If you are transferred from a worse prison to a better one, you're still in prison. — Bartricks
Schopenhauer himself would have probably took umbrage at piecemealing his systemic philosophy but ok. Also literally his ethics and aesthetics come out of his metaphysics which is based on Will and Platonic Ideas. No reason to swipe at me if you wanted to start a Schopenhauer thread though. If you want to contribute to the one I recently created where I ask about Will's connection to Representation, have at it.It's "sad" insofar as it leaves out many fascinating topics of conversation that Schopenhauer was fascinated by, such as his accounts of the world being a representations, his observations about psychology, physiology, art and much else. — Manuel
Living off a cozy trust fund has it upsides, such as one being able to afford decadent pessimist views. Too bad it doesn't work the other way around: indulging in misery doesn't make one rich.Besides, it would presumably ruin your day, were you to find something positive in the world. — Banno
Living off a cozy trust fund has it upsides, such as one being able to afford decadent pessimist views. Too bad it doesn't work the other way around: indulging in misery doesn't make one rich. — baker
*sigh*Unnecessary and unfounded ad hom. Are you a trust fund baby for writing a meaningless quip on a philosophy forum? — schopenhauer1
They can still indulge in something that has become unavailable to me. — baker
Duh. Of course one can be poor and pessimistic. Many people are. But in that case, it's that pessmism that is keeping (and possibly, making) one poor.That is unfounded and a cliche. You can be poor and pessimistic. You can be digging in a field and think in your mind the whole time "I hate this shit.. Why is life like this?" — schopenhauer1
But in that case, it's that pessmism that is keeping (and possibly, making) one poor. — baker
You do not have to have any view about life's purpose for that to be wicked.
— Bartricks
False. For one, one could justify such an act by noting that NOT bringing in those people also comes with risks. In other words, since you’re supposed to act as if people are innocent (even if they’re not), then you also recognize that not having a child can cause harm, and so both alternatives are risky, and a cost benefit analysis is needed. — khaled
Thus no matter what you do, it was just. That’s an inescapable conclusion. So the prisoners are never wrong in what they do. Although they may not be living up to God’s expectations of them, they’re never unjust. Despicable? Obnoxious? Maybe. But did they do anything wrong? No. — khaled
You’d be holding contradictory views. That antinatalism is true although a triple Omni God exists. — khaled
Yes it is. Generally people refer to “hard antinatalism” when they say “antinatalism”. Otherwise everyone is an antinatalist. Because everyone thinks that procreation is wrong sometimes. Which is the same as thinking it’s wrong generally but with a lot of exceptions. There is no hard line here. — khaled
It is easy to prove God exists. — Bartricks
Why do you think that has anything to do with it? — Bartricks
Yes, everything that happens here is just. But that doesn't imply that all is permitted. — Bartricks
then the standard arguments for antinatalism now apply — Bartricks
I am still waiting. — Sir2u
He made a thread about it but don’t bother. The “proof” was complete nonsense. — khaled
And they’re fallacious. But this is not the thread for that — khaled
Which is dodging the question. What was being asked is not what’s permitted (whatever that means) or not but what’s wrong or right. You’ve shown that acting immorally is not what God expects of you. But so what? Doesn’t make it wrong. That’s my point. In your paradigm, nothing anyone ever did was wrong. Just some of it was closer to what God wanted and some was further. But that’s not the same things as being wrong ethically. You’ve completely dodged the critique. — khaled
Your expertise? — Bartricks
It is consistent with everything that happens here being just, that some acts are right and others wrong. — Bartricks
The fact that doing X would bring about a just state of affairs, does not entail that it is right to do X. — Bartricks
Let that be my problem. I'm an extremely fast typist. — Bartricks
You want me to prove God? — Bartricks
Well, I don't think you're up to understanding it. — Bartricks
So, a little test first before I waste finger-taps giving it to you. — Bartricks
If you say so.1. All As are Bs Yes, all arse are butts
2. All Bs are Cs Yes, all bullshit is crap
3. Therefore all As are Cs No, all arses are not crap. Some are kind of nice actually
4. All As have a D No, not all arses have dicks. Some are female.
5. All As have an E No, not all arses have erections. Again some are female
6. Therefore all As are Cs that have a D and an E No, lots of arse can't get their dicks into erection.
7. Some As exist Ain't that the truth. Too bloody many really.
8. Therefore, some Cs that have a D and an E exist — Bartricks
Is this argument deductively valid: — Bartricks
You'd think "well, if everything that happens here is deserved, then I can do what I want".
But that's clearly not the case. I - we - have moral obligations to behave in some ways and not others, even though it is not possible for us to treat others in ways they do not deserve.
Why? Note, the issue is not 'whether' this is so, for it so clearly is. The question is 'why' it should be. — Bartricks
If you say so. — Sir2u
Actually, I think that the correct way to right it would have been.
1. All A are B
2. All B are C
But maybe you took a skip day when they had that class. — Sir2u
About as deductively valid as my answer. Unless you want to draw the Venn diagram to prove it. — Sir2u
Also this is clearly begging the question. You’re asked to prove that your views do not lead to everything being permissible. It’s not clear at all that they don’t. So yes, the question is in fact whether this is so, according to your views. — khaled
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.