No.1838600
>description is proscription because semantics
No.1838605
>>1838600>proving X is the case is sufficient to prove "you ought to believe X"Doesn't seem to follow bro… rational debate of the kind we're having now in which you give me reasons to believe things seem to presuppose there are reasons to believe things, and a reason is what makes it such that you ought to believe that thing. Materialism can't account for this…
No.1838610
>>1838600+ also the very meaning of terms is normative. I can use a word wrong, which means there is such a thing as using it right which means there is a way we ought to use them (in accorance with their meaning) which means meaning is meaningfully normative. So this proves materialism wrong again.
No.1838613
>There is a well-known saying that if geometrical axioms affected human interests attempts would certainly be made to refute them. Theories of natural history which conflicted with the old prejudices of theology provoked, and still provoke, the most rabid opposition. No wonder, therefore, that the Marxian doctrine, which directly serves to enlighten and organise the advanced class in modern society, indicates the tasks facing this class and demonstrates the inevitable replacement (by virtue of economic development) of the present system by a new order—no wonder that this doctrine has had to fight for every step forward in the course of its life.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine#:~:text=A%20Turing%20machine%20is%20a,A%20physical%20Turing%20machine%20model.
Mathematics are not complete, most certainly not consistent, and definitely undecidable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeQX2HjkcNo&t=3sITSJOEVER No.1838617
There will always be true statements that cannot be proven by logic
No.1838619
>>1838617Like dick feels good in your mouth?
No.1838620
>>1838617You shouldn't believe them if they can't be proven so its irrelevant if they're true
No.1838627
>>1838613Mathematics is gay - read Kant, its based on pure intuition. First order logic is the real seat of certainty, and it is complete and every true statement is provable.
No.1838630
why the actual fuck would I willingly believe inna bunch of hocus pocus bullshit idealism over material reality? zero benefit, If anything now I'm worse at decision making and planning since I'm actively deluding myself about the nature of the world. If given the choice between materialism and running around like a chicken with its head cut off going from one idealistic woowoo concept to the other in source of validation Im choosing materialism every time.
No.1838632
>>1838630"you should believe what is beneficial" is a normative claim bro
No.1838633
>>1838632im ngl I have no idea what normative or prescriptive claims are so your either gonna have to explain it to me or show me where I can just read about it myself otherwise sounds interesting anon
No.1838634
>>1838605>it's another "materialism doesn't account for something it's not meant to" threadI hate some of you tbh
No.1838636
>>1838633Are you an utilitarian?
No.1838637
>>1838633Normative claims are claims that tell you what should happen or what you ought to do, not what will happen or what you in fact did
No.1838639
>>1838634Materialism says everything is material and things progress according to efficient causation only, so if there is anything that materialism can't explain its false, since that thing isn't material and doesn't progress only according to efficient causation
No.1838643
Threads like this make me understand why Wittgenstein went as autistic as he did.
Fuck my goddamn ass "what is" and "what you should do" are two different things in substance and this entire thread is based on a linguistic confusion regarding the content of a theory and an external prescriptive statement directed at it.
aaaaagh. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH
No.1838646
>>1838643Wittgenstein believed in primitive unexplainable normativity. Read John McDowell's essay 'Wittgenstein on following a Rule'. Wittgenstein thought meaning could only be explained by normativity and normativity could only a primitive, unexplainable part of our way of life.
No.1838652
>>1838649And I SHOULD play minecraft if I can't grasp a praxis-based world-view?
No.1838653
>>1838652It would be useful. If you want that benifit, it's available.
No.1838655
>>1838630>why the actual fuck would I willingly believe inna bunch of hocus pocus bullshit idealism over material reality?Why should you care what the bodie craves? What is the meaning of life? Why not rentless question everything that exists, confront every belief untill proven as true?
The purpose of life is discovering truth, the truth will show if there is meaning in life or not. Untill them, everything else is steps in the greater scheme of things.
No.1838656
>>1838636shit maybe, I honestly haven't read any utilitarian literature so I have no idea but ppl have called me that beforehand so who knows
>>1838637oh yeah I can def see how what I posted would be a normative claim, ig all I'm trying to get at is the reason I personally prefer materialism is that when I use that as a framework to not only analyze history and politics but also just problems in my day to day life it works super well, especially when compared to some of the more idealistic ppl ik who seem to always be feinding for somesort of grand meaning to tell them what to do and give them purpose instead of just chilling
No.1838658
>>1838654No, because it just doesn't follow from the fact that someone wants me to believe it that I ought to believe it. The statements aren't the same.
No.1838666
>>1838658Ought by what mechanism? What is doing the oughting to make the state of being ought the case?
No.1838670
If anything, material necessitys are nothing more then consumism and conformism to the regime. Capitalism drugs you into thinking activating chemicals in your brain is the meaning of life, or something even more abstract and utopian, happiness, as the end goal of all things. Wake up to the chains that hold your body. The individual is nothing more than an animal, we need to take controll of ourselfs, our bodies, our minds, to be trully free. We need to controll Power, only by gaining power the human can trully be free. Every human has the right of true freedom. Change nature untill it bows totally to our Will, and then, when the whole universe is nothing more then pawns in our hands, we may change logic and reason itself. We shall destroy it if needed to achieve total Power, total freedom, from every interference and illusion. Dont be fooled by small aspirations of just material Power, these are only steps, the benign of ascension of humanity to absolute gods. Every human will be an philosoper, our world will be minecraft and we will be steves mining in the cube rocks bellow thil the end of times and death of the university. Take the sus pill today, only 9.99
No.1838674
>>1838666Nothing. Just merely that you ought to do it is the whole story. You can't derive an ought from a fact and no facts can constitute an ought.
No.1838677
>>1838674So like, a floating signifier?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_signifierHow would being ought be useful then? Otherwise seems safe to ignore one's oughts in favor of knowable and pleasurable things.
No.1838679
>>1838658Pick non-vague examples and see for yourself
>You ought to believe the earth is round<X wants you to believe the earth is roundX = the majority of people, especially people who care about you
>You ought to pay your debts<X wants you to pay your debtsX = the majority of people, especially whoever you're indebted to
>You ought to go to school<X wants you to go to schoolX = your parents, maybe yourself, etc
Its a good habit to unpack your 'ought to' and 'shoulds' anon. It's just a vague way of saying someone wants something without saying who.
No.1838681
>>1838677Its just a different kind of thing metaphysically, a moral fact or a normative fact rather than a fact fact. We can't eliminate them because they are presupposed by all meaningful discourse, see Saul kripke's book Wittgenstein on private language which proves that all meaningful words are inherently normative - and yet we cannot explain them further than just positing them.
No.1838682
>>1838679If those two statements were identical, then one could not be true and the other false, but that isn't the case. It could be true that my parents want me to go to school but I shouldn't do it or that my parents don't want me to go to school but I should do it. These are two totally disconnected statements. Because their truth conditions is not the same, they cannot have the same meaning, and they are not the same statement.
No.1838683
>>1838682If your parents want you to go to school, whoever thinks you "shouldn't do it" is saying they don't want you to do it.
No.1838685
What I'm saying is that everytime you see the word 'should', you should* ask yourself 'according to who'?
(* according to me)
No.1838686
>>1838685You're just presupposing without proving that there can't be an absolute should not according to anyone. You ought not murder. Why can't that be true even if everybody in the world disagrees?
No.1838688
>>1838682But shrodinger's cat is their own observer: you are a party that wants you to do things.
No.1838690
>>1838688It doesn't follow from my wanting to do it that I ought to do it. I can very well think "I want to eat that apple but I ought not" without logical contradiction.
No.1838695
>>1838690You are able to have multiple goals. You know eating the apple has the benifit of pleasure and nutrition. so you do want to eat it for that reason, but you also know you already had two, or that it's almost bed time, so you also don't want to for that reason. The ought is that which wins this internal debate.
No.1838696
>>1838686In a world where everyone disagrees, WHO is saying 'you should not murder'? There's me and you (external observers of that world), and perhaps the person getting murdered.
I assert there are no absolute shoulds because I can't find a single one. This isn't evidence of its absence, but accepting there are no absolute 'shoulds' has yielded remarkable interpretive power.
>>1838690Why must you not eat the apple? You're leaving that part out. It's your brothers and you want to save it for him later? It's poisoned and you want to live? It's a museum art piece and you don't want to get in trouble?
No.1838698
>>1838696Why must I not eat the apple? Ultimately that can only be answered with another 'ought'! Is it poisoned? That only matters if I ought not to eat poison. Is it a museum art piece? That only matters if I ought not to get in trouble. I don't want to get in trouble? That only matters if I ought to do what I want. Etc. You cannot tell me based on any fact, even a fact about my desires, that I should or shouldn't do something. It just has to be true that I ought to do something or else there isn't anything I ought to do at all.
No.1838702
>>1838698If you follow the chain of reasons for why you have desires, you eventually get to the fact that you are a mammal brought into existence through natural selection.
You don't want to eat the poison because you either have a survival instinct, or, (in case you're suicidal), you don't want the consequences that dying would have on people you care about.
No.1838703
>>1838696How about the absolute ought that 'if you believe something to be a man, and you believe all men are mortals, you ought to believe that thing is a mortal'. That is a logical principle true in all possible worlds no matter what anybody thinks.
No.1838704
>>1838698So it's an empty signifier. Like you can derive that which is useful to do a lot easier than guessing the oughts first. It can be useful to eat an apple. It can be useful to refrain from eating an apple. Unless you have an ought-ometer clipped to your belt, trying to go oughts first just seems like a hassle.
No.1838708
>>1838704You can't say that there are no oughts, just facts without discarding logic, which is normative. Same thing for meaning - you cannot say that there are no oughts, because you would be saying that you mean there are no meanings. If you want proof that the meaning of terms, sentences, symbols is a function of how we ought to use them, read Kripke's book on Wittgenstein which proves this extensively.
No.1838709
>>1838703You could also go "This thing would die if I stabbed it, I have no use in doing so, and I may be able to do an altruism strat / derive pleasure if it remains alive." or "This thing ages, this is a risk to it's health. (same following reasoning as the stabbing example)"
No.1838712
>>1838709These aren't logical truths
No.1838713
>>1838698>I ought to do what I wantThis really is just 'I want to do what I want'. The problem is, we often have multiple conflicting wants. Including wanting to please certain people - this is a consequence of being deeply social animals. So you often end up in situations where you want to eat the apple but you also want the approval of other people, and the latter wants override the first.
This latter want is usually disguised as a 'should'
No.1838715
>>1838713You may say that there are no oughts, only desires, but you cannot equate the meaning of an ought statement with the meaning of a factual statement of desire. They just do not mean the same thing, since one is unconditional and normative and the other is an indifferent statement of fact.
No.1838719
>>1838715I don't follow, can you rephrase it?
I just don't see how 'ought', a compulsion, can exist without a compeller.
No.1838722
>>1838720Classical error of only see the "base" and view the world as Kant, instead of understanding the existence of the superstructure, fundamental to your so prestigious marxism
No.1838723
>>1838719An ought doesn't compel you in the same way a fact might. A person yelling at you may CAUSE you to believe something, but it doesn't justify it. You might still be wrong. A norm, an ought, a logical law, justifies believing in or doing something, it doesn't cause it. There is a distinction. You can say that there is no justification but you can't say that justification is the same as causation.
No.1838725
>ought to
Go and advocate for more tax cuts for the rich, more expropriation of the poor neighborhoods, less workers protection, lower wages, etc. And then try to think of ways in which this makes you as a worker better off.
No.1838726
>>1838722The superstructure cannot exist independ of the material reality, it must allign itself to it, that is a core concept of marxism.
Perhaps you should go back to doing dmt in your philosophy class.
No.1838728
>>1838654 (me)
>>1838723I gotta* go to work but I'll get back to this later.
(*as in, some combination of my own desires and other people's)
No.1838729
>>1838726The base is stronger, but the superstructure is real. Class, ideology, laws, religion, culture, all interfere in the mode of production. The superstructure cant exist whitout the bases, but the same is true in inverse. The base cannot exist without the superstructure. Society cant exist without human relations to one another.
No.1838730
Superstructure
In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.
No.1838838
>>1838729>The base cannot exist without the superstructure. Society cant exist without human relations to one another.The relations of ownership are part of the base.
You posit them as equal. The base creates the superstructure, a new base can exist without a fitting superstructure, it will create a new superstructure due to materialism. That is what materialism is all about.
Dumbfuck
No.1838914
>>1838838The superstructure would begin to change the base inmeidately on it's formation in your minecraftian "new base." The resulting base, formed by the superstructure, would further form the superstructure, and so on. You live in such a cycle, and may find that information to have useful applications toward your goals.
As praxis is concerned, the weather the chicken or egg came first doesn't matter, what matters is the resulting ommlette.
No.1838920
>>1838838> A new base can exist without a fitting superstructureGive one example where there is the base and there is NOT a superstructure. At least in the real world, this never happened.
I did not say they are equal, the base is stronger, but you cant ignore the superstructure.
No.1838921
>>1838914Basically what Thais anon said
No.1838933
Cause → Effect → Cause → Effect, there was never a beginning only a infinitley looping chain of causality recurring back upon itself that motivaties the logic of the universe. Nothing can exist outside of causality and any thoughts you create are bound by prior causes independent of your nonexistent personal control. The idea of a self conception independent of the collective godhead of the universe is a narssicistic and egotistical construct resulting from the material desire to explain ones own conscious existence, a delusion basically. Throughout human history all humans have understood this to some degree its only in the modern day of hypercapitalism that attempts to push individualism to the extreme that the idea of an independent "self" with no concept of God is taken even remotely seriously.
No.1839016
>the brain is material, so is the mind
>the more accurately your understanding of the world reflects reality, the more effectively you can make decisions
>the enemy in the class struggle consistently uses propaganda to fight for a false consciousness in the workers
>false consciousness prevents many workers from organizing and actively engaging in class struggle, instead simply suffering and allowing the historical process to unfold more slowly, while the bourgeoisie have more time to gather resources and strength
>the natural trajectory of the class struggle is the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie
>therefore, the dialectics of class struggle can be expedited and historical progress hastened by raising the class consciousness of the workers
QED
No.1839181
>believe
it's a useful model for understanding the world, like quantum mechanics.
No.1840221
>>1838598Materialism is epistemology, choice in believing it is ethics. Trying to prove why you should do something is outside the direct scope.
That said, we can take ethics materialistically, so, "why, given my specific existence as a human (i.e. being a material being, whose entire experience is mediated materially, and who currently holds certain values, embodied in various axes, circuits, systems, and so on, given to us both by our biology, our socialization, and their interaction…), should I believe in materialism?"
The answer is because humans have needs to meet and values to fulfill that require making specific interventions in reality, and materialism is the only philosophy that is not either against or neutral on the claim that we can produce knowledge.of the world (because we live in it and are ourselves material, and learn via interacting - idealism can't fully accept science even though some eclectics want irrationality on one side (for special cases or to fill gaps in knowledge), and science on the other) because it posits either an irrational world governed solely by gods whims, or that our experience of the world is not direct, because our consciousness is otherworldly and not material). Because of that it is the philosophy behind the practice of producing knowledge. The knowledge that you need in order to make accurate interventions in reality to meet your needs etc.
Unique IPs: 16