/lit/ - Literature

>>20601246
indeed

>>20456636

>>20269099

Let's face it! Our reliance on axioms is shaky at best. Most of you who thinks pragmatically, "whatever works works" need to contend with the fact that axioms are just like rules in a game. When football was brought into America from Europe, Amis changed all the rules into unrecognizable form from European perspective. Same with mathematics, change all the axioms and we'll find either ways are valid ways of doing mathematics. So, how do we start? I bet my money on intuitionism.

Idk, but what would Gödel say about the incident?

>>19902814
I view consciousness in more of a 'tabula rasa' view in which your consciousness is "colored" by the constituent of your body, including your brain and also of events happening to and around you up to this point, and yes, those events are partly influenced by the constituent of your body, attractive people gets more pleasant events that constitute their experiences, and so on. Perhaps I'm a dualist, but I'm not sure what type of dualist I am, substance dualism seems unlikely, so perhaps property?

I was baptized Catholic but lately my faith has been waning, or maybe I have no faith in the first place, I don't know. I'd say I'm irreligious but I can't say that I'm an atheist. Lately I've been fascinated by the realm of a priori such as pic related. So yes, God, consciousness, all these transcendent entities can only be "reached" through a priori means. Is it possible? Kant seems to disagree.

Popper. Why can't I get this chad instead?

>>19815213
Yeah and philosophers have gotten destroyed by it. You obv don't code.

>I got a first in my logic class mate.
>fallacies
You took some jerk-off human reasoning. Show completeness of system phi in fol.

/sci/ btfo

Are philosophers hypocrites?

What gives a guilty and flawed human being the right to opine on moral issues, let alone issue moral imperatives?

>>16866580
dumb redditor

Yes, ignore the pop-sci weenies, it's a just a fad.

Yes, same with a little science vs depth in science.

>>14852842
Better than being an arrogant monkey who doesn't appreciate the limits of pure reason.