/lit/ - Literature

Hes unironically based af. If you keep reading through the canon youll think he was wrong until you go all the way and realize it was the spooks you negated along the way

>>14268275
>>14268284
Dilate.

>>14268275
>le ebin relativism man
<insert kants categorical imperative here>

>>14268312
What does good-in-itself mean?

>>14268323
Human actions are good-in-itself if they are a causal product of a maxim that the given subject genuinely wishes to make universal

>>14268364
Which maxims should be universal? How are they derived?

>woah this second work of philosophy I have ever read WHIPS ASS
Oh to be young again...

>>14268373
It’s the job of the human geist to ordinally sequence the array of good-in-itself actions generated by it’s component parts. There is a concievable universe with the best possible combination of maxims governing humanity, this is where universal values “descend” from. The geist attempts to get to this perfect set of maxims over a time t.

>>14268405
>There is a concievable universe with the best possible combination of maxims governing humanity
So then there is no such thing as good-in-itself, since the whole point of the ethical system is to create the best civilization. Trying to escape consequentialism is a futile exercise in mental gymnastics

>>14268405
>It’s the job of the human geist to ordinally sequence the array of good-in-itself actions generated by it’s component part

>>14268419
>implying consequentalism can provide any moral guidance for living human beings given that we can’t differentiate between what is forseen and what will actually occur

>>14268460
All of our rational undertakings are inherently consequentialist. Our imperfections are due to our ignorance and slavery to base desires. What is the alternative to consequentialism? Doing things for no reason at all? How can anyone live with such notions in their head? I cannot understand it.

>>14268275
I'm reading it too.

It's just okay so far. I'm more impressed by the book in the context which was written than by what it says on its own (I've read around 40 pages too).

>>14268405
>which maxims should be universal?
>(implied question being what is Good?)
>utilitarian bugman answer: "best possible combination of maxims governing humanity"

kant is europe's confucius. what a dope.

>>14268275
Stirner is alright if you behave like an animal. Philosophy has already been solved lads. Pic related.

>>14268799
Christcucks need to be gassed. You are the sole reason the west was plunged into liberalism and degeneracy

>>14268805
Not true, and not an argument.

>>14268805
Stirner was a literal cuckold, you drooling retard.

>>14268799

Being an animal and behaving like one (at least, an anthropomorphised idea of how one should behave) are two completely different things. We cannot deny our place withing nature as a dynamic system. Read Bookchin.

>>14268799
Humans are just social animals who with abstract thinking.
>>14268460
We can't but we also have Occam's razor.

Only book I repeatedly come back to

>>14268424
>implying this is a list
>implying this is linear
whoa bots

>>14268323
it means
I LIKE THING HEEEHEEEEE