I like that Verb actually changed the name of his alt too

dedication

I too have a confession to make. I'm not actually who I've said I am.

um

this scares me

i remember this from middle skool

Quote from: Kupo on September 19, 2015, 11:28:05 PM

Quote from: aDUMBgenius on September 19, 2015, 11:27:34 PM

Quote from: Kupo on September 19, 2015, 11:27:03 PM

>tfw slash doesn't have the giggles

haha wattafagut

also get on bf3 kupoop

tomorrow, i have to sleep now

gays go to hELL

rUDE

>tfw slash doesn't have the giggles

This actually ties quite nicely in with Verbatim's point about things being "subjectively objective".

You should check out Nietzsche and other existentialists; the basic position is that humans create value.

>.> this puts stuff into context, thanks.

damn I hate lurking threads but never having the time to reply until later

finished watching the first half of Unlimited Budget Works and stuff

dunno yet

I'm surprised they let Matt Damon go to space considering what happened last time *cough*

I'm hyped to see it though

Yeah I dunno what to think of it. I've never had DRM problems, but then again I've never tried to play Steam in offline mode or had random disconnects.

STFU up

shut the fuck up up

>.> My last two posts here were more of a ramble than something coherent. Getting to this reply took longer than I anticipated, but here goes:

My thoughts about the 'car' analogy: we can make a bunch of parts that when put together, make a car. These parts all exist, but they have no inherent meaning ordained by nature--the concept of a 'car' exists only because we've created that meaning.

We use that kind of thinking (Gestalt psychology) to make sense of the world, and just because it's either to think of objects as the sum of their parts. There are plenty of things that physically exist, but only have meaning because we associate a value with them. (I thought of making an example here, but I thought that would just be confusing, because I suck at analogies.)

In the case of morality, 'sensations' may have a physical basis, but the values associated with them are based on our own beliefs and experiences, derived from instinct and cultural norms. But I can't see any basis for any kind of morality that's objective, and inherently 'superior' to any other kind. (And it always struck me as a sort of 'religious' belief in morality.)

There's also the conundrum that I have this nihilistic view of the world and yet, I have my own sense of 'right' and 'wrong,' and I have no intention of abandoning it (dammit, I even vote this way). Though, it feels so arbitrary, because even though within our own society, there are objective rights and wrongs, they don't seem to have any, uh, 'cosmic' basis. Every worldview has different opinions on morality that believes itself to be the 'objectively correct' interpretation of morality. How would one even begin to 'prove' their own argument is the correct one, while simultaneously providing evidence that the other arguments are incorrect? This particular kind of 'secular objective morality' being expressed here seems like little more than just another opinion, that may or may not have parallels to religion.

>.> tl;dr, it took me until now just to say/realize that I'm a nihilist. Reason for like seven pages being that I have a conflict between my nihilistic beliefs and my own sense of right/wrong. (How the heck am I supposed to reconcile that?)

Quote from: Kupo on September 17, 2015, 02:17:28 PM

To me at least,  sounds like your argument can only logically conclude that morality is subjective because otherwise we wouldn't need to assume anything, because we would just know it.

Come on, Kupo, you know there are objective truths in the universe that we haven't unearthed yet. Science is objective—but we don't "just know" everything about science. That doesn't make science subjective—it just means we're stupid. Everything comes down to educated guesses, conjecture, hypothesis, assumption, theory, etc.

We make all these guesses about the nature of reality—there's no reason we can't do the same with morality.

If you wanna call that "subjectively objective", sure, as long as "subjectively objective" means... like, there IS an objective truth, but we can never know the objective truth—we can only make educated guesses. Then yes, I'd agree with you.

>.> I was confused. I was sort of just rambling to get my thoughts out. Alright.

what

election day is more than a year away, and the first primaries are like 5 months away

...there's a sarcastic, verbatim-like response for this, but I can't think of it