Why is MacIntyre such a fucking retard?
> hurr durr we need to return to virtue ethics to fix moral discourse of modernity
> hurr durr we need to bring back Aristotle's functional concepts and telos to have common ground
Like, how do philosophy professors at universities even take this guy seriously?
Other urls found in this thread:
philosophy.uncc.edu
twitter.com
yo stfu
He has degrees and you don't
If you get into academy, then you can probably throw your opinion and be taken seriously
I don't think shitposting here fixes the issue.
you havent read any of his books have you
yo stfu
oo boy when pinky wakes up he'll have a go
we and common ground are admittedly terri-bad ideas
he's still smarter than either of us tho and would destroy you in a debate
lowkey i wish i was in school again
life is difficult
Ya gonna say why?
> Kant introduces the idea of “legislating for oneself,” which is as absurd as if in these days, when majority votes command great respect, one were to call each reflective decision a man made a vote resulting in a majority, which as a matter of proportion is overwhelming, for it is always 1-0. The concept of legislation requires superior power in the legislator. His own rigoristic convictions on the subject of lying were so intense that it never occurred to him that a lie could be relevantly described as anything but just a lie (e.g. as “a lie in such-and-such circumstances”). His rule about universalizable maxims is useless without stipulations as to what shall count as a relevant description of an action with a view to constructing a maxim about it.
Er, no, if "lie in such-and-such circumstances" were a universal maxim, then it wouldn't work since lied-to would know it was a lie, since the maxim is universal.
I own and have read 'After Virtue.'
I used to sympathize with MacIntyre but nowadays he strikes me as fundamentally reactionary.
Also, the book ends weakly.
He's just a Catholic
What's the difference? :^)
His diagnose of "the failure of the enlightenment project" is spot on imo. He misrepresented Kant, but there are other objections to be raised against that lad.
I'm half way through After Virtue right now. Is the second half, where he gives his positive account of ethics, worth it or is that as much of a failure as the ethics he criticizes in the first half?
is there anything to this guy beyond "dude bring back Christianity lmao"
shit thread
sage
Who the fuck knows?
>dude apologize for slavery America LOL
posting in a rare thread
p.s. anybody read Varieties of Goodness by G.H.V. Wright?
There is none, that's why I'm both.
Right now he's the arch-reactionary of political philosophy. And I love it.
It's not as good because his positive account was not thomistic enough. The sequels handle that part a lot better.
Like, duh, maybe you should kinda like, like you know, like duh..?
...at least he's not a consequentialist.