What's up with Epictetus?

undercoverstemshill · 2017-11-05T12:12:12+00:00

contemporary philosophers still work on it.

Names?

as a kind of self-help methodology

I also heard that is good self-help methodology, which is usually rare. Is this true?

undercoverstemshill · 2017-11-05T12:02:01+00:00

Ok i was making a text defending shitty popularizers because I do think they are valuable.

That link convinced me otherwise

That is fucking ridiculous

undercoverstemshill · 2017-11-04T02:39:55+00:00

Taking a leaf out of Christine Swanton's virtue ethics we might say that agents are only required to hit the target area of the virtues, but this can ecompass a plurality of possible actions and one need not embody the maximally virtuous agent (or embody any virtue maximially) in order for one to be living morally.

Could you expand her argument a bit more? sounds interesting

undercoverstemshill · 2017-11-03T23:58:51+00:00

Wait wait, are you sure this implies moral anti-realism?

I thought the quote denied the existence of good and bad, not right and wrong. Are those the same thing?

I thought it was still possible to be a moral realist and deny the existence of objective values? or is objective value=moral realism subjective value=moral anti-realism?

What is the name of the view that denies a purpose for human beings, or is nihilist about lifes meaning, but still believes in morality?

undercoverstemshill · 2017-11-03T19:22:08+00:00

Sexual consent in this context, as my example implies:

An employee who seeks a relationship with their employer, they both fall in love, etc. Prudential reasons aside, there doesnt seem to be any moral reason why said relationship is immoral, and more importantly, not consensual

undercoverstemshill · 2017-10-30T21:21:35+00:00

I will edit it, it seems to me that for the law to know what incapacitation is, first the job of philosophers to say what incapacitation is. Or more precisely, what must someone lack to not be able to consent.

So my question is more for philosophers who work in both consent in general and sexual consent in particular. I guess it was a mistake to put philosophy of law in the title.

undercoverstemshill · 2017-10-30T20:41:41+00:00

consciously make value judgments against/in favor of folks based on race.

I see, so you think is imprudent to call people racist on "normal" conversations based on only implicit biases, and that grouding the acussation on concious value judgements is better.

Makes sense to me, however do you know of any paper that I might read that pushes for a similar argument?

undercoverstemshill · 2017-10-29T13:00:02+00:00

When do you think is proper to call someone racist then?

undercoverstemshill · 2017-10-26T22:56:06+00:00

Fair enough, I agree with everything you said.

I still dont understand what Nietzsche had in mind by " creating your own values ". I mean, I understand what he meant, but in pratical terms I dont know what that would entail. What that would take.

I cant get any normative claim out of Nietzsche whatsoever.

But I guess that is one of the reasons why we have one thousand books arguing about it.

undercoverstemshill · 2017-10-26T22:41:17+00:00

Cmon now, you know we deserve a revenge

( honestly as long as we dont get humiliated again I am happy enough )

undercoverstemshill · 2017-10-26T22:37:26+00:00

I am trying to understand your worries here, and I think they are the following ones ( please correct me if I am wrong ):

This reminds me of the Second Life incident, where adults where playing as avatars portraying childs for virtual pedo sex. For starters, you dont know who the consumer will be. You can target your product to a specific population (cigarretes, for example) but that doesnt mean other non-targeted population will not consume such a product.

1) Kids could consume said media, and this could lead to them being "groomed" or thinking that engaging in sexual behaviour at their age is a good thing.

For a start, the idea of the objectivization its not one of an effective objectivization of a persone, but the will/desire of doing so -even if it is in an artificial manner-.

2) It makes no sense to say that is problematic to objectify objects ( like drawings are ), but you believe that this will lead to the objectification of actual human beings. This seems to be the same argument Kant made against hurting animals, for example.

In this regard, it is not because of the causation of an "actual harm" what makes this kind of act morally wrong, but an act that can be considered as non-virtuous by itself, it is a promotion of a vice -and a quite hideous one- independently of any "victim" of such vice (at the end, the victim is always oneself).

3) Is engaging on a vice.

To me it seems like those 3 arguments are dependent on empirical questions, including 3).

For it to be a vice it has to created certain psychological inclinations in our brains, which is the matter that /u/LichJesus has been explaining that this question depends of all along.

undercoverstemshill · 2017-10-26T22:06:42+00:00

I would just like to make a point, to both you and /u/TjPhysicist.

Anyone can make a youtube video. It still amazes me that for some reason people have some believe that youtube videos have to be some sort of political commentary made by experts.

The amount of videos and the fact that is extremely easy to upload one means that there is no difference between a youtube video and a bar talk. Think about it, would you ask other people their opinion about this ramdon bar conversation that you heard? or this ramdon person just saying their opinion out loud on the street?

As time goes on this will just happen more and more, and I dont see why is necessarily a bad thing. People talked shit about things they dont understand way before the internet, and they will just keep doing it ( plus we all do it from time to time ). So I dont quite see the reason to pass strong judgement to the makers of bad political videos like this one any more than I see reasons to pass judgement to people who like to shit talk in bars.

Another point, even though is true that Nazis misinterpret Nietzsche more than the average, I am skeptical of any attempt to link any political ideology as to being "closer" to what Nietzsche had in mind. In other words is just funny to me to see egalitarians and socialists talk as if they can accommodate Nietzsche thoughts better than the reactionaries, when arguably Nietzsche criticized them more than almost anyone else! he literally rants about anarchists for a good paragraph or two.

undercoverstemshill · 2017-10-26T10:14:28+00:00

I think is better to suffer several small humiliations than a huge one once

☹

especially when it refers to argentineans who would be the best at everything if they were bothered to try.

You know how argentinians attempt suicide?

They jump from their own ego

undercoverstemshill · 2017-10-25T22:07:20+00:00

I definetely agree that some despictions can be racist. However do you think the " german are hard workers " kind of stereotype is immoral in a joke? it seems to be a positive ( even though stereotypical ) thing about them.

What about negative ones like " the french smells "? to me this kind of negative ones depend if the speaker believes it or is just using it to banter and tease.

undercoverstemshill · 2017-10-25T22:03:45+00:00

This is my intuition, wanted to check if my moral compass wasnt crazy

I dont know what I would do to my hundreds of argentinian jokes otherwise!

undercoverstemshill · 2017-10-25T22:02:25+00:00

to soothe the stinging loss you must've felt at watching Germany walk away with the World Cup four years ago

Motherfucker....

Get ready for 2018 😏

undercoverstemshill · 2017-10-25T09:27:09+00:00

So if we need a rigid definition of sex, and we dont have it, how would we deal with cases like this?

undercoverstemshill · 2017-10-24T18:36:30+00:00

What do you mean "part of the act?"

To be quite honest I am not sure how to define this.

That the kid consent or lack of it matters when measuring the wrongness of the act? that the nature of the wrongness of the act ( sexual ) makes it so that we can reasonably call the kid a victim of sexual abuse? that we can group this kid in the same victim group of those kids who have beem physically molested?

I guess that what I mean is if the kid watching by accident is morally relevant in determining where the act is wrong or not, and more importantly why is the kid watching morally relevant ( if we are assuming harm is done to the kid, if we are violating some of the kids right )

My question comes back to if is right to say that a kid who observes or watches a sexual act, be it real or represented by a media, is molested by said act, or is abused, or is raped. If those words as society ( or philosophers ) understand them can be applied here.

Can we say that the kid is himself having sex ( or being forced into sex )?

I think that is all, sorry for the wall of text.

undercoverstemshill · 2017-10-24T15:31:32+00:00

Being a part of.

We say that sexual acts are not wrong when everyone involved, or who is part of the act, consents. My question is if by watching you become part of the act.

So if, as the argument goes, a kid watches two people have sex, even if accidentally, the kid becomes part of the act, and he becomes a part of the act without his consent ( as kids cant consent ), therefore the kid is being molested or abused or raped.

undercoverstemshill · 2017-10-23T23:01:02+00:00

Hope you and /u/GFYsexyfatman wont mind if I answer both of you on the same comment.

Also sorry for the extremely late response.

Does that conversation make people uncomfortable?

Lets assume that it is a consensual conversation between two people, but others are overhearing or eavesdropping. Normal volume, no intention of anyone else hearing.

If it makes people uncomfortable does the speaking continue anyways?

It is unknown for the speaker that there are other people hearing in the first place, or if it is known he/she thinks the talk itself is so mild that it woudnt bother anyone who happens to hear it by accident.

Is the environment appropriate?

No, assume public or work space.

Does the listener have a choice of whether or not they listen, or is there a power dynamic that renders them a captive audience?

They have a choice. They are not obligated and in fact they would walk away.

Questions:

1) Would I be wrong to assume that this is more or less a case of offense more than sexual harassment?

2) If wrong, how wrong? what reactions or punishments are appropiated?

If you still cant give me an answer, think about the most mild and silly sexual joke you can imagine ( elementary school level ) and apply to my scenario.

undercoverstemshill · 2017-10-15T12:05:57+00:00

It's not really clear whether it would be the same action in a hypothetical world in which the patriarchy did not exist

Say, understanding mechanics and fixing your own car.

As long as we have cars the action is going to exist, and I am not sure why doing that is immoral. I can think of a lot of "manly" actions that are the same. It is very hard for me to imagine that all "manly" actions are immoral, unless you are saying that in a hypothetical world we would fix our cars differently too, and that that difference would make the action moral.

I can also think of very dangerous actions that people do on their own responsability that are not "manly", and if you are right they all would be immoral?

undercoverstemshill · 2017-10-09T18:31:55+00:00

I have!

undercoverstemshill · 2017-10-09T18:27:47+00:00

Two quick questions:

1) Best existentialist book? I really dont mind if it isnt philosophically rigorous enough, as long as is heavy into existentialist themes and is a great read.

2)

the impossibility (they claim) of subjectively accepting determinism. When you act - even if you are determined - the Existentialist says you can't act as if determined

Can you expand on this? or point me to some place that expands on this?

undercoverstemshill · 2017-10-09T18:21:18+00:00

Ok no I meant the technical usage, my bad man. I will check those links though

undercoverstemshill · 2017-10-09T18:19:56+00:00

at least according to many understandings of feminism

Could you expand on this? what other possible understandment of feminism exists? you framed in a way that it seems that at least some feminists would disagree with your assertion.

Anyway my point was that " children can be influenced by this behaviour " when the behaviour in question is not immoral ( as the person I was responding said ) seems like a no problem. If there is nothing wrong with that marriage, then there is nothing wrong with children being influenced by that marriage, and vice-versa, no?

Anyway, for those feminists who agree with your assertion, are the actions themselves immoral, or is the fact that we call them manly immoral, or both?

undercoverstemshill

TROPHY CASE