/lit/ - Literature

>>14148758
This desu, perennialists are all just assmad that feels < reals

>>10328864
>The fact that this knowledge is very unlikely, though, does not undermine the fact that if it was possible, it would justify someone imposing their will on you.
Let me see if I'm following you here.
>(1) It is unlikely that anything can truly be known.
>(2) It is possible for someone to impose his will on you.
>Therefore:
>(3) The person mentioned in premise 2 is justified in imposing his will on you.
That's your reasoning as I understand it, and if that's what you're saying, it simply does not follow. Might does not make right, even if "what is right" is unlikely to be known. If anything, the high uncertainty of knowledge makes it less justifiable for someone to force his will on others.

>A lot of people are harmed by their own actions, and don't understand that they are bad for them.
Perhaps you can give an example of this, because I have a hard time conceiving of something harmful whose danger is observable and comprehensible.

>even if they know they were bad, this does not imply they would have the spiritual strength required to actually do what is best - e.g. smokers, compulsive eaters, alcoholics
Perhaps this is so, but those are minorities. The average person can develop an understanding of the danger in those behaviors in getting a cough after a smoke, getting a stomach ache from over-eating, and getting a hangover after drinking too much.

>they all know what they are doing is bad, and yet they cannot help it.
They put themselves in their situations, even after experiencing impaired breathing, stomach pains, and dehydration from the first time. It's hard to break an addiction, I'll concede, but it's very easy to avoid it in the first place.

>Wouldn't authoritative imposition from a wise all-caring philosopher-king with fascist tendencies help with all that?
One man's need for help is not another man's license for absolute power over all. Morality is not a function of such arbitrary variables as the competence and spiritual resilience of a given population. If morality is subject to change, it is essentially the same as if there were no morality at all.

If someone wants help, he has a right to seek it peacefully, but that does not imply the right of another to supply help despotically.

>Isn't this exactly what doctors do, when you are sick and don't feel like eating? Doctors know what is best for you.
No, I go to a doctor's office when I'm sick, I pay him to inspect my body and interview me, and he gives me a diagnosis, advice, and/or prescription according to his knowledge of medicine (that I trust him to have). Where I come from, doctors do not coerce people into check-ups or force-feed them pills, independent of the consent and trust of their patients.