Philosophy Discussion Thread

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I won't pretend I expect this thread to go very far, but why not give it a shot? Sisyphus pushes the boulder up the hill, knowing full well his task will never be finished, that a finality will never be reached; in the end, our lives and actions mean no more than his. Will we cower, like a dog beaten, or will we stand in the face of Meaningless Nothing and proclaim we are not afraid, that we will live in spite of this void and in rebellion against the nihilistic depression others succumb to? Is there any purpose to life other than its verb: to live? Is there any goal to existence other than its: exist?

<end unnecessarily dramatic intro>

Philosophy is depression in its purest form; to be philosophical is to be ill.
It is an error of the mind, a disgusting sickness, to think in a metaphysical sense.
To obsessively ponder about purpose and meaning in a universe so clearly devoid of these things
should be classified as a type of psychosis.

— Poetics of Death

To begin: what is your philosophical stance, NSG? What track does your train of thought travel at 3 AM?

I am an absurdist, because I find this school of thought to be the most congruent to the way I face life everyday. I do not believe there is any inherent, metaphysical, "supernatural" meaning or purpose in the universe. I think existence, when looked at "objectively," is, well, absurd. I think getting up in the morning is absurd, going to work, making sandwiches, playing sports. Life doesn't have a point so there is no goal ahead or achievement to be gained.

And I would also maintain that people should continue to search for meaning. If we wanted to assign life a "point," I think the only rational option is the one I already detailed in the intro, with all my bullshit grandiloquence: "Is there any purpose to life other than its verb: to live?"

I think we should go on living life in spite of this perceived lack of purpose. I think we should strive simply to exist in a manner we find pleasing. We should do this because we can, because we aren't cowards, because we would never be satisfied with copping out on this ontological dilemma - because it's the only logical answer to the question the Absurd asks you once you've faced it: Why?

Also: I would pull the lever. If you allow something to happen when you could have stopped it, you are at least partially to blame. There are a ton of popular quotes that allude to this Philosophy 101 inquiry... like that one by Burke, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." And I think Desmond Tutu said " If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." But yeah. I would rather be guilty of one man's death than five.

[Maurepas]

Demand to know why our Trolley system has an epidemic of people tied to the tracks.

[Zoice]

God is dead

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Demand to know why our Trolley system has an epidemic of people tied to the tracks.

All those Philosophy majors couldn't find jobs with their degrees, so they turned to lives of crime...

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

How do you respond?

[Maurepas]

Demand to know why our Trolley system has an epidemic of people tied to the tracks.

All those Philosophy majors couldn't find jobs with their degrees, so they turned to lives of crime...

I like that answer, heh heh heh.

I guess ultimately one has to pull the lever, but I doubt I'd be able to live with myself afterwards.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

Demand to know why our Trolley system has an epidemic of people tied to the tracks.

All those Philosophy majors couldn't find jobs with their degrees, so they turned to lives of crime...

They could find jobs, they just didn't want to be adjunct professors paid the equivalent of a mailman.

[The Great Devourer of All]

Obviously you pull the lever if there is no extra information given about any one of the people tied to the tracks that would make any of them more or less valuable to society.

[The Free Rational City of Rapture]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffqre27h_0c

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I like that answer, heh heh heh.

*prays it's Awesome Quotes thread worthy because he hasn't made it into the new one*

I guess ultimately one has to pull the lever, but I doubt I'd be able to live with myself afterwards.

Yeah. Last time I talked to a few people about this, they all said they wouldn't do anything - and that it wouldn't be their fault the men died.

My theory is that, as urban Northeastern members of the bourgeoisie, their culture does not confer on them a very strong sense of... well. Empathy isn't quite the right word, nor responsibility. Do you get what I'm saying?

All those Philosophy majors couldn't find jobs with their degrees, so they turned to lives of crime...

They could find jobs, they just didn't want to be adjunct professors paid the equivalent of a mailman.

It was a joke.

And I wish I got 20 bucks an hour/43k a year. I'm good at my job, been at it for years, work all weekends and most holidays, pull 6 days a week and 10+ hours a day during summer, come every single time I'm called in - and make a little over half of that.

[Dkane]

I remember I took an ethics 101 course my senior year of college. Mostly for kicks and giggles. Partly because I was friends with lots of classics and philosophy majors, and I wanted to get a basic understanding of their conversations.

The class itself was a joke (not because it was an ethics course), but I learned a bit about myself regardless. Anyways, I definitely liked Kant. I agreed with him on most things. Could probably say I'm a moral absolutist. I believe there is an emphatically right and wrong/good and evil. Probably comes from my Protestant upbringing.

I would pull the lever and save the five men, condemning the other to a quick and squishy death.

[Mugrul]

I remember I took an ethics 101 course my senior year of college. Mostly for kicks and giggles. Partly because I was friends with lots of classics and philosophy majors, and I wanted to get a basic understanding of their conversations.

The class itself was a joke (not because it was an ethics course), but I learned a bit about myself regardless. Anyways, I definitely liked Kant. I agreed with him on most things. Could probably say I'm a moral absolutist. I believe there is an emphatically right and wrong/good and evil. Probably comes from my Protestant upbringing.

I would pull the lever and save the five men, condemning the other to a quick and squishy death.

That's pretty utilitarian for a Kant fan.

[Dkane]

I remember I took an ethics 101 course my senior year of college. Mostly for kicks and giggles. Partly because I was friends with lots of classics and philosophy majors, and I wanted to get a basic understanding of their conversations.

The class itself was a joke (not because it was an ethics course), but I learned a bit about myself regardless. Anyways, I definitely liked Kant. I agreed with him on most things. Could probably say I'm a moral absolutist. I believe there is an emphatically right and wrong/good and evil. Probably comes from my Protestant upbringing.

I would pull the lever and save the five men, condemning the other to a quick and squishy death.

That's pretty utilitarian for a Kant fan.

I also study & teach Economics. It's definitely affected my thought-process on many Ethical conundrums. For example: "Five deaths in the workforce would likely have a much larger negative effect upon GPD than one death would, ceterus paribus."

[MolokoPlus]

I'll admit to being hopelessly uneducated in philosophy. As an educator, I know the rudimentary basics, but if you were to ask me about people like Camus, Kierkegaard, etc etc, I'd probably just mumble.

That said, I have paid close attention to the works of Rene Girard, even if hes more of a sociologist than philosopher.

[Great Feng]

I like Confucianism, and Progressivism(The modern version).
A mix of those two are ideal.
Confucianism is Conservative, but I want to make a more Progressivist version of it.

[Dooom35796821595]

That's pretty utilitarian for a Kant fan.

I also study & teach Economics. It's definitely affected my thought-process on many Ethical conundrums. For example: "Five deaths in the workforce would likely have a much larger negative effect upon GPD than one death would, ceterus paribus."

You've just killed the head of the IMF and saved five OAPs. The global GDP takes a loss of two percent. You lose!

[Mugrul]

That's pretty utilitarian for a Kant fan.

I also study & teach Economics. It's definitely affected my thought-process on many Ethical conundrums. For example: "Five deaths in the workforce would likely have a much larger negative effect upon GPD than one death would, ceterus paribus."

Kant would be pretty angry at you for considering those five deaths means to an end!

[Nioya]

My whole nation is basically based on the idea of the philosopher kings.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I would pull the lever.

That said I am a pragmatist with a bit of utilitarianism.

[Dkane]

I also study & teach Economics. It's definitely affected my thought-process on many Ethical conundrums. For example: "Five deaths in the workforce would likely have a much larger negative effect upon GPD than one death would, ceterus paribus."

You've just killed the head of the IMF and saved five OAPs. The global GDP takes a loss of two percent. You lose!

Obviously this was a one-time fluke. Though, we'll need to re-load the tracks with a new group of data points and run the experiment again to be sure.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That's pretty utilitarian for a Kant fan.

I also study & teach Economics. It's definitely affected my thought-process on many Ethical conundrums. For example: "Five deaths in the workforce would likely have a much larger negative effect upon GPD than one death would, ceterus paribus."

Huh, that's not really what I thought. What I thought was "well, it is one person against 5. Letting 5 lives live is better than the one in this instance, so fuck it".

Now, there are variations of this conundrum that really put you in a REALLY shitty situation, but 5 random lives against 1 random life is pretty easy.

[Dooom35796821595]

You've just killed the head of the IMF and saved five OAPs. The global GDP takes a loss of two percent. You lose!

Obviously this was a one-time fluke. Though, we'll need to re-load the tracks with a new group of data points and run the experiment again to be sure.

Nope, you've killed POTUS and saved five of his secret service.

[New Axiom]

Why are humans nice to each other?
Emotions in general serve no purpose:
Love results in happiness
Happiness usually results in ignorance
Ignorance results in stress,
Stress can lead to death.

And it's not only that. You run into someone on the street. You say "sorry." Why? Why do you both not just keep walking?

Or you smile at people, or hold the door open at the gas station. Is the other person gonna care that you smiled at them? No, it's a natural neurological response to smile back, but we really don't care. And why do you hold the door open? Is the other person incapable of getting the door? If not, then why do we hold the door?

[Tutukerala]

I am happy that somebody as smart as Pruss started this thread.

I am a Christian Existentialist. I find life meaningless and useless, and have Faith in God to help me fight this absurdity.

My epistemology is rationalism.

My metaphysics(which I am working on) is close to Plato's.


My favorite thinkers are: Kierkegaard, Camus, Aquinas, Descartes, Locke, Augustine, and Plantiga

[Christian Democrats]

I am an absurdist, because I find this school of thought to be the most congruent to the way I face life everyday.

Taking your philosophy from Albert Camus is the next worse thing to taking it from Ayn Rand.

I think we should strive simply to exist in a manner we find pleasing.

Tell me. Are you an absurdist or a hedonist and relativist?

Also: I would pull the lever. If you allow something to happen when you could have stopped it, you are at least partially to blame.

By what standard can you be blameworthy if there is no inherent meaning?