Sort your philosophy out

>>131173499
God created the universe and has given mankind moral commandments by which they're to abide and by which all men will inevitably be judged.

"Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you.” ( Mt 5.44 , Lu 6.27 , Lu 6.3 ) “Do not use force against an evil man.” ( Mt 5.39 ) “Do not resist evil with evil.” “Forgive and you will be forgiven.” (Lu 6.37 ) “Do not be anxious about your life.”( Lu 12.22 ) “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Mat 7.12 )

Government is necessarily evil. Sucks to be you.

File: 1493595268277.png (381KB, 1380x511px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1380x511px

>>131174067
An ancom sucks at hermeneutics? Such a shock

>>131174717
It's not better translated as that.
ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ· ἀλλ’ ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα σου, στρέψον αὐτῷ kαὶ τὴν ἄλλην·
I'm not an ancom.

>>131174067
>quoting the bible

>>131174923
>I copied some stuff in greek so that refutes all those arguments he made!

those colors are the colors of ancom. If you're ancap you'd go ancap. If you think there's some middle ground you're silly.

>>131175165
Why would I use an ancap flag when that implies a belief in rights/the NAP? I'm a voluntarist - I couldn't care less what you do as long as you fuck off.

File: 1491312382762.jpg (71KB, 650x600px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 650x600px

>>131175618
>force is voluntary

so no rebuttal to that Bible stuff, eh?

>>131176191
>force is voluntary
Hello? Who are you talking to?

What rebuttal? Someone trying desperately to spin the explicit commands of God to be more convenient to their preferences is just that. Christ never told any human to use violence against anyone ever. Not once. And he forbade it explicitly multiple times, including an explicit brute blanket moral ban in the Sermon on the Mount.
>hur dur fight smart xD
is monstrously pathetic a desperate spin by someone who can't stomach the idea of martyrdom.

File: ancap.jpg (60KB, 736x736px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 736x736px

>>131176767
>Hello? Who are you talking to?
The person who suggested they're a mere voluntarist who doesn't subscribe to the NAP and only cares about what's voluntary. You don't realize this implies you're with the ancaps.

>What rebuttal?
Exactly, you have no rebuttal. You tried to spin the scripture and a mere copy/pasta of greek while I made a posted that had arguments and proper interpretations of the Greek language within the historical and cultural context of what's written in the scripture.

>Christ never told any human to use violence against anyone ever.
So you're telling me you've never heard the story about when Jesus drove the merchants out of the temple by force? But I thought you were a Bible scholar??

>le hur durr may may ex dee dee
Not an argument and I never once negated the concept of martyrdom.

>>131177517
>You don't realize this implies you're with the ancaps
Ancap implies NAP and rights. Voluntarist doesn't. Ancap is therefore misleading, while unqualified anarchist isn't. Jesus fuck.

>proper interpretations
>implying
You believe whatever you want lad - you're welcome to it.

>So you're telling me
I'm telling you exactly what I'm telling you. God is God and judges men's souls. He could have destroyed the entire universe and everyone in it instead of what He'd done and nothing would change - moral commandments would remain the same.

File: Cleansing of the Temple.jpg (129KB, 771x599px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 771x599px

>>131178119
>Ancap implies NAP and rights. Voluntarist doesn't.
You're literally just repeating the point that I just got done refuting in my last post.

>You believe whatever you want lad
Ok. We can all see for ourselves that I posted that pic that breaks the interpretation down with arguments and everything and all you did was copy/pasta some Greek as if that as a rebuttal in any shape or form.

>I'm telling you exactly what I'm telling you.
So no rebuttal then to that point about Jesus driving the merchants out by force? This whole ignoring arguments thing seems to be a pattern with you...

>>131178609
>refuting in my last post
Wanna quote yourself where you "refuted" that ancap =/= voluntarist, exactly? Cuz the only line you even wrote was
>You don't realize this implies you're with the ancaps
dipshit~

File: nap.png (9KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 225x225px

>>131178773
>Wanna quote yourself where you "refuted" that ancap =/= voluntarist, exactly?
>Completely ignores pic related and the implications of what I say.

Apparently I have to break this down for you step by step. *sigh*

Premise 1: All exchanges should be voluntary
Premise 2: Force is not voluntary
Premise 3: NAP=against the initiation of force
Premise 4: You accept premise 1 and premise 2
Conclusion: You're an ancap "dipshit~"

>>131179327
I don't hold to the NAP. I couldn't care less if people who do believe in it happen to not disobey God in some circumstances by adhering to it - the NAP doesn't sufficiently cover human moral obligation and is therefore wrong. That's a fact dipshit~

File: 1484532746705.jpg (292KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 2560x1440px

>>131179646
>I don't hold to the NAP
>Everything should be voluntary and I'm against the initiation of force

>>131179965
>I don't think there's a difference between NAP and pacifism
That's because you're a dipshit Tyrone~

Sorting your philosophy out is difficult and takes.many years, but that's why it's such a beautiful process.

Study logic, languages (English is a must), philosophy and history. Lift every day, and start recognizing all the propaganda that comes from jewllywood. And then, you will start sorting your philosophy out.

Learn what it means to be a western man. We are the the ones who inherited the will of the Greeks, the Romans and the Christians of the middle ages.

And don't forget water filter for fucks sake

File: C2iM7cwUcAAqZ4Z.jpg (119KB, 224x488px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 224x488px

>>131179646
NAP is not a solution to avoid conflicts but to analyze them from a priori truths like individual agents being owners of their bodies and their consequences

it's not pacifism

low IQs like you can't sort it out
your ideas are so good you need coercion to push them into everyone else throats, makes you stink

>>131173499
>Sort out your ontology, epistemology, and ethics.
I'm kinda sorted but I don't even know these words, ok ethic yes but ontology and epistemology no

File: IMG_0413.jpg (192KB, 1085x1239px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1085x1239px

>>131173499
My philosophy is sorted.

>>131180727
sorting it out actually just means you're completly clueless, you're playing to pretend to defend absolutes without any intelligible, clear and objective ground

>>131180759
>it's not pacifism
That's exactly what I'm saying fuckwit.

>>131174717

Yeah that pick is just some bullshit rationalizations.

>>131180909

I don't talk with people who support relativism. You're as evil to me and to the western world as a communist.

1776 will commence again if you try to make us as brainless socialists

>>131180827
this is all you need to know
>ontology is the intelectual wanker playground, it has nothing to do with any object
>ephistemology is the foundation behind the accuracy of knowledge, processes that works to understand the world, it's a tool or a solution to be correct when making claims about reality
sciences' method is simple to understand, as it focus on the simplest layers of reality
then it gets more complicated, for example, when steping into studying emergent phenomenoms like your mental process or the economy

we're now suffering from a cancer of retarded high iq people playing to make knowledge with the wrong foundations, for example, trying to treat everything as phisics, overestimating maths, even when they fail miserably to reach any deep understanding and just create more problems

on the economy, thanks to mises we can render some economy laws from some apriori truths that cut the bullshit of fraudsters, keynessians while explaining the past and correctly predicting future events

>ethics are all about what's right and wrong, there hasn't been any solid one-punch-man foundation for ethics until ancaps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-wMmYSG9JQ

>>131180909
>relativism
Put yourself in a coffin Tyrone.

>>131181431
I'm pointing that if you're "sorting it out", you know nothing yet John Snow

I'm the antichrist of relativists

>>131181986
Problem of induction.
End your life.

The Munchhausen trilemma and Godel's incompleteness theorem makes all of philosophy pointless from the perspective of absolute truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

Pragmatically however, I think that there is a number of axioms which are useful for human flourishment
> Mind independent reality exists
> Language is an imperfect attempt to describe mind independent reality
> Some types of mathematics appear to correspond to this mind independent reality
> Social reality (our beliefs, relationships, perspectives etc.) is heavily (but not entirely) constructed by language
> History has happened, though not always as has been written in the history books
> Iterable individual and collective surviving and thriving is preferable to death and unnecessary suffering
> Human consciousness exists
> Infinity is kind of a strange idea but for some reason it makes calculus work
> Our ability to discern patterns in mind independent reality is a recognition of ontological sets of objects

File: 17 - 1.jpg (73KB, 480x716px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 480x716px

okay kids out there

there's
>relativism
sophisms
>fundamentalism (absolutism/objectivism based on retarded/incorrect foundations) - religions, traditionalism etc
still sophisms
>objectivism (succeeded at finding correct foundations)
correct philosophy

File: 1492033779929.png (9KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 420x420px

>>131182088
not an argument
delete yourself

>>131182391
>correct foundations
You have no such thing.
Problem of induction fucks you. You not liking religious axioms is irrelevant to their merit or demerit.

>>131182391
>there's
>>relativism
>sophisms
>>fundamentalism (absolutism/objectivism based on retarded/incorrect foundations) - religions, traditionalism etc
>still sophisms
>>objectivism (succeeded at finding correct foundations)
>correct philosophy


some parts of religions and traditionalisms are syncronized with objective ethics or natural laws, which makes them "feeeeeel" somewhat better for those who can think outside of the cultural marxism bullshit, yet, without making any deep correct thought

>>131182671
all axioms are not equal, you dummy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdd2cF8UgfQ

>>131173499
why majority of Scientist,Doctor,Philosopher,Engineers are Atheist

>>131183305
Logically they all are so long as they're not self-contradictory.
Tell me - on what grounds is "God created the world and gave humanity absolute moral commandments by which they are to abide" a mistaken propositional commitment?

>>131183621
Truthfully? Pressure to hide religious beliefs to have their work taken seriously and bias.

Personally I've never met an atheist doctor or nurse and I live in the UK.

File: 1484657292355.png (337KB, 1144x888px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1144x888px

>>131183632
because it's loaded and it's load is wrong
>"God created the world and gave humanity absolute moral commandments by which they are to abide" a mistaken propositional commitment?"

>1. Implying creation of the world
creation understood in an antique perspective -ordinary, that of someone who has no tacit knowledge of any creative process or labour-, not creative as an emergent event, which would be in contradiction with a designer of the posterior events, but as an act of generation out of nothing not from previous layers of anything

therefore, assuming nothing and then something, which is a secondary claim previous and implyied inside the quote, which is not an axiom and is not valid at all

>2. Implying revelations are more than any other human recopilation of literature, history, myths, wisdom, tradition, codes of conducts and stories.

It takes faith to pick any of these commandments just because the claim that "god gave them" is not consistent with any form of reality, as it's a claim based on faith and not methods that grant accuracy and consistency withing one's logical arguments, within emphirical reality.

>>131184637
that's surprising, most of the Doctor I have seen were atheist. But still it's near impossible to actually believe in God, if you reason far enough.
But I personally feel that 'need' to believe in God is ingrained in us, Thus the Unsort in my mind

>>131184796
It takes faith to commit to any belief about the world more ambitious than solipsism. You believing you're not a brain in a vat takes faith on your part, because you very well could be.

Creation =/= arranging pre-existing things. Artists don't create anything for instance - they only arrange things that are already there.

>Implying revelations are more than
They could be. You can't say they couldn't be, because they logically definitively could be.

>>131185507
See, I came to the opposite conclusion.
We do need to believe in God or gods, though. Both on a personal level and on a societal one. Those who don't are either replacing something else for their god (an idol), non-thinking, believe others believe in a caricature being that is God, emotionally against it or are mentally unstable. Pretty rude, I know, but accurate.

>>131185624
no, you're using sophistry

ockham contribution to philosophy is straight rekting all the bullshit like that instantly

if you're bringing problems, you yourself aren't solving to the table, it's not a valid claim, you're just tring to make a wrong okay trought making it complicated with different wrongs

do you know how sophisticated were the geocentric models of the planetary system?

they worked and made sense, even if they were just absolutly wrong

that's what happens when you let an intelligent/high IQ idiot with the wrong mindware play to understand the world, they just make themselves and you more stupid with facade and delusions

creations is always arranging pre-existing things, always, there's nothing else in our universe, point an exception and I'll give you money via paypal bud

>>131185624
all the "could be" are on the trash can when you settle an accurate method to digest reality and your own thoughts

Okham razor is about disregarding solutions to a problem that actually bring major problematics that, moreover, are bunkered against any analysis themselves

That happens with religions, metaphisics and most the bullshit out there

>>131186366
What is wrong? You haven't said why religious propositions are wrong, only that you don't like them and don't believe them. I don't care what you believe - your beliefs have nothing to do with truth values.

Tell me why you couldn't possibly be a brain in a vat.

>>131185912
Dude that's the thing, people may not say they believe in God, but they put something else on that place.
that why i said we need something like god to derive morality from

>>131187302
Indeed. Religion is necessary. A lot of people imagine God as something He is not. They imagine something closer to Zeus; something in creation, something caused, temporal. That's not the monotheistic God, though.

I don't want the world to become Islamic. Unless we do something, I fear it might.

don't do anything like that. only you exist. exert your will.

>>131186684
you don't need to prove false a claim when it's founded on incorrect and cheap assumptions, it falls by it's own nenligences

these tricks can convince a normie, even when you're a really neerd and asocial normie, but not a deep thinker, because it's loaded with things that are not valid at all

For myself to actually be a brain in a vat you're making up a second universe containing this one, which implies knowledge of the form of the continent

Universe B is us, part of A's content
Universe A is the continent

When assuming that, these are the assumptions/information/claims implied (that you obviously not realice):
>Universe B is continent of a recipient mirror of itself;
>Assuming the same foundations of reality/laws of nature/singularity
>Assuming an universe can render a version/simulation of itself
>Assuming a brain can function inside a vat
>Assuming a simulation/3D vidya can resemble reality
>Assuming a vivid dream/subjective expirience is the same as an actually real life expirience TM

It's all non sense and can't be taken seriously, it's ephistemologycal nenligence, you're steping and making stupid claims over ephistemological limits without realicing them, that's the arrogance of the stupid. And you even armor yourself like it's as valid as everything else. That's literally the mask of sophism/relativism

>>131188153
>incorrect and cheap assumptions
How can you *POSSIBLY* falsify a nonfalsifiable assumption?
You can't dipshit - you can't say something is "incorrect" when you have *NO GROUNDS* upon which to know it's fucking incorrect.

File: 1485503086261.jpg (149KB, 862x1000px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 862x1000px

>>131188378
you don't need to

those are mindtraps, tricks, fireworks

Ephistemology, ie, accurate knowledge, glasses to see and understand, are not at all about refuting every single claims or witticism, but about making claims that are consisent with emphiric reality and everything that doesn't work in the same way is just fraudulent, different from knowledge of emphiric reality (hard sciences), knowledge about logic and mathematics, knowledge of our language, history (soft sciences), knowledge of ourselves (insight), tacit knowledge (arts, abilities, skills or masteries), and therefore after everything, philosophy feeding from all these valid sources of knowledge.

Out of your reach in a thousand life times.

>>131189498
>you don't need to
I likewise don't need to take anything you say seriously, since you won't engage in basic epistemic inquiry. Have fun being irrelevant before you're in hell~

File: MECHA-HUME.jpg (424KB, 920x2492px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 920x2492px

>>131189498
>emphiric reality

>>131187938

It doesn't matter if God is real or not, what's important is that you believe he is real

File: Biocomplexity_spiral.jpg (169KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 480x360px

>>131189711
You're not getting hard sciences are a small part of the ground of not worthless philosophy, you got nothing at all

I'm not on the side of those in the vignettes at all m8

you seem to have stopped reading at emphiric, ignoring the following:

>knowledge about logic and mathematics, knowledge of our language, history (soft sciences), knowledge of ourselves (insight), tacit knowledge (arts, abilities, skills or masteries), and therefore after everything, philosophy feeding from all these valid sources of knowledge.

pic related, lacks all other phoenomenons that are out of scientific reach, like psycology, bussiness, comunication, insight, any other part of complexity of human beings

>>131188378
>>131188378
it's really simple to make a claim that is nonfalsifiable

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E

Ephistemology is about identifying fraud from claims actually related with working on adding up deeper understanding of some reality

All the responses are not equal, myths and logos are not the same.

Logos is pretty humble, stupidity is absolutly arrogant, even to fantasize about brains in vats outside of entretaintment

>>131190898
>claims actually related
You can't distinguish those claims, because the problem of induction rapes everything you believe.

The intellect will make you a living
wisdom will build you a life.

>>131175618
Read a tremendous book demolishing voluntarist conceptions of justice the other day, its called the Myth of Liberalism by John Safranak. Might be hard to get your hands on but well worth it if you want to see your position put to the test

>>131192423
I'm a Christian, and therefore a pacifist, and therefore an anarchist. Me calling myself a voluntarist is just an extension of my Christian morality - there's nothing to dissemble in my position.

>>131191430
the accuracy of ephistemology isn't a tool for perfect nor complete knowledge of an object

if you idealice knowledge you will have an induction problem with it, if you don't, you will be pragmatic and add value according to success and nothing else

>>131193355
>success
What you call "success" I call meaningless shit I don't care about. It's arbitrary nonsense - you empiricists are cancerous to philosophy, because you don't give a damn about truth or logic, you only care about your random subjective feels.

You know Canada is fucked,when Peterson is the last remaining sane canadian