Dzagir: loweffortcapcuterald

beefsoup: I like this

BRUNOBSON:

>muh cuntry betah

Chud¹: Do Nusois really like Germany? :face_holding_back_tears:

Chud²: @BRUNOBSON: muh cuntry betah

Chud³: Sverige win

Chud⁴: Gemmy

Chud⁵: swedophilic gem

Chud⁶⁽⁵⁾: most importantly, they invented soyjaks

C30SLAYER: Swedish win

Olgol: I have a question, is this https://sectionalismnotes.substack.com/ your substack?

Olgol: Would be a shame if it is since substack is the home of antivaxxchadS

veironn: @Olgol: https://sectionalismnotes.substack.com/p/breaking-the-greerhead-pledge margerald

Olgol: @veironn: GEEEEEG. And it seems like hes into Buddhist smelly person stuff too this Sectionalism guy. Ngl I hope its not him. This is fucking pathetic

Olgol: https://sectionalismnotes.substack.com/p/brap-panther-2-waftkanda-forever
Fuck now it seems pretty hard to ignore. Expecting a Steve Kirsch reblog any scroll now.

Olgol: https://sectionalismnotes.substack.com/p/utilitarian-nonsense
This one (aside from being SNCA and probably wrong) contains a "boob-break" https://sectionalismnotes.substack.com/p/utilitarian-nonsense.
Not like this..

Olgol: https://sectionalismnotes.substack.com/p/q-and-a-answers
This is him.
Curse you, Sectionalism. Now you are Weedionalism, or Gooferretlism. Just fuck you, spanishtack smelly person

Olgol: Even Peterxxx (intentional) has an account. This goes deeper than I thought it does

Sectionalism: @Olgol: ferret are you specialed?

Olgol: @Sectionalism: Answer the question Weedionalism. (btw your critique of utilitarianism is raisin)

Sectionalism: @Olgol: My critique of utilitarianism is good

Olgol: @Sectionalism: No, its fucking raisin. You presuppose that Utilitarianism is a materialist ethical system. It isnt. Its neutral on ontology. Fail

Sectionalism: @Olgol: The article is specifically a critique of "Rationalist/LessWrong" type Utilitarians who are pretty much always physicalists/materialists

Olgol: @Sectionalism: You didnt mention that. And dont call it a critique of utilitarianism then. You critiqued materialism. Idealists are so fucking specialed they get lump everything that isnt "life affirming" into the heckin scary materialist camp GEG

Sectionalism: @Olgol: I didn't critique materialism, I critiqued physicalist realism and pointed out that the problems with physicalist realism call into question the utility of utilitarianism. Hedonic calculus makes no sense because pleasure/preference is intrinsically un-measurable. Even if you are an idealist, this remains the case, and utilitarianism becomes no more precise than virtue ethics or deontology. Most Idealists were accused by Nietzsche of being "Life-Denying" so I don't know where you got that idea from. I'm not into the "life-affirming" "Nietzschean" stuff

Olgol: @Sectionalism: You really did. Your "critique" of utilitarianism is a critique of materialism, and how for materialists it is inconsistent to be a utilitarian. Again how you think physicalism being wrong means utilitarianism's utility is also wrong is insane. They arent connected at all.

>Hedonic calculus makes no sense because pleasure/preference is intrinsically un-measurable.

Not measurable by any outside figure. You cant measure someone's head and see how they feel. Utilitarianism is just a theory of what is best (if the circumstances are most apparent). Only the subject being questioned can answer that. This actually an argument against utilitarianism based on intuition, where the anti utilitarian tries to pick apart the intuition of the utilitarian. Safe to say that that can be done on any ethical system. Neither deontology nor virtue ethics are safe.

>Even if you are an idealist, this remains the case, and utilitarianism becomes no more precise than virtue ethics or deontology.

It has a qualitative factor to it under idealism. Pleasure and pain are real qualia, they are experienced. "Justice" and "virtue" are abstract post-hoc systems. I dont experience "virtue", and even if I did, it would probably be happiness in connection to something I previously wanted to happen. "Virtue" kind of loses its appeal then.

>Most Idealists were accused by Nietzsche of being "Life-Denying" so I don't know where you got that idea from. I'm not into the "life-affirming" "Nietzschean" stuff

Almost everyone was accused by the old fuck, even his great teacher (not actually, but Schopenhauer was his idol for a time). But today idealists (think Brapnardo chadstrup, or Donald Hoffmann) are all about Jungianism and "meaning crisis". Schopenhauer was the best idealist (even tho thats questionable), as he was also an antinatalGOD.

Olgol: Type above in second sentence (utilitarian*)

Sectionalism: @Olgol:
We are specifically interested in hedonic calculus with respect to outside figures, though. If utilitarianism was only about one's own happiness then it would just be hedonism. I think most virtue ethicists would argue that virtue is recognized intuitively in the same way that we recognize descriptive qualities.

It's fucking specialed that you are glazing Schopenhauer (an Indomaniac) after criticizing me for not completely disregarding the East

Olgol: @Sectionalism: Then utilitarianism cant prove what is actually the right thing to do (as in, which choice actually causes what you want to happen). But, if we could somehow prove what will cause people happiness, then it would be objectively good to do it (as in, you will cause someone something they will objectively enjoy. Pleasure is subjective but its an objective fact that people want more of it). Thats all utilitarianism is. Anyone trying to get an 'ought' out of it is dumb. It cant provide that. But if you want to do good to someone, you should be a utilitarian. Hedonism is a lifestyle. Its like someone comparing Stoicism and virtue ethics. They are interconnected, but one is a measly lifestyle, while the other is a position that is somewhat respectable in analytic philosophy (the other isnt). Thats what makes utilitarianism and hedonism different.

smelly personism is only good insofar its pessimist. I was just reading your review of the tranime Neon Genesis diddygelion. I hate the tranime both for its diddyphilia AND its "life good, pain ignore durr" position. I can see the smelly personism you like is also like that. Thats pathetic.

Sectionalism: @Olgol:

>But if we could somehow prove what will cause people happiness

That's the problem. It isn't a question of when, it's a question of if, and "if" is already out of the question based on accepted characteristics of folk-psychological emotional conditions. Getting an "ought" out of Utilitarianism is the entire point of it as well as any ethical system. If your position on utilitarianism is "it is true but cannot be used to actually optimize decision making" then you're not talking about ethics.

>It's like someone comparing Stoicism and virtue ethics

I think not, Stoics were virtue ethicists. Stoics had their own logic/metaphysics and theory of aesthetics, it wasn't just a lifestyle. I'm not a Stoic, though.

>NGE stuff

I wrote that years ago. I'm more negative about life now than I was then. My views on Eva also evolved.

professornothingburger2: This coming 11pm,all soyjak.party accounts will be CUT. This is according from the creator of soyjak.party. All the activities that was being done this time will be delay, SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. To save you're soyjak.party accounts, please forward this message to 5 threads for us to make sure that you are active user of soyjak.party. If can't pass this to 5 threads you're acount will be cut without hesitancy.

Olgol: @Sectionalism: Perhaps I didn't make it clear that by "cause" I dont mean physical cause. Truthfully, I take dualism as a given when talking about utilitarianism. I believe that causation (as in one event necessarily following the previous one) can still be used for utilitarianism if possible.
You're right that for utilitarianism to be an ethical system, its supposed to give an ought. I'll concede that. But thats where I part ways with most traditional utilitarian thinking. No ethical system can give an ought, so no need to bother with it. But at the same time, utilitarianism is true in that if you want to cause 'good' (read: pleasure), then its the only true system. I know its tautological, because 'good' is still mostly based on non utilitarian intuition and I end up saying "to cause pleasure, you need to cause pleasure". To cope with this i would argue that all "virtues" promote happiness causing behaviour. I would argue that even if they dont, they are perceived that way, as in it satisfies some intuition that is comfortable. So pleasure is 'good' itself, and if you want to cause 'good', then you should be a utilitarian. If you dont, then Utilitarianism falls apart

I suppose you are more knowledgeable than me on the stoic part. You are correct that the traditional stoics had a full blown metaphysics, epistemology and whatnot. What im saying is that Stoicism as conceived in self help books and in pop psychology is a lifestyle (loosely based on some philosophy). That is exactly how hedonism differs from utilitarianism.

Aha, nice to hear! I'd say its natural to feel as though EVA is deep and all, but when its own director is a loli munching geek, who admitted he skimmed through Kierkegaard's "Sickness Unto Death" and got bored of it, I say that everyone will see through the 'P. But Im sorry that I actually attacked you like this. I admit that I just skimmed over your profile and found the weed stuff, and that I also assumed that you were an antivaxx quack (since Substack is their home) for no reason. You're more based than I expected. I take all my insults back. I apologize

professornothingburger2: This coming 11pm,all soyjak.party accounts will be CUT. This is according from the creator of soyjak.party. All the activities that was being done this time will be delay, SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. To save you're soyjak.party ac counts, please forward this message to 5 threads for us to m ake sure that you are active user of soyjak.party. If can't pass this to 5 threads yo u're acount will be cut without hesitancy.

Sectionalism: @Olgol: Its ok. I probably have substonks which deserve more criticism than they get anyways