"But Philosopher A didn't saaaay"...that's not philosophy. That's just a silly appeal to authority. It doesn't matter what Philosopher A said or intended on saying.
The point of philosophy is not to remember what philosophers specifically said, but to learn how to actually think. This dolt clearly does not know how to think, which is why women can't do philosophy.
"Soooooo...if naturalism is true, then determinism is true, and if determinism is true, then nobody is responsible for anything, and if nobody is responsible for anything, then rape isn't anyone's fault.
This is already philosophically dumb."No, that's philosophically sound. You can't argue with it. You couldn't assign responsibility to anything in that regard, as unconscious forces would be what ultimately force everything to behave as it does. Everything just "is." Responsibility would also be nothing more than a forced, abstract concept without any ontological status.
"Right, you can't derive an ought from an is (that's Hume, btw) and it's the real deal in philosophy.
But he's using it like "well, you can't PROVE I shouldn't rape you, so checkmate." Bro, that's... not what Hume said. Like, at all. Hume's whole point was that morality comes from human feeling and social convention, not that it doesn't exist. This guy is citing a philosopher who would have been absolutely disgusted by him and acting like the citation backs him up. "
No, the point is that morality is not objective. It can not be objective unless it's outside the mind, otherwise you wind up with relativism. It also would be contingent. How can it be true if it's contingent?
By the way, David Hume believed negroes were intellectually inferior to whites. I don't think he would be disgusted by my correct reasoning.
""The laws of physics force us to rape women." Okay, so if that's true? Then you also didn't choose to write this post. Physics made you. And if nobody has free will, then nobody can be persuaded by your argument either, because persuasion requires the reader to have agency, which you just said doesn't exist. So why did you write it? Who is it for? The post defeats itself.
(Literally, just get better at philosophy.)"If you choose to define persuasion as somebody actually choosing to change their mind, then this would be correct. This does not refute anything, however. My post is an internal critique of your laughable secular Reddit paradigm. How do you know anything you just wrote is true? What's your tenable model for free will? How can you justify any foundational knowledge such as the laws of logic when your view of existence is that everything is forced to behave as it does, including what we define as "your thoughts?"
"The "no identity over time" thing...okay yeah, there are real philosophical questions about that. Derek Parfit wrote a whole book on it. But his conclusion was that "the absence of a fixed self" makes our ethical obligations to each other more important, not less. This dude read everything, but he skipped the end, because it didn't end where he wanted it to. FFS lol.
"Another name drop as opposed to an actual argument. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? Do you like apples?
I do not apprehend a "you" nor an "I." Which infinitely divisible momentary sensation in infinitely divisible time is responsible for the infinitely divisible act of "rape?" Which infinitely divisible momentary sensation in time experiences the infinitely divisible "pain" and infinitely divisible "trauma?"
"And the nominalism thing...he says "women and men don't actually exist because they're universals." That's... NOT what nominalism means!! Nominalism says the categories don't exist as abstract things floating around in the universe. The actual, specific, individual woman who gets hurt by an actual, specific, individual man? Nominalism absolutely recognises her. He's got the philosophy literally backwards."
That's exactly what it means. It means that when you refer to "men" or "women" you are attempting to link a set of particulars with the mental abstractions of "menness" and "womanness." There is, however, nothing binding any of those particulars together in reality other than your mind. Hence the Reddit position that a man can "become" a woman if the man decides he is a woman.
Nominalism also asserts that "rape" doesn't exist.
We can't even speak without universals. That's the point. When you say that "rape" is the "man's" fault, this sentence is gibberish under nominalism.
"TL;DR He didn't get any of this through philosophy! He arrived at philosophy through this conclusion.
Everything in this post is reverse-engineered from "I want to do what I want to women and not be held accountable," and the numbered list and the fancy vocabulary are just...filler. "Again, it's called "internal critique."
Is this NotSoErudite?
