/lit/ - Literature

>>17508845
You're making true and false statements all the time anon. Just because you can't tell which ones are which doesn't mean they aren't there. Now the next step is to start measuring confidence. Aren't you way more confident that you're sitting there where you are, writing on 4chan, rather than having a mass delusion (not even a hallucination)? Hallucinations are sensations that don't correspond to the objects they seem to depict, but delusions are persistent false beliefs. That's certainly possible, that your sensations actually tell you you're in a Siberian gulag in the 30s, but somehow you have a delusion telling you that you're on this futuristic "internet" in the 2020s. Don't you think, even though that's possible, it's way less intuitively credible? Are you really as equally confident about the two possibilities just because they're two possibilities? Nobody gets past the possibility of error, but everyone can get past the stasis that you presently think follows from the first fact. Even Sextus Empiricus and David Hume, the two most famous "skeptics," agree with me about this.

>>16164002
>ROUND 1
Aquinas would die quickest of the six, because he is an example of that dogmatic rationalism the other five see as overreaching past what can be known (Kant, Hume), or ideology (Nietzsche, Marx), or straight up meaningless confusion (Wittgenstein).
>ROUND 2
Wittgenstein would fall next. You would think he is OP with his signature theme, but actually that makes him easiest to become irrelevant to anyone else. His attacks just don't harm any of his opponents anymore.
>ROUND 3
This is honestly where it gets hard. Hume, Kant, Marx, and Nietzsche can all defend themselves very well against their opponents and raise strong critiques of each other. Hume can appeal to the limits of sensation and sweep anything else as fiction. Kant can depend on his necessary transcendental conditions to counter Hume and withstand Nietzsche and Marx. Nietzsche can appeal to the genealogy of ideas to portray his opponents' ideas, especially Kant's and Marx's, as being grounded in ressentiment. Marx can criticize Nietzsche and Kant as being ideologically loaded. What you'll notice though is that Marx and Nietzsche don't have a particularly strong critique to give of Hume. So Hume is safe for now. But it's difficult to say who of the four falls first.
>WHO WON
>WHO'S NEXT
>YOU DECIDE