/lit/ - Literature

>>16303936
Well obviously yes, what retarded leftist academic student would disagree with this???

Also tell your friends I said high, and my message, and that my name is cool-anon.

>>16303936
Fuck off w normie questions. If you have an argument and literature you're referring to say it.

Nice blog, now piss off

>>16303943
>>16303949

Both the woman I am crushing on, and the fat gay retard who is her best friend.

I spent the evening arguing with her about it in a semi-amicable capacity.

I'm distraught that she doesn't believe there is an objective truth in the universe.

>>16303979
>no truth
>thats a truth

Just btfo her already

>>16303979
Just pull out your penis and say, no objective truth here and coerce her into having sex with you and she probably will find it funny and then attractive if you're dominant, but then whisper into her ear midway through "get a load of my objective truth".

What is truth though?

Nice eggs

>>16304079
thanks

>>16303979
Shes a woman, dont be distraught over it they arent exactly made to excel in philosophy.

>>16303936
fuck I'm such a coom brain

>>16303936
A point of origin is the only objective truth.

>>16303936
yup

>>16303936
>>16303943
I believe in objective morality, but it's unattainable without religion or pragmatic ignorance to it due to the is/ought dilemma. The only real objective truth that we as humans can know is, like >>16304241 said, that there is some point of origin for our consciousness.
Also OP, don't argue philosophy with women.

>>16303979
Just wheel out Aristotle mate. Relativists and nihilists about truth got BTFO'd 2000+ years ago.

>>16303936
define objective truth

>>16304414
What does Aristotle say about objective/relative morality and nihilism? Still on Plato rn

>>16303936
You sound really autistic and I don't blame anyone who doesn't want to be around you.

>>16304360
WRONG!

As the great Heidegger said:
>the "is" of the world contains within it the "ought" of ethos
>He who truly knows what is, knows what he wills to do in the midst of what is.

No one could listen to a symphony of Beethoven's, and not hear that enormous moral character.

>>16303936
>I enjoy ideological/philosophical discussion in which I challenge them regularly.
are you sure they're your friends and not your caretakers?

>>16304719
As the great Kant said something like (I think, never actually read him or the German idealists at all):
there are certain unknowable constituents of your perception which affect the way you experience the world. Therefore, the experienced "is" is impossible to be determined as whether it truly "is," or whether it's some amalgamated "is" by way of your mind. Therefore, no genuinely true "ought" can be extrapolated from the experienced "is."

There is no objective truth and you are all double digit subhumans

t. philosophy PhD

>>16304079
haunted pusy

>>16304804
>thinking a philosophy PhD means anything
read primary sources.

>>16304764
What you post from Kant apparently, in itself does not say anything other than total solipsism.

>>16304804
There is objective truth and you are a double digit subhuman

t. potus

>truth
>OBJECTIVE truth

please explain to me what is conveyed by the second greentext, that isn't in the first? what work, is the word "objective" doing there. People understand what "truth" means, but when you put "objective" in front of it you get 2000 years of autistic retards debating meaningless crap.

>>16303936
>Do you believe there is objective truth in the universe?
Can you be more specific? Moral truth? Mathematical truth? Metaphysical truth?

>>16304073
i chuckled.

>>16304829
>What you post from Kant apparently
It's not actually from Kant but I know he said something about the problem of perception and its relation to knowledge, this is just my rational.
>does not say anything other than total solipsism.
Not necessarily; it just says that knowledge of ultimate truths like objective morality is impossible for humans.

>>16304701
Morality? I thought we were talking about truth generally?

>>16304892
I originally misread the OP as morality. So what does Aristotle say about relativism/nihilism?

>>16304837
>i chuckled.
Thank you.

>>16304835
>please explain to me what is conveyed by the second greentext

a truth that is true regardless of personal perspective
reproducible and verifiable outside an individual human context

>>16304905
This will be a bit ramble-y but i like the context,
So, Aristotle begins his Metaphysics by asking us what the wise man knows. Aristotle says the wise man knows all things as far as possible, although he has not knowledge of them individually—he knows something true of everything, but not true of any one thing in particular; He who is more capable and exact of teaching the causes, is the wiser. He is more capable of teaching because he knows the causes of things more exactly; the wise man knows the highest of all forms of knowing: he knows the kind of knowledge that deals with the first principles—the foundation and causes of all things. And being the foundation of all things, the wise man knows what is most universal. But being this first knowledge, it is the most secure of all knowledge; it is that which can be known most certainly.
But how can we come to know this most difficult knowledge? How do we know the things which rely on nothing else? That which is true of all things but cannot be found in any in particular? If our best knowledge is that of first principles, then we need to uncover the most certain principle of all, something we have to know before we can know anything else. Something on which knowledge of everything else relies. That which you have to know before you can know anything else.
This seems to have only shifted our question. How do we know that which we must know in order to know in the first place? This cannot be demonstrated positively by deduction of induction, because, being only dependent on itself, it cannot be known by relation to anything else: there are no premises that can prove it because it is prior to all premises.
This supreme principle, Aristotle posits, is:
>That the same attribute cannot, at the same time, belong and not belong to the same subject in the same respect.
I'm sure you recognise it: The principle of non-contradiction!

>>16305653
Then, how do we demonstrate the truth of this principle? If not through demonstration and induction? Not by proving it, but by proving that it couldn’t be otherwise. Through what Aristotle termed a negative demonstration. To show that nothing can be no determinate knowledge without that principle.
If we do not accept this as valid, Aristotle posits, then there is nothing that can be known. If anything could have any meaning, then everything would have every meaning. And if everything has every meaning, then they have no meaning in particular. If this is true, then everything becomes indistinguishable from anything else. So, without a limit on what something can and cannot be at the same time, then nothing could be said of anything in particular. Even the propositions could be every proposition and none, and hence have no meaning, and every. It is completely incoherent. So any determinate knowledge requires non-contradiction, as we will see. What about the statement:
>the principle of non-contradiction is not true
If this is true, then that very statement is both true and not true. And if it is both true and not true, then it can never be affirmed without also being retracted—so the principle of non-contradiction can never be denied without also denying the very truth of that denial! Likewise, the statement
>there is no truth
cannot be possibly be uttered without paradox. For there would be one truth, that there is no truth; but if there is one true, then there aren’t no truths. Perhaps the simplest argument against nihilism about truth.
What about
>man is the measure of all things. What is true to me is not true to you, there is no objective truth.
But under this, too, nothing determined can be said or meant, nothing could even be. For how are we meant to take this statement, that truth is relative? If we are to take it as a universal, it too leads to paradox; and if it is relative, then we can ignore it and posit our own truth, that truth is universal. And if our truth is true, that truth is universal, then it must be true for everyone, so it can’t be relative.
Thus, anything that can be said of truth must presume the existence of objective truth. And as such the only way for there to be truth or falsity is if something could not be both or neither—that there is non-contradiction. If non-contradiction is true, then there is at least one objective truth about the world.
You could say, then, the highest knowledge of all—the thing that is true of all things but nothing in particular, the thing that must be known if anything is to be known, that what knowledge of everything else relies on—is that there is a truth to know. If anyone is truly committed to a position that there is no truth, then their only course of action is to keep quiet and say nothing at all, or else speak in error. And while they are silent, the rest of us can get on with the business of finding truth undisturbed.

THICCC

>>16303936
>>16303979
can tell from the way you type that you're a fucking pseud, you're probably cringing the poor woman out, leave her alone

>>16304804
There is objective truth and its way past your bedtime Jeremy.

t. Your gay dad

>>16303979
I find a lot of people are really hesitant to accept anything objective because of what can be drawn from it. It's unironically cope.

>>16303936
>a singular metaphysical question that would define our ideological differences
lmao

>>16305653
>>That the same attribute cannot, at the same time, belong and not belong to the same subject in the same respect.
>I'm sure you recognise it: The principle of non-contradiction!

Didn't Baudrillard or some other French cat btfo Aristotle on precisely this point?

>>16305742
I doubt it.

>>16303979
>arguing with women

>>16305653
>>16305658
Just got back from the gym, I'm the anon who asked. Wanted to let you know that I read and appreciated it, thx lad.

>>16303936
There is objective truth in the universe but outside of tautologies, we'll never have access to it. The resolution of out instruments is necessarily too low to get more than a close-but-inaccurate general idea of where the truth would lie. You can do as much as you want with logic and rely that the abstract features contain truth, but applying that to the world of sense is a difficult and spotty thing.

>>16305871
That you enjoyed it is enough for me.

>>16305843
Well, there's a text where he (might have been Derrida, I don't recall) *attempted* to, I'm certain of that.

>>16303979
> Crushing on a woman with a fat gay retard best friend.
Anon...

>>16303979
You talk like a fag and your issues are irrelevant to anyone with a working brain. Get the fuck out

>>16305658
>>16305653
Yes.
>If this is true, then that very statement is both true and not true. And if it is both true and not true, then it can never be affirmed without also being retracted—so the principle of non-contradiction can never be denied without also denying the very truth of that denial! Likewise, the statement
>>there is no truth
>cannot be possibly be uttered without paradox.

say YES to paradox

>>16303936

>>16303936
i must coom....

No need to believe when you know there is objective truth.

>>16303936
If your friends are offended by ideas, they are not good friends and have failed you.