/lit/ - Literature

>>15574670
you don't

take the massa damnata end times pill

>>15574674
>>15574691

I'm fucking going insane, I prove something works, then I ask why it works, than I ask why THAT works, ad infinitum

I can't do it anymore my brain is frying

>>15574749
Have you tried just not thinking?

>>15574670
>>15574749
This is a mode of epoche that is supposed to lead to a suspension of judgment. Aporia produces equanimity and contentment. Stop reading pyrrhonism as an epistemological doctrine and instead (as Sextus's title suggests) an outline, an ethical guide towards neutralizing anxiety-producing puzzles. If you feel "trapped" by the skeptic way, then you're doing it wrong.

>>15574749
What do you mean by "Pyrrhonian Skepticism"? Can you trust your senses to give you information?

just believe things without any good reason like everyone else

>>15574784
you sound like you know what you're talking about. which edition of sextus empiricus would you recommend? there doesn't seem to be a popular edition anywhere. seems he's fallen out of favour with the reading public.

>>15574810
The Benson Mates translation is by far the superior edition. Comprehensive introduction from a professor of epistemology who has studied Sextus and prior translations extensively, does not leave nuance unattended, explains the intent and purpose of pyrrhonian skepticism and includes a commentary that sheds much light on the main text.

>>15574784
>an outline, an ethical guide towards neutralizing anxiety-producing puzzles

So just be skeptic of things that cause me anxiety?

i read outlines of pyrronism and some atomism stuff and basically everything i pretend to know or think is just faith.

>>15574847
What's causing you anxiety is your inability to come to a conclusive determination about anything. The pyrrhonian skeptic is distinct from the modern day epistemological skeptic in that he counsels aporia as opposed to doubt. Instead of pretending to make determinations about matters concerning the external world, about its reality or irreality, about the superiorty of certain arguments over others, you are instead led to suspend judgment when confronted with the equipollence of contrasting propositions concerning external reality and this should, if understood rightly, produce a therapeutic effect. In essence, you acknowledge that one can only assert what in that moment only appears to be the case to you, with the qualification that this is always subject to change.

>>15574810
the cambridge university editions of Outlines of Scepticism, Against the Logicians and Against the Physicists are all good

>>15574842
wonderful. thanks very much, anon

>>15574670
speculative realism

>>15574902
this edition >>15574842 is fine but your are getting sextus heavily filtered through mates own interpretation and understanding. true to an extent for all translations, but this one moreso. not a huge problem since mates is an excellent philosopher, but something you should be aware of

>>15574670
I think therefore I am, nigger

>>15574847
>>15574887
> with the qualification that this is always subject to change.

And to add to this (which is really the critical component of pyrrhonist thought that differentiates it from all else), the understanding that all such impressions are subject to change leads one to the recognition that the only way to approach life is to live adoxastos -"belieflessly". It is your belief in certain propositions, contentious as they are, that is the source of your worry and philosophical anxiety. This should not lead one to the dismissive understanding that so many critics and laymen have that an embrace of pyrrhonism leaves one debilitated and incapable of action. On the contrary, Sextus counsels that the follower of the skeptic way is more capable of adherence to customary practice and public mores than the average person who may find the grounds of their belief shaken by doubt, because he lives without any such belief and simply follows what appears to him in that case to be right. The difference between the pyrrhonist and the ordinary man is in the realm of belief and not in action.

>>15574991
>because he lives without any such belief and simply follows what appears to him in that case to be right.

So empiricism?

>>15575032
most empiricists form beliefs on the basis of induction, so no

>>15575064
So what do they form their beliefs on?

>>15574670
read Kierkegaard

>>15574670
Be a woman, for cryin out loud

>>15574670
how do I get in?

>>15575546
Why?
>>15575585
You dont want to get in

>>15574670
read Athens and Jerusalem

>>15575738
Riffing on that old saying “be a man”
How many women you know suffer from skepticism, or nihilism even

>>15574670
Read Nagarjuna and Aryadeva

>>15575837
Do you think women are very skeptical about their role in society but they still abide by it therefore become depressed?

Pascal on Stoicism vs. Pyrrhonism

>Epictetus and Montaigne are, he said, both of them
>right in one direction and wrong in another. Epic-
>tetus recognised the duty of man. He saw that man
>ought to look upon God as his chief object and submit
>to him right willingly in all things. But he fell into
>the error of thinking that man was of his own self
>capable of fulfilling this duty. As for Montaigne,
>having set himself to find out what rule of life reason
>would dictate apart from the light of faith, he found
>that reason left thus to herself could end in nothing
>but pyrrhonism. But his error lay in being satisfied
>that man should keep to what he can do and let
>be what he ought to do ; he was wrong in that he
>approved the adoption of custom and convenience as
>the sole rule of life, and would have us fall asleep on
>the pillow of sloth. Thus the one recognised the duty
>of man but erred in inferring from that duty his
>ability to perform it ; whereas the other recognised
>man's impotence, but erred in making that the measure
>of his duty.

>>15575952
>How is the truth to be disentangled from these
>several doctrines? Will it suffice if we take the good
>points of Epictetus and Montaigne and let each of
>them complement the other? That cannot be done.
>Each of these philosophies, from the point of view of
>human nature, must be accepted wholly or not at all.
>Man is a unity, and this unity would be broken if we
>made to co-exist in him the duty of the stoic and the
>impotence of the pyrrhonist. Neither Epictetus nor
>Montaigne could have concluded otherwise than
>they have done. And thus the two doctrines produce
>a contradiction at the same time inevitable, since each
>of them is necessary, and insoluble since man of whom
>they treat is essentially one and indivisible. Here we
>have reason herself grappling with a problem she
>cannot escape from. It is a case which admits neither
>of affirmation nor denial ; scepticism is no less
>excluded than dogmatism.

>>15575971
>The solution which reason is not competent to find is
>supplied to us by faith. Both the one and the other of
>these schools have failed to recognise that man's pre-
>sent condition differs from the state into which he
>was created by God. The stoic, remarking some traces
>of his pristine greatness, makes out that his nature is
>whole and able of itself to approach God. The
>pyrrhonist, seeing nothing but its present corruption,
>treats human nature as of necessity morally disabled.
>Now misery appertains to human nature, and great-
>ness appertains to divine grace, whose part it is to
>restore nature ; and the co-existence of misery and
>greatness ceases to be contradictory the moment these
>two qualities are granted to reside in two several sub-
>jects. And further, this co-existence becomes possible
>by reason of the ineffable union of weakness and power
>in the unique person of the God-man. It is the image
>and the result of the nature, at the same time one and
>dual, of Jesus Christ.

>>15575986
Pascal
Boutroux, Emile, 1845-1921
1902
https://archive.org/details/pascalboutroux00boutiala/page/92/mode/2up

>>15574670
How is Pyrrhonian skepticism a trap? Its telos is equanimity. You should be chill as fuck.

>>15576073
The more you really think about it, the more slippery and strange it becomes. It is constantly running away from all declarative statements, never touching on any ground.

>>15576073
See my greentext above starting here >>15575952 It's a biographer of Pascal describing his view on Pyrrhonism vs. Stoicism.

>>15576102
Exactly

>>15576102
IDK I find Pyrrhonian skepticism compelling and the more I consider it the more chill I feel.

>>15574670
You’re obviously doing it wrong

So [ Husserl ] has a thing for Pyrroh

>>15574749
>>15574670
certain knowledge wasn't of interest from the begining. in fact "knowledge" itself is an illusory term. don't fall for the primative traps of language and remember that everything of interest happens on a billion assumptions.

>>15574670
Gay

>>15574784
This. Anon you're doing it wrong.You need to suspend judgment (epoche) and thereby achieve tranquility (ataraxia).

>>15574670
>He hasn't accepted the Cartesian method and God, who will ground numbers and the outside world, etc.

>>15575943
No, they become depressed because they turn 30 and are still childless given that they have been riding the cock carousel for so long.

>>15579561
Ok fascist

>>15574670
>>15574749
>>15576102
>It's turtles all the way down
What do you got to prove?
Just enjoy the ride, bro

>>15579561
Based and red pilled

>>15574670
>trapped in pyrrhonian skepticism
ur not

>>15575249
axioms. every math book begins with or appeals to a set of axioms that themselves cannot be proven but are generally considered evident

>>15579966
Can I make axioms based on empiric evidence?

>>15574670
>I'm trapped in pyrrhonian skepticism,
You do realize that this very statement contradicts itself, right?

Here's a quote by C.S. Lewis,
>You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.
At some point you have to stop asking why, otherwise you are just defeating the point of the question(s). Accept axioms (i.e. first principles).

>>15579985
>Accept axioms (i.e. first principles
yes but which

>>15579985
>Accept axioms (i.e. first principles).
How do you make axioms if you wanted to conduct a research about something?

>>15579974
sorry sieur, im not that guy you were responding to. i misread the discussion. "axiom" in regards to physics means something else. there are no axioms in physics really, since even QM isn't necessarily considered to be true. you make a variety of educated assumptions based on empirical evidence, and those assumptions devolve into base assumptions which one can refer to as axioms altho they arent a priori or anything like that

>>15580038
>and those assumptions devolve into base assumptions which one can refer to as axioms altho they arent a priori or anything like that

Fuck a priori niggas

You are experiencing something.

Therefore something exists.

You cannot experience something without that thing existing.

>>15580063
>You are experiencing something.

>Therefore something exists.

How do you know my experience proves something exists?

>>15574670
I've been there years ago, anon. The only way out is through Madhyamaka buddhism. Read Nagarjuna.

How to i get out of this board or atleast improve my understanding of what im reading? It is hurting my self esteem very hard because i think im stupid or something. Like OP, i dont even know what he is talking about and i can see he is suffering but not as much as me because he is higher iq and questions everything and the worst thing people with higher iq are providing solution.

Books for this feel?

>>15580000
>>15579994
i donno im just making shit up my niggas lmao. accept first principles or die trying bitch

>>15580109
read more friend. you would be surprised how quickly you can learn things if you stopped asking questions and started practicing. every time i see someone get good at something incredibly quickly, and then study what they did, the answer is always just "they spent their time practicing instead of asking questions and halfassing everything and selfdoubting"

>>15580135
based

>>15580109
Read the books talking about this type of subjects

>>15580145
>>15580148

Whats the point of reading those kinds of subjects in 2k20? Will they provide any change in your daily life or they will enlighten you? Trying to find the motivation to read but i cant justify it lets say like 'working out' on the quility that will give me in the daily life and interactions with other people. Thanks for the answer tho. Im in the wrong board although its enjoyable.

>>15580169
There is no point to most of it, it's practically a mental illness to be obsessed with this stuff, at least it feels that way.

>>15580169
Don't listen to this >>15580178 faggot

yes, reading philosophy will help you make better decisions in your life and predict future events with 100000000000x more certainty. Also you get to flex your intelectual prowess as a bonus and get nerdy bitches

>>15580090
>The only way out is through Madhyamaka buddhism. Read Nagarjuna.
OH NO NO NO NO NO

>>15580075
>How do you know my experience proves something exists?
because non-existence doesn't give rise to anything, much less conscious experience

>>15574670
Gtfo here Destiny this board isnt for you

>>15580090
Not through any study. Personal experience of the truth through meditation as the Buddha advised.

>>15575952
Can you recommend a good selection of Pascal's pensées? If I just start with the complete edition, I feel like there's too much noise and I'm lost.

>>15580283
I'm the anon who posted those quotes. Personally I haven't read a whole load of Pascal, but that biography was interesting.

>>15580169
ur just doing what OP is doing. if i tell you the point you can just keep asking what the point of that is. u can do it if u want but its a pretty big bummer and boring

>>15574749
>what is induction

>>15574670
Being skeptic is superior to all philosophies. Everything else seems superficial, weak and brings only unsatisfaction. Still with skepticism you will always look out for new answers although they will never satisfy your need for truth

>>15581183
>Being skeptic is superior to all philosophies.
What kind of skepticism? If you're referring to Pyrrhonism then you already failed, as did OP.
>Everything else seems superficial, weak and brings only unsatisfaction.
Well you already admitted to 1/3 of those, and I'm certainly not unsatisfied. Hard skeptics don't practically exist, and so it is an inherently tenuous and superficial belief

>>15580655
induction is a fantasy by rationalists

>>15574670
Clearly you aren't, otherwise why would you be posting on here expecting answers to your perceived problem? You are already presupposing a degree of certainty. You never started doubting at all, you are just an underaged retard.

>>15581840
>it refutes any argument
prove it

>>15582353
based

>>15582370

>>15574691
Kant, get to the Kantmobile anon quickly

Force yourself to practice mindfulness

Take the leap of Intuitive Faith.
Step into the void of the One.

>>15582963
kek

>>15574670
take the hegelpill

>>15583267
how

Join the Wired

>>15574670
How

This entire thread is insane. How many ideologies have been posted to no agreement? A thing like this makes a man crazy. How much more philosophy can we take?

>>15587596
>How much more philosophy can we take?
infinite

Instead of looking to pure becoming and phenomenon and getting mired in it by asking purely speculative questions that lead directly to nothingness. You must study metaphysics, which is far more satisfying intellectually since it provides a more than adequate answer to this conundrum. Simply that there is a single essence that manifests itself in our reality, and that essence is unchangeable and beyond phenomenon. Naturally this essence or what Plato calls the Good, is beyond sensory reality and therefore can have this hierarchical or as some call it, ontological relationship with reality.

Try Findlay, Plato's Unwritten Doctrines

>>15587819
will do

>>15574670
Just enjoy being a douchebag

>>15575952
>>15575971
>>15575986
excellent posts

Doesnt skepticism irremediably end up attacking itself?

>>15588811
yes

is there a way into pyrrhonian skepticism / philosophical skepticism where I don't need to read 2000yo books? I'm a little retarded

>>15575952
>>15575971
>>15575986

Based

>>15574670
Stirnerism
everything are spooks, so adopt the spooks you like the most until you drop dead

>>15588811
literally always. real skeptics dont exist for this reason, because *real* people can't keep their fucking mouths shut which is basically a prerequisite

>>15574670
>>15574749
But Pyrrhonism says you can accept ideas as being reasonable, it's just that you won't be absolutely 100% concretely certain.

>>15590019
Based

>>15590025
this

>>15580000
>>15579994
Having studied math, I will say that the 'First principles' that Pyrrhonism talks about is that of abstract concepts, like 'Truth' or 'Falsehood'. There are notions that do not have any grounding on empirical evidence, and as such have no formalized definition to them. Take for example The Republic, which deals with what exactly does it mean for something to be 'just'. You will find, just as Socrates did, that there is no objective definition for 'just'. The definitions that someone like Thrasymachus or Glaucon gave are all based on individual frameworks. There is an objective reality, with a subjective interpretation. Do not confuse the map for the terrain.

>>15587596
Philosophy is all mostly
>You're probably wrong about everything, but don't freak out about it.

>>15587596
Under 30 and over opinionated

>>15587816
The problem with metaphysics is that any of the following could be true:
>Reality is made up of beings
>Reality is made up of processes
>The ultimate nature of reality is that is is as it seems
>Reality is not as it seems and can never be properly comprehended by humans' minds

>>15574670
>I'm trapped in pyrrhonian skepticism, how tf do I get out. Its eating me alive
Literally no one has read Fichte have they?

>>15574749
Why daddy?
Because
Why daddy?
Because
Why daddy?
SHUT UP
...

>>15590019
>longevity
Then why do you call everything I value spooks?

>>15590965
Kek

>>15590928
>not accepting that they're all true

>>15590934
I have anon, Fichte is great.

>>15574670

>I'm trapped in pyrrhonian skepticism

This is only a trap for being who are bad at math and visual reasoning. They do not have an intuition for structure. Treating everything like a sequence of legalistic conditions which allow or do not allow existence is brainlet.

>>15574670

>I'm trapped in pyrrhonian skepticism

This is only a trap for people who are bad at math and visual reasoning. They do not have an intuition for structure, so they treat everything like a sequence of legalistic conditions which allow or do not allow a thing to exist. This is brainlet

>>15574749
read Descartes

>>15591368
You are a good man.

>>15591602
That will only worsen his situation lmao

>>15590988
Because they are my dear anon

>>15590928
>Reality is made up of beings
>Reality is made up of processes

First there is Being, then there is beings, then there is manifest reality. We cannot be qualified as beings since we are mortal and changeable, therefore our corporeal selves are situated in manifest reality. Yet this manifest reality is itself dependent on the higher principles to exist and take form. Then what is manifest reality? How can change and mortality come about from eternity and immortality? Well simply because there is another pole of our existence called materia prima, of which has no real qualifier because it is nothingness. I mean there can be no satisfying way of saying it in english because you can't describe an object that isn't really an object and has no qualities at all. Anyways, it is here closer to nothingness, closer to materia prima, that we can have processes and phenomenon and of course mortality and change.

>The ultimate nature of reality is that it is at it seems

Again we are confusing the domain of the eternal and the manifest mortal domain, there is a hierarchy that is to be preserved and kept in mind. I say this because if you are to determine that what you can perceive in the world, whether it be through your senses or through your rational mind, is ultimate reality then you are saying that change and mortality is the essential nature of the world we live in, another way of saying this is that nothing is the essential nature of the world. That ultimately our world is pure void that randomly became reality and randomly developed some sort of order. But this conclusion is illogical, simply because nothing cannot become something randomly. If it is in the nature of nothingness, well to be nothing, then how can it all of a sudden be something? It has no capability to become greater than itself, because the greater cannot proceed from the lesser, BUT the lesser can proceed from the greater. So naturally something proceeds from being coming down as it were into nothing, into materia prima. I have heard it somewhere that this Being can be seen as male, and this materia prima can be seen as female. So naturally what follows is creation if they are to unite.