/lit/ - Literature

>>21246723
well, people bigger and stronger say you are wrong, therefore, you are wrong by your own logic
Go act even a little but in accordance with that philosophy and see how shit your life becomes instantaneously. And in the end, your dumbfuck philosophical takes are still just your stupid fucking opinion

>>21246754
People bigger and stronger than me can only prove me wrong by beating or intimidating me into submission (or in other words using their MIGHT to assert their RIGHT over me) and in the process confirm my assertion

>70-100 IQ: ME STRONG. Me take women and food me wants
>100-130 IQ: Let's band together, organize an army, and kick the strong retards ass and rape his women
>130+ IQ: I invented a nuclear bomb

>>21246772
yet they confirm your assertion, and then use their authority to deny it. Either you are correct, and therefore those in power decide "right makes might", and ergo, you are wrong. OR, you do not respect those in power and their decision, ergo would be wrong from the start

>>21246723
as obvious as 1+1
>Verification not required.

>>21246786
You are interpreting maxim incorrectly. Its not "people with might make right", but might itself.
Take for example nazi germany, the state that followed this most blatantly and openly in recent times. Their defeat didnt refute their assertion that morality is a sham and that brute force solves all problems, just that they werent the strongest (hitler admitted that much at the end).
Its the justice of nature and the only justice that matters

>>21246786
>>21246848
Actually now I realized my example is too modern and cringe. Go read Melian Dialogue instead to see what I mean

>>21246723
>>21246772
>>21246780
>>21246848
>>21246863
All you've proven is that might/power is what makes things, this is obvious. Power is... the ability to do things.

Now, whether what might makes is "right", depends entirely on who is holding the might. And what one conceives of right.

But the typical "might makes right" mindset is really just nihilism with a more confusing and edgy name. Essentially, expression that there is no cause or ideal intrinsically worth fighting for, when there's adversity and uncertainty of victory, therefore you should just go with the path of least resistance and always follow the most powerful.

Seems pretty anti-human to me desu

>>21246772
Is there where hoppean argumentative ethics came from? It is literally the same argument except instead of violence it generalizes to self-ownership (to argue you need to use your body to argue, hence proving I'm right by performatic contradiction)

>>21246848
I agree OP

Once people realize that, every time someone says racism and discrimination should be fought against, someone will ask "why?" and then affirm "my race comes first".

>>21246723
Might is right is on its face such a dumb principle that I doubt even midwits could hold it. At the same time, lowwits don't really think either, so it seems that might is right is only the principle for people in the 90-105 IQ range. Anyone dumber than that is not capable of reflecting on principles at all, and anyone smarter than that would immediately realise that using power prudently requires defining what the prudent use of power is, or in other words, devising some sort of principles which justify and direct the use of might in an optimal way.
The only semi-reasonable excuse for this bullshit that I've seen is (IIRC) Joel Davis' claim that "might makes right" is a historical claim, quite unlike "might is right" and its ethical claim. In the limited field of setting the historical record, it is certainly reasonable to claim that "might makes right" - in many cases, contrary to what is actually true, correct and right.

>>21246871
I would argue the exact opposite.
There is no point to value systems if you cant enforce them. Its just meaningless abstract unless you have power to project it on to physical world.
Its entirely incompatible with nihilism since rejection of all value system makes their enforcement impossible. How can a powerful nihilist ever exercise his power to make "right" if by default he doesnt believe in "right" and considers entire action meaningless. But the phrase itself definitely implies subjectivity of morality.

160+ iq= might makes might

>>21246723
All you need to understand ethics and morality:

>>21246913
I think of might makes right from the perspective of natural, and atomic laws.

>>21246913
There can be no imprudent use of power since using power itself defines whats prudent.
When caligula ordered his soldiers to stab water (imperator also comes from latin verb impere, "to command"), he was 100% in the right and also doing a good thing since there was no one strong enough around to stop him

>>21246723
you don't know what primordial truth is lmao, fire blood steel is just a modern idea you came up with. ancient people would think you are retarded

>>21246772
Paradox disproves theory friend. Its called reconciliation and it needs to happen before a philosophical framework should be taken seriously.

>>21246929
can confirm, am 160+ IQ

>>21246723
This is proof high IQ correlates with stupidity.

>>21246723
Morality or "right" is an hygiene function of the collective human organism intended to promote evolutionary health in perpetuity. Violence or "might" is a subsidiary function of morality for protecting the organism against predators and particularly competing humans.
Weak thinkers believe "Might is right" asserts that the truth is an inversion of this, that morality is subsidiary to violence. This can appear to be true in the short term on a historical scale, but logically makes no sense if you have a remote understanding of what morality is.
What "might is right" really means is what you think it means. It could mean "morality is what you can get away with".
It could mean "violence is important and cannot be neglected by races and nations".
It's an intentionally vague statement that only sticks in your mind because it's catchy and it rhymes, like a Cheerios commercial. It's an old world glownigger psyop for goyslops like you.

>>21246956
> no one strong enough around to stop him
lol any fag could have walked up and strangled that twink

>>21246723
Why not both?

>>21246942
So in a historical sense then? Because naturally atomic laws have nothing to do with ethics or principles, and could not possibly have anything to do with them.
>>21246956
What if you use power to slay your entire family and then regret it and get lonely? Wouldn't that be an imprudent use of power?
>"b-b-but that's a stupid fucking example! no one would ever do that!"
Besides the point, and also wrong. There were plenty of aristocratic feuds between fathers and sons, for example - a typical case is the Norman ducal family, and then later on the Plantagenet monarchy. Whether the father or the son wins, to slay one's own blood was deemed a sacrilege, and avoided like the plague. Why? Because regardless of the political situation, it is imprudent from the perspective of any ethical human being, even if that being may not possess precise knowledge of ethics itself.
>When caligula ordered his soldiers to stab water (imperator also comes from latin verb impere, "to command"), he was 100% in the right and also doing a good thing since there was no one strong enough around to stop him
And yet is it not clear that his authority and popularity was undermined by such an action? How is that not imprudent, seeing how actions like these are precisely what wore down his power and influence, and resulted in his assassination?

>>21246981
>Morality or "right" is an hygiene function of the collective human organism intended to promote evolutionary health in perpetuity.
Completely disproven by the fact that what is currently peddled as morality is transparently dysgenic. The entire concept of human rights (laughable self-refuting pretense), "bedrock" of it has enabled weak, botched and superflous to breed

>>21247005
>Because naturally atomic laws have nothing to do with ethics or principles
On the contrary, they are the foundation.

>>21247019
In what sense? In that without atoms there would be no humans and consequently no human conception of ethics? Yes, sure, but that's obvious. In the sense that ethical positions can be derived directly from atomic laws? No, that would be utterly absurd.

>>21247023
You think I'm crazy? Ha! You'll see.

Didn't read
Plus frog is cringe

>>21247026
Stunning argumentation.

sophistryniggers SEETHING

>>21247035
I'll fucking kill you.

>>21247005
>What if you use power to slay your entire family and then regret it and get lonely? Wouldn't that be an imprudent use of power?
If no one is able to stop or punish me for it, how can it possibly be clear that I am in the wrong for doing it?
Also getting lonely and regretting it is a sort of inflicted self-punishment for an act you werent strong enough to see through.
Think about raskolnikov, he wasnt in the wrong for killing old hag and her retarded sister, he was in the wrong because he was too weak to be able to live with it. If he didnt break down and confess he would be completely in the right to do what he did, and more.

People who talk about primordial order and might makes right come across as either too stupid or too coping to understand the subtleties of power in 2022

>>21246971
what is a philosophical framework that is devoid of paradox?

>>21246723
>the pen is mightier than the sw--ACK!

>>21247075
can you teach me these subtleties of power in 2022? as far as I can tell there are weapons and prisons behind every entity with power.

>>21247064
Alright grandpa. Go take your meds now.
>>21247065
Your Raskolnikov example debunks your very point though - from what you have said, we can conclude that might is indeed NOT right, certainly not for everyone. Following that principle seems to have resulted in disaster for Raskolnikov, so it certainly cannot be deemed universal.

>>21247035
>stunning argumen--ACK!

>>21247092
Even if you could kill me, it wouldn't make you the one who is right - at best, it will make you the one who is left.

>>21247098
that's good. this one can live.

>>21246723
>160+ IQ: Kantian ethics sublates your entire 14-year old retard dialectic by demonstratively being the mightiest ideology ever created, acting as a highly causally relevant regulative ideal for all aspects of world politics

>>21247085
Might is right retards look at prison guards and think they’re the powerful ones. The people who have connections and money have the power, usually nerdy geeked out green beans and dumpling shaped old men

>>21247112
>n-noumena exist because I say so!! okay?!!?!!

>>21247119
>The people who have connections and money have the power
and might in the form of prison guards and cops and soldiers. you call me retarded yet you look at a gun and call it powerful, ignoring the person pointing it at you.

>>21247125
Oh yeah thanks for reminding me about guns to further destroy your “primordial order” logic

>>21247134
why would they? might is might. the swordsman loses to the wrestler at wrestling and is then stabbed. the swordsman was right. you're backflips aren't looking too solid, these gymnastics.

>>21247137
wow my grammatical mistakes in this post are inexcusable. I am turning into an old man

>>21247122
>10-25 IQ: "n-noumena exist because I say so!! okay?!!?!!" is a meaningful point in this discussion

>10-15 IQ: Row Row Fight da powah! black lives matter!
>130+ IQ: Today i am going to sell Che Guevara t-shirts

>>21246723
meds