His philosophical outlook contains an "ought"

>his philosophical outlook contains an "ought"
you know that's non-sequitor, right?

So?

>you ought not derive an ought from an is

the reality of the situation is that deriving an "ought" from an "is" is non-sequitor. there is no "ought" involved in that fact unless you derive one from it, like you just did, making your smartass response non-sequitor.

>deriving an "ought" from an "is" is non-sequitor
Is that something you ought not do?

So what?

having an illogical outlook on life? that's up to you. I'm just here telling you that your outlook on existence is objectively logically invalid.

That makes it superior, though.

>I'm just here telling you
Is that something you ought to do?

by what metric?

Existence is irrational. The idea that we can understand the world purely through reason and observation is wrong.

I also like my feels better.

t. riven main

>implying the facts that pain is bad and pleasure is good don't follow directly from the perception of those phenomena

>perception can be trusted
>all pleasure and pain are the same

Riven? As in league of legends riven?

>>perception can be trusted
What does this even mean in this case? If something feels like it hurts then it fucking hurts, it's not a matter of trust.

>>all pleasure and pain are the same
I didn't say that tho

>Existence is irrational.
compared to what static rational object? compared to fucking what?!
>The idea that we can understand the world purely through reason and observation is wrong.
okay, maybe? are you implying you could understand it better through guessing?

also, hotaru is a massive shit and you should feel shame for posting her.

pain being "bad" and pleasure being "good" is literally an opinion, not a fact. do you know the difference?

>pain being "bad" and pleasure being "good" is literally an opinion
No.

>compared to what static rational object?
For someone so against non sequiturs you don't make much of an effort to avoid them. Rationality alone is inadequate to describe the world. At the end of the day, even rationalists are still working from unprovable foundations.

>I didn't say that tho
Okay, you passed the test. Hedonism still sucks but at least you're not a fag.

I think pain is good because it tells me what to not do in order to survive. without it, I would probably be dead. survival is important to me.

???!?!?!?! apparently you don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion.

where did I commit non-sequitor? use quotes. (it didn't happen)
>Rationality alone is inadequate to describe the world.
did I claim it was? use quotes. (it didn't happen)

fucking hotarushit posters.

>Okay, you passed the test. Hedonism still sucks but at least you're not a fag.
yay

You're just playing with words. Even if the fact that you feel pain is a good thing, you cannot consider the experience of pain itself to be anything but bad.

>Existence is irrational.
>compared to what static rational object?
Doesn't follow.

I'm not arguing semantics at all. I literally demonstrated an opposing opinion of "pain is bad" to prove how much of an opinion it is. if you're suggesting "pain" and "bad" are synonyms, THAT is playing with words.

the only way you could claim existence is irrational without literally guessing would be to use "rationality" as a metric instead of a rational/irrational dichotomy. I gave you the benefit of the doubt(I'm not sure why) that you weren't completely guessing and assumed you were putting the universe on a spectrum of comparison. your welcome for thinking better of you than you actually are

in that case, prove the existence is irrational. were you guessing?!

>prove the existence is irrational
How can you know it isn't? You're claiming that the universe is more well-ordered than I am. By the rules of rationalism it's your job to prove it :^)

when did I claim the universe is rational? use quotes. (it didn't happen).

I don't make baseless claims, I just shit on people that do as a passtime.

>I just shit on people that do as a passtime.
So what's your logical reason for doing so?

I don't have one.

So how do you logically justify the discrepancy between that and your shitting on people who hold illogical worldviews?

why should I?

I don't think you have to. But I'm not the one advocating pure rationalism.

>I literally demonstrated an opposing opinion of "pain is bad" to prove how much of an opinion it is.
What you said does not even contradict what I mean by saying that pain is bad, it merely plays with an ambiguity of phrasing. Again, there's a difference between saying that the fact that you feel pain is good and saying that the feeling of pain is good. And there's no reason a thing can't be good in one respect and bad in another.

>if you're suggesting "pain" and "bad" are synonyms
No, but I do mean to define bad in terms of pleasure and pain. This is both useful and consistent with (at least one of) the ways the word is most commonly used, so it seems fair enough to me.

neither am I. I'm just telling people that they're wrong.

>No, but I do mean to define bad in terms of pleasure and pain.
so you are using "good" and "bad" as synonyms for "pleasure" and "pain", then. no wonder you think I'm playing with words. I don't think you even realize that you are doing this. the only way to say "pain is bad and pleasure is good" while being objective would be to redefine them as synonyms. "pain is pain and pleasure is pleasure", yes that is correct and not an opinion. why would you say such a redundant thing, though?

>Get into Hume and Stirner
>Everything related to politics, morals, religion and ethics becomes a complete joke

sort of. these things still have an effect on your life because there are a lot of people drinking the same kool-aid, and some of these people have a much larger sphere of influence than you do. getting thrown in prison or killed because spooks is not a joke, it would probably suck.

another thing to consider is that these things can be used as tools to increase your own sphere of influence.