Tweet
I'm taking alot of philosophy classes this semester.... why the hell are so many modern philosophers afraid of the word "force".
Some like Mills or Raz really get to me. They drone on and on and on about these complicated theories about rejecting a social contract or absolute morality saying they can not be empirically based. Then they produce longwidned arguments about the "most good" and "value satisfaction" and how society should be structured for these things.
"Should be structured this way" why? They say because it does the most good.
Well, if you reject moral absolutism or the social contract on the grounds that they are not empirically grounded, how can you make a claim that it is legitimate because it does the "most good."
Even if they can prove that such philosophies do in fact produce the most good, they reject all philosophies which can not be empirically based, yet, they make their own philosophies without an empirical base as well.
Sure you may be able to prove what IS the most good, but you never explain *WHY* producing the "most good" is the empirically correct thing.
They are completely full of themselves and immediately fall into the same traps they accuse others of.
"Force"
Why the hell are modern philosophers so afraid of that small five letter word? Is it possibly because when you factor in that among peoples "rational desires" is the not necessarily so rational desire to beat, rob, kill or rape other human beings, that when you factor in force, their neat little ideas fall apart?
All modern philosophers are so completely full of **** because they COMPLETELY ignore the fact that force not only exists but it is in reality the driving force of the society which we live in today.
How can you EVER empirically proove the "rectitude" of a philosophy?
*FORCE* is the only empirical proof of the "rectitude" of a philosophy because if force makes something cease to exist, it logially ceases to be a possibility. The last philosophy or moral action, or person, to withstand force, wins.
I just got out of 7 hours of lengthy philosophical bull****, explaining in detail how old philosophical norms can not be empirically based, then a lengthy explanation of why another philosophy which is not empirically based is best.
*finishes foaming at the mouth and waits for responses*
Some like Mills or Raz really get to me. They drone on and on and on about these complicated theories about rejecting a social contract or absolute morality saying they can not be empirically based. Then they produce longwidned arguments about the "most good" and "value satisfaction" and how society should be structured for these things.
"Should be structured this way" why? They say because it does the most good.
Well, if you reject moral absolutism or the social contract on the grounds that they are not empirically grounded, how can you make a claim that it is legitimate because it does the "most good."
Even if they can prove that such philosophies do in fact produce the most good, they reject all philosophies which can not be empirically based, yet, they make their own philosophies without an empirical base as well.
Sure you may be able to prove what IS the most good, but you never explain *WHY* producing the "most good" is the empirically correct thing.
They are completely full of themselves and immediately fall into the same traps they accuse others of.
"Force"
Why the hell are modern philosophers so afraid of that small five letter word? Is it possibly because when you factor in that among peoples "rational desires" is the not necessarily so rational desire to beat, rob, kill or rape other human beings, that when you factor in force, their neat little ideas fall apart?
All modern philosophers are so completely full of **** because they COMPLETELY ignore the fact that force not only exists but it is in reality the driving force of the society which we live in today.
How can you EVER empirically proove the "rectitude" of a philosophy?
*FORCE* is the only empirical proof of the "rectitude" of a philosophy because if force makes something cease to exist, it logially ceases to be a possibility. The last philosophy or moral action, or person, to withstand force, wins.
I just got out of 7 hours of lengthy philosophical bull****, explaining in detail how old philosophical norms can not be empirically based, then a lengthy explanation of why another philosophy which is not empirically based is best.
*finishes foaming at the mouth and waits for responses*
Comment