Who are some other essential meme philosophers?

sam harris
actually new atheism generally

well, "meme" philosophers I don't know, but if you want to read more essential bullshit-busters try hume and husserl.

Philosophy is useless. Spend your time on something with tangible results.

>>1986067
*tips fedora*

>>1986067
Life is pointless. Spend it how you like.

>>1986067
>Spend your time on something with tangible results.
why?

>>1986067
>useless
define.

>>1986044

What do you think is the primary factor behind Stirner's success on /his/ ?
Is it autism?

>>1986074
His success on /lit/.

>>1986078

Well, and was that because of autism?

Like, he's not a good philosopher. he's not important either. Moral skepticism has fallen out of favor for a while.

File: 1479672608712.jpg (819KB, 2039x2048px) Image search: [Google]

819KB, 2039x2048px

>>1986074
comedy goldmine

>>1986074
But it's the autists that get butthurt by his existence as they can't comprehend people not giving a shit about their inane bullshit.

>>1986088

It's very easy to understand Stirner, it's just bad philosophy which appeals to autistic people since they have a problem understanding more abstract concepts.

File: Egoist Stirner.png (27KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x500px

>>1986082
he was successful on /lit/ because of his logic skills as well as excellent prose and sense of humor.

>he's not a good philosopher.
his writing is logically flawless, when it comes to validity it's only him and other phenomenologists who don't have literal jumps of reason in the bases of their ideas.

>he's not important either.
to whom? "importance" is relative term.

>Moral skepticism has fallen out of favor for a while.
with whom? "favor" is a relative term. also, your head is buried in the sand if you think moral realism isn't exponentially decreasing as a viewpoint. it's hard to keep ideas afloat that have no evidence in this day and age.

>>1986082
>he's not a good philosopher

That's like, just your opinion man. I think he's a fantastic philosopher.

>he's not important either.

He utterly destroyed idealistic left-Hegelianism.

>Moral skepticism has fallen out of favor for a while.

The majority has never dictated the philosophical merit of ideas, ever. Moral realism has always been the standard position because philosophers most often work from a premise of "I want this to be true, and so will work to make it true." The fact is, you'll still never find an atom of good in the universe.

>>1986093
>bad philosophy
explain how it's "bad".

>more abstract concepts.
such as?

>>1986097
>yfw cern discovers the good particle

>>1986093
He never claimed it's hard to understand Stirner. He claimed that autists tend to freak out when you don't like what they like.

>its just bad philosophy

In what way?

>>1986097

>The fact is, you'll still never find an atom of good in the universe

See, this is autism.

>Moral realism has always been the standard position

No it hasn't.


>>1986098

It's bad as in it's easily refutable.
Abstract concepts such as pretty much everything he calls a spook.

File: spooks.png (3MB, 1468x5376px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1468x5376px

>>1986102
>It's bad as in it's easily refutable.
refute it, then.

>Abstract concepts such as pretty much everything he calls a spook.
what? abstract concept =/= spook, it's the function of an abstract construct relative to your position that makes it a spook. here's the material if you'd like to educate yourself instead of making posts with no claims and no supporting arguments.

>>1986102
>See, this is autism.

In what way? My point is that "good" exists only in our heads, and there's no reason to think otherwise.

>No it hasn't.

Yes it has. Western philosophy has been utterly dominated by the likes of Plato and Aristotle, who were both very much moral realists, even after them you had utilitarianism and various other forms of consequentialism as predominant positions, which are again, moral realism. There was a brief period where post-structuralism came into the fore, but that was never anything more than a handful of mostly French thinkers that got a lot of attention.

>It's bad as in it's easily refutable.

Then go ahead and do so.

>>1986107

>refute it, then.

It has already happened anon, you're basically asking me to refute the theory of the luminiferous ether. Do you want books on moral realism?

>>1986112
Oh, I can't forget deontology from the likes of Kant, which is another form of moral realism (also the deontology of the church, which was a huge influence in moralistic philosophy).

>>1986102
>>Moral realism has always been the standard position
>No it hasn't.
12 year old who grew up with moral relativism and doesn't realize it wasn't always that way

>>1986112

>In what way? My point is that "good" exists only in our heads, and there's no reason to think otherwise

Then you're not up to date with the arguments. Emotivism is shit, error theory is shit, relativism is shit and so on and so forth.

>>1986114
if you can't easily refute it, then it's not easily refutable. didn't you just >>1986102 right here that you could refute it easy?

>Do you want books on moral realism?
maybe to wipe my ass with. can you sit down right now and make a logically valid moral realist argument, based in observable, tangible evidence?

>>1986114
>it's easily refuted
>but I can't do it

Kay.

Philosophy isn't a science. New ideas being popular doesn't invalidate old ideas. You still have people arguing for Aristotlean realism these days.

>>1986120
you know kant's moral realist arguments have no basis in reality, right?

>>1986122
>Then you're not up to date with the arguments.

You keep talking about these elusive arguments. Why don't you go and make one and we'll see about tackling it.

>>1986126
I wasn't claiming they did. I was just bringing them up as an example of moral realism that was once prominent in philosophy.

>>1986131
why bring that up? moral realism was debunked in the 1800s by the phenomenologists.

You just know this guy will point to Marx's ravings as a "refutation"

>>1986135
Wow, guess who wrote in the 1800s?

>>1986123
>>1986124
>>1986127

Moral antirealism is easy to disprove, the arguments for it are really bad while the arguments for moral realism are pretty decent. That doesn't mean I'm going to waste time arguing it with people here, the same way I don't waste time arguing against flat-earthers. As I've already said, if you want books or articles I can tell you some you can read.

>>1986135

>moral realism was debunked in the 1800s by the phenomenologists

lol

>>1986138
It's weird people bring that up. Even Marx didn't see fit to publish that, and radically changed his thinking shortly after, almost like he realized the man had a point or something. Even among most Marxists, the German Ideology is considered noteworthy only for laying out Marx's theory of history (which is actually pretty noteworthy if you're the type that's into Marxism, but it's still not considered noteworthy for its ideological criticisms, and largely considered a product of the early "idealistic" Marx known as "young Marx").

>>1986144
>the arguments for it are really bad while the arguments for moral realism are pretty decent.
?????? it would be so easy to prove by posting these arguments. didn't you say they were easy to refute? prove it.

>>1986145
post a counter-argument maybe?

>>1986140
tons of moral realists, they continue to write stuff to this day because most of the world believes in spooks.

>>1986144
If it's so easy to disprove, why don't you do it? Is it because it you can't? Are you too stupid to do something so easy?

I suspect it's because you can't, and do so on the grounds that every other point you've brought up so far has been stomped flat.

>>1986154

>it would be so easy to prove by posting these arguments. didn't you say they were easy to refute? prove it.

Have you ever argued with a flath earther? Do they stop after you give them the arguments? No.

Again, if you want books I can give you book that are a bit more up to date with their arguments than people from the 19th century.

>>1986156

>UH-UH IF IT'S SO EASY TO DISPROVE THE FLAT EARTH WHY DON'T YOU DO IT


My inability to convince flat earthers has nothing to do with the validity of the flat earth theory and everything to do with their minds.

Are you guys this afraid of books? It is because you learned philosophy on wikipedia?

>>1986163
Nobody is going to run off and read your fucking books, because he discussion effectively ends. Saying "you can read this book" is tantamount to saying "I'm not here to participate in a discussion, please shut up and leave rather than challenging my ideas." It's cowardly and moreover, it's pathetic; you fucking wretch.

>>1986163
>Have you ever argued with a flath earther? Do they stop after you give them the arguments? No.
but you haven't given me any arguments. I don't understand the analogy. you don't want to give a basic argument because some people are stubborn?

>Again, if you want books I can give you book that are a bit more up to date with their arguments than people from the 19th century.
I want an argument. if you have any refutation of stirners works, or an argument proving a moral realist concept, show me. if you read and understood these books you speak of, you'd be able to. can you only respond with red herring, appeal to authority and other fallacy?

>>1986169
>My inability to convince flat earthers has nothing to do with the validity of the flat earth theory and everything to do with their minds.

This isn't a matter of it being denying scientific fact. You can't find empirical proof of morals.

>>1986173
adding to this, it's also technically an argument from authority. "I'm right because these people say so". that's not even remotely necessarily true. scientology is right because l ron says so has the same amount of validity. how about an argument?

>>1986173

Yes, flat earthers say the same.

>>1986175

>but you haven't given me any arguments

Because it would be a waste of time, I can give you books, which actually make you more knowledgeable of the subject than a bad conversation on a taiwanese pictograms board.

>appeal to authority

oh god

>>1986169
how are random books even relevant? give us the counter-argument you say exists instead of giving us more red herrings.

>>1986180
I thought you said counter arguments were easy? if that's true, why have you spent all of this time appealing to authority instead of producing an "easy" counter argument?

>>1986180
>it would be a waste of time to make an argument
>but let me waste all this time telling you it would be a waste of time

I'm losing sleep to your stupid faggotry. Goodnight. I'll check back later to see if an actual argument crops up.

>>1986180
>Yes, flat earthers say the same.
aquinas fags also tell you to read instead of give you arguments, and they're super fucking wrong. according to your logic where comparing people's behavior to flat earthers makes them wrong, comparing your behavior to aquinas defenders makes you wrong.

>>1986182

>how are books on the subject relevant to the subject

am I being memed?

>>1986189

I'm not losing time, writing this responses takes me half a minute. Writing all the arguments, support for the premises and then debunk what wikifags think are good objections would be a waste of time.

>>1986190

>aquinas fags also tell you to read instead of give you arguments,

And they're right, you should read, it's good for you. I disagree with Aquinas but at least I read the relevant parts.

>>1986195
>how are books on the subject relevant to the subject
if their material was relevant you'd bring it up instead of just talk about it. talking about the books is irrelevant. did you know there are literally six thousand books that refute your claims? what I just said is equally relevant and valid.

>Writing all the arguments, support for the premises and then debunk what wikifags think are good objections would be a waste of time.
I thought you said it was easy? now you're acting like it's hard? what?

do you have an argument yet? literally every single one of your responses has been 100% fallacy avoiding actually refuting stirner's work at all costs.

because you can't.

>>1986195
We do read you colossal faggot. We're not going to chase after every random book because you think it's the truth straight down from God. You're probably some 19 year old nobody who just discovered their first moralistic philosophy and thinks it solves the human condition.

>people think that in order for moral realism to be the case literal atoms of moral goodness must exist physically lmao

This is what happens when retards don't grow out of their scientism phase lol

>>1986205
how else do you prove something exists?

>>1986200

>if their material was relevant you'd bring it up instead of just talk about it.

So you are interested! Good, two nice books on the subject are Ethical Intuitionism by Huemer and Taking morality seriously by Enoch.

>I thought you said it was easy? now you're acting like it's hard? what?

Is it easy to prove the earth isn't flat? Yes. Is it easy to prove the earth isn't flat to flat earthers? No.
Same thing.

>because you can't.

lol

>>1986203

>after every random book

Nice, you shouldn't, that's why I suggested books that aren't written by some randos.

>You're probably some 19 year old

The moral anti-realist calling someone else a teenager. Oh, the irony.


>>1986206

haahahhahahahaha

>>1986208
>two nice books on the subject are Ethical Intuitionism by Huemer and Taking morality seriously by Enoch.
now explain how these works refute stirner.

>Is it easy to prove the earth isn't flat? Yes. Is it easy to prove the earth isn't flat to flat earthers? No.
Same thing.
try me. you haven't even tried to present a relevant argument.

>>1986208
Well? How else do you prove something exists? Laughter isn't an argument.

>>1986211

>now explain how these works refute stirner.

They don't refute stirner as in they care about who he is because frankly nobody does aside from this board. They do offer argument for moral realism, which is something that if true makes stirner arguments invalid.


>>1986212

It wasn't supposed to be an argument, it was supposed to be scorn.

>>1986208
Enoch's arguments have no basis in reality, only opinion, just like all moral realists.

File: 1464515440573.jpg (42KB, 588x597px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 588x597px

>>1986208
Well you're wrong just look up the books You're Fucking Wrong by me and I'm Sorry But You're Not Making Any Arguments by Dicks McGhee

>>1986213
>They do offer argument for moral realism, which is something that if true makes stirner arguments invalid.
alright, now explain this ever-so hidden argument. does it exist or are you just assuring us it exists? I've seen and read plenty of moral realist arguments, they all have bases in subjectivity. what makes these ones different? can you say or are you just talking out of your ass and dropping a lousy argument from authority?

>>1986213
so you only have emotions and no arguments? what?

>>1986206
Just read a book man there's so many books explaining this shit like jeez I'm not gonna waste my time arguing this shit my time is so valuable that I'm going to spend it telling you how I don't waste my time just listen to what these other guys say about loser THEIR WORD IS GOD

Hey buddy, do you prove 2+2=4 by finding atoms which support this?

>>1986215
>>1986218
>>1986219
>>1986221


You guys reaaaaaally don't want to read. Truly a wikipedia generation. Is it because they cost too much? You can find them on library genesis if that's the problem.

>>1986222
the image this guy posted >>1986218 is exactly why "read a book" isn't an argument.

do you have an argument?

>Hey buddy, do you prove 2+2=4 by finding atoms which support this?
you'll have to ask a mathematician, I'm not interested in numbers, nor are they relevant to this argument, just like everything else you respond with.

do you have anything at all to say that's relevant to refuting stirner? aaaanything at all?

>>1986225
Yeah, one ought act morally

Stirner btfo

>>1986225

>the image this guy posted >>1986218 is exactly why "read a book" isn't an argument.

First, the guy you're quoting isn't me.
Second, again, it wasn't supposed to be an argument, it's just a tip. Read books written by people who have read relevant arguments on the field, understand them, are smarter than you and can explain them decently. Or, you could be stuck in a pol-tier belief where people in the field actually studying this stuff are all inside a conspiracy to deny the truth of stirner.

>>1986223
you should read "logical investigations" by Husserl, "Relevancy for Cognitive Science" by gurwitsch and "structures of the life-world" by schutz. all of them disprove moral realism. until you have read these, everything you have said is wrong.

>>1986229
>Yeah, one ought act morally
prove it.

>>1986231
but I am extremely well-read in philosophy, and I demonstrate this in my ability to produce relevant arguments and identify your consistent lack of relevant arguments.

do you have a relevant argument yet? most of your last post was lowly ad-hom.

>>1986236

>all of them disprove moral realism

They sort of did, back then. Not now.

>>1986242
prove it. or is this yet another claim with no supporting argument? is that really all you know how to do?

not making moral realism look good with that behavior.

>>1986241

>and I demonstrate this in my ability to produce relevant arguments

I haven't seen even one.

>and identify your consistent lack of relevant arguments

And that proves you're "extremely" well read in philosophy?
hahahahah my fucking sides, a 3 years old kid could understand that, as I've never intended on making even one argument about the subject, for reasons I've already explained.

>>1986245

You guys seem to be under the false impression that I want or need to prove it to you.


The only reason why I entered the thread was to understand why stirner appeals to members of this board despite it being completely snobbed anywhere else. I think it's because people that are often on this board and similar ones tend to have problems grasping stuff that isn't basically mereological nihilism because they're aspies or on the spectrum or have those tendencies.

>>1986251
I still don't see a relevant argument. do you have one or not?

>>1986255

>I still don't see a relevant argument.

Your eyes are working fine. Hope you use them to read those books. Do you want a link to lib gen?

>>1986251
>You guys seem to be under the false impression that I want or need to prove it to you.
Certainly seems like you need to prove something by all of this responding to us. I think what you're trying to prove is that you know that stirner has been refuted. That's what you've been trying to use fallacious arguments to prove all along.

Amusingly enough the only way to actually demonstrate you know stirner is refutable is to refute him, yet you try sooo haaaard to prove that he's refutable by doing everything but refute him.

Whether you like it or not, you've demonstrated it's important to us that you know he's refutable. Why not prove it? Refute him. Right now.

>>1986257
still no argument. do you have one or not?

>>1986261

>yet you try sooo haaaard to prove that he's refutable

What? I've never tried to do that lol


>>1986262

Here you go

gen lib rus ec

Dots instead of spaces

>>1986268
>does something
>"I didn't do that!"
>doesn't even provide a supporting argument as to why they didn't do what they did
moral realists in 2016.

>>1986276

Should I provide an argument?

>>1986268
>hurrr I was pretending to be retarded
okay?

>>1986283

You too, should I provide an argument?

>>1986067
Philosophy and ideology have tangible results on the tendency toward behaviours in collectives and individuals.

>>1986074
Because you can sum the whole thing up in under a minute.
>>>/wsg/1406149

>>1986067
How's this for a tangible result?
*unburdens self from morality and uses newfound freedom to throw a grenade at you*