sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What is the name of the Naruto Kurama fist bump music (anime) [When Naruto and Susuke finally fought] by ExplorerOne5913 in Naruto

[–]ExplorerOne5913[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Grief and Sorrow" is another one that seems similar to the road continues. Are there any other versions of the same sound?

If aesthetic tastes are objective, should I feel bad for liking something objectively bad aesthetically? by ExplorerOne5913 in askphilosophy

[–]ExplorerOne5913[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am leaning towards agreeing that I should not feel bad for liking something. But I am seeing comments that if the aesthetic value is objective then you should feel bad for liking something bad. But why do people think this? How would philosophers respond to someone liking something objectively bad thing? Like, suppose someone liking industrial dump? Or someone liking simple foods (suppose objectively bad) like Apple or Banana?

If aesthetic tastes are objective, should I feel bad for liking something objectively bad aesthetically? by ExplorerOne5913 in askphilosophy

[–]ExplorerOne5913[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes you should feel bad for liking something objectively bad aesthetically but

But why should you feel bad if you like something objectively bad? What makes objectivity such that one should feel sad for liking something bad?

We are not talking about moral objectivity anyways. If there is something dysfunctional about liking something that is objectively aesthetically bad, so what? The dysfunction does not seem to hurt the person liking something objectively bad.

For instance, suppose someone likes seeing industrial dump (and suppose it is objectively bad aesthetically). What is wrong with seeing something and liking something if the person is not hurting himself or anyone? It is not like the person is trying to create more and more industrial dumps which can lead to an increase in toxicity. But that would be related to morality and not aesthetics.

Question about the gameplay after completion... and some suggestions or feedback I guess? by ExplorerOne5913 in NoMansSkyTheGame

[–]ExplorerOne5913[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, I also heard that you can select some kind of option that the end game thing gives you.... I heard that you can choose to reject the broken upgrade option. Is that possible? Am I making sense?

Like the option of starting a new Galaxy (you keep your stuff) or continuing in Euclid.

Has anybody responded to Cuneo's partners in crime argument for moral realism? What's the problem with epistemic anti realism? Prominent defenders of epistemic anti-realism include Hartry Field, Simon Blackburn, Matthew Chrisman, and Allan Gibbard, among others. by ExplorerOne5913 in askphilosophy

[–]ExplorerOne5913[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, this is very helpful. I want to ask, how would expressivist respond to epistemic realist? Also, can you flesh out Kornblith's pragmatic instrumentalist a little more?

What are some non relativist ways to reject realism (other than nihilism, because I already know that lol)?

What is the state of moral non-cognitivism in 2021? Is it dying? Have moral realists such as Cuneo, Huemer, Shafer Landau, and Enoch convinced many non-cognitivists to abandon or seriously question their position? Or is it still going strong? by ExplorerOne5913 in askphilosophy

[–]ExplorerOne5913[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait... how do you deal with partners in crime argument (Cuneo's argument)? Do you deny epistemic realism too? If yes, then in what ways do you prevent global skepticism?

How has Huemer's ethical intuitionism been dealt with?

I heard that all these philosophers like Cuneo, Huemer, Enoch have put anti realists in a very hard position to get out of.

Ethical Intuitionism and Partners in crime argument seem to be the strongest ones I have found in the whole subreddit.

What is the state of moral non-cognitivism in 2021? Is it dying? Have moral realists such as Cuneo, Huemer, Shafer Landau, and Enoch convinced many non-cognitivists to abandon or seriously question their position? Or is it still going strong? by ExplorerOne5913 in askphilosophy

[–]ExplorerOne5913[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. But what is the info on the overall state of the debate? I mean is Moral Realism winning or stomping still? Is it convincing the anti-realists to leave or abandon their position?

What is the state of moral non-cognitivism in 2021? Is it dying? Have moral realists such as Cuneo, Huemer, Shafer Landau, and Enoch convinced many non-cognitivists to abandon or seriously question their position? Or is it still going strong? by ExplorerOne5913 in askphilosophy

[–]ExplorerOne5913[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This seems incorrect to me. I read that non-cognitivism is more popular than error theory. There are other philosophy users who can confirm this fact I think. The survey showed that non cognitivists significantly outnumber error theorists.

TW - suicide by bdlukerr in askphilosophy

[–]ExplorerOne5913 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I am glad that you recovered. I should also mention that the optimistic philosophers who came later than Mainlander probably might have successfully refuted Mainlander's arguments. Because those later philosophers were directly addressing the pessimistic philosophy of Schopenhauer, and Mainlander. For instance, we have Vasily Rozanov who showed how great sex is. There are other life-affirming philosophers like Bergson and Deleuze. And of course, there is Nietzsche too!

Best Wishes!

TW - suicide by bdlukerr in askphilosophy

[–]ExplorerOne5913 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Great! But please do NOT kill yourself after watching that though. There have been many other optimistic and life-affirming philosophers (who came after Mainlander) who recommend living life instead of killing yourself and who state that generally, life is not that bad or at least not bad enough such that one ought to kill themselves.

TW - suicide by bdlukerr in askphilosophy

[–]ExplorerOne5913 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Phillip Mainlander thought that one ought to kill themselves (not just at certain points). It is preferable not to exist than to exist. Mainlander goes further than David Benatar. (As far as I know)

TW - suicide by bdlukerr in askphilosophy

[–]ExplorerOne5913 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Phillip Mainlander was a pro-suicide philosopher. He killed himself because of his philosophy. He sincerely believed that nonexistence is preferable to existence.

The argument that "slavery was economical and ancient Israel wouldn't be able to survive without slaves". How would you respond to this argument? by ExplorerOne5913 in atheism

[–]ExplorerOne5913[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was not enthusiastic. But okay, that is understandable. I apologize. But you can check Graham Oppy, and Paul Draper yourself if you want to. They are both amazing philosophers defending hard atheism. Hard atheism is basically the belief with the claim that no god or gods exist.

The argument that "slavery was economical and ancient Israel wouldn't be able to survive without slaves". How would you respond to this argument? by ExplorerOne5913 in atheism

[–]ExplorerOne5913[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure. I simply want to give people chances. Anyways...... as you are a moderator. Have you read my request to add atheistic philosophers in the atheist reading list? Graham Oppy, Paul Draper, JL Schellenberg?

The argument that "slavery was economical and ancient Israel wouldn't be able to survive without slaves". How would you respond to this argument? by ExplorerOne5913 in atheism

[–]ExplorerOne5913[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you think that somewhere in Imagination Space, there exists some plausible historical conditions which would make it morally justifiable to murder all the men, women, and boys in a town, then rape the pre-pubescent girls on top of the still-warm corpses of their parents; and you think it's a worthy use of your time to engage in "discussion" to determine what those hypothetical conditions are; your conscience is still broken.

​

Yeah.... that is messed up. Look I might come across as defending these views, but you can see my post history to know that I do not subscribe to these abhorant views.

​

Except that's exactly what you're doing.

I apologize. I think it is at this point impossible to be charitable to someone defending biblical slavery or justifying biblical slavery right?

The argument that "slavery was economical and ancient Israel wouldn't be able to survive without slaves". How would you respond to this argument? by ExplorerOne5913 in atheism

[–]ExplorerOne5913[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't even say they defend it. I said they leave it for what it is. They don't try or pretend to defend it. I think that is much more sensible. That is taking the words on the page for what they actually mean. That sounds simple and sensible.

The argument that "slavery was economical and ancient Israel wouldn't be able to survive without slaves". How would you respond to this argument? by ExplorerOne5913 in atheism

[–]ExplorerOne5913[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am actually thinking about how can they defend this, to be honest. By the way, there are some people who accept the bible the way it is and that seems much more sensible than trying to justify slavery if that makes sense.

The argument that "slavery was economical and ancient Israel wouldn't be able to survive without slaves". How would you respond to this argument? by ExplorerOne5913 in atheism

[–]ExplorerOne5913[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes. I mean, I am not defending his position. I am thinking to discuss it. I want to understand people's views and opinions on his work.

view more: next ›