I'm the best philosopher on this board

Plotinus is basically Plato without all the coy aporea bullshit.
The basic idea is that you either submit to the One (God) or else your shit is going to get fucked up by genii (i.e., angels/forms which according to Plotinus are the same thing). You need to read a LOT of Plato before Plotinus will make any kind of sense.

If I wasn't super interested in the metaphysics shit I would just skip Plotinus and read Plato's "Laws" keeping in mind that it's actually more about techniques of self and not what laws a society should have.

Stirner B+
Evola B
Molyneux C+

meh

Why anal of course.

Why?

>The basic idea is that you either submit to the One (God) or else your shit is going to get fucked up by genii
I kek'd at this. Thanks.

Rape is a form of sexual violation and transgression. In the act of anal rape you violate not only the person but the act of sexuality itself, since it is teleologically oriented towards procreation.

Surely that applies to ordeal rape as well, if not more so, since there is something of a link in popular consciousness between sexual and scatological functions, but no link at all to things like eating and speaking.

Oral*

Epistemic foundationalism, coherentism, or evidentialism?

None of the above. Knowledge is only possible inside the Aristotelian conception of science.

Oral sex is not as much of a transgression because things are supposed to go into the mouth and foreplay is part of the sexual act. Anal is a much more complete transgression against the established ontological order.

Is it ok to be sad instead of happy?

What was your favorite Veggie Tales

What's your take on the repugnant conclusion?

Yes of course.

The one with Jonah and the wale.

Could you summarize it? Never heard of this in all my years of studying philosophy.

In that case what does someone like Moore mean when they say, "I know that I have two hands"? How would you describe the phenomenon of knowledge or what appears as knowledge outside of the "Aristotelian concept of science," and why can knowledge only be possible in it?

Moore is talking about Cartesian continuity of phenomenal experience.

Knowledge is possible inside the Aristotelian concept of science because a framework for establishing the first principles of said science and deriving facts from both experience and those principles is laid out. Or something like that. It's hard to explain without making you read all of the canonical Aristotelian texts. If you're really hot and bothered about having knowledge in a non-nebulous sense of the word you have to go through Aristotle though.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/

Basically, is it better to have one billion people who are extremely happy or 10 billion people who are half as happy or 10 trillion people who are 1% as happy as the former or just one guy who is happier than any of them, and where do you draw the line? It's a common problem for utilitarians.

Oh. Yeah well that's the problem with utilitarianism right there. It's never okay to sacrifice the well being of another to increase the well being of others-full stop. The real ethical dilemma in philosophy isn't between deontology and utilitarianism but more like between virtue ethics/deontology and Sadism.

>It's never okay to sacrifice the well being of another to increase the well being of others-full stop
That can justify literally anything. For example, you could argue that it's wrong for parents to abort out of convenience, because they're sacrificing the wellbeing of their child to increase/preserve their own well-being. Or you could argue it's immoral to ban abortion, because you're sacrificing the wellbeing of the parents to increase the wellbeing of the child. Or you can argue that it's immoral to enforce the law because you're fining/jailing the offenders to increase the wellbeing of others.

You're assuming that there is a utilitarian reason why utilitarianism is wrong. I'm saying you can't talk about morality inside the logic of utilitarian calculus or else the kinds of paradoxes you're getting lost inside are the result.

If it's wrong to abort, it's wrong in light of natural law, not because it's beneficial or not beneficial for any individual.

Could you rephrase that? Whether or not someone read Aristotle, it still seems to me that they could experience knowledge and justifiably say of themselves, "I know that three is one more than two and one less than four." To me that has little to nothing to do with deriving facts from experience. How someone that says that justifies their statement may be arbitrary or based on experience, but that they know it doesn't seem so. I'm not so bothered about knowledge being a clean and concise term as I am concerned that you claim knowledge can only be under such clean and concise conditions as the "Aristotelian concept of science."

Also, metaphysical trappings aside, what you say again to a hard nosed Scottish realist when he says, "No, I know for a fact that I have two hands. Here's one and here's the other. Neither continuity nor Descartes have anything to do with that."

*what would you say against

any reason beside your own pleasre why we shoud be good

Do you ever philosophize on philosophy? What is your philosophy on philosophizing? What does it mean to be a philosopher?

lmao

Well if they won't listen to reason there isn't anything I can say to convince them otherwise. I would say nothing to such a person. I might give them a pat on the head and say "good work you figured out you have two hands" and send them on their way.

Knowledge as we generally conceive it is justified true belief. However, this account fails to hold up to scrutiny (see the gettier problem).
We do seem to have knowledge of some things, however the more scrutiny you put this knowledge under, the more it unravels. Knowledge is that which anchors our beliefs in certainty, but it is itself never certain.

>I'm the best philosopher on this board

is the best of the worst still the best?

You will be good one way or another. Might as well just accept it and start now instead of going the hard way.

1. Yes
2. It's not for the meek
3. To love wisdom

Maybe these days lol

Fair. I think you're more or less spot on about that, but how would you suggest that knowledge "anchors our belief in certainty"? Is it that it has an inexplicably reliable relation to belief? That it is an unquestionable foundation for belief? Or the matter in itself that beliefs cohere? Or another explanation?

Also out of curiosity who are your favorite philosophers?

What do you mean by wisdom?

I'm the best cowboy on this board.

I will entertain any and all roping or riding related questions you have with the correct answers. You'll never need to read another wikipedia article on the prairie again if you read this thread.

Come one come all, I'll tell you what.

Favorite philosophers are Plato Spinoza Nietzsche and Heidegger

As to how knowledge anchors our beliefs that question can't be answered without serious inquiry into being qua being. To quote bill clinton, it depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.

That's for me to know and you to find out. :^)

What's your favorite breed of horse to ride

Missouri fox trotter

Nice! I'm partial to Heidegger, Husserl, and Merleau-Ponty, personally.

In that respect, knowing that I'll be on board with questioning being qua being, how does one's being relate to epistemology the way we have so far addressed it?

why should we trust you.

He's been doing okay thus far.

okay at what? showing he's read a few books and saying things you agree with?

What's the difference between Platonism and Neoplatonism?

If you're taking his claim in the OP literally I don't know what to tell you other than maybe get a psych eval. This is a fun-posting thread.

Ontology and epistemology co-determine each other. Your epistemological presuppositions will have an effect on what your ontological conclusions will be and visa versa.

Does a "soul" exist in any form? Justify your answer

Both terms have several possible meanings so that's a tough nut to crack. Generally any platonism after Christianity is safe to call Neoplatonism. Neoplatonism is people like Plotinus, Petrarch, St. Bonaventure. Platonism is well, Plato.

>unable to recognize people playing along in different roles
/sigh sure is summer in here

Well, the Greeks just meant by "soul" what we mean by "mind" more or less. So yes? Depends on how you define soul. AJ Ayer renounced logical positivism as an old man because he started seeing ghosts and shit.

Who the fuck knows. I don't know anything about that shit.

Astral projection is definitely real though I've done it before.

What do you think about solipsism?

I don't think about it at all

Why? It's actually a very interesting philosophical theory

If you put one foot infront of the other, where does the third one land?

your mom

Yeah if you're like 14

what he said

Batoru

I had a feeling you'd say something like this, but regardless treating knowledge as justified true belief or that which anchors belief in certainty, knowledge and ontological comportment always seem to co-determine each other. What's so unique about this stance?

>unique

Nothing is unique. The more you read the more you'll realize this.

What? No. I just don't see how the position you took on epistemology has any more explanatory power than other positions I've read about.

I think that you and I have both read more than our fair share, to be clear.

I'm just telling you the truth. Truth doesn't always correspond to explanatory power.

Is Being, or is Nothing? If both are, how can both be? If neither is, how can neither be? if both both are and not are, what is it that each is being and what is it that each is not being?

>Astral projection is definitely real though I've done it before.
thread dropped.

It could be the case that I'm too bound in the Heidegerrian "Age of the World Picture," but it seems awfully plain to me that the less true a statement, forecast, or proposition is, the less I'm able to explain with it.

You can't reason with someone who doesn't think that truth is important. You should spare yourself the trouble of trying.

Where can I rustle up some varmints?

did you try the varmint store?

this. why do /x/enos always shit things up here?

For the same reason Veeky Forums Marxists who fap to Lacan do:
They think that they aren't spooked and that what they're talking about has some bearing on history and the humanities, rather than shutting up and thinking about it before saying it.
>inb4 SPOOKS ARE SPOOKS
I don't care.

Rocks, brush, creeks and trees

>the best philosopher
How can you now you are the best one?

Riddle me this; Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

I'm a mediocre philosopher on this board.

I will try to entertain any and all philosophy related questions, but probably fail to come up with a satisfactory answer. I've honestly just read the Wikipedia articles of philosophers before posting in this thread.

Come one, come all, I shall distract you.

Ass or tits?

Not sure if youre even here but
Whats the best way to into philosophy if Im complete beginner?
>greeks
Yes I know but elaborate which books and from who should I start etc.