Philosophy = flailing about in the unfalsifiable miasma

Why is it considered "immoral" to daydream about killing scumbags who deserve to pay for making other's lives miserable?

I'm not hurting anyone.

>>1462400

Just invent your own invention if morally right where daydreaming about killing people is fine.

>>1462395
>https://screwplato.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/are-philosophers-giving-up-on-reason/
>Are philosphers Giving up on Reason
>uses literally one source as an argument for his thesis
>screwplato

Fuck me. Kill yourself, OP.

>>1462395
philosophers of old: How can we achieve the most virtues in order to become better people?

modern philosophers: I THINK MORALS ARE ALL STUPID AND MADE UP. THIS IS MY OPINION AND YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT IT

File: The+only+man+that+can+give+guts+a+run+for+_5cd1f606a77f0bd8433472a0e8124f11.jpg (363KB, 733x800px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 733x800px

>>1462395
you know axioms by themselves can get you pretty far so it's not that there isn't truth but we don't know how exactly to formulate it. Also you're legitimately on the spectrum

there's no syllogisms and invoking muh trilemma and proof evidence definitions??? with 90% of ph-ph-philosophy it's just completely dope non-autistic shit like "Man is meant to be overcome" or "The world is my representation". Lab monkey ass nigga what are you gonna test. You take it and if you mean it you let it fuel your ubermensch flame or you leave it like an analytical chump

File: cynical egocentric people.jpg (37KB, 488x356px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 488x356px

>>1462395
How to argue critical theory
1. Use a bunch of over complicated words to cover up that you aren't making any good points
2. End everything with ism
3. Ridicule anyone who can't understand you as being an idiot
4. If anyone argues with you yell "YOU'RE BIASED" or "THAT'S SUBJECTIVE"

>>1462502
Most philosophers today (for some godawful reason or another) are moral realists, though. You're also too stupid to comprehend the anti-realist position and should probably kill yourself.

>>1462395
>extremely obvious or extremely well justified

Is this what anti-philosofags believe? That's some spooky shit.

>guis we totally don't even need philolsophy, as long as you recognize the same super obvious truths as I do :^)

>>1463391
[citation needed]

>>1463696

>http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
>Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?

>Accept or lean toward: moral realism 525 / 931 (56.4%)
>Accept or lean toward: moral anti-realism 258 / 931 (27.7%)
>Other 148 / 931 (15.9%)

>>1463863
Why not post it with your original comment anyways?

>>1463645
See rules 1 and 3 >>1462530

>>1462395
I thought Wittgenstein had already debunked philosophy 100 years ago.

>>1463941
I thought you asked for a citation. Baka.

>read the guys attack on Plato
>"P-Plato doesn't even justify his assertion th-that vice poisons the soul!!!"

Another sheltered autist cuck who needs syllogisms to prove what life experience should have years ago

Next.

>>1463941
I'm not the guy who posted the link, I usually assume users on a philosophy board know what's up.