/lit/ philosophy poll

>>9262847
I'm redpilled, so

Theism
Realism
Rationality > feels
Free will
Deontology
capitalism
women back in the kitchen
segregation of races
no homosexuality or promiscuity

>>9262847
Atheism
Idealism
Empiricism
Neither
Neither
Neither

>>9262847
>1. Atheism vs Theism:
Neither (Agnosticism)
>2. Realism vs Idealism:
Neither (Linguistic idealism/naive realism)
>3. Rationalism vs Empiricism:
Neither (Epistemic pragmatism)
>4. Free Will vs Determinism:
Neither (Compatibilism)
>5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism:
Neither (Ethical pragmatism)
>6. Capitalism vs Socialism:
Neither (Agnostic anarchism)

Atheism
Realism
Empiricism
Determinism:
Deontology
Capitalism

>>9262847
1. Atheism
2. Realism
3. Empiricism
4. Neither (no free will + indeterminism)
5. Neither (normative nihilism)
6. Neither (normative nihilism)

atheism
realism
empiricism
free will
deontology
socialism

>>9262884
I almost died from yawning so hard

>>9262862
that's not what "rationalism" means in this context, cretin

>>9262847
>Those well-defined positions

This is why analytic philosophy should be banned.

Atheism
Idealism
Rationalism
Free Will
Deontology
Socialism

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-09 at 7.34.55 PM.png (676KB, 794x736px) Image search: [Google]

676KB, 794x736px

>>9262847
1. Theism:
2. Idealism
3. Rationalism
4. Determinism
5. Deontology
6. Socialism

>>9262847
>1. Atheism vs Theism:
Theism
>2. Realism vs Idealism:
Neither
>3. Rationalism vs Empiricism:
Neither (I've been known to lean towards atypical Empiricism though)
>4. Free Will vs Determinism:
Neither
>5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism:
Neither
>6. Capitalism vs Socialism:
Neither
>>9262892
Rationality is cancer, anyway.

>>9262879
Tips fedora

>>9262847
>1. Theism
>2. Closer to Idealism I guess
>3. Empiricist
>4. Free Will:
>5. Utilitarian in the aristrocratic sense
>6. Capitalism is better

>>9262890

Because boring = correct

>>9262904
>>9262886
>>9262884
>>9262879

Posts containing the word neither will be DESCARTED

>>9262847
Atheism
Realism
Empiricism
Both
Neither
Capitalism

>>9262899
What's wrong with well defined positions?

>>9262949
They tend to massively misunderstand the question in the abstract way they put it.

>>9262940
maybe the options should have been mutually exclusive and exhaustive, then

I choose JOHANN GOTTLIEB FICHTE.

Henotheism
Conceptualism
Foundationalism
Necessitarianism
Neo-Confucianism
Libertarian socialism

>>9262862
>confusing rationalism with rationality

>>9262879
>neither (agnosticism)
Just say atheism you memer.

>>9262899
>complains about the categories but then has no problem picking one for each issue
wew

>>9262955
How do they do that?

>>9262847
Theism
Idealism
Rationalism
Determinism
Deontology
pass

Put me down for homosexualism

>>9262955
That's because they were too ambiguous to start with due to not being well defined.

>>9262847
Define your terms idiot.

>>9262847

1.Theism
2. Idealism
3. Rationalism
4. Compatibilism
5. Deontology
6. Socialism

>>9262847
1. Atheism vs Theism:
Atheist Theist
2. Realism vs Idealism:
Realist Idealist
3. Rationalism vs Empiricism:
Kantian
4. Free Will vs Determinism:
Fichtian
5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism:
Deontological Utilitarian
6. Capitalism vs Socialism:
Market Socialist

1. Deism
2. Realism
3. Empiricism
4. Free Will
5. Deontology
6. Capitalism

>>9262847
Atheism in a "god is dead" way rather than a Dawkins way
Realism
Empiricism
Determinism
Deontology
can I say neither? Socialism I suppose

File: I understand you.jpg (61KB, 770x617px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 770x617px

>>9263110
I understand you

>>9262847

1. Theism
2. Idealism
3. Rationalism
4. Free Will
5. Deontology
6. Capitalism

>>9263101
I think we would get along.

>>9262847

>1. Atheism vs Theism:
Hate to be that guy, but agnostic, because I can't have a clue or really know what created our universe, so how can I have a belief about it? The only logical answer in my mind is "we don't know"
>2. Realism vs Idealism:
Realism
>3. Rationalism vs Empiricism:
Empiricism
>4. Free Will vs Determinism:
I don't believe we have free will, but it makes sense to act as if we do (we don't have a choice anyway)
>5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism:
Deontology
>6. Capitalism vs Socialism:
Capitalism

>>9262847
1. Atheism
2. Realism
3. Empiricism
4. Determinism
5. Utilitarianism
6. Capitalism

>>9262847
>1. Atheism vs Theism:
Personally, theism. Logically, agnosticism.
>2. Realism vs Idealism:
Idealism
>3. Rationalism vs Empiricism:
Empiricism
>4. Free Will vs Determinism:
Free Will
>5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism:
Deontology
>6. Capitalism vs Socialism:
Socialism

A lot of these are false dichotomies and you're not going to get anything terribly useful out of it besides a very pretty chart. Please post chart if you do one with many colours.

>>9263110
>Fichte
you got this and therefore all other ones wrong. it happens to us all

>>9262847
>1. Atheism
>2. Idealism
>3. Empiricism
>4. Free Will
>5. Deontology
>6. Capitalism

>using idealism as a synonym for utopianism rather than the antonym of materialism

I wrote a novel called OP is a faggot but it got moved to the non-fiction section.

>1. Atheism vs Theism:
What skeptical thinker would ever call him or herself an atheist?

>2. Realism vs Idealism:
What a joke of a question.

>3. Rationalism vs Empiricism:
Philosophy 101 tier, and false dichotomy. Ultimately arguments about Rationalism and Justified True Belief are contingent upon accepting a degree of Empiricism.

>4. Free Will vs Determinism:
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Philosophy 101.

>5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism:
Virtue Ethics.

>6. Capitalism vs Socialism:
Socialism as envisioned by Marx is either impossible or so far off from our present level of development as to be unworkable, but it presents a useful gadfly to Capitalism.

>>9262847
>1. Atheism vs Theism:
theism
>2. Realism vs Idealism:
idealism
>3. Rationalism vs Empiricism:
empiricism
>4. Free Will vs Determinism:
mix of the two
>5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism:
deontology
>6. Capitalism vs Socialism:
neither

>>9263226
Why do you say this, was referring to his reclamation of freedom

>>9262847
1. Atheism vs Theism:
>Atheism

2. Realism vs Idealism:
>Realism

3. Rationalism vs Empiricism:
>Empiricism

4. Free Will vs Determinism:
>Free Will

5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism:
>Deontology

6. Capitalism vs Socialism:
>Capitalism if I had to choose one, but the best is somewhere in the middle.

>>9262862
Is this bait

>>9262862
>capitalism
>redpilled

Choose one

>>9262847
Theism
This doesn't mean anything
Rationalism
Free Will
Deontology
'Socialism' as long as it has nothing to do with liberal democracy

>athiesm vs theism
religion is sickeningly manipulative, but most atheists are arrogant manchildren who completely fail to understand what draws people to it. still, i'd say atheism - it's too easy to use higher powers as justification for volitional shitty actions.
>realism vs idealism
a middle-ground leaning more towards realism.
>rationalism vs empiricism
rely upon the full capacities of both to be a better person and mould a compassionate society.
>free will vs determinism
a free will with inherent individual restrictions.
>deontology vs utalitarianism
still figuring this one out.
>capitalism vs socialism
socialism.

>>9264095
>it's too easy to use higher powers as justification for volitional shitty actions.
>socialism.
really made me think

>>9262847
>Theism
>Realism
>Rationalism
>Neither
>Neither
>Fascism

atheism
realism
empiricism
free will
utilitarianism
capitalism

>>9264095
>religion is sickeningly manipulative
t. reddit

File: Blessed-Karl-of-Austria.jpg (47KB, 368x600px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 368x600px

>>9262847
I am (unironically) a Catholic divine-right-of-kings Monarchist Thomist Distributist, which should answer any philosophical or political questions you may have.

>>9262847
1. Atheism
2. Realism
3. Rationalism
4. Determinism
5. Nihilism, Faggot
6. Capitalism

>>9266584
The only answer it gives is that your thoughts are 500 years out of date and can't even begin to tackle more complex problems like 2 through 6

File: 1489638062163.jpg (88KB, 717x880px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 717x880px

>>9264942
not an argument

>>9266622
Let me translate that for you
>"I am totally ignorant of Thomism and Distributism as well as being unaware that modern Catholic monarchies are some of the most successful nations in the world"
This is /lit/ - you should read more.

File: pleb.jpg (237KB, 500x620px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 500x620px

>>9266622
>Sees a picture of one of the most powerful and influential national rulers of the 20th Century
>Thinks the political system that he headed is 500 years out of date

My actual opinion on this stuff might be somewhere inbetween or unsure, but if I have to choose...
Atheism
Idealism
Rationalism
Free Will
Deontology
Socialism

>>9262847
Atheism
Realism
Rationalism
Determinism
Utilitarianism
Socialism

>>9266652
>modern Catholic monarchies
????

Aren't all monarchies consitutional right now?

>>9266707
No, there is one true monarcy. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

>>9262847
1. Atheism vs Theism: Atheism
2. Realism vs Idealism: Realist
3. Rationalism vs Empiricism: Empiricist
4. Free Will vs Determinism: Determinist
5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism: Deontologist
6. Capitalism vs Socialism: Socialism

1. Pantheism
2. Realism
3. Empiricism:
4. Determinism:
5. Utilitarianism:
6. Capitalism

>>9262847
>1. Atheism vs Theism:
Agnostic theism
>2. Realism vs Idealism:
Idealism
>3. Rationalism vs Empiricism:
Rationalism
>4. Free Will vs Determinism:
Free will
>5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism:
Neither (virtue ethics)
>6. Capitalism vs Socialism:
Neither (distributism)

Theism
Idealism
Rationalism
Determinism
Deontology
Capitalism

>>9262847
>1. Atheism vs Theism:
agnostic
>2. Realism vs Idealism:
not sure, leaning towards realism, but I haven't read enough about ontology to have a decent opnion
>3. Rationalism vs Empiricism:
empiricism
>4. Free Will vs Determinism:
Hard determinist
>5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism:
morality is a spook
>6. Capitalism vs Socialism:
lean towards socialism

>>9266717
lel

Can you guys read he said approximate your answer if unsure
Just write in whichever you prefer

File: 133832417523.png (545KB, 499x644px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 499x644px

>>9262847
1. Theism
2. Idealism
3. Empiricism
4. Free Will
5. Deontology
6. Capitalism

Lmao at all these special wallflowers who can't answer straightforwardly.

>>9262862
Go choke on your red pills.

Atheism
Idealism
Empiricism
Determinism
Deontology
Capitalism

>>9263095
If you seriously don't know the general meaning of those terms you don't belong on this board.

File: 1489043876527 (1).jpg (57KB, 680x496px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 680x496px

Atheism
Idealism
Empiricism
Determinism
Utilitarianism
Socialism

File: huh.jpg (5KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 224x225px

>>9266707
>FFS
You do understand that a parliamentary monarchy is still a monarchy, right?
You also know enough history to know that absolute monarchies are very rare, right?
Right?
I mean - I wouldn't want to think you have no idea what you are talking about.

1. Atheism vs Theism: Atheism.
2. Realism vs Idealism: Realism.
3. Rationalism vs Empiricism: Rationalism.
4. Free Will vs Determinism: Free Will.
5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism: Deontology.
6. Capitalism vs Socialism: Capitalism.

>>9266958
You're being dishonest. He said "constitutional monarchy", not "parliamentary monarchy".

Constitutional implies that the "Monarchy" part has been completely leeched from the politics and now only law remains.

So when you say there are lots of "Catholic monarchies", what you're really talking about are constitutional, law-based societies with representation and equal-suffrage that happen to have one pampered family out of tradition.

>>9262847
Agnostic
This is stupid.
This too.
Determinism, but not Harris style.
Neither
Communism of some sort

>>9262980
Ahahah good one

>>9266628
Not the poster, but it wasn't meant to be

>>9262847
>Theism
>Idealism
>Rationalism
>Determinism (flipped a coin on this.)
>Utilitarianism
>Socialism

File: 251f0435b7a7fa66843037226ba3c6b0bcba8553fa035fdd8e6421d1a66fe1ee.png (159KB, 460x402px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 460x402px

>>9262847
>Theism
>Idealism
>Rationalism
>Free Will
>Deontology
>Socialism

>>9262862
>>9262874
>>9262879
>>9262886
>>9262904
>>9262948
>>9262980
>>9263050
>>9263110
>>9263124
>>9263160
>>9263591
>>9263601
>>9264038
>>9264095
>>9264136
>>9266737
>>9266749
>>9266792
>>9267030
I have no idea how you fuck up interpreting an OP this easy. Go back to middle school you illiterate fucks.

>>9266681
>My actual opinion on this stuff might be somewhere inbetween or unsure, but if I have to choose...

This guy gets it.

File: Sassy-Cat-Pic-640x607.jpg (94KB, 640x607px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 640x607px

>>9262847
>1. Atheism vs Theism:
Theism
>2. Realism vs Idealism:
I was going to say realism, but the more I think about it the more I realize that I believe in idealism with God as the observer
>3. Rationalism vs Empiricism:
Rationalism
>4. Free Will vs Determinism:
Free Will - not in the meme impose-your-will-on-reality sense, but in that we can make choices independent of any happenings in the physical realm
>5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism:
Deontology
>6. Capitalism vs Socialism:
Tl;dr: Capitalism
Every system of governance will be corrupted by humans' innately evil nature - whatever limits this nature best for any specific set of circumstances is what I support. I tend toward capitalist/libertarian ideals, but I'm not married to them and I can see myself supporting a socialist government, depending on the situation. Fullblown Leninist communism, however, or fascism, or monarchism, almost always permits huge abuses of power by authorities with little to no oversight, which is why I lean libertarian (that and I'm a /g/entooman). But without enough government corporations will set up their own power structures that effectively become micro-governments of their own, with all the aforementioned problems, so some regulation is necessary. I don't think there's an ideal situation, it's just an eternal balancing game. The kind of game you can never win, only not lose for a while.

>>9266883
>special wallflowers
hey fuck you random people on the internet totally care about the intricacies of my personal philosophical system that I developed junior year of college

>>9267078
Some of those are memes, others are just snowflakes. They're trying to feed their egos off of a pseudoanonymous imageboard, do you have any idea how difficult that is? Cut them some slack, or just make a new OP that says "include a picture of yourself" and they'll all migrate to that one.

>all those determinists itt
Why haven't you killed yourself yet

>>9267082
>he doesn't know about anarchism

>>9267088
I can't, please help

>>9267088
Determinists don't kill themselves because they are predetermined to not want to.

It's not free will to put a gun to your head, it's unfree will. You can choose between two things, but you cannot choose what you will choose, so to speak.

>>9267089
>corporations will set up their own power structures that effectively become micro-governments of their own
how do you plan to prevent this? Genuinely curious.

File: 4ba8bf0da25d63794dfc987560b1953320c298a45c85e226f55cf1ffdd159a1d.png (10KB, 384x384px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 384x384px

>>9267128
Fuck private property. There you are welcome

Seriously how can you know about libertarianism and not anarchism?

>>9267088
Because nobody actually believes that every your move is predetermined

>>9267088
this is such a retarded opinion.

i don't kill myself because i'm not unhappy and don't want to kill myself. regardless of whether or not i have free will i have no desire to kill myself.

>>9267137
yes they do.

>>9267089
>he thinks anarchism throughout history hasn't boiled down to capitalism

Bartering is the natural human state, anon. That's why communism has to be forced and capitalism doesn't.

>>9262847
If I have to choose
1. Atheism
2. Realism
3. Rationalism
4. Free Will
5. Deontology
6. Capitalism

>>9267133
lmao Stirner.
Legal fictions are outflows of the reality of human nature, it's this supposed state of people not defending the fruit of their labors that is complete fiction.
NEVER OCCURRED THROUGHOUT HISTORY. Even during communism people struggled as hard as they could to defend their own property.

File: 4d9229eb17d484805f07e5c220f5d97193f9bca761b2c84942d44e5da154b40f.jpg (61KB, 503x502px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 503x502px

>>9267140
>Bartering is the natural human state
>bartering is capitalism
Wew lad

>>9267133
?
>fuck private property
>no mcdonalds I can just take this burger it's not private property and there's no need for an exchange of goods
>mcspear'd

take away all rights, strip people to their natural state and all that happens is people being to dominate their neighbors and rule through power. Ideologically I understand where you're coming from, but that will never translate into the real world.
Does everyone pinky promise not to hide goods in a secret stash, or lay claim to anything tangible?

>>9267151
Mate, capitalism is the logical equivalent of any bartering system that introduces money. And if you'd bother to look up some anthropology or economics, you'd find that no bartering system ever hasn't had some money equivalent.

>>9267140
>capitalism doesn't

What are property rights?

File: 6b90b3e02f2d33213413968aaef9350cafed67084dae1f240c0c39c474b3dbf1.png (63KB, 564x651px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 564x651px

>>9267149
>human nature
>striner is a communist

>>9267133
Man has an instinct for property, not just laws for it.

If I took a stone from the wilderness, and then chiseled it into a knife, is the knife my property? We have an instinct that tells us "Yes. He fashioned it, he did the work, he took Nature (that which is owned by no one) and made out of it something of his own. It is his property, no one may take it from him rightfully."

This extends to all sorts of things, from houses to megacorporations, the only difference in our modern world is that property is now far removed from the original workers who made the property, and now it is circulated in complex deals using money, but the principle is the same: when a man invests in a factory, and hires men to work in his factory, then all the things that the factory produces are created by the personal sacrifice of the factory owner for paying his employees and investing in the machinery. It's no different than the stone and knife on a fundamental level.

>>9262847
1. Don't give a fuck, personally theist due to life experience
2. Tend to realism
3. Tend to rationalism
4. Free Will
5. Deontology should be the right one, but we live in an utilitarian world
6. Capitalist

>>9262847
1. Atheism vs Theism: Atheism, but that that's a personal conclusion on the nature of reality. Doesn't mean I don't think religion can be a good (or bad) thing.
2. Realism vs Idealism: Idealism. Realism is submission to the current state, Idealism seeks to change/better it.
3. Rationalism vs Empiricism: Rationalism, we're programmed to accept concepts in certain ways. Adaptive.
4. Free Will vs Determinism: Determinism, free will is an illusion but your life is unaffected by this.
5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism, right or wrong depends on the context.
6. Capitalism vs Socialism: Capitalism with socialist ideals

>>9267158
A mechanism by which the weak are protected from the abuses of the strong. Property rights take the conventions of capitalist exchanges between to similarly-powered people and extend them to even the very strong and the very weak.
Related question: are you dense or just thoughtless? How has this never occurred to you?

>>9267162
Agriculture was a mistake

>>9267157
Actually, capitalism is not defined by money, its defined by individual agents being free to build systems that create profit.

It depends on the notion that competitors succeed or fail depending on how preferable their service and products are and how intelligent the buyers are.

Capitalistic systems such as stock markets fail when the buyers are unintelligent and the sellers are dishonest- this creates a system where shit is sold as gold which collapses under the weight of people wanting returns.

>>9267171
>between to
*between two

>>9262847
1)Atheism
2)Realism
3)False dichotomy, read Kant.
4)Determinism
5)Utilitarianism
6)Socialism

>>9267171
And this doesn't enforce capitalism at all?

File: 183163bf68332f0b8a816019992278f266ca8ad4783067d68d2b2652166bc02a.png (99KB, 500x707px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 500x707px

>>9267152
That is personal property, stuff you use to make money or shit. Private property is stuff you don't use to make money and shit like owning factories or shares

>take away all rights, strip people to their natural state and all that happens is people being to dominate their neighbors and rule through power.
Lel, sounds like you are describing statism senpai. Anarchism isn't necessarily chaos 24/7 but more about voluntarism and shit. You are welcome to read more about Anarchism to get a feel about their end goals and vision.

>>9267174
Get out of here, anarcho-primitivist trash

>>9267149
>Legal fictions are outflows of the reality of human nature
Meaningless. In what way does fiction "flow" from reality? And what is "human nature"?
>it's this supposed state of people not defending the fruit of their labors that is complete fiction.
If the Russian aristocracy had defended their own property, rather than relying on disparate branches of the military to do it, they wouldn't have lost it so easily in the revolution. A large portion of the military realized that they were, in effect, giving property to the aristocrats as fief. And this supposed "fiction" is somehow less fictional than e.g. the PHOSITA, which is literally a legally invented ghost used to argue about patent rights?

Your mouth is glued to the hind end of a horse, m8y

>>9267186
o-okay

File: e3cf72ccb73dfb72b657fdf858075ae0fde601e900e559aaab6d9908704f1844.png (229KB, 998x766px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 998x766px

>>9267162
>more human nature
spooky. Plus that is personal property, not private

>>9267185
> more about voluntarism and shit

Different anon but isn't this just kind of hoping somebody else won't kick your ass and take all your stuff? How do a group of Anarchists protect themselves from a group that wants to do them harm withouth forming groups as large as states?

>>9267200
*more fictional

>>9267185
>Stuff you don't use to make money like owning factories or shares

Everyone who invests in a factory or share of a company does so to make money, this is capitalism 101.

It is no small sacrifice to build a factory and hire a workforce, profit is the motivation to undertake such a risky and difficult enterprise. Profit is the carrot that leads people to innovate things, and being out-competed is the stick.

However, it's important for government to have a little bit of its foot in the capitalistic system, because while capitalism inspires creativity, some of the most creative people are scam artists- see the 2008 housing crisis. They are parasites on capitalism, and because of the profit motive they invent easy ways to acquire profit unfairly without generating real value. The purpose of the government is to kill these parasitic financial entities. In America, this does not happen.

>>9262847
>Theism
>Idealism
>Rationalism
>Free Will
>Deontology
>Socialism

Who else gentile-type fascist here?

>>9267162

private vs personal property. nobody has an issue with personal property (to my knowledge) but many do have issues with some people owning property that makes them bagorillians a day while other people starve in relatively fixable circumstances.

>>9267206
Denying the existence of human nature gets you nowhere, friendo. It's plain and easy to see that man is an animal with instincts and patterns.

>>9267208
They can always voluntary form a militia or whatever and disband once the threat is over. As long as everyone involved chooses to be in it to deter said foreign threat, it is not oppressive then say conscription.

>>9267185
>it's humanism
Oh, okay, I think I understand better now
D-D-DROPPED

>>9267212
Implying government under involvement in regulation was the cause of the 2008 crisis. The government being in regulation and bond rating created the huge incentives for dishonesty in large part.

>>9267215
What is the difference at all between owning a factory and owning a knife?

People having issues with people making gorillions a day do not understand how much risk and investment goes into establishing private property such as factories.

The solution to inequality where people starve and have poor education is the creation of a welfare state by taxing a small amount of the private property so that the loss for an individual property owner is small while the gain for the poor masses is quite big.

Republicans always freak out that this slows down business, and yes, it slows down business, but it's a small price to pay for a more pleasant society. Sometimes "MORE PROFIT NEXT QUARTER PERIOD" doesn't always work out in favor of the society, so what I'm saying is that private property rights are necessary for an economy to work, but must be transgressed slightly to not be totally rigged against the poor.

File: 34c80f320d3674aeb8fc3550a8ebd12d12042c16.png (294KB, 480x470px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 480x470px

>>9267212
>Everyone who invests in a factory or share of a company does so to make money, this is capitalism 101.
Yea and what i am saying anarchists despise private property.

>>9267217
>deriving ought from is
Denying your self-interest with spooks get you nowhere senpai

>>9267239
I didn't imply that, I said the opposite, that they were given too much freedom with their property and assets and came up with scams because of government deregulation. I'm actually a statist on this one, mate.

>>9267217
This is the equivalent of Aristotle's "political animal," now you're saying "man" is an "instinctual animal." Your rationalization for this meaningless generalization is that it's "plain to see."

You have instincts, does this mere fact of possessing the quality mean that you are only the quality? Do you follow instinct at all times like a rutting bull moose?

>>9267234
>thinks humans are shit
>tends towards libertarianism
lel

>>9267245
Go home to /pol/, you are clearly unable to form a serious argument.

I'm not saying we "ought" in a moral sense to follow human nature in designing our society, I'm saying we "must" follow human nature or else the society will fail.

This should be plain and obvious from the fall of Communism. If the society clashes with human nature, it will collapse down to a human-nature compatible society. You must design your society to be compatible with human nature from the get-go to avoid this inevitable fate. This is what anarchists don't understand. They simply deny human nature. We naturally follow leaders and assemble hierarchies, it's just the same as an ant forming a colony, or wolves forming a pack. It's built into our brains. It is the only way it can sustainably be.

File: CrQjCfHVUAEduUV.jpg large.jpg (109KB, 619x1000px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 619x1000px

>>9267240
>What is the difference at all between owning a factory and owning a knife?
Other people are using it to make profits and only you are the knife (to make profit?)

Workers take on the risk along with the capitalists too senpai

Oh it is a social democrat, of fucking coz

>>9267249
1. It's a meaningful generalization. Man is an animal that can be generalized. That is what human nature is defined as. The aspects of humanity that are general across all cultures.

If you cannot see this, you are truly blind and are mentally masturbating yourself deeper and deeper to stop muh cognitive dissonance with the ideology you want to work.

>>9267255
>thinks humans are shit
>gives these humans unlimited power over other people
jej

>>9267277
Even Aristotle gave the welfare state as a solution. Now you are resorting to ad-hominem arguments by dismissing the bulk of my argument for being "a social democrat".

>>9267277
So basically owning an abandoned factory = personal property.
Turn that factory on and hire people to work there and suddenly = private property?

>>9267240
>What is the difference at all between owning a factory and owning a knife?

You use a knife to do something yourself. You own a factory so that other people can do stuff in it for your profit. I mean does anyone believe they are identical types of property?

Either way very few people own property like that these days and instead shares in funds or groups that own property in an attempt to limit their risk on literally everything they make money from.

>People having issues with people making gorillions a day do not understand how much risk and investment goes into establishing private property such as factories.

The average billionaire puts less risk into setting up a new business than the average person does into taking a sick day from work. The risk may be millions of dollars but if you're left with billions after having lost it the risk to the individual is vastly different. The chances of becoming a billionaire and ever again being in any legitimate financial difficulty are minuscule.

> The solution to inequality where people starve and have poor education is the creation of a welfare state by taxing a small amount of the private property so that the loss for an individual property owner is small while the gain for the poor masses is quite big.

I do agree with this and I believe that only if governments fully support this does it really work. As it stands in many countries governments are more interested in keeping large businesses happy than protecting their own citizens. I don't know that I can blame them for this considering how mobile large multinational corporations can be these days but I don't think wealth redistribution is working at the moment because companies have too much sway over state bodies.

> Republicans always freak out that this slows down business, and yes, it slows down business, but it's a small price to pay for a more pleasant society.

Personally I think society would be more productive if it had less people living in poverty as people are then less likely to be criminals. This isn't necessarily advocating for a welfare state at all but something like funding for education, investment in infrastructure in poor areas etc.

File: 1478426140159.jpg (81KB, 722x950px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 722x950px

>>9267272
>thinking USSR is communist
>your idea of human nature magically validates your political system
Holy shit I don't have enough Zizek for the amount of pure ideology you are on. Even if there is a need for a hierarchy, it can always be consensual, temporary and people can leave in a whim. None of it must automatically be rooted in violence

>>9267078
Fuck you, just admit you made a shit thread based on arbitrary dichotomies.

>>9267281
ikr

>>9267285
Appealing to popularity? Plus i did not dismiss you by labeling a socdem desu

>>9267293
Yes. Or if it is a factory only you are working in, it is personal property.

>>9267297
1. They are identical types of property because the workers in the factory that generate your profit only do so because you have BOUGHT their work by paying a salary. It's an investment in men.

2. I acknowledge that the superwealthy throw money around like toilet paper and that relatively the risks they take have bigger consequences for people down the chain than it does for them (even if I lose, I'll still be a billionaire, fuck the people who might lose their jobs!) (The 80's had a lot of that happening.) So I am against that impersonal, moral hazard level of wealth, but not the level of wealth that say, a CEO of an upstart company might have.

3. This is why I'm upset with America, there's too much backlash against full government support of the common man because it gets conflated with Communism by politicians that are bribed by the superwealthy. Doesn't take a genius to spot that.

4. I would advocate for a welfare state, because I include investment in infrastructure, schooling, and such to be part of the welfare idea. So we agree, mostly.

>>9267315
>Yes. Or if it is a factory only you are working in, it is personal property.
So you don't actually have an issue with people owning shit, you have an issue with people hiring other people.

>>9267324
He has an issue (i assume) with people hiring other people to complete a portion of work and then selling on the result of that work for a profit without giving the worker any of that profit.

Is capitalism complicated?

>>9267324
In other words, Marxist screeching as usual.
"I don't like it when people have jobs!"

>Even if they apply for the job by choice are paid wages that they agreed to by accepting the work

File: 7adcdd714793512f03c4a06cbfc018e2929a36e1.jpg (72KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x600px

>>9267324
No i have an issue with people taking wealth away from those people using the shit to make money and give them a flat sum just because he 'owns' the shit. Ownership is a very spooky concept, and it being used to extract a very unspooky wealth from others is bullshit.

>>9267327
The Worker's Salary is a "part of that profit". The business owner could easily maximize his profits by not paying his workers, but then they'd be known as a slave, not a consenting, paid employee.

>>9267170
this

>>9267324
What he said, he is more eloquent
>>9267327

>>9267337
And here we go, just as I predicted, he pulls out an image conflating slavery with being an employee.

You have no idea how little say you could have in your wages if the proper legal framework were to allow it. A little history lesson to the early 1800's would be useful here.

>>9267327
>>9267337
okay, so if the workers were allowed to keep whatever they made in the factory, that would be fine with you?
But then they're laying claim to the products of the factory owner (by way of his personal property), so that's also immoral, isn't it? And if the factory owner buys the raw materials they can't claim the products of their labor either. So basically no one gets any benefit from the factory at all.
If two people collaborate in making something, then neither of them get to keep it?

>>9267327
>without giving the worker any of that profit.
>what are wages

>>9267280
>repeating yourself
"Man" of course, because the idea of "man" is itself a generalization. So extrapolating more generalities from the already general "man" isn't difficult.

"Man" in the sense of the "human species" or "humanity" is a notion in the mind, a spook. Your definition of "human nature" is so circular that it amounts to: "human nature is the aspect of Man that is present in all men." This is tantamount to "Grace is the aspect of God that his present in all men." You've established the religion of humanism, well done. You now have the power to decide who is acting like a "true human," and who is acting "inhumanly."

There is no general "man," there are only individual men like me, or you. I know that I am not defined by this ghost you call "human nature," no matter how you bluster about it.

I think you are the one who is blinded by ideology

>>9267355
The benefit the workers obtain from the factory is a steady wage to live on.

If the wage is unlivable, then it is necessary to fight for a higher one through legislation or unionization, but fundamentally speaking, the fact that they are given money for their work indicates that they benefit from the factory (and thus, the factory owner's) existence, and in return, the factory owner makes profit as a capitalistic reward for benefiting the existence of the workers.

Without this interplay of profit, work, and ownership, people would earn no money, businesses would never do anything, and the whole system would stagnate.

File: 1467307067961.jpg (108KB, 300x333px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 300x333px

>>>9262847
>1. Atheism vs Theism:
Theism
>2. Realism vs Idealism:
Idealism
>3. Rationalism vs Empiricism:
..both
>4. Free Will vs Determinism:
..both
>5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism:
Leaning towards Deontology
>6. Capitalism vs Socialism:
Leaning towards Capitalism

>>9267354
>You have no idea how little say you could have in your wages if the proper legal framework were to allow it. A little history lesson to the early 1800's would be useful here.
And that's why anarchists want to smash the State. Duhhhhhh

>>9267355
Of course!

>factory owner (by way of his personal property)
I don't see what is wrong since he is not using the factory anyway.

And if the factory owner buys the raw materials they can't claim the products of their labor either.
The workers can always buy the raw materials or the owner is welcome to use the factory himself to convert the materials to goods.

>If two people collaborate in making something, then neither of them get to keep it?
No, both gets to share. But remember that just coz you 'own' something doesn't mean you are collaborating in any way

>>9267364
It's not a religion because shared behaviors and attributes of human beings can be observed. You can actually watch people and see how they react to things, and generalize between cultures and find what behaviors and attitudes never change from culture to culture. Isn't that amazing?

For instance, almost all cultures have a disgust for the murder of one's own group, but not so many cultures have a problem with killing a member of an outside group. This is clearly a naturally selected instinct bred into us by competition between groups of cooperating people. This is not a "religion" or a spook.

As a matter of fact, the only thing spooky here is your unclear, anything can be anything perception of our species, where nothing is truly human or inhuman.

>>9267375
You want to smash the state which abolished slavery.... because you feel like slaves to the state? Ha, wait until your anarchist society collapses and the local warlord reintroduces real slavery and you're the one under the whip.

>>9267386
>the local warlord reintroduces real slavery and you're the one under the whip.
And how is that any different from the state?

>The state calls its own violence law, and that of the individual, crime

>>9267338
the workers salary is almost by definition not part of the profit. only money earned after paying salaries and other overheads can the company make profit.

>>9267355

> okay, so if the workers were allowed to keep whatever they made in the factory, that would be fine with you?

Yes. They can then sell it themselves for whatever price they can or do as they wish with it themselves.

> But then they're laying claim to the products of the factory owner (by way of his personal property), so that's also immoral, isn't it?

They're being given it. Not taking it.

> And if the factory owner buys the raw materials they can't claim the products of their labor either.

What labor? Does buying something constitute labor?

> If two people collaborate in making something, then neither of them get to keep it?

Well actually this is the optimal solution. They both own equal shares in it and can sell it and split the profits.

>>9267359
See above and learn 2 basic accounting.

>>9267402
If the workers were slaves, it COULD be profit. That's what makes it morally ok.

>>9267384
>It's not a religion because shared behaviors and attributes of human beings can be observed. You can actually watch people and see how they react to things, and generalize between cultures and find what behaviors and attitudes never change from culture to culture. Isn't that amazing?
This is simply stating "humans act like humans," that a general idea adheres to itself, which everyone knows already. Hence my initial criticism of its meaninglessness.
>For instance, almost all cultures have a disgust for the murder of one's own group, but not so many cultures have a problem with killing a member of an outside group. This is clearly a naturally selected instinct bred into us by competition between groups of cooperating people. This is not a "religion" or a spook.
>almost all
There, you see! When you try to come up with a single concrete instance where your philosophy of "human nature" is applicable, you balk, and fall on worthless qualifiers like "almost." You can't even adhere to your own system, it's so useless. Also, you're again stating a triviality that everyone here understands: people are less likely to kill people they care about. Who could've fucking guessed? But a man could still murder his father, a woman her mother. The difference between us is, I don't call the murderer "inhuman" (sinful) for doing so. I try to understand why the particular person acted as they did.
>As a matter of fact, the only thing spooky here is your unclear, anything can be anything perception of our species, where nothing is truly human or inhuman.
All humans are truly human, and inhuman, by your definition. Since, apparently, only a human can commit an "inhuman" action. Another example of the worthlessness of the humanist religion

1. Atheism
2. Realism
3. Rationalism
4. Free Will
5. Utilitarianism
6. Socialism

>>9267375
>I don't see what is wrong since he is not using the factory anyway.
Haha what's the matter bro you weren't using this [food/shelter/water/medicine/stone knife you carved by hand]
>And if the factory owner buys the raw materials they can't claim the products of their labor either.
So I, Mr. Factory owner, have to go to a mine and dig the ore up all on my own if I want a fucking pewter spoon? What happens when we start trying to make shit like penecilin? Do I have to do every step of that process if I want to be cured of my fatal disease?
>The workers can always buy the raw materials or the owner is welcome to use the factory himself to convert the materials to goods.
Raw materials are usually prohibitively expensive, considering that the factory is optimized to produce goods for the entire population and not just one person. You could change that but it would be incredibly inefficient and result in tiny personal factories all over the landscape, and probably cause severe ecological damage.
>No, both gets to share. But remember that just coz you 'own' something doesn't mean you are collaborating in any way
A construction crew of twelve men builds a house. They now each own one twelfth of a house.
One guy on his own digs in the ground, smelts in a furnace and painstakingly crafts every hammer, nail and bag of concrete he plans on using to make his house. He spends the next four years struggling to lay a foundation because he doesn't have the requisite skill, and then gets his head bashed in with a rock by a neighbor who wanted his shit.
And let's not even get in to what it takes to build the factory in the first place.
Sounds utopic.

File: 1488598334400.jpg (51KB, 567x553px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 567x553px

>>9267411
who's arguing about morality?

anyway, wages cannot be profit. in order for a capitalist organisation to work the workers must lose something otherwise there is nothing for the company to gain i.e. profit.

>>9267402
>They're being given it. Not taking it.
Plot twist: Person A says to Person B "I will give you the fruits of my labor in your factory in exchange for (X goods and services)"
Person B says "Ok"
Both people honor the agreement.
???
>What labor? Does buying something constitute labor?
You misunderstand. If the initial goods (raw materials) belong to the factory owner, how does working with them for a couple hours gift them to the worker?
>Well actually this is the optimal solution. They both own equal shares in it and can sell it and split the profits.
Ten people make something. All of them want to sell it to a buyer they found 300 miles away, except for Person 6 who wants to keep his share. What do?

1. Atheism vs Theism: Theism
2. Realism vs Idealism: Realism
3. Rationalism vs Empiricism: Rationalism
4. Free Will vs Determinism: Free Will
5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism: Deontology
6. Capitalism vs Socialism: Capitalism

>>9267425
>in order for a capitalist organisation to work the workers must lose something otherwise there is nothing for the company to gain i.e. profit.
Okay, which is it? Do you push shopping carts for a "job"? Do you still live with Mummy? Or are you an undergraduate who's never worked a day in your life?

File: Young Woman Reading.jpg (49KB, 541x700px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 541x700px

>>9262847
1. Atheism vs Theism: Atheism
2. Realism vs Idealism: Realism
3. Rationalism vs Empiricism: Empiricism
4. Free Will vs Determinism: Free Will
5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism
6. Capitalism vs Socialism: Socialism

>>9267417
>food/shelter/water/medicine
Those are resources...
>have to go to a mine and dig the ore up all on my own if I want a fucking pewter spoon? What happens when we start trying to make shit like penecilin? Do I have to do every step of that process if I want to be cured of my fatal disease?
How is that the same? You can buy shit from others, but you can't profit from other people's shit
>Raw materials are usually prohibitively expensive, considering that the factory is optimized to produce goods for the entire population and not just one person. You could change that but it would be incredibly inefficient and result in tiny personal factories all over the landscape, and probably cause severe ecological damage.
>inserting real life into an abstract inquiry
running out of arguments huh?

>A construction crew of twelve men builds a house. They now each own one twelfth of a house.
Yes, and?
>One guy on his own digs in the ground, smelts in a furnace and painstakingly crafts every hammer, nail and bag of concrete he plans on using to make his house. He spends the next four years struggling to lay a foundation because he doesn't have the requisite skill, and then gets his head bashed in with a rock by a neighbor who wanted his shit.
He can always buy tools and get people to help me build the house, sharing with them the profits. And he can always fight back against his neighbor...

1. Atheism
2. Idealism
3. Empiricism
4. Compatibalism
5. Utilitarianism
6. Capitalism

>>9267429

> Both people honor the agreement.

the system is being gamed by those with more power as is always going to happen with a system like this. power is funnelled into smaller and smaller circle of increasingly rich people.

> how does working with them for a couple hours gift them to the worker?

It doesn't of course. The worker adds value to the raw materials by doing something with it. they're paid for a portion of that value but not all of it.

> Ten people make something. All of them want to sell it to a buyer they found 300 miles away, except for Person 6 who wants to keep his share. What do?

Sell it and pay him his portion or he pays the others for their portion in order to keep the entire thing.


>>9267437
Lol. I graduated and moved out of home over a decade ago. not that it makes your basic lack of understanding of terminology more relevant. The fact that you're disagree with me about what capitalism is is funny. That definition isn't even a bone of contention between socialists and capitalists. you define capitalism for me? and try not to reeeeeee all over your keyboard.

>>9267461
>the system is being gamed by those with more power as is always going to happen with a system like this. power is funnelled into smaller and smaller circle of increasingly rich people.
REEEEEEE it's not fair somehow!
>It doesn't of course. The worker adds value to the raw materials by doing something with it. they're paid for a portion of that value but not all of it.
Pretend the owner pays them wages equivalent to all of it. And pretend this is a hypothetical and not a reality. How is this a problem?
>Sell it and pay him his portion or he pays the others for their portion in order to keep the entire thing.
But he doesn't want monetary equivalent, he wants his 10th of a sneaker, or a house, or a car. Are you going to trample his ability to choose for himself?
>that's the definition of capitalism
the person who loses is not the factory owner or the factory worker, it's the factory consumer who pays the margin for both. The fact that the roles of consumer, producer and distributor are fluid and interchangeable is what makes the system robust.
I think you're just unwilling to admit that you want a capitalist society exactly as now, but everyone involved is a perfectly moral being.

1. Atheism
2. Idealism
3. Rationalism
4. Free Will
5. Utilitarianism
6. Socialism

File: elsa.jpg (17KB, 478x367px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 478x367px

>>9267448
>shelter is a resource...
good to know
>you can buy shit from others
so... capitalism?
>running out of arguments huh?
>lol but my economic solution doesn't have to be practical or anything xD
Et wew, Brute?
>buy supplies
again, prohibitively expensive since he's not buying in bulk, only for himself. Also again, how is this different from capitalism?
>he can always fight back against his neighbor...
What if he loses? What if that neighbor is freakishly strong and wins every fight he enters?
>...
reddit was a mistake

>>9262847
Atheism
Realism
Rationalism but you ought to pay close attention to your hunches and feelings
Free Will
Utilitarianism
Capitalism

>>9267494
>so... capitalism?
Nope, >>9267175. How are you this dense?

>lol but my economic solution doesn't have to be practical or anything xD
I am happy to talk about economic theories like anachro-syndicalism, but I am here to discuss private property being shit idiot. Stop moving the goalpost.

>Also again, how is this different from capitalism?
>>9267175

>What if he loses? What if that neighbor is freakishly strong and wins every fight he enters?
Then it is a crime? So? Hell anybody can and will help the defender anyway.

>reddit was a mistake
Said the one not recognizing Striner

>>9267551
Whoops wrong post,

>>9267327 instead of>>9267175

>>9267401
It's different in the way that you're deluded and have no idea how incredibly good your life is.

>>9267551
>>9267175
>Capitalism is an economic system where private entities own the factors of production. The four factors are entrepreneurship, capital goods, natural resources, and labor. The owners of capital goods, natural resources, and entrepreneurship exercise control through companies. The individual owns his or her labor. The only exception is slavery. But slavery is illegal throughout the entire world.
>(Source: Bruce Scott, "The Political Economy of Capitalism," Harvard Business Review," 2006.)
>private entities own
BTFO, I guess.

>Said the one not recognizing Memer
shitposts don't generally merit (You)s, newfriend.

1. Theism
2. Idealism
3. Rationalism
4. Free Will
5. Deontology
6. Socialism

>>9267482
>REEEEEEE it's not fair somehow!

Literally every argument against socialism.

> Pretend the owner pays them wages equivalent to all of it. And pretend this is a hypothetical and not a reality. How is this a problem?

If profit is distributed to workers based entirely equally based on the value of their labour it wouldn't be a problem.

> But he doesn't want monetary equivalent, he wants his 10th of a sneaker, or a house, or a car. Are you going to trample his ability to choose for himself?

Owners of the product all get equal voice in the use of the product. If he's out voted he doesn't get to decide what is done wiht the actual property but still gets the same value from it as the rest of the participants.

> the person who loses is not the factory owner or the factory worker, it's the factory consumer who pays the margin for both. The fact that the roles of consumer, producer and distributor are fluid and interchangeable is what makes the system robust.

to a certain degree but the fact remains that the workers labour must be bought by the company for a lower value than they sell it for in order for them to make a profit.

> I think you're just unwilling to admit that you want a capitalist society exactly as now, but everyone involved is a perfectly moral being.

name a single economic system that doesn't work if everybody is a perfectly moral being? in fact if everybody is going to be perfectly moral i want an absolute monarchy to save time on paperwork.

>1. Atheism vs Theism:
Gnostic/mystic theism
>2. Realism vs Idealism:
Nondualism
>3. Rationalism vs Empiricism:
Critical idealism + pragmatist empiricism
>4. Free Will vs Determinism:
Free will
>5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism:
Deontology
>6. Capitalism vs Socialism:
Socialism

>>9267760
Oh now you're a socialist? Or are you trying to argue that we're both wrong and socialism is correct? Have you converted yourself?
>workers labour...lower value than they sell it
So is the value inherent in the work, or is the final product only worth as much as you can get for it like the fundamental principles of capitalism
>Owners of the product all get equal voice in the use of the product. If he's out voted he doesn't get to decide what is done wiht the actual property but still gets the same value from it as the rest of the participants.
>Mass democracy
D-D-DROPPED AGAIN

You're not the cleverest anarchist I've ever met, but you stopped using tumblr ellipses, so maybe you can be taught.

>>9267799
I'm not an anarchist dimwit. Lol, I don't know who you were arguing against. I was just arguing against capitalism.

>>9267579
Ya wow it is not just buying or selling or battering idiot as me and that other anon already stated in the post i quoted. And it isn't far off from the dictionary so you are literally splitting hairs

>can't recognize Striner
>call other people redditors
wew lad

>>9267799
I am right here moron. Plus socialists and anarchists are comrades in their arguments against capitalism.

Theism
Realism
Rationalism
Determinism
Deontology
Capitalism

Anything else is foolish

File: smug anime1.jpg (106KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1280x720px

>>9268060
>theism
>deontology
>Anything else is foolish

File: 1391499647757.jpg (193KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 800x800px

>>9268111

File: 006745298620bd7c4cb3bf93f1fcb6b7c6be02b66ea7ff62c65949fabda42f18.gif (150KB, 245x320px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 245x320px

>>9262847
1-6. FALSE DYCHOTOMY

>>9262847
>1. Atheism vs Theism:
Theism
>2. Realism vs Idealism:
Thomism
>3. Rationalism vs Empiricism:
Thomism
>4. Free Will vs Determinism:
Thomism
>5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism:
Thomism
>6. Capitalism vs Socialism:
Communitairanism, feudal relations, guilds

>>9266970
>>9266970
>Constitutional implies that the "Monarchy" part has been completely leeched from the politics and now only law remains.
By whom?
I don't take that implication.
>So when you say there are lots of "Catholic monarchies",
I never said that. Read what I actually wrote. I wrote
>"...modern Catholic monarchies are some of the most successful nations in the world"
Keep up with the actual topic.
>what you're really talking about are constitutional, law-based societies with representation and equal-suffrage that happen to have one pampered family out of tradition.
No. I'm not.
Look at Liechtenstein - while it has a Parliament the sovereign retains extremely broad powers, including the ability to veto any law with no chance of override, the ability to dismiss any minister or the entire government, call national referenda, etc. The people granted him *increased* powers in the 21st Century with overwhelming support!
This mean Prince Hans-Adam II has much more real power than did any king of England since George I.
So yeah - he is a ruling monarch.
Tell you what, give me a list of other political topics you know nothing about and I'll work on a reading list for you.

>>9268321
so, like
>>9266652

1. Atheism vs Theism: Atheism
2. Realism vs Idealism: Realism
3. Rationalism vs Empiricism: Empiricism

>1. Atheism vs Theism:
theism

>2. Realism vs Idealism:
realism

>3. Rationalism vs Empiricism:
empiricism

>4. Free Will vs Determinism:
free will

>5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism:
deontology

>6. Capitalism vs Socialism:
capitalsm

>>9262847
>1. Atheism vs Theism:
Atheism, though doesn't matter to me if God exists or not.
>2. Realism vs Idealism:
Realism
>3. Rationalism vs Empiricism:
Rationalism
>4. Free Will vs Determinism:
Free will
>5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism:
Deontology
>6. Capitalism vs Socialism:
Free market capitalism completely without government interference

>>9268349
Yeah, we both probably read too much MacIntyre and Belloc

>>9262847
Theism (more specifically gnostic theism)
Realism
Empiricism
Determinism
Deontology
CAPITALISM

>1. Atheism vs Theism:
Agnoscitism. I'm not epistemologically cucked.
>2. Realism vs Idealism:
I think you meant "materialism vs idealism", in which case I admit there's some merit to each approach, but it seems more and more that materialism will win this fight.
>3. Rationalism vs Empiricism:
This is as stupid as asking "if you had to choose, would you pick hearing or seeing?".
>4. Free Will vs Determinism:
Free will, but only because is irrelevant to dwell in the possibility of determinism (despite being a lot of evidence that we're determined by plenty of factors outside of our influence. Something soemthing Foucault something).
>5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism:
>utilitarianism can't be interpreted as a form of deontology
>implying there's such a thing as "focusing on results" when actions are always performed without a full understanding of which results will come out of it
>implying there's such a dichotomy as "focusing on results/focusing on actions"
Read some Hiedegger.
>6. Capitalism vs Socialism:
Anarcho-communism.

File: 16797592_1268921429855828_6867709020097109141_o.jpg (44KB, 670x1094px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 670x1094px

>>9262847

1. Theism
2. Idealism
3. Rationalism
4. A mix of free will and determinism: External circumstances are often beyond our control, but we can choose how to perceive and respond to those circumstances.
5. Utilitarianism
6.Socialism

>>9268452
>Utilitarianism
we could have been friends right up until you said this. I beg you to reconsider.

>>9268483
>I can only be friends with people who thinks exactly the same as I do
Your life must be a really comfy place. Echo chambers tends to be like that.

>>9268524
I disagree with several other of your positions, but only that one is violently anti-intellectual. If you won't reconsider that's fine, we can be merely acquaintances.

>>9268554
>highly anti-intellectual
Kek. Not even him anyways.

>>9268314
The most concise, "correct" answer, typos aside

>>9268602
Los errores de escritura son espectros. Y el inglés también.

>>9262847
1. Theism
2. Realism
3. Rationalism
4. Free Will
5. Deontology
6. Capitalism

>>9268618
This is actually quite true. Typo and mistranslation are the basis of linguistic spookiness (miscommunication).

Atheism
Idealism
Both
Determinism
Deontology
Capitalism

>>9262847
Null
Realism
Empiricism
Uncertain determinism
Deontology
Capitalism

>>9268936
I should say theoretically rationalism, but pragmatically empiricism
There's a reason philosophy is presented in dialectics
As someone else pointed out its a false dichotomy

>>9262847
Realism vs idealism is pretty much the same thing as empiricism vs rationalism

>>9262847

1. Atheism vs Theism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason
2. Realism vs Idealism: Absolute Idealism
3. Rationalism vs Empiricism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason
4. Free Will vs Determinism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason
5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism: Virtue ethics
6. Capitalism vs Socialism: Fully automated luxury gay space communism

File: whattodo.jpg (46KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1440x900px

>polemical antagonisms

>>9269113

It really isn't. Radical empiricists are all necessarily idealists.

>>9262847
>1. Atheism vs Theism: Theism
>2. Realism vs Idealism: lean Realist (Kantian)
>3. Rationalism vs Empiricism: Undecided
>4. Free Will vs Determinism: Compatabalism
>5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism: Deontology
>6. Capitalism vs Socialism: Socialism (This is a strange dichotomy which should be altered in revisions of this survey.)

Be sure to publish your results, and next time just use surveymoneky or some other alternitive. If you're trying to quantify you can sort this into ordinal data w. the 1-5 scale of 'strongly against - strongly for' and get more useful data out of the questioning.

File: classical knight.jpg (908KB, 2000x1305px) Image search: [Google]

908KB, 2000x1305px

>>9262847
Deism
Idealism
Rationalism
Determinism
Virtue Ethics
Facism

>>9268342
>I don't take that implication.

You don't take an implication. The word you're looking for is infer.

For example, my having to post this implies you're an idiot. You can infer whatever you want from it though.

https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/imply-infer/

1. Atheism vs Theism
>Atheism
2. Realism vs Idealism
>Idealism
3.Rationalism vs Empiricism
>Empiricism
4.Free Will vs Determinism
>Determinism
5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism
>Deontology
6. Capitalism vs Socialism
>Socialism

>>9262847
Atheism
Realism
Both rationalism and empiricism
Free Will
Both Deontology and Utilitarianism
Socialism I work hard as hell min-wage I trully need it and most of the world does too.

1. Atheism vs Theism:
Agnostic with an appreciation for certain faith traditions.
2. Realism vs Idealism:
Realist with some personally held ideals
3. Rationalism vs Empiricism:
Reason can be informed by sensory data
4. Free Will vs Determinism:
Free will but honestly interested in suggestions of further literature to study on the subject
5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism:
Consequentialism to a degree. Bit of a pluralist. Kant's maxims try to promote too rigid of a universality, while Singer's utilitarianism gives us killing fields (Someone feel free to post that meme image).
6. Capitalism vs Socialism:
Free market societies should exist within the confines of Nations, while in term of international grade I am leaning towards mercantilism as a defense against Globalism. I've become more of a populist based on recent political events.

Theism
Realism
Rationalism
Free Will
Deontology
Capitalism

lets go bois

Atheism
Realism
It's not the 17th century
Determinism
Neither (virtue ethics)
Socialism

>>9273029
Lefty pol please go.

>>9262847
>1. Atheism vs Theism:
Theism
>2. Realism vs Idealism:
Realism
>3. Rationalism vs Empiricism:
Rationalism
>4. Free Will vs Determinism:
Free Will
>5. Deontology vs Utilitarianism:
Utilitarianism
>6. Capitalism vs Socialism:
Capitalism

>>9262847
>redpilled

Theism
Realism
Rationalism
Free Will
Deontology
Capitalism