/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14347315]

Are you a moral realist? How did you come to the conclusion that morals are objective?

[Anonymous No.14347323]

>>14347315
Is destiny a moral realist? Pretty sure he's a moral relativist.

[Anonymous No.14347333]

>>14347323
I am Destiny

[Anonymous No.14347337]

because when the big fist smashes you into submission and explains to you the morals you follow or die you either follow them or die so objectively they're objective morals

[Anonymous No.14347347]

>>14347337
What a brainlet take.

[Anonymous No.14347349]

>>14347315
Acknowledging the difficulty of choice, which reflects that we are free. If determinism were true, actions would flow into each other without resistance of our moral sense

[Anonymous No.14347358]

>>14347347
ya? *smashes you into submission*
what now bitch?

[Anonymous No.14347374]

>>14347358
I just came fucking god that's sexy

[Anonymous No.14347423]

Destiny calls himself a descriptive egoist whatever that is

[Anonymous No.14347455]

>>14347323

Pretty sure he's a cuckold.

[Anonymous No.14347472]

>>14347315
I took 350 mg of 4-aco-dmt and talked to the goliath alligator that runs our quadrant of the universe
he told me morals are just our concsscious perception of a physical field (like electrons or protons) that haven't been discovered yet, but which will soon
i remember it was pretty convincing at the time

[Anonymous No.14347486]

>>14347455
>Destiny's "GF" stated she wants to fuck other men while Destiny watches live on stream

[Anonymous No.14347535]

>>14347315
this wikipedia manlet doesn't have a coherent position on any philosophical issue

[Anonymous No.14347555]

>>14347337
more like: If I smash your face in we will see how quickly you come up with an objective reason for me to stop doing so

[Anonymous No.14347623]

>>14347315
>morals are objective
What does that even means? Like, every time I see that being said it means something different.

[Anonymous No.14347634]

>>14347623
A moral statement can be either true or false.

[Anonymous No.14347636]

>>14347315
Buddhism has a praxis.

[Anonymous No.14347676]

>>14347634
>A moral statement can be either true or false.
In what sense of the word(s)? False against the "theory" behind said moral statement? False against some moral imperative that demands a certain action? False against some nebulous principle that often looks and feels like it was made out of the thin air? Again, what does that mean?

[Anonymous No.14347693]

>>14347315
Destiny is a decent sophist.
Obviously his ideology is questionable and he avoids difficult debaters who could seriously challenge him on that ground, but I give credit where it's due.

[Anonymous No.14347697]

>>14347693
He has debated actual academics

[Anonymous No.14347703]

>>14347697
and lost every time. When confronted with someone knowledgeable he very quickly reverts into the position of a curious student who asks leading questions only to act like an expert afterwards to the non-scholarly

[Anonymous No.14347715]

>>14347703
He didn't lose to Micheal Albert. Michael Albert even said he made better arguments than most economics professors. Albert stayed logically consistent but I think Destiny showed how his system wasn't very feasible.

[Anonymous No.14347730]

>>14347623
>>14347676
It means many things but generally it means that morals exist the same way natural facts exist, i.e. to say in situation A the moral thing to do is X means that this is true or false the same way it is true or false that the laws of nature are (e.g. gravitational pull). People who are moral relativists hold that these moral facts are mere moral fictions we utilize instrumentally to satisfy our psychological motivations, which ground in natural facts. Then there are also various forms of skeptics who hold that we cannot secure knowledge about morality or even nature (the lamest way to do philosophy, but very popular)

[Anonymous No.14347731]

>>14347697
Yet he won't talk to a nationalist who could challenge him or someone like Richard Spencer. Although he did have Alt-hype on a couple of years ago, but it wasn't much of a debate.

[Anonymous No.14347743]

>>14347731
Who cares about nationalists lol

[Anonymous No.14347745]

>>14347486
source?

[Anonymous No.14347753]

>>14347745
https://clips.twitch.tv/PleasantManlyGarbagePartyTime

[Anonymous No.14347782]

If you believe that morals are inter-subjective, as opposed to being purely subjective, and that while we might not know what is moral, there is a platonic ideal of morality, does that make me a moral realist, or not?

I would concede there is probably no one set of rules that everyone can be happy with, but I would agree that there is probably one set of rules that everyone local should agree on.

[Anonymous No.14347789]

>>14347697
Every time he starts losing he calls it a "discussion" or outright kicks them(see Nakedape debate)

[Anonymous No.14347804]

>>14347789
I'll agree with that but it doesn't happen often and when it does he surfs through the wikpedia pages and comes out with better arguments for the next time.

[Anonymous No.14347929]

>>14347315
If you don’t believe that morality is real, then why do you still eat? Why do you sleep? You must believe that these things are good for you, otherwise you wouldn’t do them. If eating and murder were not distinguishable in terms of morality then why is it that you eat three times a day, but never murder? Why don’t you act randomly? Why do you act so similarly to most people?

Now you might say morality is subjective and not objective. But I say it is both. It is subjective in the sense that morality is dependent on the conscious experience of the individual and the environment in which he is. Being moral is doing whatever it takes to make his life as most preferable as it can be. Obviously this is dependent on his unique composition as a being, as what makes him happy might not make other beings happy, and vice versa. However, just because he believes that an action is good for him in the long run, doesn’t mean it is. If only he knew all possible futures, and could understand how each path would affect his conscious experience, then he would finally see which path is most preferable and most moral. So it is often the case that what he believes is moral isn’t actually moral. And this is why I say morality is objective. Once you have the agent and the environment, morality has already been calculated, fixed, but it might be different for each person and in each circumstance. I always like to compare life to a chess game: the moral principles are similar to chess principles. We use them because they are practical and sometimes true, but that doesn’t mean the principles are permanent, and sometimes you must break the principles to make the best move. All of this slightly changes if God exists a la Christianity, because then morality is fixed and universal.

[Anonymous No.14347951]

>>14347929
Hello pseud, I am here to call you out.

>why do you still eat? Why do you sleep? You must believe that these things are good for you
This is not morality. According to Kant, used exemplary here as the greatest defender of objective morality, what you are talking about is called hypothetical imperatives, later in history denoted "instrumental reason". What is good or bad here is not good or bad in itself, it is always contingent on desires, needs and wishes and can be easily good or bad depending on the circumstances. For example, a person who eats might easily do bad when they become obese and eat in excess.

[Anonymous No.14347955]

>>14347315
Reminder to ignore all pseudointellectual rhetoriticians and instead go and read the complete works of Homer, Pindar, Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles, Euripedes, Hesiod, Aristophones, Herodotus, Sappho, Plutarch, Ovid, Virgil, Lucretius, Arisoto, Horace, St. Augustine, Marcus Aurelius, Rabelais, Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, Machiavelli, Luther, Cervantes, Chaucer, the Beowulf poet, Chretien de Troyes, Marie de France, Sterne, Burton, Browne, Wyatt, Sidney, Percy Shelley, Tennyson, Donne, Pope, Dryden, Bacon, Novalis, Schelling, Schlegel, Hegel, Pascal, Lichtenberg, Dickinson, Shakespeare, Ibsen, Dickens, Marlowe, Diderot, Jonson, Goethe, Bunyan, Gibbon, Addison, Smollett, Milton, Johnson, Boswell, Emerson, Quincey, Burke, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Mary Shelley, Wollstonecraft, Racine, Baudelaire, Valery, Rimbaud, Verlaine, Moliere, Montaigne, Browning, Gray, Holderlin, Schiller, Shaw, Voltaire, Hugo, Balzac, Zola, Colette, Duras, Dumas, Stendhal, Nerval, Flaubert, Mallarme, Malraux, Chateaubriand, Artaud, Poe, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Blake, Byron, Keats, Arnold, Pater, Walter Scott, Swinburne, Rossetti, Carroll, William James, Henry James, Hawthorne, Twain, Melville, Dewey, Bergson, Whitehead, George Eliot, Williams, Frost, Cummings, Crane, Stevens, Whitman, Plath, Trakl, Rilke, Celan, Montale, Neruda, Lorca, Tagore, Manzoni, Peake, Murdoch, Wharton, Wilde, Leopardi, Faulkner, O'Connor, Passos, Nietzsche, Marx, Adorno, Bloch, Lukacs, Bakhtin, Hamsun, Pushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy, Turgenev, Chekhov, Andreyev, Bely, Bulgakov, Gonchorov, Camoes, Pessoa, Queiroz, Saramago, Paz, Borges, Bloy, Pirandello, Huysmans, Lautreamont, Schwob, Casares, Bolano, Cortazar, Lima, Donoso, de Assis, Carpentjier, Celine, Marquez, Unamuno, Gracq, Gide, Jarry, Camus, Conrad, Wells, Hardy, Salinger, Lawrence, Forster, Hrabal, Swift, Bronte, Woolf, Bachelard, Roussel, Beckett, Proust, Nabokov, Joyce, O'Brien, Yeats, Waugh, Heaney, Auden, Hofmannsthal, Mann, Musil, Broch, Zweig, Bachmann, Jelinek, Lessing, Laxness, Simenon,Svevo, Levi, Buzzati, Quasimodo, Llosa, Walser, Kafka, Babel, Schulz, Transtromer, Kertesz, Pavic, Andric, Grossmann,Sillanpää, Linna, Mahfouz, Boll, Grass, Canetti, Pavese, Robbe-Grillet, Blanchot, Perec, Calvino, Bernhard, Gass, Barth, Gaddis, Vollmann, Vidal, Hawkes, DeLillo, Pynchon, McElroy, Soseki, Murasaki, Shonagon, Kawabata, Mishima, Akutagawa, Tanizaki, Dazai, Oe, Xingjian, Yan, Kosztolanyi, Gombrowicz, Ishiguro, Eco, Coetzee, Auerbach, Benjamin, Barthes, Pasternak, Derrida, Deleuze, Bateson, Foucault, Lyotard, Mcluhan, Eichenbaum, Steiner, Munro, Carson, Handke, Theroux, Patrick White, Alfau, Marias, Enard, Claude Simon, Elizabeth Bishop, Markson, Lowry, Bellow, Dara

[Anonymous No.14347964]

>>14347955
Do those "intellectuals" even play video games, though? Can they even BTFO nazis on youtube?

[Anonymous No.14347966]

>>14347731
He has debated many. And there are no actual academics that give a shit about nationalism.

[Anonymous No.14347974]

>>14347323
He is, I think the OP is pretending to be Destiny asking us.

[Anonymous No.14347979]

>>14347966
>He has debated many.
Nope. I know he had Alt Hype on two years ago, but it wasn't much of a debate.
He even admitted that he doesn't want to talk to people whose views are too out there, because they disagree on fundamental values.

[Anonymous No.14347981]

>>14347951
Morality concerns what you should and shouldn’t do. And what you should do is ultimately dependent on what experiences are preferable. Kant doesn’t know what he’s talking about. How can a will be good in itself? What does that even mean? Why should we be moral, according to Kant? You can’t just separate the irrational aspect of humans and create your moral system totally on reason.
>it is always contingent on desires, needs and wishes and can be easily good or bad depending on the circumstances.
Yes, if you read my post then you would see that implicitly acknowledged that fact. Morality is not necessarily the same for each person in each circumstance. To believe otherwise would require a being like God to authoritatively declare a set of rules that are always true.

[Anonymous No.14347989]

>>14347979
Dude he has debated a bunch of Nazis and ethnonationalists

[Anonymous No.14347998]

>>14347981
you're an idiot

[Anonymous No.14348011]

>>14347315
What philosophers has he read?

[Anonymous No.14348013]

>>14347989
Like who? I know he had some clown alt-lite types on, but that just proves he doesn't want to have a serious debate.

[Anonymous No.14348016]

>>14347929
Stop using johan for your senseless bullshit. Holy shit I hate you faggots so fucking much.

[Anonymous No.14348026]

>>14347337

This might be the stupidest post I have ever seen on lit

[Anonymous No.14348027]

>>14348013
That is a clown ideology and there is no serious debate to be had. But he is known for debating Nazis.

[Anonymous No.14348047]

>>14347998
No argument? You must be stumbled since you know you couldn’t answer the most basic questions about Kant’s morality? Why be moral? It must bother you that you don’t know.

[Anonymous No.14348049]

>>14347929
Didn't read past your pseud beginning but the answer is that people subjectively want to do things. Literal opposite of objective.

[Anonymous No.14348052]

>>14348027
Just admit that you're wrong, dude.

[Anonymous No.14348054]

>>14347323
he's an egoist

[Anonymous No.14348082]

>>14348049
literally next sentence

[Anonymous No.14348089]

Its fun to observe faggots, who claim that morality doesn't exist, or that it's subjective. In fact, these people are the first one to beg for mercy, and they are the first one to commit injustice.

[Anonymous No.14348100]

I don't have a big problem with his political views but god he's such a twitchfag. I wish he wasn't pandering to 14 y/o atheists, but I guess that makes more money than acually being serious about politics.

[Anonymous No.14348099]

>>14348016
Why be moral? To benefit the self. What benefits the self? We don’t always know. This is simple.

[Anonymous No.14348118]

>>14347981
We are not debating mere morality, but the objectivity of morality. If you hold that morality is relative, then yes, it is as simple as "what you should or shouldn't do", with moral norms being contingent on your natural constitution.

>Kant doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
t. hasn't read Kant

>How can a will be good in itself? What does that even mean? Why should we be moral, according to Kant? You can’t just separate the irrational aspect of humans and create your moral system totally on reason.
explained in GMoM. Read more than the Wikipedia page

>Yes, if you read my post then you would see that implicitly acknowledged that fact. Morality is not necessarily the same for each person in each circumstance. To believe otherwise would require a being like God to authoritatively declare a set of rules that are always true.
The circumstances of particular situations change the moral status of the situation, but this does not mean morality is necessarily contingent on natural facts.

What Kant sets out do is ground morality as something with an end in itself, meaning the moral law has its own legitimacy irrespective of natural law. The tool by which you can test whether any given maxim accords to the moral law is the categorical imperative.

tl;dr: what >>14347998 said

[Anonymous No.14348122]

>>14348100
>I wish he wasn't pandering to 14 y/o atheists
His whole game is predicated on him doing just that; to appear clever to teenage boys by using sophistry. He's Ben Shapiro for gamers.

[Anonymous No.14348124]

>>14347315
Destiny is big faggot

[Anonymous No.14348132]

>>14348118
>explained in GMoM
Actually, it isn’t. Hegel had the same criticisms as I’m speaking. Why be moral? This should be simple to answer, yet you can’t. Kant wants to deny the importance of consequences and personal experience, but this is just absurd. If something is good in itself, what does that mean? Should be easy to define and explain.
>What Kant sets out do is ground morality as something with an end in itself, meaning the moral law has its own legitimacy irrespective of natural law
Why should that make his system valid? Why follow it at all?
>The tool by which you can test whether any given maxim accords to the moral law is the categorical imperative.
Why care about the categorical imperative?

[Anonymous No.14348143]

>>14347349
>If determinism were true, actions would flow into each other without resistance of our moral sense
...unless determined otherwise. For some reason those most attracted to comment upon philosophy have no actual capacity for logical thought. One wonders at it.

[Anonymous No.14348146]

>>14348122
>He's Ben Shapiro for gamers.
I've noticed that and he also seems to have adopted a similar speaking style of trying to push out as many words per minute while he talks as possible (I think this is a thing taught at debate schools?).

[Anonymous No.14348148]

>>14348122
>by using sophistry
Also by cherry-picking his "opponents", which is even more important.

[Anonymous No.14348157]

>>14348122
how else is he going to pay for sex?
his entire business model is taking video game and hrt money from trannies and incels

[Anonymous No.14348160]

Why isn't it suprising that /lit/ knows so much about twitch politics

[Anonymous No.14348163]

>>14348132
>Hegel had the same criticisms as I’m speaking.
No he didn't. Stop pseuding. Hegel's criticism pertains to the formalism of the CI ending up as nothing else but the PNC

>Why be moral? This should be simple to answer, yet you can’t.
It's not a simple answer. Kant was aware of it and developed his response over the years. It pertains to the differentiation of "sinnliche/intelligible Triebfeder" (sensible and intelligible incentives) and "freier Wille/freie Willkür" (free will/free capriciousness). Read the ending of the GMoM, especially the last few pages and the introduction to the MoM. Has also been hotly debated in Kant scholarship since forever.

>If something is good in itself, what does that mean? Should be easy to define and explain.
>Why should that make his system valid? Why follow it at all?
>Why care about the categorical imperative?
read Kant and stop trying to filter his philosophy through imageboards

Your attitude will be your own downfall, pseud. No philosopher will ever take you seriously and /lit/ is the only form of escapism available to you, as your complete lack of competence is immediately obvious to anyone familiar with Kant.

[Anonymous No.14348167]

>>14347804
Lol

[Anonymous No.14348201]

No OP because i'm not a faggot.

Ask any moral realist how the moral law exists? Is it written on a paper somewhere? Is a a part of physics? They can never answer this properly without resorting to unscientific arguments.

[Anonymous No.14348208]

>>14348163
No amount of mental gymnastics can justify deontological models. I actually applaud Kant for managing to convince people like you that he’s presenting coherent ideas. But in the end he was an over-educated fool who simply couldn’t accept the importance of consequences. And yet, how ironic is it that his endorsed moral laws are indeed good because of the consequences! How else are we to determine if an action is good or not? But he wants you to believe in this vague notion of “good-in-itself.” Embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.14348210]

>>14347323
he's a retard

[Anonymous No.14348431]

>>14347358
UNIRONICALLY BASED POST

[Anonymous No.14348433]

>>14347323
he's beyond moral relativity and is a scientific anti-realist

[Anonymous No.14348441]

>>14347315
>There is a God that simulates our universe—which unfolds according to the laws of physics—in his mind. We are dissociated alters within the mind of God (Kastrup).
>He has fine-tuned the laws of physics for the existence of value—that is, living beings with free will (Leslie).
>God is benevolent, but not unchangingly perfect or absolutely powerful (Hartshorne).
>We are good insofar as we are like God and imitate his divine motives and virtues (Zagzebski).

[Anonymous No.14348471]

>>14347315
no
stop posting e-celebs please

[Anonymous No.14348485]

>>14348201
Presuppose God exists and gives us morals.

[Anonymous No.14348488]

>>14347315
Morality itself is a spooked concept. I do what is best for me.

[Anonymous No.14348497]

>>14348488
*I do what I think is best for me.

[Anonymous No.14348506]

>>14347358
*pulls your balls off*
Looks like youre objectively a woman now

[Anonymous No.14348518]

>>14347929
Who said there must be a why? You are creating a false dillemma.

[Anonymous No.14348522]

>>14347753
Fucking hell.

[Anonymous No.14348618]

>>14347347
>>14348026
don't underestimate Thracymacus

[Anonymous No.14348953]

>cucktiny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJB9Z6Q2CsE

[Anonymous No.14348967]

>>14347753
>>14348953
HOW CAN THIS EVEN BE HAPPENING? HOW DOES IT KEEP GETTING WORSE BUT NOBODY EVER GOES "WHOA WHOA WHOA... WE'RE NORMALIZING KEKOLDING, NOW? KEKOLDING????"

WHY IS THERE NO ENDPOINT TO THE DEGENERACY?