Just be Buddhist theory
Wait until you hear the cope Buddhist stories of meditating attracting women to distract you
Buddha was a chad confirmed?Wait until you hear the cope Buddhist stories of meditating attracting women to distract you
HealthycurryGaymerGG jfl
Dead bedroom PERHAPS
I mean, he was royalty. Utimately, it's impossible for an incel to be an ascetic. You have to have bitches to give them up.
Fars
no money for pleasures lol, even if i had them i wouldn't go nuts with consumerism like all women do.
I can imagine it does sound fun if you are a masochist
If the end result is askesis, do the intentions really matter?
IM ABSTAININNNNG
Better than being an extreme coomer tbh
I'd argue yes, because if you end the dick measuring contest, then the intent changes, which then affects the askesis. Implicit in that is the fact that it becomes a dick measuring contest precisely because of the intent to make it one.
Ancient Greeks used it as a way to hone themselves for combat or other pursuits. In today's world I agree, it's fucking dumb, unless you're an elite athlete/soldier/performer.
Yep. Unless you have something really important to do, it's retarded not enjoy whatever you can
I thought asceticism was about discipline rather than motivation with the ideal in question always being self-denial.
Are they tho? Religious asceticism and
are grounded in external motivations.
Ain't it always a dick-measuring contest to some extent? I mean, if most people are denying themselves more than you, are you comparatively even still an ascetic? Or are we all ascetics?
I understood it to mean the attainment of ideal (in combat skill, for example) through intense discipline - as a means - not with intense discipline as the end result.
They could be, no doubt, but ideals themselves are fundamentally internal. We can both think about the same thing, but hold very different ideals. Here's a simple example: think of the perfect chair. I can guarantee you that practically no two ideals in two people's minds will be the same. Even the way you would imagine the circumstances (the lighting, the angle, whether or not anyone's sitting on it, what's happening around the chair etc.) would be different.
No. Here I would maintain that whether or not something is a dick-measuring contest i.e., a one-upmanship competition for bragging rights and chest-pounding for the purpose of status gain, is still intentional and against the spirit of asceticism. This may simply come down to a difference in your worldview wrt to intentionality and outcomes. Are you consequentialist, by any chance?
Its better to be in the middle of the spectrum and have control over your desires
To me asceticism is synonymous with self-denial, but I'm no expert.
OK that makes sense with your definition of asceticism.
Can one not be ascetic with the ideal to be a mogger then? Regardless, all I meant with
is that self-denial is a relative notion.
I don't really like ascribing moral value to conduct. I'd just be projecting my opinions onto others. Personally I do often judge conduct based on its consequences, but I like to think I abstain from assigning it moral value.
I take it you mean "conjoin" in lieu of "enjoin"
In the case of the supposedly converted prisoner, their situation is evidence, so we ain't without evidence. I feel like you're applying a general maxim (a pleonasm I know) however. If so, could you state it?
I'd say that not practicing what one preaches is hypocritical, altho this use of "hypocritical" -- while common -- might not be entirely proper.
Self-denial can have many forms. If the doctor forbids certain foods in your diet because of your blood work, you would be exercising self-denial when you choose to follow his orders because you intend to correct your potential health risk.
I don't know. Is there an "ideal mogger," or does mogging have some kind of ideal? I don't understand what that's supposed to be or look like.
Relative, how? Relative to what? Can you elaborate?
Like it or not, all conduct has moral value. Sometimes that value is nil (or neutral).
That's not necessarily true. An opinion is simply an unjustified claim. If you can justify your opinion with reason, then it becomes your argument, not your opinion. Then it must be responded to with reason, if there's disagreement.
That's essentially consequentialist thinking.
Yes, my mistake. Thanks.
I meant, enough evidence.
Not really. You take things, like what people tell you, at face value, unless there's something else that may suggest deception (such as the setting or context). That's just being fair and reasonable. That's not specific to this topic. What maxim do you think I'm operating under?
Hypocrisy when intents are incongruent with observable actions, and there's a disconnect between what's being said and what's being done. Why would this not be proper?
the ideal I had in mind was "mogging as many people as possible in as many ways as possible so you can brag about it". I don't even think this is all that academic.
If most are denying themselves more than you, can you really be said to be practicing self-denial?
What is morality then?
this is not what I had in mind when I used the word "opinion". To me a subjective argument is an opinion. Since we're talking about ethics and ethics is superphysical, all ethics must ultimately fall back on subjective axioms. No amount of reason can justify these axioms (as per definition) so as long as people disagree on the axioms, there's no reason to be had. Ultimately this is therefore a matter of opinion (do you agree with the axioms).
Good luck crystalizing what a sufficient justification entails. Besides, at the end of the day it's all about trust, and plenty of folks trust without thoroughly justified opinions.
I know. Ain't virtually everybody like that tho?
that's a maxim, no? I'm honestly not even so sure whether I abide thereby. If someone told me they saw the far future in a prophetic dream, I'd be skeptical, yet there's little to suggest deception (assuming they don't lie all the time).
Because intentions ≠ what's being said, not necessarily anyway. Or would a "cheating is fine so long as you can get away with it" guy be hypocritical when he lyingly says "no I'm not cheating"?
OK, I see.
Yes. It's a difference of degree, not of kind.
A system or collection of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
Arguments are not subjective. They're true/false, valid/invalid, and sound/unsound. The content of propositions presented in the logic don't matter, if the truth values (true or false) are determined.
We've been through this before. Last time you didn't define superphysical in any meaningful way that delineates it from metaphysical in any substantive way. You replaced the word metaphysical with "superphysical," because I showed that morality is not metaphysical. You changed the word so that you could maintain this argument:
But since I argued that it's not metaphysical, then the moral justifications are not circular and can be justified beyond a reference to the axioms.
Making a strong argument with good reason, preferably one that's difficult to refute. If it's valid, sound, and true, then not accepting it is irrational behavior, if it's not refuted.
No. Not everyone is a consequentialist. I'm certainly not. There are many ardent deontologists. Some religions have a theological ethic that is based on intents, not results.
That's a maxim, yes, but not one that would always apply (general truths can have exceptions). In your case of the claim of a prophetic dream, for example, that maxim wouldn't be applicable, even though there may not be anything to indicate intent to decieve (all deception is intentional; there is no such thing as "accidental deception," is an oxymoron). In that instance you'd probably apply other reasoning methods, like abductive reasoning.
Yes, that's precisely why it would be hypocrisy.
No, he wouldn't be a hypocrite, he'd just be a liar. If he were to go around preaching the virtues and importance of practicing marital fidelity and expressing scorn towards the unfaithful, then he would be a hypocrite in addition to being a liar.
So not only is morality subjective, but it can also just be a bunch of opinions? You never specified needing justification.
By a subjective argument I meant an argument which is ultimately undergirded by a subjective opinion. I thought this was clear from context, my bad.
the only reason I switched is because I got the impression you were using the word "metaphysical" differently than I was. I was trying to accommodate you. What I mean by superphysical is "not inferable by studying that which is physical" AKA "beyond physics" as the compound implies. Unless you have some units in which I can go and measure moral rectitude, how can it be not be superphysical?
Of course you CAN tie your morality to that which is physical, but that doesn't mean that moral rectitude ain't superphysical SIMPLICITER
ok fair enough
Yeah ok that's not a counterexample. Got me there. How about this one? Suppose our hypothetical guy is intent on always lying. To act in accordance with his intent, he has to reply "you should always tell the truth" if prompted to opine on lying. this time what he's saying is advice he himself would never follow, yet he's acting in line with his intent.
No. Opinions are simply unjustified claims.. They are, in essence, beliefs that have yet to be justified. A moral claim is one type of claim. Opinions are a type of personal claim. Both can be justified or unjustified.
Because that's understood to be a given. Justification means to provide reasons. All claims needs reasoning to become arguments. If claims without any justification are accepted, then accepting the claim is irrational.
The phrase itself is meaningless. It's like the phrase, "colorful numbers."
OK, but reason itself is "beyond physics." However, we don't look to the natural world for our reasons for everything. Morality is one such thing.
Right, and if moral rectitude is simply metaphysical, then its justifications are not tied to any subjective first person experience. This is what ethics is about - finding reasons to justify behaviors (generally, or universally) that are beyond any subjective self.
Is that a typo? Did you mean to say it is a counterexample?
I don't understand what you're trying to do here. Are you trying to apply the logic of lying in a paradoxical situation to show that hypocrisy and lying are the same thing?
It's the same underlying concept: having an unfair advantage. In the case of marital infidelity the unfair advantage is breaking the contract of monogamy that precludes having additional sexual partners.
How is a moral claim not a personal claim? Morality is more than just reason. No point to inference rules when you ain't got nothin' to apply 'em on.
how do you rhyme that with
the former essentially says not to accept a claim unless you have a reason to whereas the latter essentially says to accept a claim unless you have a reason not to
any phrase is meaningless to the uninitiated
fundamentally reason and moral rectitude are indeed superphysical. However, indirectly we always look to the natural world for everything. It's all we got after all. Case in point, why do you think addition is defined the way it is? Because it's useful.
that's how I was using "physical" as well
Reasons gotta be undergirded by something (other than inference rules). What I'm saying is that those underpinnings are necessarily subjective in the case of morality.
the notion of moral rectitude is superphysical. However, ethics consists of assigning this superphysical attribute to actions which are most certainly not superphysical. In the same way that a triplet of apples can be assigned the superphysical attribute 3.
To continue to previous metaphor, the very first bridge is necessarily subjective, so any ethical argument can ultimately be traced back to subjectivity.
Unless our inference rules are God-given, the only reason we're using them as opposed to other inference rules is because of collective agreement, which is probably because they "work" when applied to the natural world (as opposed to bogus logic). I'm therefore not quite sure what you mean by "objectivity" here.
Remember that I said "practice what you preach" ain't proper hypocrisy and you claimed it was? I was trying to find a counterexample to refute you.
that's why I said
"Murders should be executed" is a moral claim, but it's not a personal one. "People who cut in line shouldn't be served" would be an example personal claim.
Morality is the reasoning behind descriptive and prescriptive behaviors (driven by normative claims about behavior), and the systems thereof. All of ethics is driven by reason. Your personal moral compass may be driven by feelings that you can't provide reasons and make arguments for, however, but that's a different matter.
It's reasoning about behavior in reference to other reasoning agents (people), other living things, or the environment of the reasoning agent.
You asked for a general maxim (or something that could be construed as one). That discussion was a response to claims of intent wrt to asceticism or ascetic behaviors. The maxim is basically, "assume people are honest, until proven otherwise." The point about accepting claims without justification was in regards all claims in general (moral, descriptive, normative, empirical etc.).
I'm saying there's no such thing as a "subjective argument" in the philosophical sense. To speak more to you, that's like saying there's a "subjective proof" (of an unproven theorem). If you heard the phrase,"subjective proof," in the context of mathematics, you would see that also as just meaningless nonsense.
That's like saying, "mathematical reasons have to be undergirded by something (other than the Peano, ZFC and all of the other axioms)."
By your own reasoning, there is no bridge between the metaphysical number 3 and the triplet of apples. It's only the fact of observing reality that we can look at the apples and make a reference to the metaphysical numbers that we formally construct.
Moral arguments are still arguments that have reasoning (good or bad will depend on how the arguments are constructed).
Yes, this is true in regards to theological systems of morality, but not secular ones.
I meant reason itself. If you make a good argument for a proof, we don't say that the argument is subjective, because it stands on its own reasons. Likewise, if person A makes a good argument for X, we don't say that the argument is subjective. Person A may have made the argument, but the argument, too, stands on its own reasons. It just has their name on it.
If you're saying that it isn't, can you argue for why that is?
I fail to see the crucial difference.
Here's what I was getting at. Most reasoning works via "antecedent + inference rule = consequent". Hence, the very first argument requires both preestablished inference rules and antecedents to start off with (axioms in the superphysical case). With
I was alluding to the fact that those initial antecedents are needed. PS I thought "other than" was synonymous with "besides" but apparently only in the sense of "except". I intended to say "Reasons gotta be undergirded by something (in addition to inference rules)." Sorry.
I don't think that's the case because of the way 3 is (or can be) defined. In essence, 3 is the abstract commonality of all triplets; this is not circular because triplets can be related to each other without invoking 3 itself by means of bijections. Hence, 3 is naturally connected to all triplets. Why I don't think this works for moral rectitude is because I don't think moral rectitude is (or can be) defined similarly.
Maybe you can define me what moral rectitude (or metaphysical "goodness" if you prefer) is supposed to be?
Ain't that cultural programming? Sure, assault and murder have undesirable consequences for those involved or adjacent, but not all things with undesirable consequences for those involved or adjacent are "bad" right? Or is breaking up with one's still-in-love partner morally repugnant?
I think so too, but ain't the whole point of our dialog to try and synchronize our wavelengths?
proposed example for why -- properly (as per your aforementioned definition) -- hypocrisy ≠ "practice what you preach":
It's a category error.
You can contend with the premises and argue them for centuries. Philosophers certainly do.
That's a question for moral epistemology, and one that's probably been argued in academic philosophy.
There's no need. Others have already done much of the work over the millennia - I'd be deferring to it anyhow.
I don't see any way in which it reasonably could be. I think you'd have a tough hill to climb and defend to argue that the notion of the moral "worseness" of murder over assault is culturally programmed. I think we can all understand that, prima facie, in general, staying alive is better than dying. The self-preservation of one's own life and body is instinctual. It's not something you need to teach.
The claim there wasn't, "all things with undesirable consequences for those involved or adjacent are "bad"," but simply, "murder is more bad than assault." There was not any additional claim, even implicit.
I would argue that the point of our dialogue is to reach some truth, and to help foster a greater overall understanding for both parties involved.
Hypocrisy is conditional on action in addition to lying. It is not satisfied only with the condition of lying. But it's not only lying that's relevant here. The type of claim being made matters as well. The cheater who lies when he or she says, "I'm not cheating," is not making a normative claim (they're making an empirical claim), whereas the liar who says, "you should always tell the truth," is making that kind of claim. The intentional liar who always lies and makes a normative claim about lying is congruent with both his intent and the contrast between his words and actions. This satisfies the condition of hypocrisy.
So any statement about murder is always moral, whereas any claim about cutting in line is always personal? If so, I'm interested in the why because this is nonsensical to me.
Seeing as anything can be justified by simply taking the desideratum as premise, I beg to differ. Not to mention there are only two structural possibilities: either your argument is logically sound or it's worthless.
A strong argument against those premises? A premise that cannot be justified (and if it could why is it even a premise) cannot be rebuked either.
Of these, virtue ethics and consequentialism simply defer the problem "downstream". In virtue ethics, moral rectitude is to be virtuous, but what is a virtue? Ditto for consequentialism. NB ain't theology and deontology basically the same thing -- i.e., moral rectitude being accordance with some set of rules? Regardless, if the definition of moral rectitude is in the eye of the beholder, how can
possibly be true? I can simply choose not to define moral rectitude, no?
What I meant to convey was that something being undesirable doesn't necessarily equate it to being morally "bad". Despite both often being undesirable for one of the parties involved, why is murder "bad" but divorce not so much these days? In Christian America and Europe, divorce was "bad" and burning "witches" was once "good". Getting back on topic, your appeal to instinct does apply to subjective undesirability. However, it doesn't ipso facto translate to moral "badness".
I don't understand. How does making a claim that's congruent with intent constitute hypocrisy? NB when I wrote
I should've writ
It appears I'm not at my sharpest. Yet again my excuses.
It's more useless to cry over that which you will never have than to not cry. That is why asceticism is smart.
