>have a somewhat high esteem for philosophy
>watch a few of a philosophy teacher's videos
>"Only Atheists can be moral because they don't act depending on rewards and punishment"
>actually they do since they base their morality on dopamine secretion, and not wanting to have reward as your main incentive is Christian theology 101
>"Even without God, some things are objectively good or evil, period."
>zero argument given
>"Holy shit dudez we have a 33% chance of living in a simulation! Let me tell you about the Bostrom trilemma!"
>"Hey, we need to give probabilities to the 3 alternatives, except since there's no way of estimating them, I'll just choose a uniform distribution and tadaaa! 33% probability, loogs breddy gonvinzing do me :DDDD"
>"Hey look! If we make a copy of a brain with electrical components, it can do everything we do! #IdentityCrisis"
>except perceiving the outer world and building new synapses and neurons, mayhaps?
>"If you want to be a dualist, then but either way you must believe it's false. :^)"
What happened to philosophy?
Have a somewhat high esteem for philosophy
Wait for four more years until I finish university and I'll go and fix it.
>What happened to philosophy?
Postmodernism
>actually they do since they base their morality on dopamine secretion, and not wanting to have reward as your main incentive is Christian theology 101
why do you assume all atheists are hedonists? also are you joking, so much of christianity is "do these good things on earth now, because your eternal reward is heaven!"
seems like you're the one that needs to stop being a retard, not philosophy
I'm extremely serious about this question, so here me out.
What if in the jungle, when Snek was sneking about, instead he turned into a snek?
In this scenario: in that tropical day, Ms Snek doesn't show up on Sneks's doorstep. Snek is slithering at the jungle floor alone, when suddenly he feels off.
Always ready with a snek body, he documents his experience:
>his skin does nothing
>its texture does nothing
>his tongue remains forked
>eyes stay black, and its always been hard to write
>legs don't exist
>his arms don't exists, Snek could never write
The rest of the transformation takes place; what was once a Snek of normal stature is now a slender creature of significant girth.
This scenario assumes that Snek retains his intelligence. What happens next? The first obstacle would be him to survive until his family got back home. Then the next challenge is convincing them who he is. Best case is that he does, but what about everyone else? Is he able to continue his job? How is he treated by peers, the general public, and enemies?
Discuss.
Plato solved philosophy and everything since has been people upset that the greatest sophist of all won.
>actually they do since they base their morality on dopamine secretion
bullshit
Tbh philosophy dropping in prestige is much more important. It's just not as prestigious to study philosophy as it was, so it fails to attract the talent it needs. But yeah, deconstuction gets pretty annoying.
Made me smile user
Mass Communication, 90% of the population will always be oblivious morons. Giving them a plataform to share their views was a mistake.
I can't really assess this philosophy teacher's output without seeing the videos, however the first couple of lines of your greentext gave me this impression....
>filosophy supports Christianity innit cuz internet memes and stuff
>finds out most modern philosophers are non-religious
>waah, waah, shits pants and bursts into tears
>gave me this impression
>shits pants and bursts into tears
It is very interesting that is the first impression that came into your mind.
Being a philosopher doesn't necessarily mean your ideas are worth a crap.
Boi if you smiled then typing that was time was spent.
(no homo)
>are you joking, so much of christianity is "do these good things on earth now, because your eternal reward is heaven!"
Christians are supposed to do good because they love God, not because they'll get more chocolate if they do. They may rarely do that in practice, but neither does anyone else, and the ideology isn't defined by how the people claiming to follow it act.
In the majority of cases, it's either that or others' approval i.e. rewards and punishment.
Greek philosophers were Atheists; they did great. David Hume was an Atheist; he did pretty good. Try again.
>Christians are supposed to do good because they love God, not because they'll get more chocolate if they do.
Christianity explicitly provides an end reward for doing good. That alone refutes your argument.
The reward is not the incentive according to the doctrine though. Are you capable of entertaining a belief system even if you disagree with it?
>The reward is not the incentive according to the doctrine though.
that it exists means it is the incentive.
>Are you capable of entertaining a belief system even if you disagree with it?
Absolutely. What do you think I'm doing right now? I'm not saying "lol christcucks r so dumb dey believe in magic sky fairy!!1" I'm saying the belief system explicitly provides a reward for doing good as the incentive for doing good. If the system only wanted people to do good for the sake of good, why would it provide an explicit reward to draw in those who would not otherwise be satisfied doing good for good's sake?
I believe you in that heaven isn't a direct incentive. Instead, I think it's supposed to appeal to people's need to be recognised that they're doing good. People aren't going to be as willing to do good when the end result is "nobody cares lol". That's still far from selfless, but it's not quite as bad as he's making it out to be
>Greek philosophers were Atheists; they did great.
What?
>David Hume was an Atheist; he did
pretty badly
>that it exists means it is the incentive.
That is not an argument.
>the belief system explicitly provides a reward for doing good as the incentive for doing good
Again you are mischaracterizing Christian doctrine to suit your ideology. The Bible teaches that human beings are fundamentally sinful and it is only through God's assistance that we are able to do good. God's people obey Him because we acknowledge that He is our creator and therefore has authority over us. Acknowledging this truth is what allows the Holy Spirit to work good in our lives and the blessings that come as a result are merely incidental.
The Christian perspective is that God is the agent of good and when Christians do good it is only God acting through them and not of themselves.
>That is not an argument.
What? It literally is.
> The Bible teaches that human beings are fundamentally sinful and it is only through God's assistance that we are able to do good.
That is completely incorrect. The Bible teaches that Jesus sacrificed himself to remove the original sin of humanity. You don't even know your own theology.
>>have a somewhat high esteem for philosophy
>>watch a few of a philosophy teacher's videos
...
You simply stating that rewards exist mean that they are the incentive is not an argument and Jesus came to redeem humanity from original sin. Sin continues to affect Christians even after we have been saved but through Christ's blood those sins are forgiven. You need to understand that any good work that a Christian does in their life is the Holy Spirit acting through them and does not originate from within themselves.
>have a somewhat high esteem for philosophy
>watch a few videos where a guy says things I disagree with
>wtf philosophy sucks now
Truly you are the most advanced intellectual, OP.
>You simply stating that rewards exist mean that they are the incentive is not an argument
Well then, perhaps maybe you should bother to address where I expounded upon that statement:
>If the system only wanted people to do good for the sake of good, why would it provide an explicit reward to draw in those who would not otherwise be satisfied doing good for good's sake?
>You need to understand that any good work that a Christian does in their life is the Holy Spirit acting through them and does not originate from within themselves.
Simply untrue - God gave humans free will, and that is how the original sin - the eating of the forbidden fruit - came to be in the first place. In the Bible, He gave humans the capacity to act for good as well as evil.
>3841757
>have a somewhat high esteem for philosophy
>watch a few of a philosophy teacher's videos
lol no you didn't have a high esteem for philosophy
>why would it provide an explicit reward to draw in those who would not otherwise be satisfied doing good for good's sake?
The rewards are not included to "draw in" anyone but are the result God's abundant benevolence. The primary incentive for obeying God is acknowledging His authority as the sovereign creator of the universe and the rewards that go with it are an overflow of accepting the truth.
>He gave humans the capacity to act for good as well as evil.
Prior to the Fall yes but in the post-lapserian era the human heart is oriented towards evil and it is only through God's intervention that this orientation can be corrected.
>The rewards are not included to "draw in" anyone but are the result God's abundant benevolence. The primary incentive for obeying God is acknowledging His authority as the sovereign creator of the universe and the rewards that go with it are an overflow of accepting the truth.
Heaven may be a result of God's abundant benevolence, but that does not change its purpose as a method to convince humans to follow His will. Both Jesus and others treat heaven as the reward for godly acts - the famous "it is easier for the rich to pass through the eye of a needle than to reach heaven" saying is just one example
>Prior to the Fall yes but in the post-lapserian era the human heart is oriented towards evil and it is only through God's intervention that this orientation can be corrected.
I don't know what branch of Christianity you adhere to that holds this position, but it is incorrect and not based on biblical text whatsoever.
This is a much more interesting question than the original pasta
>that does not change its purpose as a method to convince humans to follow His will
You do not get to define God's purposes; the doctrinal position is that humans follow God's will because He is God. Now it is true that if you were to ask the average person who identifies as Christian why they are obedient many of them would say "because I want to go to heaven/be rewarded" but that is not the scriptural teaching.
>not based on biblical text whatsoever.
The total depravity of sinful human nature is attested to in the following verses:
>The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
- Jeremiah 17:9
>On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
- Mark 2:17
>I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
- Luke 5:32
>"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good-except God alone."
- Mark 10:18
>for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
- Romans 3:23
>None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”
- Romans 3:10-12
Sorry user but Aquinas solved philosophy. Plato and Aristotle are of course stupendous but everything was in place until the Arabs had to fuck everything up and the scholastics kept jerking off over dumb nonsense like angels and pins.
The guy in question was a philosophy *teacher* (i.e. with a URSMRT paper). And it's not that I disagree with him; it's that what he says is Freud-tier bullshit.