/lit/ - Literature

>>4372165
>not liking futurism

2/2
>You are giving me answers to questions. But you shouldn't, since you don't know them. Your words are just a farce.
All statements are ignorant. That would be obvious. If there were some rule that we can only speak what we know, we would all have to shut up. In fact one group of sceptics used to resort to merely pointing and quit verbal conversation altogether as to not speak nonsense.

>Bingo! This is why scepticism is retarded. We act in the world using beliefs all the time. How can be anyone so retarded as to just decide to suspend beliefs when adopting them is extremely vital?
You didn't get the point of that statement. Life is possible without philosophy, so in no way does a philosophy have to precede acting in the world, so having a philosophical position is superfluous to living.

>So you go to work but you don't expect to be paid? Nice. This proves scepticism is retarded.
I certainly wouldn't pretend to the knowledge that I am.

>Well, they have. In order to get what you desire you need to learn about your environment and the possibilities it gives to you. If you know nothing you get nothing.
I meant that my wanting to know something has little to do with that knowledge being actually available. I may want to know a lot of things, doesn't mean that I can. A desire to know doesn't imply the possibility to know. Is that so hard to grasp?

I, for one, enjoy contemporary life without being a faux-nostalgic golden age faggot.