/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23283312]

What are your epistemic/metaphysical/ethical views, after reading so many treatises of so many philosophical schools?

[Anonymous No.23283340]

>>23283312
All of it is very context driven

[Anonymous No.23283387]

>>23283312
all knowledge is a prioristic as substances don't exist. there's only quantity. quality is quantity. nothing exists but quantity. quantity of what? nothingness. nothing really exists. the human experience is about accepting one does not really exist, and death's eternal darkness will always win.

[Anonymous No.23283591]

>>23283312
Metaphysics:
Absolute idealism

Epistemology:
Intellectual inuition

Ethics:
Deus Vult

Politics:
God-Emperor Hive-mind State expanding and imposing Order into the furthest reaches of space and time.

[Anonymous No.23283600]

It is what it is, unless it isn't.

[Anonymous No.23283624]

>>23283591
character: cringey twittertrad

[Anonymous No.23283655]

>>23283312
>metaphysics
Things exist because they can. Logic and causality are emergent, not fundamental. Like organisms, universes evolve out of randomness.
>epistemology
Truth is that which we label beliefs that are considered beneficial (for our survival). Truth is will to power.
>ethics
Open individualist utilitarianism. We are all the same consciousness, so we should try to treat others as literally ourselves. Unfortunately this doesn’t exactly make things clear. Inflicting suffering can be justified if you believe the consequences will be better. But at the very least, it prevents unnecessary cruelty.

[Anonymous No.23283660]

>>23283624
>even mentions that place
the real cringe
but also
>Common sense cannot understand speculation; and what is more, it must come to hate speculation when it has experience of it

[Anonymous No.23283673]

>>23283655
Your metaphysics discard the idea of a teleology, but your epistemology would consider this idea useful for humanity, individually and as a whole. How do you reconcile?

[Anonymous No.23283685]

>>23283660
>mentioning a cringe place is more cringe than being a personification of what that place represents

Hegel quote doesn't apply to me, I appreciate speculation, but yeah, I don't dogmatize it.

[Anonymous No.23283686]

>>23283673
Teleology is emergent, obviously. A universe in which intelligent life exists is simply one of the infinite possibilities. Not really sure what you think the contradiction is.

[Anonymous No.23283703]

>>23283686
>obviously
no it isn't

[Anonymous No.23283705]

>>23283312
>Epistemic
It's like very experience based like empiricism but I can think of things which aren't also like numbers and stuff
>Metaphysics
What even is metaphysics and is it still relevant? My metaphysical beliefs are all fictional because that's what metaphysics is. It's a fairy tale
>Ethical
It all depends on the particular situations

[Anonymous No.23283713]

>>23283655
>emergent
meaning in this context?

[Anonymous No.23283718]

>>23283703
If you think causality/logic/teleology is absolute then you have difficulties explaining why it exists in the first place. What caused causality? What is the purpose of teleology? Who created God? The simple answer is that none of these things are fundamental. They emerge from nothingness.
>why is there something rather than nothing?
Because the rule that says “something cannot come from nothing” only exists after the fact.

[Anonymous No.23283726]

>>23283713
Imagine an infinite multiverse randomly generating universes. Some of them will have causal patterns, others not. We mistakenly believe causality always existed, because this universe is apparently causal. But it’s simply emergent. I don’t like the word “contingent” but I guess one might describe it like this as well.

[Anonymous No.23283741]

>>23283686
The contradiction is that supposing both hypotheses, randomness and teleology, were equally supported, teleology is much more beneficial to us. Also, I can't see how emergence necessarily discards teleology, when factors of relation are considered.

[Anonymous No.23283742]

>>23283726
You mean to say that the principle of causation is not fundamental like noncontradiction, nor does it follow from it, but only exists by the universe we happen to live in, with no reason other than that? Do you mean more than this, or only this?

[Anonymous No.23283743]

>>23283685
>I don't dogmatize it.
Then you havn't acheived the conviction that is the result of speculation. You rather appreciate dialectic (the long road leading up to speculation), but to speculate (to see with the eye of the soul) is to arrive at the conviction which to the unitiated appears as dogma.

>the difficulty of finding being in the Mental as such and equally in the Concept of God, becomes insuperable when the being is supposed to be that which obtains in the context of outer experience or in the form of sensuous perception, like the hundred dollars in my finances, something to be grasped with the hand, not with the mind, something visible essentially to the outer, not to the inner eye

[Anonymous No.23283749]

>>23283741
>teleology is more beneficial
Maybe for you. I really like my metaphysics. I can explain it all in a few pages at most. I don’t lie awake at night asking why things exist. I know my monkey brain is adapted to this earthly environment and is not a good authority on all of existence, so I simply chose the easiest explanation that would make me focus on more practical matters, like how to get money and attract women and advance the species. I suggest you do the same.

[Anonymous No.23283750]

>>23283718
>you have difficulties explaining why it exists in the first place.
and the same goes for nothingness. Why is there nothingness?

[Anonymous No.23283753]

>>23283718
Different anon here.
>If you think causality/logic/teleology is absolute
I don't. The thing is that you cannot discard generalities that have effects, simply because we don't have its full trace. Nothingness, and what it implies, is just as hypothetical as any of those other concepts and what they imply.
>something cannot come from nothing only exists after the fact
No, that exists a priori and analytically, the very definition of those terms define that axiom.

[Anonymous No.23283757]

>>23283742
Yes. Nothing is fundamental. Literally. Absolute nothingness. No laws or restrictions. And from that, laws emerge. This is how you solve the Münchhausen trilemma

[Anonymous No.23283758]

>>23283749
>easiest
Discarded.

[Anonymous No.23283763]

Whatever Wittgenstein thought, essentially. I am too lazy to even look up what labels apply to him.

[Anonymous No.23283766]

>>23283753
I don’t talk with pseuds

[Anonymous No.23283767]

>>23283749
>Maybe for you. I really like my metaphysics
I didn't say it was something with only individual effects. Why reply thus? It is a principle of finality that has moved humanity since the beginning, and it is something grounded on causality, which I don't even need to mention. I'm not saying they must point to rationalistic metaphysical principles, but going full blown to the other side is just as dogmatic and irrational.
>I simply chose the easiest explanation that would make me focus on more practical matters, like how to get money and attract women and advance the species
Your life is dictated by what has been established as common sense, the formation of which was always a process of speculation, empirical enquiry, etc.

[Anonymous No.23283769]

>>23283766
said the pseud

[Anonymous No.23283778]

>>23283767
blah blah blah

[Anonymous No.23283784]

>>23283757
This is the guy calling others pseud, everyone.

[Anonymous No.23283786]

>>23283778
>the literal blah blah blah
such profundity such intellect

[Anonymous No.23283797]

>>23283743
Conviction is different from being dogmatic in the philosophical sense, pseud. You have no conviction, you only have a oedipal lust for authority.

[Anonymous No.23283798]

>>23283685
>millenia of tradition
>can only think about twitter
my dissapointment is immeasurable

[Anonymous No.23283804]

>>23283797
>conviction which to the unitiated appears as dogma.

[Anonymous No.23283818]

>>23283798
Twitter is the only place where that tradition can live. It is all dead outside. But there are the fetid smell and the squalor of its corpse still around.

[Anonymous No.23283824]

>>23283818
>t. doesn't know

[Anonymous No.23283825]

>>23283804
>confuses metaphysics and epistemology as the same thing
>finds it impossible to with contradiction

[Anonymous No.23283833]

>>23283824
I challenge you to cite three contemporary (from the last 50-70 years) thinkers, scholars that subscribe to German Idealism.

[Anonymous No.23283834]

>>23283825
>t. really doesn't know

[Anonymous No.23283846]

>>23283766
Your opinion was of tremendous value to me. Thanks for replying anon, I love you

[Anonymous No.23283848]

>>23283833
>contemporary
the truth is eternal

[Anonymous No.23283862]

>>23283848
>eternal
>but not presently
lmao

[Anonymous No.23283872]

>>23283862
it is always present for those with eyes to see

[Anonymous No.23283874]

>>23283312
Christian

[Anonymous No.23283887]

>>23283872
always present but not contemporarily, lol

[Anonymous No.23283985]

>>23283312
Metaphysics:
wut?

Epistemology:
I just know ok

Ethics:
wut?

Politics:
wut?

[Anonymous No.23284428]

>>23283312
>implying words are a sufficient medium to communicate ideas

[Anonymous No.23285030]

>>23283591
UNIVERSAL MIND is the God-king when all the particular minds have attained to the higher standpoint of the universal mind and necessarily know and live by the law of the universal mind because they now know themselves TO BE the universal mind.

[Anonymous No.23285581]

>>23284428
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.23285586]

>>23283312
That German Idealism and everyone who follows it must be defeated and put to shame, and that philosophy must be started again from Kant.

[Anonymous No.23285763]

I'm not sure

[Anonymous No.23287149]

>>23283312
Why the fuck did you phrase the question like that? You sound dumb and pretentious as hell. Fucking pseud.

[Anonymous No.23287202]

>>23283312
If it feels immoral, it is.
If it feels good, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is.

[Anonymous No.23287279]

>>23287149
>Why the fuck did you phrase the question like that? You sound dumb and pretentious as hell. Fucking pseud.

[Anonymous No.23287658]

>>23283312
Rationalism, idealism, and virtue ethics have always been and will always be the positions of all good philosophers.

[Anonymous No.23287686]

>>23283312
>Epistemic
Fideistic presuppositionalism
>Metaphysical
Lullian correlative trinitarianism
>Ethical
Bataillean-MacIntyran synthesis (contradictions be damned)
>Political
Schmittian decisionism

[Anonymous No.23287695]

>>23287686
>Bataillean-MacIntyran synthesis
What would that be? Aretaic excessivism?

[Anonymous No.23287699]

>>23287686
Unfathomably based schizo

[Anonymous No.23287752]

>>23287686
>I just don't get it mom! I know all these fancy big words but people still beat me up and call me a faggot :/

[Anonymous No.23287760]

>>23287752
Just say you're filtered retard.

[Anonymous No.23287770]

>>23287760
>filtered by a person who cares about the thoughts of MacIntyre
ngl boy u cute with ur naivety

[Anonymous No.23287781]

>>23287770
>>filtered by a person who cares about the thoughts of MacIntyre
Sad isn't it

[Anonymous No.23287782]

>>23287752
>webm
GET PREGNANT GET PREGNANT GET PREGNANT

[Anonymous No.23287790]

>>23287781
>he keeps coping

[Anonymous No.23287793]

>>23287770
>Bataillean-MacIntyran synthesis (contradictions be damned)
Pretty sure that's not meant to be taken seriously anon.

[Anonymous No.23287806]

>>23287752
Which words confused (You)?

[Anonymous No.23287811]

>>23283312
>epistemic
Shestovian miserabilism
>metaphysical
Shestovian miserabilism
>ethical
Shestovian miserabilism

[Anonymous No.23287830]

>>23287793
>I'm not sure if this anon understands Im several layers deep in irony or if he has gone even deeper and metagaming me
Okay you win, I shall forfeit with my dignity intact

>>23287806
The confusing part is one anon went through the effort writing all that mumbo jumbo for a joke

[Anonymous No.23287852]

>>23287830
>through the effort
>>23287686 here. I'm a pseud like everyone else on this board. Putting names together like that took a minute at most. But what's your sincere response to OP? I'm curious.

[Anonymous No.23287868]

>>23283312
Beauty is truth, truth beauty. That is all
ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

[Anonymous No.23287883]

>>23283312
for me it's a mixture of process metaphysics (bergson, whitehead, with elements of plotinus), anomalous monism wrt the mind-body problem (i.e., Donald Davidson), mentalism (à la chomsky), and phenomenology (à la marleau-ponty)

[Anonymous No.23287890]

>>23287830
I'll be serious this time, and simplify it for (You), i.e. get rid of descriptors:
>Epistemic
Fideism
>Metaphysical
Ramon Llull's theory of correlatives (look it up).
>Ethical
Divine command theory
>Political
Decisionism
Happy?

[Anonymous No.23287909]

>metaphysics
empiricism
>epistemic
skepticism
>ethics
pragmatism

[Anonymous No.23287915]

>>23283312
Whatever suit my goals at the time