Probably not a surprise, considering I said I was Rawlsian, I think it plays a factor in justice, retributive and distributive. I also think it's not that hard to get around. It's a bit more of a sticky subject for virtue ethics and even utilitarians, but since I'm a deontological Kantian, it's pretty clear how to deal with it.
Philosopher's Guild: Everyone is Welcome to Gather and Discuss
- Thread starter NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong
- Start date
Probably not a surprise, considering I said I was Rawlsian, I think it plays a factor in justice, retributive and distributive. I also think it's not that hard to get around. It's a bit more of a sticky subject for virtue ethics and even utilitarians, but since I'm a deontological Kantian, it's pretty clear how to deal with it.
~Post-colonialism drop~
Frantz Fanon:
http://abahlali.org/files/__Black_Skin__White_Masks__Pluto_Classics_.pdf
http://thebaluch.com/documents/0802150837 - FRANTZ FANON - The Wretched of the Earth.pdf
Aimé Césaire:
http://www.rlwclarke.net/theory/SourcesPrimary/CesaireDiscourseonColonialism.pdf
Be aware that these were written in a time where the language of Marxism was pretty common, so please don't let that turn you off if Marx isn't someone you're interested in, there's still a lot to interpret.
Frantz Fanon:
http://abahlali.org/files/__Black_Skin__White_Masks__Pluto_Classics_.pdf
http://thebaluch.com/documents/0802150837 - FRANTZ FANON - The Wretched of the Earth.pdf
Aimé Césaire:
http://www.rlwclarke.net/theory/SourcesPrimary/CesaireDiscourseonColonialism.pdf
Be aware that these were written in a time where the language of Marxism was pretty common, so please don't let that turn you off if Marx isn't someone you're interested in, there's still a lot to interpret.
Got some recent inspiration and bought a 300 page book that details/summarizes most significant philosophers
Imma get drunk and type up some shyt later
Imma get drunk and type up some shyt later
Thales of Miletus
Lived from 623 bc to 546 bc
He posed the question: "What is the basic material of the cosmos?"
He then posited that it must be..something from which everything can be formed..essential to life..capable of motion and capable of change. Therefore everything is made of water.
The main reason why he is considered a major figure in philosophy is because he was the first known thinker to seek naturalistic, rational answers to fundamental questions, rather than to ascribe objects and events to gods.
Lived from 623 bc to 546 bc
He posed the question: "What is the basic material of the cosmos?"
He then posited that it must be..something from which everything can be formed..essential to life..capable of motion and capable of change. Therefore everything is made of water.
The main reason why he is considered a major figure in philosophy is because he was the first known thinker to seek naturalistic, rational answers to fundamental questions, rather than to ascribe objects and events to gods.
I used to like Spinoza's work but god damn on further thought his proof was dumb as fukk
Im going to be short here but this is from the book im reading
"According to Spinoza, all objects, whether animal, vegetable, or mineral, have a mentality. Both their bodies and their mentalities are a part of God, who is greater than all the world's physical and mental attributes. God, for Spinoza, is the 'substance' that underlies reality."
Every object in the universe, even a rock, has a body and a mind. Body and mind are attributes of substance. Substance is God, in whom all is explained.
Im going to be short here but this is from the book im reading
"According to Spinoza, all objects, whether animal, vegetable, or mineral, have a mentality. Both their bodies and their mentalities are a part of God, who is greater than all the world's physical and mental attributes. God, for Spinoza, is the 'substance' that underlies reality."
Every object in the universe, even a rock, has a body and a mind. Body and mind are attributes of substance. Substance is God, in whom all is explained.
@Type Username Here come back 
Kenny West
Veteran
On a basic level i think it can...Every human who can experince pain gets to understand that it hurts and wishes to avoid it. Thus pain is bad on an objective level
Only arrogance can lead to someone saying its objective
So when a human inflicts said pain on others they know they're doing bad which is why they prepare for and expect retaliation and provide justification. To me that is acknowledgement of "evil/bad" on at least a basic level. And I cant imagine human conflict without these dynamics in play.
The subjectivity of morality lies in the willingness to accept their mental justifications or not even provide one. But regardless the individual can perceive the negative moral connotation of their actionsactions. No matter how depraved I've never heard of a person that didnt have a concept of good actions to do with people they favor and bad actions to those they dont.
That would take a plantlike lack of discernment for the world
Last edited:
Sure but "good" and "bad" actions are subjective.
Pain could also be deemed as "good" depending on the scenario
But good post
It’s hard to speak in absolutes. There’s some people (albeit not many) that like pain. They think it’s good. There’s some pain that is good for us (i.e. exercise). To your point, if experiencing pain (like getting stung by a bee) teaches me to avoid bees in the future...then perhaps that pain was good. I learned from it, and am now a more cautious person.
As for the objectivity of morality, I think it’s impossible because it assumes we can predict the consequences of our actions. Were doctors in the 17th century immoral for using bleeding to try to heal people with plague? Their intention are good, but the unintended consequences were not. I guess this is a consequentialist argument, but it becomes really difficult to speak in any sort of absolutes. You know, “I think therefor I am”, and all that. His point was that the only thing he can objectively prove to be true was that he exists because he was thinking. Everything else is subjective.
Last edited:
Descartes continued onto "proving" other things after the cogito argument but i dont think his reasoning really holds up and most scholars/philosophers dont think so either
The point still applies here, I think.
And, “most” might be a bit strong.
