/lit/ - Literature

What's the best anthology or selection of Leibniz essays to read?

Clinging to cause and effect is what makes people doubt God's existence

>>13631057
Hackett has a good one which collects the major works.
>>13631053
Not to mention he destroys the >muh suffering argument too. But then atheists never actually argue against anything

Leibniz is great, monadology should be required reading imo. PSR isnt without problems though, any competent atheist will force you to take the position that there are self subsuming reasons which looks a lot like brute facts...

>>13631053
Hume
>while we expect everything to have a cause because of our experience of the necessity of causes, a cause may not be necessary in the case of the formation of the universe, which is outside our experience

>>13631066
Causes are not reasons.

>>13631073
Let me rephrase, Causes and reasons are not the same thing, causes are reasons but not all reasons are causes.

>>13631053
Atheists can't debate Deists. Every weapon they use against religious nuts doesn't work with Deists.

>>13631053
Tell them to look at Quantum mechanics. All its interpretations are basically metaphysics since there is no Theory of Everything yet.

>and go on some rant about metaphysics being irrelevant in the current year.
the surest sign of a pseud.

>>13631066
anglos will never, NEVER, be able to make any meaningful contribution to the world, regardless of the subject of study. their minds are simply botched. anyone who wastes time with anglo """"""""""philosophy""""""""" or """""""""""science"""""""""" is an uberpseud

the cornerstone of the anglos' whole intellectual endeavor, Darwinism, is being btfo with each passing day. Even the Jews are sussing out the bullshit of it--that should tell you something when even Jews like David Gelernter are taking a step back and saying, "yeah, this theory is just a neurotic dogma for a new pseudo-religion and is only defended by fundamentalists." of course, the vehement, sickly mind of the anglo will deny this. it is simply incapable of seeing reality.

I don't think you can ever really wrap your head around just how fucking worthless and repulsive anglos have been pretty much since the dawn of time--what a blight upon the world they've succeeded in being. If they had gone extinct after that anonymous anomaly at their race's inception, the poet who penned Beowulf, had finished his work, perhaps the anglo race would be looked upon by history as a tragically short-lived, but somewhat noble people who made an interesting aesthetic contribution to the world

but no. anglos interbred for centuries and centuries on that shitty island of theirs and with each passing decade became more and more debile and divorced from the human spirit. anglos don't have souls, they have racial egregore's of circular reasoning and logical fallacies that animate the insectoid minions that we designate as Anglo-Saxons.

to the anglo, the world must be funneled through the digestive track that is the most bland and myopic of materialist sciences (lol, but of course nowadays they have to call themselves "Naturalists" because the idea of "matter" has been totally btfo by modern (continental) physics), and then the shit that the leaky asshole they call their "academia" pushes out is the only thing that is allowed to be called Reality. only in england could a bug like bertrand russell be knighted and allowed to publish books.

Nietzsche said it best: 'Man does not strive for happiness; only the Englishman does that.'

the anglos are simply not people. they are an entire race of p-zombies, and I'm glad the Masons are flooding their country with third-world hordes. at least there will be an injection of true, human vitality as their pathetic race is raped out of existence.

>>13631053

god is a coping strategy because you're to weak to accept a world with no meaning and purpose

>>13631118
god of the gaps

if a god existed he would be an evil god as is shown by nature. only an evil god would create pic-related

>>13631132
>>13631141
What you are saying has nothing to do with PSR. If you hate religion so much that you want to argue against PSR you should atleast read Monadology...

How does the principle of sufficient reason point toward god instead of some other outside?

>>13631140
Higgs boson, dark matter, the graviton. All things that either don't exist or their nature is unknow and can't be measured or tested. Stop being an hypocrite materialist and become Agnostic if anything.

>>13631132
you really just entered a high level theology discussion with some 14 year old rejecting his orthodox roots tier bullshit

>>13631132
>>13631141
I concede that God is either not perfectly knowledgeable, powerful, or caring of suffering. What now?

>>13631152
im holding out to see if theres any further advancements but damn if theology doesnt look good as an alternative these days

>>13631159
whats a life time of suffering for eternity in utter bliss,what are you,ungrateful?

>>13631152
Dark matter and the Higgs boson are measurable and testable and a some things are known about their properties. If you couldn't measure them how did we ever find out they're there?

>>13631053
Why does principle of sufficient reason entail God, and not just a metaphysical ‘mover’ of sorts (whatever that may look like)?

>>13631169
The metaphysical mover is generally thought to be god, realistically it doesnt need to be a mover rather just some it upon which things are contingent. PSR types tend to have broad definitions of God, Leibniz tries to go beyond this broad definition but fails to do that in my opinion.He still outlines PSR very clearly though, that part is very good.

>>13631199
Interesting! My knowledge of Leibniz is frankly lacking, so it’s good to learn about these kind of things. By going beyond the broader definition, do you mean that Leibniz is trying to pinpoint God (the Christian kind) as that which the Universe and Time is contingent upon, or is he trying to go even broader?

>>13631199
Good evidence for the outside but narrow minded types seem to take it to mean their religion is true.

>>13631208
Leibniz himself believed in the christian God in a stric narrowt sense, he attempted to prove that God exists and that we are all subjects in his Kingdom, I believe he was (Mostly) successful in the prior but failed in the latter. Many modern PSR believers are Deists who understand God as purely some being upon which time, matter etc are contingent. If you are interested in more Leibniz's Monadology is a short and substantive reading.

>>13631208
Yes. He sufficient-reasons his way to a God of the Philosophers type entity and hangs the important metaphysical stuff off that. He tries to go further and deduce more of the traits of Big YHVH specifically but that part of the argument is shakier.

t. different anon

>>13631214
>average people misunderstand ideas
How will philosophy ever recover?

>>13631214
I think lots of religious people like this argument because it gives them some hope, If there isn't a God it cant be theirs but if there is it might be.

>>13631255
Also they seem to bring it up specifically when arguing with atheists, where it makes sense as a counterargument even if it does not singlehandedly prove their entire religion.

>>13631053
Russell loved him so I hate him
And yeah, he can be interpreted as atheist like that

>>13631152
The Higgs boson has been observed with very grreat accuracy and reliability. And all those are just mathematical models of reality.

All you mention would at best be proofs that we don't understand the fundamental making up of the universe. Only a disingenuous theist would jump from this to "there's definitely a God man". It only proves there are things you don't know, which is a given even in a strictly rationalistic and scientific framework.

>>13631053
I like PSR, but there's an arg (I read it in van Inwagen I think) that PSR implies there are no contingent truths, since every truth is necessitated by some explanation, which is in turn necessitated by some explanation yada yada. Have you seen this arg? What do you think?

>>13631290
*tips fedora*

>>13631053
That kind of argument got BTFO by Kant. That much should be obvious now. We live in a post-kantian world.

>>13631293
Nice non-argument. But you know I'm right. The jump from "science has not (or not yet) provided all answers about the universe" to "Jesus is definitely the savior of Humanity" might be enticing to the Christian mind but absolutely nothing justifies it.

>>13631292
Different Anon, but a reason can be a reason for its own being true, Nozick has an excellent section on this in Philosophical Explanations.
You can have a sentence of the form p that says all sentences of the for p are true, Its seems circular but circularity is a problem for arguments, not reasons.

>>13631298
>post-kantian
Isn't that term automatically negative to Kant?

>>13631298
Kant got pre-emptively btfo by Aquinas.
>>13631304
*tips fedora*

Yes, let us simply ignore the Münchhausen trilemma. Truly a rigorous philosophical principle.

>>13631326
fuck off to rational wiki and tip your fedora there.

>>13631310
Thanks, I'll have a look.

Is that the only way out? If truths are divided between those that are self-explaining and those that are explained, contingent truth looks shaky.

>>13631053
What do I read to take the Leibnizpill?

>>13631304
thats why he said be agnostic dumb fuck.

>>13631326
>OH LOOK AT ME, I'M A FAGGOT WHO DOESN'T KNOW MY HAND EXISTS WHEN I SEE IT IN FRONT OF ME BECAUSE OF A BIG BANG THEORY EPISODE
How sterile your philosophy must be when it's so full of self doubt. The mindset of a eunuch. How do you even cross the street without considering the terror of whether you can really see a car coming?

>>13631318
It's the dialectic overcoming of Kant, it retains Kant as a foundational term. We can't revert to pre-Kant metaphysics.

>>13631326
> what is self subsumption
>>13631332
There is some talk of weakening the thesis of PSR but it doesn't seem very promising, no one I know of has done anything very interesting in that direction.
>>13631333
Again, Monadology.

>>13631321
He didn't, Aquinas is actually btfo by Hume. Why would causality be a primordial metaphysics category just because we tend to order events in causal chains? Do you think God also see things in color because we perceive colors?

>>13631334
No, he said *tips fedora* if you read the conversation carefully. And his example of the Higgs boson didn't support his point. Agnosticism is also a lazy answer. The proper response is to start a meta-metaphysical inquiry about what kind of metaphysics are possible in that situation. "How does belief look like in light of scientific advances?" not "Dude scientific advances whoa therefore I dunno".

>>13631354
>He didn't, Aquinas is actually btfo by Hume

Holy fucking shit
Imagine being this brainwashed by modern materialist society
That redditheist "skeptic" btfoing a fucking Saint? Look at yourself in the fucking mirror.

>>13631361
This has to be bait. Hume "redditheist"? Fucking Hume? Have you read a single philosophy book in your life or do you only think in memes?

Keeping the redditor's attitude of "everyone who disagrees with me must be brainwashed" and applying it to theistic beliefs instead of atheistic belief doesn't make you redpilled or holy or anything like that. It just doesn't make you a slightly different kind of tool from the redditor.

I'm willing to bet I know and have experienced more about the religious mindset than you and possibly even your whole family. You can try me faggot.

>>13631344
I trust my ability to see cars because I have only failed once out of thousands of street crossings. The possibility of perfect knowledge isn't necessary to asymptotically approach perfect knowledge.

>>13631360
>Stop being an hypocrite materialist and become Agnostic if anything.
we know so little about these in reality and you asking me to blindly put faith into these few intellectuals reminds me an awful lot of pre Lutheranism priests and the corruption associated. fair enough being agnostic is lazy but for fucks sake your not making much of a better argument for the fact that all of this just happened with no real cause

>>13631326
so brave

>>13631375
And how did you solve the problem of induction, my good skeptic friend? Now you can infer that your senses are generally reliable because they have been in the past? What?
Yes, let us ignore triffles like the Münchhausen trilemma and problem of induction indeed. Those are for baby's first intro to epistemology.

>>13631389
I never solved anything. My brain is a network that learns patterns and anticipates the future. Functional epistemology is built into the machine.

>>13631381
>being agnostic is lazy
But not intellectually faulty.
Lots of learned men are agnostic, even those who were immersed in Catholic theology eg Anthony Kenny

>>13631393
Or more succinctly, "No one should give a shit about anything the skeptics ever write, ever."
Now come up with a better argument against PSR.

>>13631394
this is why i choose to identify this way when asked and will remain

>>13631132
What is the formal, efficient, and material cause of the universe?

>>13631400
PSR seems correct to me. The reason you can't have perfect certainty is because the outside environment is too complex to extract all causes.

>>13631141
How are crocodiles evil?

>>13631410
Aren't you forgetting one?

>>13631410
>she's still viewing things through an Aristotlean lens
Yikes!

>all thought after [pet thinker of choice] was a mistake, even though everything down to the way I walk on the street presupposes this development
neo-scholastics in a nutshell

>>13631419
His metaphysics are completely correct and still prove God. Stay mad.

>>13631449
>Change is a real feature of the world
?

>>13631453
t. Parmenides

>>13631053
He's just a brainist.

>>13631449
>he still hasn't read Hume
>he still hasn't read Kant
>he actually read Feser
Jinkies!

>>13631449
Does he have a coherent argument against infinite regress? I can think of a couple but that's a pretty epic handwave.

>>13631381
I'm not asking you to put faith into anyone. Did you quote the wrong post or is the latter part of this thread dedicated to misinterpreting mine?

>>13631453
Ice melts

>>13631394
It's essentially giving up the search, which as you said is fine because it's at least intellectually honest. But it's not enough for everyone.

>>13631485
No its not
One can still search while being agnostic

>>13631485
maybe its becoming content with not knowing because if were truly honest, i dont think we'll every know

>>13631485
its more rational to fence sit and wait fore evidence rather than jump to conclusions and backtrack

>>13631476
I think is different anons replying to you, anon.

>>13631449
2. is very questionable.
4. would deserve discussion even if 2. holds but assuming 2. it's less questionable than 2. itself
6. seem reasonable though it probably doesn't hold in all metaphysics, but let's concede it.
7. is frankly weird.Why even talk about causality if this is about the existence of a substance? You can even ditch the causal chain here and go full monism.
9. Here we hit perhaps the fundamental problem. What does it means for something to be purely actual? Why couldn't actualization be circular? Having a origin of actualization might seem more reasonable but it only displaces the issue to understanding how something purely actual can exist or how something can actualize itself. In others word instead of having circular actualization between several substances and infinite regress you have infinite actuality in a single substance and/or circular actualization within a single substance.
Ultimately I'm not convinced that the "prime actualizer" solution is more reasonable than the "infinite regress" solution, even if it seems more intuitive.

>>13631485
Is not. There is many agnostic physicist yet they never give up on research, they have doubts, we all have.

>>13631494
You can but then agnostic is not an identity, just a provisory stance. It is almost always the former in common discourse. At best most agnostic expect someone to come up for a proofof God's existence or non-existence for them. It seems worth it to have an entirely different word for people who are actually searching.

>>13631507
It's more rational to either investigate yourself or stop caring. Someone has to gather that evidence.

>>13631053
Leibniz doesn't know SHIT my notation is better

>>13631053
You fucked up making the op about being a christchad because it will trigger all the bad faith among pseuds. Leibniz is the slayers of doubters in general and not just relating (explicitly) to God.

>>13631535
im implying you should always question your assumptions and not maintain a set belief cause your bias will blind you in the face of light

>>13631331
>>13631344
The Münchhausen trilemma comes from ancient skepticism, you morrons. It's five times older than Leibniz himself. Assimilating it with rational wiki or big bang theory is just stupid, it's a serious philosophical argument and you react that way because you are unable to answer it.

>>13631606
Again, literally no one should care about anything the skeptics ever said.
Shouldn't you be busy doubting we even exist instead of bothering to try and change our minds?

>>13631645
I don't see why my ignorance would determine me to one thing instead of another. Nothing in skepticism prevents me from debating if I wish so.

>literally no one should care about anything the skeptics ever said.
because...?

>>13631652
Because he's a retard who barely understands the skeptics

>>13631053
Reminder you haven't read Leibniz unless you read him in French.

>>13631164
nice slave morality

>>13631674
Strange way to spell Latin!

>>13631652
Because why should anyone listen to someone who doesn't know what they're talking about? Why, you don't even know if gravity is real, poor dear. They ought to put you in a straight jacket rather than let you play online too long.

>>13631689
you're not certain gravity is real either you just lie to yourself and say you are because the thought makes you uncomfortable

>>13631333
New essays.
Don't listen to other anon and read the monodology first, it's a short compendium meant to be a memo, not an explanatory treatise.

>>13631689
But the skeptics don't claim anything. They just ask questions. If you don't listen to them, it just means you don't want to answer questions - it just means your claims are unfounded. If you claim to know something, then you are the one who should be able to prove it.

>>13631416

not saying crocodiles are evil. i am saying nature is evil

>>13631057
His wikipedia page

>>13631354
Causality is necessary to empirical objects, that is how they are built in the first place in consciousness. Pure sensory data always has the possibility of negating any objective relation persistent up to then, but in that case that destroys the object.
This is already known to Leibniz but become clearer in people like Husserl. Which is why Leibniz puts the emphasis on the question of there being any empirical existence at all.
Hume acts like you can have empirical objects without causality because he arbitrarily and incoherently stops the argument midway instead of going full idealism.

>>13631697
I guarantee I know a lot more than you, dear sweet anon. I know how to not write a run on sentence, for example.
You should go on from this thread and think profound thoughts on your own like, "What if the guy I was just talking to was actually just an illusion and I was really talking to myself?"
Or, "What if the universe was created last thursday?"
Or, "What if I'm a brain in a vat?"
Or, "What if I drop an apple ten thousand times and it doesn't fall the ten thousand and oneth time?"
Or, "What if my penis is an illusion and I'm actually a giant pussy floating in a vacuum?"
There's very profound thoughts you can have on your own, you know. And at the very least you can be certain that you're intetested in those profound thoughts, you know, which is a definite plus, as you can never know that about any other audience you may share that with.

>>13631733
perfect knowledge is impossible but I have asymptotically approached perfect knowledge that you suck donkey dicks

>>13631740
One can always be certain that when someone has to question the concept of knowing things itself when arguing over a topic, that they have horrendously lost.
Imagine if Galileo said, "W-well u-um you can't know anything for sure anyways!" whenever earth centered theories of the planets came up.

>>13631053
>Leibniz
Spinoza was first

> Nothing exists of which it cannot be asked, what is the cause, why it exists.

>>13631733
>There's very profound thoughts you can have on your own, you know. And at the very least you can be certain that you're intetested in those profound thoughts, you know, which is a definite plus, as you can never know that about any other audience you may share that with.
You are incorrect, you can't know your thoughts are consistent in any way nor that they follow from one moment to the next so one cannot know that one is interested in the thoughts one just had because one might not have had them but rather it feels like one had thoughts. Of course even experience itself might be an illusion since you cannot trust your thoughts so you can't even be certain existence is something that is needed to experience, nor that you even do experience.

>>13631775
You seem to have run into quite the conundrum. I would hate to see what ramblings you come up with when you don't know where your car keys are.

>>13631733
>And at the very least you can be certain that you're intetested in those profound thoughts
Not at all. Thoughts are phenomena like any other. When you see something with your eyes, you cannot be certain of what it actually represents from the universe's perspective. Likewise, whenever you "see" something with your mind, you cannot be certain of what it actually means. There is ALWAYS an uncrossable gap between each thought and its actual meaning. I can literally never know what I even think or feel. And yes, this means that Descartes didn't actually find any sure and rational way out with his cogito.

>>13631053
>Is Leibniz the ultimate slayer of doubters?
>was slayn by the king of doubters
Lul

>>13631778
I don't believe in what I wrote but I see it as the logical conclusion of solipsism and the likely outcome of any other philosophy than rationalism, if one does not follow, to the best of our abilities, self consistent logic then no rules and knowable and philosophy becomes meaningless.

>>13631785
Also by Kant.. Leibniz used PSR to prove the existence of God lmfao

>>13631786
You see it as the logical conclusion?
But how can one trust what they see?

>>13631769
>Spinoza was first
You mean Anaximander

>>13631782
You can doubt what thoughts signify, but can you deny that there is thought?
You seem to misunderstand the entire point of the cogito.

>>13631810
"There is thought". Please define "thought" precisely, and please define "there is" precisely. If you do, then the answer is that yes, I CAN deny it. And if you don't, then this sentence is meaningless.

>>13631769
The two don't even say the same thing, but the Spinoza take is antique.

>>13631715
How?

>>13631794
One can't.
One has to make a few assumptions about the world or what I wrote in my earlier post is the only self consistent worldview. There is an alternative though.

If one makes a few assumptions to set up formal logic and from there Bayesian statistics and ZFC based math then a good system has arisen from where one can work towards better knowledge of the world.

Using this in conjunction with other actors following the same rules and by using statistics one can start doing proper science. From there one should always try to minimize reliance on human interaction and humans observers in the experiments, as the natural sciences are doing today.

>>13631790
Kant supported PSR

>>13631817
Apologies, I don't quite comprehend your inquiry. I implore you to elaborate on the meaning of "Please" and to elaborate on the meaning of "define" and to elaborate on the meaning of "precisely." Once you do so sufficiently I promise you I'll meet your request to your full satisfaction.

>>13631064
>self subsuming reasons
What?

>>13631076
All reasons are contingent on explaining a cause

>>13631833
Why choose ZFC when even mathematicians argue over whether that's the propert foundation for math? How do you know whether or not to include the axiom of choice or to replace it with a stronger or weaker axiom? And does using that set of axioms solve the Münchhausen trilemma or is it blatantly ignoring it?

>>13631732
You get the same necessity of causality in Kant, yet it doesn't entail that it is an ontological category of reality beyond experience, which is what Aquinas' argument is about.

>>13631146
>What you are saying has nothing to do with PSR.

Yes it does. PSR says everything should have a reason, but this is just bullshit. On what grounds do you insist that everything should have a reason? That you can't concieve a world without reasons?

>>13631151
What other outside can be reasoned?

>>13631885
One has to make a few assumptions and choices. No matter what axioms are picked there will be problems and ZFC is commonly used so I used it.

As Gödel's incompleteness theorem shows that no matter what there will always be things which are true in mathematics which will be improvable with a specific set of axioms, this does not mean one should throw away math as a useless system or not decide on a set of axioms to use in the majority of cases.

As for the Münchhausen trilemma it does nothing to even try to solve it but still my way of thinking is the only way in which humanity has made any real progress towards understanding the world. Now you might argue that this is not so and that everything is an illusion or something of that sort but that line of reasoning is not productive and will not power your iPhone. I don't mean it's not productive in only the physical sense but also in he philosophical sense because if you refuse rationalism you will be far further down the rabbit hole of the problems of truth.

>>13631225
>I believe he was (Mostly) successful in the prior
How was he successful if his proof of God was refuted by Kant?

>>13631925
Don't talk about Kant, that watermelon seller.

>>13631920
but why not become a complete pluralistic pragmatist then? why seek for foundationalisms whatsoever, if your meta-foundational stance within any given foundationalism is "meh it's all arbitrary anyway, at least it works"

this isn't even to get into the possibility that set theory nonsense is actively detrimental to many systems/applications you simply don't know about, precisely because it blocks the very conditions of possibility of those systems/applications by forcing you to think within its limits

>>13631920
You know anon, just a thought, but if you're well aware that you're going to violate skeptical concerns so as to try to put your philosophy on the most firm of mathematical foundations, but you also know that the foundations you create won't violate obvious shit like the idea that your hand isn't real, why go through all the time with all the system shit in the first place and just accept that your hands exist? Like I get it. You get a hard on thinking about spending hundreds of pages to prove 1+1=2. Not everyone shares your fetish, anon.

>>13631935
>but why not become a complete pluralistic pragmatist then? why seek for foundationalisms whatsoever, if your meta-foundational stance within any given foundationalism is "meh it's all arbitrary anyway, at least it works"
Precisely because it works.

>this isn't even to get into the possibility that set theory nonsense is actively detrimental to many systems/applications you simply don't know about, precisely because it blocks the very conditions of possibility of those systems/applications by forcing you to think within its limits
I am all for alternating between sets axioms for pure math when necessary, but only when necessary. Physics and the natural sciences should use one, and only one, set of axioms unless a change is strictly necessary to further science.

>>13631918
The idea that God himself must be reasonable is late civilization degeneracy. God stands above reason and unreason, he does not care for your autistic word games or you petty geometric scheme. The way people use intuitive constructs derived from the puny cognitive functions of our animal brains as a hint that there must be some higher godly power is frankly hilarious.

>>13631732
>Causality is necessary to empirical objects
Prove it

>>13631925
Just affirming things doesn't make them true, anon.
Bolzano proved long ago that all of kant's didn't know what he was talking about.
I'm not 100% convinced by Leibniz on this point even, and recent formulation like godel's are also puzzling, but invoking kant or muh logic can't into existence is not a serious argument.

>>13631920
>As Gödel's incompleteness theorem shows
Gödel's theorem doesn't apply to all axiomatic system, but it does applies to many that are subsumed within ZFC.
The axiom of choice (the "C" is ZFC) is highly problematic by most accounts, that's why a lot of people omit it. If you're doing traditional functional analysis for PDE it might even be better to replace it by the axiom "everything is measurable" which is incompatible with the axiom of choice.

You're also sidestepping the important fact that there is no known model of ZFC. In fact as of now we can't prove that ZFC is consistent (even using more powerful axiomatic systems, which should be allowed undel Gödel's incompleteness theorem). It's simply not that good a system for foundational purposes. It is interesting heuristically and historically and it's a remarkable achievement in itself, but it really has little claim as being a sound default choice for founding mathematics.

Point is, not only there is no perfect choice, there is no choice of an axiomatic system that is not rife with very, very serious problems. On the other hand most practicing mathematicians don't give a damn about axiomatic foundations. So saying we're going to reconstruct science from ZFC upwards simply doesn't make sense.

>>13631943
Because rationalism based on logic and statistics is the only system humans have come up with that actually can help explain things that are happening and the reality around us. Even if the foundation of the system is based on unprovable assumptions, like all other set of ideas, at least it consistently again and again has proved to be the best we got to explain reality.

Other set of ideas either don't explain anything at all in the reality we share, so far as we can trust it, or only explain such a small subset that it is of no use.

I don't follow this system because I like mathematical proofs, it's rather the opposite. It's the only set of ideas we have which is not just either mental masturbation or apathy.

>>13631960
Are you retarded or something?

>>13631464
I really hate to contribute nothing to a thread besides an expression but I must relay to you the fact that my lungs have burst in a an explosion of laughter. Thank you very much anon, it brightened up my day.

Also god is not real. At least not yet. K thnx bai

>>13631976
Then post your refutation of Kant anon

>>13631952
Physics and the natural sciences don't use any set of mathematical axims (even the most mathematicians don't deliberately use one) and most system don't really work. Foundational problems (emphasis on problems) are an interesting and obviously fondamental but ultimately niche issue within the larger scope of mathematics (not to mention science in general). It's not at the heart or the beginning of anything, it's just one interesting concern among hundred of others. There is really little use for it in the current state of science.

>all of this intense autism to have a good reason to believe
Why agnosticism is hell worthy I don't know

>>13631985
>STEMlord is mad

>>13631997
Can you not just say "lol" you pretentoius piece of shit fucking off yourself

>>13631995
No, simply tired of mathematical grandiloquence. And I say this as a PhD student in mathematics, even the smartest mathfags have a way to make grand but nonsensical pseudophilosophical statements that is grating.

If you want to LARP as a 18th century rationalist philosopher all the better for you but don't pretend that kind of position doesn't look tacky even from a scientific standpoint now.

To borow Brunschvig's terminology: stop pretending you can overcome the biological imperative.

>>13632003
http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2012/07/pascals-scams.html

>>13632007
No, to do so would be to become a festering wound that murders imageboard culture. I regret that your you lack either memory or patience to truly enjoy denser and longer posts.

>>13632022
kys

>>13631976
Proving that existence derives from logic would be much more challenging than the opposite.
And I'm not sure what you're suggesting by mentioning Bolzano and Gödel. All of Gödel's work is strictly restricted to the field of mathematical logic, it has very little definitive bearing on ontology, likewise for Bolzano's formalization of arithmetic (if that's what you're referring to). In fact that very formulation gave rise to ontological controversies in analytic circles (see Benacerraf arguments) so if anything it creates problems more than it solves.

>>13631979
>Gödel's theorem doesn't apply to all axiomatic system, but it does applies to many that are subsumed within ZFC.
I am no expert on Gödel's theorems but I thought they applied to axiomatic systems.
If what you say is true that's quite interesting.

>You're also sidestepping the important fact that there is no known model of ZFC. In fact as of now we can't prove that ZFC is consistent (even using more powerful axiomatic systems, which should be allowed undel Gödel's incompleteness theorem). It's simply not that good a system for foundational purposes. It is interesting heuristically and historically and it's a remarkable achievement in itself, but it really has little claim as being a sound default choice for founding mathematics.
I chose it because ZFC is the most commonly used axiomatic set theory, I explicitly did not limit myself to only ZFC when it did not make sense. This would be the same way it us used today.

Saying the axiom of choice is commonly omitted is not true, sometimes is not commonly.

>>13632026
I shall keep myself safe thanks for your concern.

>>13631985
There's a pretty neat philosophical work you should read, anon. Look into the problem of criterion. Simply put, the fundamental problem of epistemology is that we want to sort true statements from false statements using some proper sorting method. If you know a proper sorting method, you can be sure you'll correctly sort true statements from the false ones. On the other hand, if you know a bunch of true statements and false statements on the outset, you can make reasonable inferences as to what a proper sorting method constitutes.
The problem of course is that fundamentally you can never know of either for certain even if knowing one helps you know another.
You're the author would call a methodist. You want to start with a sorting method that you hope works for certain.
Most people are what he would call particularists. They start with basic statements they know and work up to a sorting method from there.
Personally, I'm convinced that anyone who thinks themselves a methodist is really a particularist though, since, as I mentioned, no one pragmatically doubts stuff like "my hands exist" and they're really just trying to find a sorting method that fits with that basic assumption like everyone else.

>>13632022
>denser and longer posts.
You are only entitled to desner and longer posts if you have something valuable to impart that requires dense and long posts. Otherwise, you're just inconsiderate of the reader's time and cognitive effort so you're a fucking asshole and should fuck off faggot

>>13632043
You're what the*

>>13632050
Here is a valuable insight fellow anonymous poster, you are not obligated to see, read or respond to my posts. You can skip over, maybe even hide my posts if you find them sufficiently triggering. Yes shocking I know.

>>13631973
This is not a property of otherwise defined objects, it's a definition.
Of course we can argue semantics for years. This is the only notion of empirical object that is used in dealing with experience.

Law of non contradiction creates itself

>>13632029
>I am no expert on Gödel's theorems but I thought they applied to axiomatic systems.
No, only to systems that include Peano's arithmetic in first order-language of classical logic.

So something lesser than usual arithmetic (e.g. Presburger's arithmetic which has no multiplication) isn't included. Neither is something that uses second-order logic iirc (logic where you can write universal properties not only of sets but of propositions about sets). Something rather alien to Peano's arithmetic (neither a lesser nor a grreater version of it, but different entirely) wouldn't be included either.

And of course alternative to classical logic (intuitionist logic, minimal logic, most forms of modal logic) aren't concerned either.
That might seem fringe and weird but those are vastly more numerous (in a sense, since it's all infinite families of logics here) than the axiomatics concerned by Gödel.
The totality of all possible mathematical logic is so big we're unable to say anything definitive about it. You can change not only axiom by principles of deduction, basic logic connectors, fundamental symbols and operations, and even the way truth valuation works.

As with any theoretical field current human knowledge only has trod a very small area of the whole field.
It's true however that most our "usual" or "reasonable" axiomatic fall under Gödel's restriction. That goes to show what we consider intuitively reasonable might not be satisfactory, in other words, our intuitions about what is proper mathematics are fundamentally paradoxal.

>Saying the axiom of choice is commonly omitted is not true, sometimes is not commonly.

It depends what you mean by commonly. ZFC is not commonly used by mathematicians because most mathematicians don't refer themselves to axiomatic systems, except in a small number of subfield (who are growing in number and influence, but that's also the cases of fields with no interest for axioms).

ZFC is often considered the "default" axiomatic and the one most likely to be taught to student, but that's mostly for cultural and historical reasons, a bit like how English is the most commonly used tongue in maths atm. It's not due to English being superior for doing mathematics. And even then there are practical justification for using English, there are no real practical advantages of using ZFC. In most cases when it's mentioned at all it's as a aside or a funny comment, like how if you drop the axiom of choice you can assume any set is measurable.

If you want a "hip" and increasingly refined axiomatic that people try to apply in (relatively) practical domains try the unvalent fundation of mathematics through homotopic type theory (type theory in general has interesting applications to computer science). It also ties in with category theory which is another alternative for founding maths.
All those (even ZFC if you actually study it and don't just mention it) are considered fringe topics by most most mathematicans.

>>13631843
Sarcasm doesn't further your point. My point is that the claim "there is thought" can have a variety of different meanings, especially when you take into account things like ontological subtelties - which you ought to do if your goal is to prove the cogito's validity.

>>13632061
Pardon me for assuming you're not retarded which should've been obvious already

>>13631076
Leipniz never distinguished between reasons and causes

>>13631449
>11. But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitute a hierarchical causal series, and such series cannot regress infinitely.
>such series cannot regress infinitely.
Why? If it can, everything he says afterwards falls apart. Aristotle's fixation with avoiding infinity is a real shame.

>>13631076
Reasons are causes, and the ultimate cause of existence is reason itself

>>13632679
>>13632228
I might never distinguish between apples and oranges but when I say apples are a red fruit that can be made into cider I dont mean oranges, the lack of explicit differentiation between the two (which im not sure is true) does not mean the two are the same.
Principle of universal causation is a completely different cosmological arguement for the existence of God based on this having causes not things upon which they are contingent. Richard taylor has a good (though slightly slippery in places) section on this in metaphysics.

>>13631846
read
>>13631310
It seems shaky (and it perhaps might be) but, when you have such a compelling argument from induction for PSR, its still a theory that can be considered more likely than much of its opposition.

>>13631058
underrated because absolutely true. Most people are determinists as if we were living in the 1700s.