I've been reading through Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries on ethics and I'm feeling dissatisfied from what I've read. I come from a background in social science and I've bought into the relativism meme. That is, I tend to think that ethics and morality are subjective.
But, I really hate that when you try to pin down an ethical dispute as a relativist, you can never arrive at clarity about the dispute. Instead you arrive at a place of inaction and paralyzing uncertainty. I was hoping that I could find a ethical tradition that would acknowledge the subjectivity of ethics, but actually find a way around to solve problems and not be as dissatisfing as consequentialism or utilitarianism.
Do you guys have any suggested reading on ethics that might help or be interesting to read?
Ethical is kind of lopsided these days. You're either within the analytic liberal ethics tradition, shit like Rawls and social contract theory and so forth that mostly departs from Early Modern thought, or you're some kind of crypto-theist like Alasdair McIntyre or Paul Ricoeur, basically in the German idealist tradition of Christian "love" (agape) overcoming division and forming organic social wholes. If neither of those sounds good to you, well, you're an eclectic by default.
You might look into Habermas' theory of communicative action. Or Anglo-Hegelians like Brandom, on Hegel's practical philosophy and the modality or attitude of communication that neo-liberalism lacks. Frankly, analytics (like the SEP article you read probably represents) are pretty arid by comparison.
Most of the really interesting ethical stuff of the past 150 years, in my view, takes brotherly love and comradeship as basically an a priori ethical good, assumes (also a priori) that the current state of society is shitty for various reasons usually related to capitalism, and then talks about how to live the life of a warrior, a principled guy, a knight of faith, a secret noble, and so forth, WITHIN those conditions. Either until the day comes that civilisation is good again, or in grim resignation that civilisation has only ever lived in the hearts of the noble few, in any given epoch.
Try to give Blackburn's Quasi-Realism a go.
Ethics are intrinsically related to metaphysics and epistemology you can't study it separately from those.
Why do people pretend to like this? It's literally a soap opera plot with a ton of muh religion mixed in. There aren't even any good descriptions of anything.
>>9815378
It's reddit's favorite book. That ought to tell you everything you need to know. Dostoyevski is pleb filter
there are definitely some boring parts but sections like Yosima's backstory, The Grand Inquisitor, and the entire Ivan book, and the trial/ending make it worth it.
>>9815378
My thoughts exaclty; but I keep thinking about giving Dosto a second chance for all the praise he gets. Should I?
I got a girl coming over next weekend. Is this the best book I can listen to?
>>9815191
Why don't you just inject a load of estrogen straight into your balls?
start with the greeks
>>9815191
Grow a pair and fuck the bitch
Why the fuck did you guys trick me into reading this shitty meme book?
Because he rapes his sister, Phoebe.
How long did it take you to read it? It's not exactly what they call a "brick".
>>9814219
What book?
explain
>>9814026
Hobbes: life in a state of nature is nasty, brutish, and short, so we need a state to curb our all too human proclivities
Rosseau: muh noble savage
Freud: trauma, alienation, separation, repetition compulsion, and sexual desire
>>9814026
Unconscious drives.
Repression and desire.
Eros und Thanatos.
Hideaki Anno.
We must first consider the historicity of spongeous matter in relation to these three fine gentlemen. In 333 when Hobbes first carved in cuneiform the Magna Carta he had in mind a way to cross the Manche. "Sponge!" he exclaimed with the power of ten Zeuses, 6 Ave Maria and 12 little niggers. To attain sponge in that era, one had to look for the magnifice Homo Spongerectus which prompted him to write "The Leviathan" in which he outlined his plan to build a gigantic waterbeast made out of these spongy individuals which will be used to cross the channel. Rousseau, another fine gentleman, who lived in 1666 when Hobbes leviathan was finally finished fought to release the sponyfers from the class conflict they were entangled in by forces outside their control. He succeded and sponges were were, but OH NO. Years in captivity made the spongies docile little women. At round this time, one of the spongy women, Dora went to consult the great crabtacular autistrian psychoanalfucker fruid who lent her his watch and they all danced in the sun and we realized the fault in our stars. The End
whats the best book you read this year?
>>9812966
JR. Recognitions will likely surpass it
>>9812966
>freckles
would not bang.
Growth of the soil - hamsun
>>9812966
>smokes
dropped, shit taste edgelord
I am everything you want to be.
>>9811660
No that would be Achilles.
>>9811660
Wait he's not a cute girl
>>9811667
Achilles was a petulant faggot who had everything handed to him by fate and divine forces.
Hector is just a very brave and competent man defending his family and country.
Would rather be Hector desu.
pls respond
>>9810338
'bout philosophy 'n' how Marx fucked up
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/hegel/section1.rhtml
>>9810338
phe·nom·e·nol·o·gy
the science of phenomena as distinct from that of the nature of being.
an approach that concentrates on the study of consciousness and the objects of direct experience.
of
expressing the relationship between a part and a whole.
spir·it
the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.
it says right on the tin laddie
>following christianity
niggas can't even agree on anything lmao
>>9808655
lol ever tried the redpill? God is true and liberalism is destroying whiteness and masculinity
>>9808655
No religious community agrees on a universal doctrine.
>Catholicism
>"Christianity"
Christianity means following Christ. Catholics are worshipers of Nimrod and other pagan God-Kings.
Could anyone point me to some edgelord thinkers/philosophers/systems of thought that are sympathetic towards the ideas of societal collapse, collapse of civilization, human extinction, and so on.
I'm interested in seeing something like this too, the implied contradictions seem like a good laugh.
>>9808037
OP here, I'll add to the question that I'm also interested in thinkers that might be proponents of violence, sexual degeneracy, and general immorality/amorality to achieve this 'collapse of humanity'.
Now, I'm not talking about thought traditions that might be permissive of such acts, but specifically see them as an means to an end.
>>9808037
Varg Vikernes
Ted Kaczynski
Pentti Linkola
Can you fill it for me , /lit/?
>>9802271
>Harry Potter
>Infinite Jest
>Reading Harry Potter ironically
>Paradise Lost/Don Quixote/Shakespeare
>the Greeks
>the Sumerians
>>9802271
Orin
Avril
Charles
Hal
James
Mario
homework threads are getting stupider.
How is it that some books are worse than Lolita yet somehow perfectly legal, even in Britain.
>>9815210
becuase of the conspiracy to breed out whiteness of course. Have you not taken your redpill today?
How is it that someone still wants a book to be illegal in this day and age?
>>9815233
Bet you think Hitler was 'bad'? Heh, I remember when I was a brainwashed drone
it seems the aim of life is money
how pitiful, a truly pointless existence
apathy and despair, the only feelings I know
long for freedom from all that I know
absolutely nothing you can do
or say
or think
changes the fact
the only fact
held before you
life's a waste
and no instruction manual
do whatever
no one's in charge
not good at anything
no will for anything
dragged along
like a mule
taking lashings along the way
for something he didn't ask for
a prisoner in his own room
where the drain is less
slowly dying
letting the days waste him away
whatever
So I read Crime and Punishment about 5 years ago when I was 14 (McDuff translation). I wonder if it was all in vain and that I didn't understand any of it. Do I have to read it again? I remember quite a bit of it.
What did you get out of the book? You have to analyze your own thoughts on it to see if it was really in vain.
>Do I have to read it again?
Is there a gun to your head?
Well if you didn't understand any of it, then what was the fucking point of reading it?
How do I get myself to read. I always want to but then I sit in front of my computer and suddenly it's evening.
>>9814910
Set a timer. Start off slow, like 10 minutes twice a day. Force yourself to read for that amount of time no matter how you feel.
>>9814910
Find a book that you can get lost in.
>>9814910
Just read 2, 5, 10 or 20 pages at a time. Do this everyday and suddenly you've finished a book. Start reading by forcing yourself to.