/lit/ - Literature

>>15378419
Moral realist, and I have yet to hear a good argument against it. It's all sociopaths who talk about ontological queerness, as if some gay five-dollar word and and appeal to an autistic hunch ("""intuition""") that theoretical parsimony is the single most important thing that exists (might one actually, dare I say it, posit it as inherently valuable?) is supposed to make me doubt that Ernest Cline's body of work is morally evil in a robustly realist sense.

/lit/ opposes the categorical binary of moral realism/anti-realism as yet another product of the perverted analytic brain

>>15378471
>not opposing the categorical binary that is analytic/continental divide.

>>15378455
I am sorry anon but the argument from queerness completely obliterates your infantile ontology

>>15378520
No, and it is such a profoundly shitty argument that it is embarrasing that it was ever made. First he denies the faculty to perceive the moral fact, then he denies the existence of the moral fact. That's like admitting blindness and then insisting on the non-existence of color. Further, he unironically argues that if there were moral facts, there would be convergence upon them, and then, hilariously, claims that this is not the case, when literally every single human society on earth has some form of the golden rule and prohibitions on murder.

Calling another ontology infantile is not an argument, I reject your autistic hunches, and I reject the ideal of theoretical parsimony, because you will be incapable of defending it from within your own wretched, analytical autismontology.

Mackie is a total embarrasment, and it is no wonder that he is given in ethics 101 courses across the globe. Just exactly scandalous enough that he will piss off students, and more than stupid enough that they will rip him apart in their very first half-assed term papers. He is a crude didactic tool and nothing more.

>>15378419
Morality is the domain of religion, ethics of philosophy.

>>15378555
This is getting amusing. Can you point to me where are the moral facts? Let's say that I murder someone. Where in the act is the property of wrongness?

>Why yes I am a Nietzschean constitutivist and believe that I have an objective moral obligation to make myself as powerful as possible, how could you tell?

>>15378589
>This is getting amusing.
I just wanted to let you know, belligerence and shitposting aside, this is a really, really gay thing to write. Like exceptional, stroking-the-neckbeard-while-tipping-the-fedora levels of gay.
>Can you point to me where are the moral facts?
Can you point to the number 3?
>Let's say that I murder someone. Where in the act is the property of wrongness?
In the murder, duh-duh.

>>15378555
>Calling another ontology infantile is not an argument
but calling it autistic, stupid, embarrassing etc. definitely is

>>15378624
I made the arguments in between, which I hoped you would notice.

I'll quote them for your ease:

No, and it [i.e. the queerness argument, for ease of your understanding] is such a profoundly shitty argument that it is embarrasing that it was ever made. First he denies the faculty to perceive the moral fact, then he denies the existence of the moral fact. That's like admitting blindness and then insisting on the non-existence of color. Further, he unironically argues that if there were moral facts, there would be convergence upon them, and then, hilariously, claims that this is not the case, when literally every single human society on earth has some form of the golden rule and prohibitions on murder.

Further, you might glean from my posts, if you focus intently, that I do not see any reason why ontological parsimony is desirable. I guess I just don't share the intuitions of analytics, isn't that a dang shame.

>>15378612
>I just wanted to let you know, belligerence and shitposting aside, this is a really, really gay thing to write. Like exceptional, stroking-the-neckbeard-while-tipping-the-fedora levels of gay.
It is actually very amusing because you are very confident you are right while you don't grasp where the force of the antirealist argument comes from. But it's okay, we will get through this together.
>Can you point to the number 3?
The number 3 is a property, and yes I can point to many cases where it is instantiated. For example if you have three rubbers, you can see how each rubber is a unit distinct from the other rubbers, and if you count them all together you will find that there in fact three such units. Easy.
>In the murder, duh-duh.
Right, and where exactly can I observe it? I can see that the act of murder gas a certain duration, involves two human beings, a knife etc. I can see the blood splattered around and all that. But where is the property of moral wrongness, can you point it out for me?

>>15378688
>But it's okay, we will get through this together.
Again, and really, in honest to God earnesty, this is incredibly gay.
>The number 3 is a property, and yes I can point to many cases where it is instantiated. For example if you have three rubbers, you can see how each rubber is a unit distinct from the other rubbers, and if you count them all together you will find that there in fact three such units. Easy.
Exactly.
>Right, and where exactly can I observe it? I can see that the act of murder gas a certain duration, involves two human beings, a knife etc. I can see the blood splattered around and all that. But where is the property of moral wrongness, can you point it out for me?
Why yes my dear gay friend, moral wrongness is a property, and you can look at cases where it is instantiated, such as the knife entering the body of the innocent at the gas station, and see the damage it causes, and you will find that it is, in fact, morally wrong. Easy.

>>15378419
Given the way the world works morality seems impossible to me, there is just too much zero-sum going on.

>>15378757
why does something causing damage make it “morally” “wrong”

Moral realism is untenable and moral anti-realism, specifically in the form of Moral Error Theory, is consistently gaining ground in the academia.

>>15378888
Why do the rubbers on your table instantiate the number three?

>>15378894
>Moral realism is untenable
Not really.
>moral anti-realism, specifically in the form of Moral Error Theory, is consistently gaining ground in the academia.
Where? Which specific departments?

>>15378419
Someone is shagging your wife while you ponder such things.

>>15378913
>implying

>>15378905
>can’t answer
figures

>>15378910
https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/a-world-without-values-essays-on-john-mackie-s-moral-error-theory/

>>15378757
>Why yes my dear gay friend, moral wrongness is a property, and you can look at cases where it is instantiated, such as the knife entering the body of the innocent at the gas station, and see the damage it causes, and you will find that it is, in fact, morally wrong. Easy.
I am really amused by this, you play with words like a little boy and you think you have owned Mackie somehow. The number 3 is present in sensory experience and can be abstracted through selective attention (you leave aside other properties of the rubber, like its shape, the material it is made from etc. and only focus on its unity). But moral facts are obviously not present in sensory experience. I hope I don't need to explain to you why you can't smell a moral fact. So where does the knowledge of it comes from? The only thing you can actually observe during the murder is the negative emotions it produces in you, and then you project them to an outside quality of moral wrongness. And since the quality is nowhere to by found, you then assume it !UST be known by a "special intuition" even though you cannot describe its operation or how it contributes to knowledge. You cannot even intelligibly describe what a moral quality would be like in principle, because there is no knowledge of such a thing, and the concept is left obscure and indeterminate. But I am sure you are very confident that moral qualities exist, because gee, murder is wrong right guys.

>>15378925
>can't answer, and has failed to see the painstakingly developed didactic analogy
numbers

>>15378888
Lol you're getting fucking destroyed dude

>>15378929
>The number 3 is present in sense experience

Where?

>>15378937
low IQ post

>>15378929
>The number 3 is present in sensory experience
Amazing.
>But moral facts are obviously not present in sensory experience.
I see it just as fine as I see three in the number of rubbers.
>I hope I don't need to explain to you why you can't smell a moral fact
Sure, I guess the crucial question on your view is whether you can smell the number 3?
>So where does the knowledge of it comes from?
From the seeing part.
>the only thing you can actually observe during the murder is the negative emotions it produces in you, and then you project them to an outside quality of moral wrongness.
oh god oh fuck he is working from a cartesian framework oh jesus lawd have mercy
>And since the quality is nowhere to by found, you then assume it !UST be known by a "special intuition" even though you cannot describe its operation or how it contributes to knowledge.
So kind of like the number 3?
>But I am sure you are very confident that moral qualities exist, because gee, murder is wrong right guys.
That's a 10-4 buddy.

How do moral realists explain how did our brains acquired the means to produce justified true beliefs about moral claims in our evolutionary past? How could normative truths, which have no causal power in and of themselves, influence the evolution of our cognition?

>>15378937
high IQ post

>>15378944
When you look at a rubber, do you see that its a unitary thing that is not the same as a pair or grass, or another rubber, or an elephant? Very Good, now you have observed one rubber. From there it is easy to see how you can then observe a second rubber, and then a third one. Is this really hard for you?

>>15378967
medium IQ post

>>15378962
the entire existence of evolution makes most philosophers very flustered. They pretend it doesn't but you'll notice they never want anyone to talk about it

>>15378962
From within.

>>15378969
All I see are independent objects. What if I mark one of the rubbers, is it the first in a new class? Which is the "third"? If I have another two rubbers on a table w few feet away, do they make "five"? How close would they have to be to make five, anyways? Is an identical rubber a mile away "four"? What is five, by the way? I just see 3 and 2. Why are you imposing normative claims on my perception?

>>15378982
Slightly above average IQ post, but kindhearted and that's the most important thing.

>>15379002
>From within.
How is that an explanation?

>>15379002
Lol you’re getting fucking destroyed dude

>>15378419
Value?

>>15378419
morality is the will of the strongest

>>15378969
>Very Good, now you have observed one rubber.
Where does the "one" come from, all I see is rubber. Can you point to the exact place in the rubber where there is "one"?

>>15379012
Consciousness is epiphenomenal, but Internality isn't, and you're going to have accept that. Dualism is the only same option.

>>15378962
Evolution isn't real.

>>15379017

>>15379029
>Consciousness is epiphenomenal
So you're saying evolution made a black sinkhole of energy with a causal effect that is unique in the entirety of the causal mechanism matrix of the universe, in that it is not itself a further cause but a dead-end, and you're telling me evolution did all this for shits and giggles, but not only did it for shits and giggles, but actually kept it around even though energy goes into it? Or does energy not go into it, and it arises ex nihilo? Sounds kinda queer famalam.

>>15378957
>Amazing
Yes, having the visual experience of three rubbers is obviously impossible. Nobody has ever seen three rubbers. Your arguments are very smart.
>I see it just as fine as I see three in the number of rubbers.
Sure, name by which of the five senses you see it.

>>15379051
>evolution did
>evolution did
>you're telling me evolution did

stop reifying scientific models into cringy neo-Aristotelian ontologies

>>15379059
I absolutely will not.

>>15379029
So, in order to believe in moral realism, you have to adopt completely retarded, obsolete ontology and epistemology.

>>15379059
“cringe” is not an argument

>>15379065
then remain resigned to your eternal midwitdom because "evolution" is a feeding frenzy with no meaning or purpose but the consumption and propagation of species

>>15379054
>Yes, having the visual experience of three rubbers is obviously impossible. Nobody has ever seen three rubbers. Your arguments are very smart.
Nah I have seen three rubbers, I'm sure of that, much in the same way I'm sure I've seen the wrongness of the murder of the innocent at the gas station. I'm just asking you to point out the specific part of the experience where I see the number 3, since that seemed to be what the entire thing hinged on according to your previous posts my man.
>Sure, name by which of the five senses you see it.
Fuck man, you got me. I guess the same kind of sense that lets me see three rubbers? Can't be sure.

>>15379080
>a feeding frenzy with no meaning or purpose but the consumption and propagation of species
It's actually about genes. And it is that process that created every single bit of you and everyone else

>>15379076
it is when you start reifying "evolution" into some kind of autistic accountant tasked with maximum thermodynamic efficiency. wake the fuck up

>>15379080
>then remain resigned to your eternal midwitdom because "evolution" is a feeding frenzy with no meaning or purpose but the consumption and propagation of species
Thanks, you too.

>>15379087
>i-it's actually

no it's a demoniacal plane of death and hunger and nerds like you on 4chan desperately trying to sublimate it by reading Dawkins in 2020 lmao

>>15379098
>it's a demoniacal plane
>nerds like you
lol. Reality is not your dungeons and dragons game anon

>>15379093
>still hasn't responded to the either ex-nihilo or causal effect that isn't causal itself point
And you cannot stop me from thinking of evolution as an autistic accountant tasked with maximum thermodynamic efficiency. In fact, that description is so great that I will unironically adopt it and use it liberally. Your words have had the opposite effect of what you intended. You need to write in an uglier and less funny way.

>>15379093
cringe

>>15379103
Trust me, neither is it yours.

>>15379032

>>15379085
>Fuck man, you got me. I guess the same kind of sense that lets me see three rubbers? Can't be sure.
Well, if you can see a moral fact it should be easy for you to name which of the five senses gives you access to it. Go on, answer the question.

>>15379113
Do you not think animals evolved or what?

>>15379105
causality already incorporates acausal agents, it's doing it right now in this conversation we're having

>>15379112
keep shlorping that archon cock like a good suffer pig

>>15379127
genes are just the means of propagating the species

>>15379125
Nah man, I asked you how you can see the number three first.

>>15379117
Posting that picture doesn't change the fact that evolution is a ridiculous larp.

>>15379130
>gnosticfag has cock on the brain
entirely predictable cringe

>>15379130
>causality already incorporates acausal agents, it's doing it right now in this conversation we're having
How?

>>15379136
Organisms are tools for the genes to propagate themselves. In sexually reproducing species you can look at the gene pool in general as the unit under cultivation in some senses, it's all a bit bizarre.

Anyway I assume you admit humans evolved, so during this process where did something non-evolutionary come into play? Where are you getting whatever it is you're talking about

>this one moral realist chad ripping the error theorists to shreds
Based

>>15378419
quasi realist desu. “real” and correspondance with truth changes sense too frequently.

>>15379144
What a dishonest piece of shit you are, you just realized you got in a corner and you immediately try to pivot so you can avoid losing the argument. You said you can see the moral fact, yet when I push to you name the particular sense by which you access it, you refuse to respond - I will take that as a concession of defeat. Get the fuck out of here, shitstain.

>>15379154
no species are genomic archons "engineered" to trap light into every gradation of life imaginable, the selection pressures of survival have the most causal efficacy experienced from the inside/immanent to an agent's reflexive appreciation of his predicament. how do images emerge out of animal consciousness? because images are an adaptation "from the inside". at that point it's meaningless to talk about evolution in any conventional sense and your shitty hand-me-down ontology gets blown to pap

>>15379187
What is this inside and how does it interact causally with evolution

>>15379200
stop reifying evolution you git. it IS causality

>>15379215
It is not causality, it is a specific mechanism that follows causal rules. I get the impression you're so hostile because you don't really have a coherent understanding of any of this.

>>15379182
Nah my man, I said I could see it in the same way I see three rubbers, I'm just wondering where exactly it is that I see the number 3 and where exactly it is I see the moral wrongness.

>>15379220
there are no causal rules to "follow", the causal rules just formalize what we're already seeing. it is what it does. stop reifying models into retarded secular mythologies

>>15379236
How is it a mythology to state that we evolved?

>>15379187
>species are genomic archons "engineered" to trap light into every gradation of life imaginable
>>>/x/

>>15379246
because that fact alone can easily be integrated into a gnostic worldview, like I've done. you're just playing in the kiddie pool. evolution isn't some overdetermining teleological force selecting for "efficiency", it is what happens and what happens is what happens, there are only worlds of perception eating each other until there are other worlds of perception adapted to other conditions, and on and on

>>15379266
Evolution selects for whatever barely manages to survive and reproduce, that's it.
>worlds of perception eating each other
What are you talking about exactly, how are you reconciling this with evolution

>>15379256
>nooo be bloodless and sterile like me

you people are ghouls

>>15379159
Are we reading the same thread? Seems like not

>>15379278
evolution doesn't "select" for anything jackass, if a meteor took us out tomorrow would it have selected for that? there is life until there isn't, and the in-between is feeding time at the zoo. get a grip.

>>15379278
what do you think I'm talking about? I'm talking about life in the wild

>>15379159
Looks like we're reading the same thread

>>15379285
Evolution does in fact select, that's literally part of its basic definition, the varied reproductive fitness of different genes. If a meteor hits and extinguishes all life then there is nothing for natural selection to act upon, it requires the replicating entities to get started.

You are curiously reticent to explain in any detail your actual perspective and how it meshes with the fact that we evolved.

>>15379295
Is this what you do all day? Reply to yourself to cope?

>>15379300
I told you: "evolution" is a demoniacal principle, being locked in a deterministic causal machine is the condition for anything like an idea of gnosis to begin with, if you don't believe we're "tossed into" into the universe but "tossed up" by fluctuations of matter with no hope for escape then there is no satisfactory account for how this split between matter and mind, nature and the symbolic, etc. emerge except AS the notion of divine "sparks" imprisoned in organicity. these sparks are nothing but the topological "twists" that enable a being to speak/enunciate itself from the inside. every evolutionary "adaptation" has an internal component so inseparable from its "objective" cause so as to make distinguishing between the two basically meaningless. dualism is the only tenable option.

>>15379280
>bloodless and sterile
ironic coming from an incel

>>15379351
Assuming substance dualism is true, the mind would still be under the causally directed process of evolution, if it is playing any part at all.

>>15379360
yes the causally determined part of the "mind" that answers to the world-order is the psychic in man, I've been over this

>>15379340

>>15378455
How come ethics fit our "moral" intuition so well? Obviously this intuition has evolved to work in our own self interest.

>>15379367
And what are the other components apart from the psychic?

>>15379406
the body and the formal stanchion (pneuma) itself, the locus from which you speak and are spoken to. the system is disclosed to you, but in that disclosure, you overstep it but do not "overtake" it. it is a causally robust "quantum lattice" or crystal that is nothing but this maintenance of global coherence THROUGH local incoherence, and vice-versa