/lit/ - Literature

>>12870617
Had sort of the right idea

t. Richard Rorty.

>>12870617
That which we Interpret is not The Interpretation

>>12870617
Pretty sure the average rainfall for California isn't up to interpretation, or the date of World War I's Armistice.

>>12870617
objectively true, paradoxically

>>12870617
interpretations of what?

>>12871641
Nature

>>12871651
Everything is natural as opposed to supernatural. Even religion, since delusion is still natural.
I say this as a religion sympathizer which is how I justify it.

>>12870617
This is what trannies tell themselves

>>12870639
scales of measuring rainfall are interpretations, rather, the observer interprets the placement of the needle on his gauge or the mercury in his tube of glass, just like dates and what the signing of a piece of paper by a handful of men represented, argue if you like

>>12871663

How euphoric are you exactly?

>>12870617
Like, that's just your interpretation brah

>>12870639
What is rainfall to a raindrop?

>reading translations

>>12871875
a bad translation is neither the worst thing nor the best thing

>>12871884
I can see you put words there.

Who did it better?

>>12870617
Is it a fact that there are no facts, just interpretations?

Maybe that's true... but is no way to live your life though. Might as well be a rock or a criminal. Fuck your mother or stop breathing. If everyone has its interpretation of meaning and moral... society crumble. Law would be pointless, justice a vain word. Hobbe's nightmare of the eternal war would be commom life. Society greatest achievement would be either a lie, a distant dream or a joke.

>>12872257
Interesting ideas

>>12872257
You're a retard.
No objective facts available to US doesn't mean full nihilistic edgy 14 yo mindset or morales. Constructing meaning and ethics in such a place is precisely what Neetzsche was all about.
Read a book nigger

Facts exist but it isn't really easy to determine them from our standpoint. God either exists or doesn't exist, one "finds out" when they die but one of those statements is a fact

>>12870617
Is This a fact?
>>12870644
>brainlet whose

>>12870636
What is it that you interpret, anyway? Can you say for certain that it's the same thing as what another person interprets, or if he even accurately interpreted your subject?

>>12870617
my interpretation is that nietzsche was a daft turd
i bet he still decided that he should walk out of his front door every day rather than jump out of the top floor window
i mean gravity is just an interpretation right

>>12872495
I sure wish making you question the nature of gravity were enough to have you jump off a roof, brainlet

>>12872216
Reichenbach.

>>12872216
Pontius Pilate

>>12872504
not an argument

>Friedrich Nietzsche

>>12870617
this is a fact

>>12871681
a certain number of raindrops that constitute a certain amount of liters fell on california, you fuck.

>>12870617
Subjectivist drivel.

>>12870617
based

BASED BASED BAAAAAAAASED

>>12872627
That may be objectively true, but it’s a fact seen through the lens of man. Any actions resulting from this objective fact are merely interpretations of the data given. We cannot act from pure truth, for we are muddied by our time-space position in the phenomenal.

>>12872627
This number, if calculated, would be nothing but a rough estimation. The actual amount could not be exactly measured.

>>12872489

In order for us to interpret something differently that something must exist in the most basic possible sense. Just because it is impossible to understand does not mean it doesn’t exist. Imagine being such an autist that the existence of an unsolvable problem triggers you so hard you have to invent an entire school of thought predicated on the absence of that problem.

>>12872216
Based Whitehead-poster.

>>12870617
Truth does not exist. This statement itself is untrue.
The ideas in our mind are all electrochemical reactions, consciousness being an aggregation of them to aid our nervous system. Everything, even our mind, is physical phenomena in a deterministic universe. Our minds and the neural fixation we have with "truths" are gears in the great machine of fate.
We evolved like this because of natural selection. Animals and bugs can have "ideas of truth" in their own way aswell. But can you compare if you are closer to the truth than a jellyfish? No, their nervous system knows about contraction of their tentacles and using them to stinging, while yours knows about closing your eyes when something approaches you quickly. On top of this ancient brain selection evolved emotional structures like the limbic system and later rational structures like the pre frontal cortex, which make you have notions of love or justice, which are not real things but just complex ways of organizing the physical nervous reactions to the external world. Ultimately, everything mental in you goes to the thalamus where it tells your muscles and hormones how to behave. It's your refined way of stinging the outside world.

Therefore, truths are not ideals in the platonic sense. They aren't thing to be discovered. Science does not unveil anything about the external world. We can not know "the thing in itself". But we have more or less useful mental reactions. The value of our illusions of truth, of these interpretations of the things in themselves, rely on how useful they are for our survival. The more complex the layer of the brain, the more polemical the notion of truth, because less people will share that mental representation with you. That is why we have different ideals of politics, but less differences on what makes us laugh, and even less differences on how to react to a burning sensation. The more time we have shared a mental trait in evolution history, the easier it is to socially call it true, because the information can be useful for everyone almost equally. A natural science "discovery" like knowing the laws of gravity is easily exploitable for the benefit of everyone, so we mostly agree with it being truthful. A social science "discovery" like the need to rise taxes for funding education to improve society won't be considered true by everyone. For some it will be more useful than for others. It will help some groups producing the emotional pleasure of stinging more easily, while limiting other's ability to sting the world, which causes them distress, rejecting in their brains the idea that this is a real truth. In the same way, truths change through time. At some point Euclidean space was clearly true. It helped us immensely. Now Spacetime is true. In the future something else will be true. We can simply not know the real thing in itself, just make more or less useful models with synapse
Nothing of what I said is true, but I believe that knowing it is useful.

MGSV is one of the best games ever made, but that last mission is shit

A load of shite. Their are objective truths that would exist even if humans had never existed. That which is not affected by it being known is the objective reality and highest form of being.

>>12873163
Please name one

>>12873164
gravity

>>12873179
That's not a truth though, it only becomes a truth when observed. Gravity, like every other phenomenon, is affected by being known. It would not exist without us, because there would be nothing to be aware of its existence.

>>12873195
Based

>>12873195
I'm sure the dinos observed it :)

I'm pretty sure he said "no moral facts"

>>12873195
>the universe didn’t exist until humans existed

>>12872216
>outdumbing NEETchuh
Impressive.

>>12873226
yes, he said 'no moral Tatsachen'
however there's a draft where he says something like 'no Faktum', and it got published in the Will zu Power.
Interpretating the quote from the Will zu power is dumb

>>12873227
It literally didn't, it came into being as soon as the first being capable of perceiving it did. Our relation to reality is symbiotic.

>>12873219
Dinos, humans - whatever. The point is that reality only exists through the lens of those who live inside reality.

>>12873245
>The point is that reality only exists through the lens of those who live inside reality.

wrong

>>12873245
>It literally didn't
holy cringe. this is your brain on postmodernism

>>12873252
some advice: drop the Peterson

>>12873251
>>12873252
Any objective facts exist only noumenally. The very nature of our existence as beings of the phenomena means that any truth we perceive is merely a colouring of fact with sense data and subjective phenomenal experience. The 'universe' as we perceive it is a construct formed by the interface between noumenal facts and phenomenal perception, and therefore only exists at times when beings capable of bridging the gap between the noumena and the phenomena exist.

>>12873287
so does the color of an object objectively change in the eyes of a colorblind person?

That’s the most Talmudic fuckin shit I’ve ever heard

>>12873288
Objectively, no. The colour of the object is a fixed thing-in-itself, yet the perception of the object is entirely subjective. The important thing to gain from that is that Nietzsche is correct in saying there are only interpretations. Any real truths (like the actual colour of the object) are locked away from us in virtue of our existence in the phenomenal world.

>>12873299
And then you wonder why jews are dominating everyone

>>12873012
Pure solipsism. This will not do.

>>12873287
>phenomenal
>noumenal
Kantfags fuck off

>>12872593
Underrated.

>>12873309
It's not really solipsism, because I'm not arguing that these objective truths don't exist - I'm just arguing that we cannot access them at our current stage of evolution.

>>12873287
This is the dumbest, most ego centric thing I have ever read on 4chan.

>>12873318
Why are you so angry?

>>12873306
Their main tactic is confusion, I don’t really wonder anymore.

>>12873324
I fail to see how anon, it's just a conclusion derived from Platonic and Kantian philosophy, hardly dumb (though a little ego-centric).

>>12873324
Welcome to philosophy you fucking brainlet, this guy isn't pulling this shit out of his ass.
What kind of brainlet is a fucking realist in 2019???
I bet all of your philosophical knowledge stems from JBP vids.

>>12873322
At what stage of evolution would we know? And how would we know we had reached it? One cannot beg such questions without first giving a definition of fact that isn't circular.

>>12873346
>how can you think things exist? ITS THE CURRENT YEAR
this is what “””philosophy””” does to people

I think that Nietzsche was right here in the sense that all knowledge is based off of what we can’t prove or even know so therefore all knowledge is up to interpretation. However, there are facts like 1+1=2 that cannot be refuted, but the facts that build up to this fact can ultimately refuted, therefore it can be refuted by proxy but not directly

>>12873350
I'm being silly at this point, all I can tell you is that we cannot experience noumena right now. Maybe one day we will all become transcended space-babies à la Kubrick's 2001, and then finally have access to the world outside the phenomenal, but this is all - of course - merely a joke.

>>12873352
It is completely natural to desire naïvety in the face of the Great Unknown, anon. Though, if you wish to know more, contact me at [REDACTED].

That's what happens when literate people stop reading Euclid.

>>12873304
Ok, but so a blind person, a colorblind person and a fully-visioned person will still know what part of the light spectrum they're seeing, they can be told that. That's something we have tools and instruments to measure. Is data gathered from those tools subjective?

>>12873399
Yes, all facts gained from observation of the phenomenal world will always only be subjective facts about the transcendental object being represented in the phenomenal. Whilst these facts about light spectrums may serve us well on a day-to-day basis, they will still only be interpretations of the real, unobservable truth of reality. Of course, from a practical view-point, that is all that is necessary - this kind of conversation is really purely theory.

>>12873304
>Any real truths (like the actual colour of the object) are locked away from us in virtue of our existence in the phenomenal world.
so then truth does indeed exist outside of observation.

>>12873428
I don't deny that, but truth (for us, as humans) is unobtainable - we can only attain workable interpretations of the truth. Obviously, this is a little different from Neitzsche's statement, but I believe it's a better version of it.

>>12873346
>>12873345
I know the point he is trying to make between the phenomenal and noumenal, but using it to just this conclusion “The point is that reality only exists through the lens of those who live inside reality”, it both ego-centric and retarded.

>>12873473
But where is he wrong? Offer a counter, don't just attack.

>>12873479
It's like in 1984 where The Party bends reality to control will.

>>12873243
>Will zu power
For the love of (a dead) god please stop with this abhorrent mix of languages

>>12873494
That's not really an argument, though I can see why the conclusion he reaches could be seen to enforce that kind of reality-bending. I think the point he is making is simply that objective truths are inaccessible due to our position as beings inside the phenomenal, and that to claim we can know the 'true truth' is false. It's a pretty innocuous statement, really, and not one that can be considered very valuable outside of the subject its being discussed within.

>>12873363
>However, there are facts like 1+1=2 that cannot be refuted
What are you talking about? Math is only semantics and convention on semantics. 1+1=2 can also be wrong for a binary system for example. You can however craft systems in which given axioms are assumed and derive facts which are facts only for a given system, but are still semantics.

>>12873123

That’s a lot of nonsense you typed out, you are arbitrarily defining truth to mean something metaphysical then arguing that the metaphysical does not exist therefore truth does not exist. But this is false, if reality exists, or more precisely if existence is real, then that existence must have qualities and those qualities are therefore true statements.

For example the statement “nothing exists” is patently untrue since that statement is by definition untrue (since if nothing existed then that statement would not exist) and if it is untrue then it is conversely true that it is false. Just because you’re assmad about the unpredictable and uncontrollable absurd cruelty of living in a world where you will die and there is no objective way to measure the authenticity of an experience does not give you a carte blanche to start throwing around quasi-intellectual statements like “Truth isn’t real”.

>>12872627
What is a raindrop, and what is California, you fuck?

>>12872238
>>12872487
>>12872593
That's not a fact and he isn't asserting it as one. I don't understand why this statement is so difficult for people to grasp.

>>12872216
Socrates

>>12873527
False. The logic of amounts and relations is irreducible.

It’s true that we choose what to believe but there are obviously true things that exist whether we want them to or believe they’re true.