|Hooker - 2011-03-21 |
I hate him with such a passion. 1 minute and 16 seconds.
|misterbuns - 2011-03-21 |
|glendower - 2011-03-21 |
He's the next Immanuel Kant.
I was sent from the buns to buns your buns.
|Quad9Damage - 2011-03-21 |
I love how he has to spend hours making videos just to respond to people who called him on his bullshit on Youtube. Also, pretending to "fall in love" because the responder is a woman just makes him so classy.
|standard8mm - 2011-03-21 |
|notascientist - 2011-03-21 |
Morality is sort of a pet peeve of mine, and I have to admit, she does not seem to really understand the argument he is making. She doesn't really make a convincing argument for the fact that objective morality doesn't exist (admittedly, we are looking at his edited version of things).
He is right that you can't _prove_ that objective morals don't exist. But that is kind of a red herring. You need merely demonstrate that objective morals are not a useful hypothesis given the understanding of the cosmos we have now and the collection of not-understood things. I think there is a strong case for this point of view, not that he would be open to it.
His face is still totally punchable.
It's a mistake, though, to even get into this argument over something VFX has said or done, because he's batshit insane and doesn't even know what he's talking about. All roads and paths of everything in his brain, no matter how convoluted they sound, ALWAYS lead to "the bible and God are everything ever, the end."
His original argument that got this whole thing started was that the Enlightenment was actually about people wanting to get away from good, Christian morals and do whatever they want and that it actually took people away from God.
Why are objective and moral shitty words? Because some arrogant college kid thinks he's the first person to discover them? Because they're not easy words to deal with? They describe useful concepts. Saying they're shitty words because you don't want to deal with them is laziness.
They're shitty words because they are very vague and mean a lot of things that often conflict with each other. Like 'art' and 'god' and 'magic' and 'love'. If you can avoid using them, it's a good idea - otherwise, you need to say what you mean when you are using them. If you don't need to use them, you should avoid them - I thought I did fine without, so there's no need for that sass. Also, I used 'shitty' because I wanted to put some street talk in with the philosophy talk, lest I get a wedgie. I don't mean they are literally made out of, or covered in, shit.
We should only use unequivocal words and talk about obvious things.
Goddamn. I am clearly interpreting the meaning of the words I just dismissed here, in order to get at what is useful about them, and I did it without using them directly in order to avoid the confusion they create. Somehow you managed to get confused anyway. Goddamn.
If logic is what is objective, and if what is moral is what is best, then yes there must objective morality. Yes, I am putting it unequivocally, no I am not talking about what is obvious - it's sure as shit not obvious to you.
|thebaronsdoctor - 2011-03-21 |
Someone needs to tell this man that objective morality and ojectifying are two different things
| Register or login To Post a Comment|