything and rejects him as having a destructive impact on history

I'm giving Catholarpers the benefit of the doubt here and just pre-emptively doing
>implying that anyone except the pope can be both a communist and a catholic
But if you are stating that the arc of History and Progress is guided by a deity and not just ~abstract forces~ and ~dialectics~, I think it is fair to call your Communism into question (hence why I say he's just a religious materialistic Hegelian).

There's a whole clique (leftcaths) out there now that basically attempts to reconcile Catholicism with Communism - the USSR was the most moral society to exist thus far, but it would be even better if they had banned abortion, the Pope only condemned certain aspects of Stalinism but check out this Orthodox Stalin icon, etc.

Actually, I think this sort of thinking will catch on more in the future - if we take seriously the idea that Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism, we ought to expect a degree of reconciliation between these traditions like eventually happened between Catholicism and various Protestant sects. Post-war morality indirectly draws on Nietzsche quite a bit to attempt to ground emancipatory political thought, however, it's difficult to see how Nietzsche's thought can do this if we're honest about it. In short, if you emancipate yourself from Christian values, don't be surprised if society also emancipates itself from concern for the weak, poor, marginalized, ethnic minorities etc. in the long run.

There’s nothing to be solved or saved

So, he's yet another Liberalism shill. Discarded.

I don't get it. So we don't have the same understanding of morality we did in the past. So what? What reason do you have to think that morality was correct in the past and not now? This is just the same tradition is better crap christcucks have been preaching forever(or at least since they became the dominant religion).

I don't understand how to reconcile MacIntyre's historicization of morality, and emphasis on its fundamentally social nature, with his Catholicism (in which case God literally declared what the moral law is for all time). If Catholicism is true morality is not social or historically contingent, it is what God says it is.

these are his points in the book?

No.

Aristotle not Aquinas

Analytical philosophy is inherently self-refuting and is unambiguously inferior to dialectical traditions. I still recommend this book since it manages to use the wrong methods yet reach a relatively truthful answer.

If anything, it seems to prove that morality is entirely relative, since we’ve been operating just fine with an entirely different understanding of it.

If we lost all knowledge of physics, with careful observation and experimentation, we could reconstruct that older understanding. If we can’t do that for morality, that suggests it isn’t something eternal and objective.

>If we lost all knowledge of physics, with careful observation and experimentation, we could reconstruct that older understanding.
Even better modern physics has lost the ancient understanding of a lot of it's terms and is better for it. Matter, force, vacuum, and energy all had different meanings for the Greeks that are scientifically inferior to what we now mean by them. His comparison with science is bad for his argument.

ITT: people arguing about a book none of them has read

This
I’ll admit I’ve never read the book and I’m just browsing the thread.
Yea Forums would be so much better if people actually read the books they discuss before talking about them.
However here’s a piece of advice that might help both the OP and the anons on the board:
Read the book in its entirety and make notes, writing down its most important points and ideas. This will help you memorize and absorb what it read.
Then, if you want to make a thread about that book, make sure to post a picture of the cover (or something related to the book, like fan art. Just avoid unnecessarily distracting pictures like soft core porn)
Share the notes you wrote with other anons so even those that are unfamiliar with the book can get an idea of what it’s about.

user already did that

welcome to Yea Forums

all of this is nonsense. where do you people get these ideas.

WELCOME TO Yea Forums

Pseud: The Post

I think MacIntyre is talking about the historical character of moral interpretations of societies more than morality itself. He is talking primarily about the justifications for moral theories as theories of what behavior is required.
If the justified morality is the one that allows man to realize his telos in the worship of God, we cannot say that it evolves in its finality and in this sense it cannot be historical, but we must agree that the particular rules of ethics that allow to touch such a telos are dependent on the social structure which is itself a historical construction, and it is perhaps in this sense that we can call morality historical. MacIntyre's point is above all the historical development of moral philosophy.

i think you may have a somewhat inaccurate idea of what "after virtue" is about, user

What do I need to read before this to achieve full understanding? I have Utilitarianism by Mill and Metaphysics of Morals by Kant

>If the justified morality is the one that allows man to realize his telos in the worship of God, we cannot say that it evolves in its finality
What is this finality? Define it. What allows us to best worship God and how do you know? The issue I have is the total vagueness as to what telos even means concretely.

I thought it was a pretty good description of Macintyre's politics.

Based on what? Certainly nothing in After Virtue, where the basis of liberalism and conservatism is criticized throughout and marxism at certain points as well. The writer of that post has never read the book. He probably "reads" only youtube videos by other illiterates.

>This critique of liberalism should not be interpreted as a sign of any sympathy on my part for contemporary conservatism. That conservatism is in too many ways a mirror image of the liberalism that it professedly opposes. Its commitment to a way of life structured by a free market economy is a commitment to an individualism as corrosive as that of liberalism. And, where liberalism by permissive legal enactments has tried to use the power of the modern state to transform social relationships, conservatism by prohibitive legal enactments now tries to use that same power for its own coercive purposes. Such conservatism is as alien to the projects of After Virtue as liberalism is. And the figure cut by present day conservative moralists, with their inflated and self-righteous unironic rhetoric, should be set alongside those figures whom I identified in Chapter 3 of After Virtue as notable characters in the cultural dramas of modernity, that of the therapist, who has in the last twenty years become bemused by biochemical discoveries, that of the corporate manager, who is now mouthing formulas that she or he learned in a course in business ethics, while still trying to justify her or his pretensions to expertise, and that of the aesthete, who is presently emerging from a devotion to conceptual art. So the conservative moralist has become one more stock character in the scripted conversations of the ruling elites of advanced modernity. But those elites never have the last word.

Hegel is also very clearly not a believer of christianity but a borrower and manipulator of its traditions and formulas. He was influenced by Böhme who was an actual christian though.

Attached: Screenshot_20220509_020542.png (793x978, 406.45K)

he refuted himself later by going full retard Thomist

>Modern systematic politics, whether liberal, conservative, radical or socialist, simply has to be rejected from a standpoint that owes genuine allegiance to the tradition of the virtues; for modern politics itself expresses in its institutional forms a systematic rejection of that tradition

None of you have ever read the book please stop speaking in this thread.

I dont get that impression at all reading the posts

How about you contribute your wizened interpretation instead of being a smug dickhed.

Because you didn’t read the book you faggot.

I showed how the retard who thinks he's a neocon and communist is wrong here .

This is also a representative statement of MacIntyre's argument in the book. This is a pretty good question. The implications of his historicization are not fully worked out in After Virtue and its compatibility with catholicism hardly touched on.

>It scarcely needs repeating that it is the central thesis of After Virtue that the Aristotelian moral tradition is the best example we possess of a tradition whose adherents are rationally entitled to a high measure of confidence in its epistemological and moral resources. But an historicist defence of Aristotle is bound to strike some sceptical critics as a paradoxical as well as a Quixotic enterprise. For Aristotle himself, as I pointed out in my discussion of his own account of the virtues, was not any kind of historicist, although some notable historicists, including both Vico and Hegel, have been to some greater or lesser degree Aristotelians. To show that there is no paradox here is therefore one more necessary task; but it too can only be accomplished on the larger scale that the successor volume to After Virtue will afford me.

He does indicate that not just virtue but rationality itself is based in practices, the narrative order of human life, and traditions, so it's not like he gives no reason for finding this kind of historicism plausible. But he's covering a lot of ground in this one book, and I haven't read his others yet.

Attached: Screenshot_20220509_034253.png (614x621, 187.59K)

It's compatibility is touched on more in pic related.

Attached: 418VYmTrKQL._AC_SY780_.jpg (333x500, 17.74K)

he said literally nothing in those words. Is it that difficult to convey your ideas clearly and straightforward? It is unnecessary to create an imaginary world and to avoid explaining your hypothesis. Can't he say "i think that because this and that"?

This board isn't for you.

I do intend to read his others. I appreciate how he avoids the reflexive historicism of many historians, among others, and the antihistoricism of say Strauss, and academic philosophers generally.

Speak for yourself. It's a very well-known philosophy book. It shouldn't be a surprise that many people on Yea Forums have read it.

Just read it and supplement your reading with articles and secondary literature if you're really struggling. If you intend on reading every author's influences before reading their work you'll never end up reading their work. Plus you can always go back and reread it once you're older and more learned. If you're too systematic about your learning you'll become bored, lose the curiosity driving you, and hardly anything you read will stick.

I refute it

I have provided you with a refutation, now where's my cookie?

Judging from this thread maybe one person read past the first chapter.

Genaology of morals

Are you including yourself or do you not count as part of Yea Forums?

Shits gay yo