/lit/ - Literature

>>17411329
Non-sensical

>>17411334
Keep living in denial.

>>17411351
keep "living"

>>17411362
Yeah, you're pretty much mentally dead if you don't contemplate this problem all the time.

>>17411375
then keep "contemplating", bro

>>17411329
I embrace the infinite regress. Of course there are always more "why"s. This trilemma is homeomorphic to causal epistemology - for any object x or event a, there's an object x' or event a' that caused it, repeating over and over until you reach either an infinite regress of causality, a point or event with no knowable cause (be that the Big Bang or some kind of Divinity), or arriving at circular reasoning.

>>17411385
>still has nothing to say
t.

>>17411403
> UHHHHH I'M COOOONTEMPLATING AGHGHHHH

>>17411329
Ah, but when you answer God, it is all three, showing it to be the only reasonable answer.

If it is not infinite, self-grounding, and brutally essential, how can it be the fundamental answer?

Truth will never be achieved thanks to our limited perceptions, meaning humans inherently will be stuck in infinite regress

>>17411401
This, nobody actually thinks humans will ever know everything, right?

>>17411416
Lmfao what a fucking brainlett

>>17411440
>frogposter
shocking

>>17411416
>he is not

>>17411329
I believe in foundationalism or what this chart calls axiomatic grounding. I don't have much of an issue with it some facts just seem self-evident to me. Like the rule of non-contradiction, Law of Identity, Law of excluded middle etc. I don't see an issue with this.

>>17411329
Please give an example of each

>>17411423
This

>>17411445
>coomer poster hates frog
???

>>17411424
/thread

>>17411457
>wojack poster thinking he's better than anyone
???

>>17411329
In mathematics, anything provable is provable only in a system with respects to that system's axioms. For a notion of "truth" to exist, some truths have to be taken for granted.

>>17411455
1. scientism - "lol just keep following the chain bro"
2. absurdism - "lol just jerk off forever bro"
3. religion - "lol just believe in a deity bro"

>>17411469
That was my point, thanks for elaborating for the daft cunt

>>17411480
>I was just pretending to be retarded
Ok lmao

>>17411472
Is it possible to axiomatize math completely? Why can't you introduce empirical notions into mathematics?

>>17411491
?? The Frogposter was right though, you're replying to the wrong anon, anon.

>>17411329
What's wrong with every question having an answer?

>>17411520
That's impossible to tell as we don't have names, anon.

>>17411515
Because those are still axioms

>>17411329
Based team infinity ftw

>>17411529
>"Ok LmFaOoO I was only pretending to be retarded"
>implying you knew which anon posted the comment

>>17411530
Yes but it isn't analytic it's synthetic axioms. You seem to know more about math than me so I ask why can't you introduce synthetic axioms into mathematics?

>>17411544
Not the same anon, anon.

>>17411551
You can, but that doesn't negate the initial problem

>>17411551
You totally can, that's actually how new branches of math are formed (and maybe even how mathematics itself was created)

well the reflective mind can only see only a window to the reality, where the 1 & 2 are the same, so it nothing to the problem of existence

>>17411561
Anon wasn't the anon that posted wojack, anon. Anon was the anon that posted Frog and you presumed that that anon was the wojack anon, anon.

>>17411576
>well the reflective mind can only see only a window to the reality, where the 1 & 2 are the same
Why?

>>17411568
>>17411574
Nice because I don't have a good understanding of mathematical proofs but I read on Wikipedia that there were these theorems called the Gödel's incompleteness theorems that made axiomatizing math impossible and I was wondering if this only applied to analytic axioms. Like why can't you axiomatize math?

>>17411581
Meds, anon.

>>17411478
ah ok, thx. Still a little confused on #2, that doesn't seem like circular reasoning.

>>17411600
Wig, anon.

>>17411515
It isn't, because from any axiom you could create a new statement that isn't an axiom.
Further, let's assume you have a set A' of axioms {A1, A2, A3, ...}, and an unary operation notated ^, such that any n =/= n^. This unary operation can be anything that can act on a mathematical statement, so long as no statement stays the same after that operation.
For any pair of axioms, then you could create a statement by applying those axioms in conjunction - we can notate those with ordered pairs, (A1, A1), (A1, A2), (A1, A3), ..., (A2, A1), (A2, A2), ... and so on, iterating over every pair, including self-application. Now, let's take the set Å of all (An, An): {(A1, A1), (A2, A2), (A3, A3), ...}. What happens if we apply ^ to each element of Å? (A1, A1)^ will be, by definition, different from (A1, A1), and likewise (A2, A2)^ from (A2, A2), and so on. Å^, so to speak, will have a set of statements that aren't defined by any axiom, but marked by a specific pattern that you could make it an axiom. And once you do, you can append it to your A', and generate a new Å, and a new Å^. No matter how many times you append the exception to the system as an axiom, it generates a new exception.

I apologize if I missed some rigor in this proof - it's been years since I've done anything like this.

>>17411584
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycvlJ9XMd94

>>17411590
I understand now... the Simpsons live in Omaha

I may have replied to the wrong post

>>17411662
>>17411642

>>17411635
Also this applies to any mathematic theory or axiom. Literally infinite and unquantifiable. It isn't exactly useful knowledge mathematically speaking, but for philosophical deliberation it is very cynically pertinent.

>>17411670
>infinite regress will become circular grounding when you apply the definition of infinity

>>17411635
>>17411682
This is gibberish and has nothing to do with the incompleteness theorem. You appear to vaguely remember Cantor and produced a bastardized version of the diagonal argument. And from the retard sense I can make of it you don't believe the diagonal argument either.

>>17411706
What is the "definition of infinity" that implies that infinite regress is impossible without becoming "circular grounding"?

>>17411329
The same thing happen s with definitions.
3 options:
infinite regress of definitions.
Circular definitions.
Primitive concepts.

>>17411800
That's why I don't believe in definitions

>>17411807
>Ciwt'x ieb O emlh qpcjeng ls uydfiltonsd
Me either

>>17411807
How does that even work? how do you explain your understanding of language? I don't understand what position you hold. I like primitive concepts.

>>17411819
Context. A baby doesn't learn to speak by definitions but instead by listening to a word spoken in different contexts thousands of times. Definitions are just a type of using the word in a context of other words. Dictionaries commonly include the word used in a sentence as part of the definition

>>17411619
>circular reasoning is not absurd

What are some criticisms of the brute fact angle

>>17411955
It's wrong

>>17411957
Why

>>17411966
No reason it's just a brute fact that it's wrong

pick your favourite axiom, positivism is a cancer, and the other two options rely on it. You can't assume the human mind can grasp either contingency at a certain point

Since deductive reasoning really falls into 3 categories : a priori truths, arguing against the impossibility of something due to contradiction, and if and only if arguments... Then practical reasoning is about analyzing possibilities and probabilities.
The most plausible truth is the most inherently likely, and there is nothing more to it than that.

>>17411329
What? I've literally never encountered what you're talking about. I'm out. Ignorance is bliss. I love life.

>>17411329
I DON'T LIVE WITH IT BECAUSE MY MAD FUCKING BRAIN GAINS ARE A PRIOI CONCEPTIONS

>>17413410
t. normalfag

>>17411329
> Holy croissant! OP's ass is still stuck in representation haha

>>17414518
Not an argument.

>>17411416
lol

>>17411449
This is both the low iq and high iq take.
Midwits get stuck with the other positions.

>>17411807
Earl Boykins didn't either and look at what happened to him.

>>17415796
Yeah, you're totally not seething. Just admit that you're a pseud and everything will be fine.

>>17411375
What's there to contemplate? It is true. Accept it or anguish about it.

>>17416053
People like you should have your thinking rights revoked.

>>17416059
You are naive, over confident, prone to projection, and incredibly defensive. All told, an unpleasant combination. You have some growing to do.

>>17411329
Fucking Aristotle talked about Munchhausen's Trilemma. From the Posterior Analytics

Some hold that owing to the necessity of knowing the primary premises, there is no scientific knowledge. Others think there is, but that all truths are demonstrable. Neither doctrine is either true or a necessary deduction from the premises. The first school, assuming that there is no way of knowing other than by demonstration, maintain that an infinite regress is involved, on the ground that if behind the prior stands no primary, we could not know the posterior through the prior (wherein they are right, for one cannot traverse an infinite series): if on the other hand – they say – the series terminates and there are primary premises, yet these are unknowable because incapable of demonstration, which according to them is the only form of knowledge. And since thus one cannot know the primary premises, knowledge of the conclusions which follow from them is not pure scientific knowledge nor properly knowing at all, but rests on the mere supposition that the premises are true. The other party agrees with them as regards knowing, holding that it is only possible by demonstration, but they see no difficulty in holding that all truths are demonstrated, on the ground that demonstration may be circular and reciprocal. Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate premises is independent of demonstration. (The necessity of this is obvious; for since we must know the prior premises from which the demonstration is drawn, and since the regress must end in immediate truths, those truths must be indemonstrable.) Such, then, is our doctrine, and in addition, we maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its original source which enables us to recognize the definitions.

How did no one ever tell me this has been around since Aristotle?

>>17411544
>cat has a bigger dick than me

>>17411329
>How do you live with it?
By disregarding it. It's a pseudo-problem.

>>17416220
You wold be surprised to find out that the your idea of being a mental(and with almost a perfect accuracy, physical) cuckold is not being a grown up. You're the religious nut jobs of philosophy.

>>17411329
Yeah because I'm not a buglord that needs permission from big daddy rationality and law to live my life. Cry harder, you're genuinely cucking yourself at a metaphysical scale.

>>17411807
>>17411887
i understand where you are coming from but it sounds like you're saying that since a definition isn't an absolute, unchanging, divine law or word that therefore they don't exist. definitions, though technically arbitrary and completely artificial, are still a thing that exist. saying you don't 'believe in definitions' is silly, you obviously do, you just know they are our arbitrary invention to describe a label we give to something

>>17417281
>accepts specific constructs and lives his life like an animal
>it's other people who are the cuckolds
You're just pretending to be retarded, right?

>>17417284
It's not about definitions and their labels being arbitrary. Read Wittgenstein meaning is use

>>17417376
well i would like this conversation to keep going and don't know how much i have to read beyond small extracts that don't seem to be different or specifically counter to what i said so could you please enlighten me on what you/he meant and how it is counter to what i said

>>17416220
YOU are naive, over confident, prone to projection, and incredibly defensive. All told, an unpleasant combination. YOU have some growing to do.

not the guy but i think this is a pretty safe statement that can be said to anyone online, what do you think?

The problem merely arises from a trick of language, which assumes--self-contradictorily I might add--that the meaning of every term must be interdefined. Yet not every proposition must be proven by another proposition. Language does not exist in a bubble, and so we should not go looking for the meaning of language within language. Its meaning comes from the world which is connected to and envelops it.

If you try to define the truth of statements in terms of other statements alone, then you get the regresses, then you get the circularities and the "brute facts." But if the meaning of statements is tied to how they relate to the world and how they are used in a broader context (form of life) there is no trilemma.

One can argue that this is a contradiction because the statement that all statements of fact must correspond to some word/world relation itself has no world object. But the truth of a generalization is a function of the truth of all its instances, which in this case each pass the test.

>>17415781
It is an Argument. These paradoxes happen because most of philosophy confuses the map with the territory and tries to semantically represent reality. But the representations do no exist outside of reality but are themselves part of reality. To model everything according to eternally applicable axioms/identities is therefore false, and for Deleuze a step away from reality, since we in the very act banish all that escapes our schemas, and is different. This is absurd, because being different, that is to make a difference, to distinguish yourself from the backdrop of existence, is the very thing that constitutes any being.

The axiomatic path. Some of the ways that we understand the world are built into the brain and out of the reach of our insight. You have to accept the brute facts because of the limitations of your mind.

>>17416220
How have you got that from anything that person has posted?

Sounds like projection to me.