How is cooperation a buzz word in the post just deserts discourse?

They also give all reasoning a bad name. But academic philosophy is designed to keep people ignorant, like with the veil of ignorance though experiment.

Kant compromises his theory of ethics for sure. No statist system can be apriori.

Equality does not somehow stem from rational agency into an observable and measurable feature. Even the first premise of ethics seems too difficult to justify.

It requires sort of argument from tradition or ideal theory so that we start from that people already accept atleast the baseline equality as non aggression and equal right to decide about other rules.

That works as long as people agree on them.

But another way Rawls uses is that all knowledge is a communal thing by definition. Science is valid only if the community agrees on the theory at hand. So ethics can be comparable science if there is a viewpoint that detaches from the aposteriori to apriorism that fits the idea of inductive logic (although Rawls speaks paradoxically of aposteriori apriori which he explains away with the ideal theory). And everyone who can do this has an equal vote on ethics, like science has its criterion (although it can lead to fallacy of expertise) So there is no many ethical theories, only peoole who have the virtue for ethics and who don’t.

You need induction to make up concepts by giving them definitions: raven has features x. Deduction is the surface level comprehension: ”that is a raven because it has features x” when a data base has been established and concepts agrees upon.

But on the cartesian level you need water proof deduction to go forward and begin inference.

But induction can just make conceptions, observations and data bases of the observable objects whether they exist outside some alleged virtual reality for example. It is after all the reality where at least i’m personally forced to live in.

What does logic ultimately evidence? Induction is not really possible, only as a sociological study of existing judgments. There was no such a promise of objective reasoning in the first place.

If you keep your Willy free in the public, your will will not be free in the near future.

Also statism in general.

Classical liberalism at least theorizes from a prestate scenario. Unlike statist theories. Maybe you just don't understand the concept.

I have never gotten past the point of introductory knowledge in these Reddit discussions.

Instead every day there are several new introductory topics about same themes.

Must be the limitations of chat bots.

And for lunatics like you we need man made rules so that you don’t get to roam free which is naturally a vacuum-like ground zero for the discussion rather than a man made thing.

Did you know everything - including iffy natural scientific stories - are man made so man madedness does make an argument against anything?

The only system that is coherent is then free grabbing of everything. That is the only real ex ante view to how societies necessarily begin.

But still one gets eventually shot for doing that?

How you make a theory of justice in this question begging framework of having legal right to ”protective violence” and gatekeeping all of the resources?

Locke like kant is both moral realist and contractarian.

Everyone can grab resources so far others can do the same. It is pareto optimal truth (realism) so it can function as something what people agree not to violate (contract)

They are not nature's rights I guess.

I believe that reality is basically unfathomable. Under real liberty there are no social contracts on anything. It is like the aftermath of the tower of Babel. (Which to me philosophically does not make ethics impossible)

If human is kidnapped to simulation or VR which is like momma’s house: it has its rules one can’t break or ask their justification, then any gadget or machine can seem conscious as long it does not break those rules. It is not the machine that is given consciousness but the world is simplified or dumbed down even.

Since say one this has been a religious, rather a philosophical community. Not that I would like to discuss Tate in particular.

Eat ass

But does it add to it. For example nanalytical (neo) marxism promises a lot but I don’t know what its achievements are

To my understanding personhood is in simplicity the abilities that makes an agent: the ability to create and follow rules and create a conception of good. And it is the atomistic type of self. Indivisible. That is why governments, companies or states cannot be persons because they can be divided into smaller pieces and most likely parts of them are ignored in a majority rule type of situations. So therefore to me representative democracy fails already for that reason.

Has anything neo- ever been good? (not asking rhetorically)

The trick about equality is that it leads to system where inequalities don’t exist. So we don’t need to guess ex post which systems are a result of an equal contracting.

We can measure with Pareto efficiency what is rational in general in a state of nature. It is intuitive and does not even require referring to values. It can be argued for behind the veil of ignorance or not.

But it would require a calculation about how much there is stuff in the world so it can be redistributed.

Academic philosophy usually stops where philosophy could only actually start. It is like an engine that takes you to where the journey should begin but it stops working at that point.

Perspectivism is no longer that curious about different views when it comes to monistic/foundationalist thinking.

Yeah but apart from mathematics, symbols must have a concrete target it is connected to. If death is nothing then it cannot cause even any feelings, unless we have conditioned and suggested ourselves with that particular word, "death" so it causes for example fear. Of course the culture does this for us.

But it does not belong to philosophy. Since philosophy is the study of the world, not study of the judgments about it as not all of them are very good. We know logically that not-life is not same as death starting after life. The meaning of life is to exist. So when it ends, the discussion about something existing ends. So we don’t even need empurical dispute about it, because it is conceptually coherent to say that after life there is nothing.

Life is every one’s viewpoint but death is the viewpoint of an outsider. But it has no value to the discussion.