/lit/ - Literature

>>18285551
stop being pedantic you slimy bastard

>>18285575
Explain why your criterion for truth is the true one without falling into infinite regress or naive intuition please

>>18285583
define "Explain"
define "why"
define "your"
define "criterion"
define "for"
define "truth"
define "is"
define "the
define "true"
define "one
define "without"
define "falling"
define "into"
define "infinite"
define "regress"
define "or"
define "naive"
define "intuition"
define "please"

>>18285588
Using only my own private language which refers only to my private sensations, I will now do so. Erp foro vink bom nelo kei ven kein quih hieol hvie jevo nive noe mov dol droud kelo kez conr ad.

There’s no way that A=A cannot be, truth is then at least anything that must be the case because of its definition/identity

>>18285551
>Well /lit/? What have you got to say for yourself?
Proactively refuted by Plotinus, Plato, Ramanuja, etc.

>>18285583
>naive intuition
The bugman fears intuition. Look at it cower and apply bad words to it out of primal fear.

>>18285551
there is no criterion of truth but truth itself. if there were we would indeed have an aporia in being faced with either an infinite regress of criteria or a criterion of truth arbitrary because separate from and superadded to truth. nice sophistical exercise though.

>>18285609
Intuition is perfectly valid and very helpful for thought for the most part, I would only advise against believing that your intuition provides universal absolute truth rather than being an expression of a Will.

>>18285608
How

>>18285611
How do you figure out what statements are true and which are false without a criteria that tells you what justifications are sufficient and valid and which are not?

>>18285615
reasoning which is directed to intuition plus trial and error

If I testify about Myself, My testimony is not valid. 32There is another who testifies about Me, and I know that His testimony about Me is valid.

>>18285608
All retroactively refuted by Socrates

>>18285619
socrates was not a dogmatic 'skeptic'

>>18285551
this is literally that shitpost thread from earlier
>there are no facts, only interpretation
>hurr is that a fact???
also axioms, mouth breather

>>18285619
Socrates was transtemporally refuted by Guenon (pbuh).

>>18285623
The Pyrrhonists don't claim that knowledge is impossible, or that "there are no facts". Obviously that would be a dogma. They simply describe the world as it appears to them: that they cannot find any method for discerning truth.

>>18285621
The sceptics are better followers of Socrates than the Pl*tonists

>>18285635
>that they cannot find any method for discerning truth.
Which is their truth.

>On this question, the pronouncements of highly learned men are so varied and so much at odds with each other that inevitably they strongly suggest that the explanation is human ignorance, and that the Academics have been wise to withhold assent on matters of such uncertainty; for what can be more degrading than rash judgement, and what can be so rash and unworthy of the serious and sustained attention of a philosopher, as either to hold a false opinion or to defend without hesitation propositions inadequately examined and grasped?
—Cicero, The Nature of the Gods

no no no we got too cocky dogmabros

>>18285599
You have an A left of the equal sign and an A right of the same sign. Prove to me they're in the same position.

>>18285644
So this is the power of sceptic abstract thought.

And what is the creterion/measure of asserting this skeptical truth?

>>18285551
truth is that which, when ignored, does not go away

>>18285551
That quote is incredibly stupid. There's a reason if Sextus Empiricus is not famous as Plato or Seneca.

>>18285551
>it's true that there is no truth
I shouldn't be surprised that /lit/ is full of pseuds. This is 4chan after all.

>>18286706
He's not as famous because people want their copes.
>>18286714
Not what the sceptics say.

Best answer comes from Hume. See e.g. Of the Standard of Taste.

Also, the criterion of truth is self-evident if you accept the axioms of logic. Logical argumentation + empirical evidence is the criterion of truth.

>>18286719
There is a measure which the skeptics rely on in order to assert anything and make the distinctions they need to do.

>>18286719
Is it true that that's not what the skeptics say? You just said there is no truth, but now you're telling me something is true?
Which is it? Does truth exist or not?

>>18286753
The Pyrrhonists do not say that truth doesn't exist (that would be an unverifiable absolute claim, a dogma), they instead confess that they have not seen any evidence for the existence of definitive proofs and perfect knowledge.

>>18286781
What does it mean? Do they merely think this or they show how there is not an evidence for it? If they show it, what is the criterion they take to dismiss the evidences?

>>18286781
>(that would be an unverifiable absolute claim, a dogma)
So you hold a dogmatic belief that all dogmas are unverifiable and/or wrong?
>they instead confess that they have not seen any evidence for the existence of definitive proofs
Define "evidence" in light of the position that we cannot know anything definitively. If we cannot know anything definitively, then why do you presuppose that your standard of evidence is definitively true? Why do you presuppose that, even if you were given "definitive proof" that you would even be capable of recognizing it?
Your position is self-refuting. You have nowhere to go from here but solipsism.

>>18285641
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

>>18286800
>>18286807
Dogmas are not necessarily wrong -- the problem is that, so far as our experience seems to show us, we have no criterion for discerning whether one dogma is better than another. There may be such a criterion, but the sceptic confesses that he has not discovered it.

Sextus Empiricus differentiates between 'evident' and 'non-evident' things. Evident things (like, for instance, the sensations a conscious person experiences in the present) are not necessarily more real or true than what is non-evident, but we can at least testify internally to the fact that we are experiencing them (even if the nature of the "we" and the "experience" and the "thing" involved elude us). So he says:
>we do not employ [our challenges] universally about all things, but about those which are non-evident and subjects of dogmatic inquiry; and that we state what appears to us and do not make any positive declarations as to the real nature of external objects.
(Outlines of Pyrrhonism, I, XXVIII)

The context in which Sextus is making his argument is a philosophical landscape where Platonists, Stoics and Epicureans all made exclusive truth claims about the material and non-material nature of reality. Each one of these claimed to know with certainty that they were right. But to modern appearances, they have all been superseded, disregarded. There are new dogmas now. But the sceptic endures.

Why is the onus is on the sceptic to prove that he knows nothing, but rather on those who make positive truth claims that they know something? The sceptic says "yes, there are appearances before me", but he admits he cannot be certain of anything.

When you grow up enough you understand that all forms of relativism are wrong. That way of thinking expressed by the quote in OP is childish. All sage people agree upon this.

>>18285551
You don't have to convince me anon, Sextus Empiricus is entirely right and radical skepticism is the only entirely reasonable philosophical position.

>>18286893
>so far as our experience seems to show us, we have no criterion for discerning whether one dogma is better than another
Wrong.

>>18286895
The opposite is true. The wisest , Cicero, Montaigne, have all been sceptics.

>>18286911
Source?

>>18286911

>>18286935
Not him, but there you are assuming a criterion of verification, a measure of distinction that must be asserted to assert things (truth which the claim implies) cannot be verified.

>>18286925
>Cicero and Montaigne are wiser than Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, Dante, Ficino, Donne, Kierkegaard, Tolstoy, Eliot, Heidegger, Severino
Okay anon :-)

>>18286935
Tradition.

>>18286957
Yes.

>>18286893
>there are new dogmas now
Metaphysical axioms will never vanish because there are people thinking matter is all what exists, rejecting the very predications of their claims. This is what the skeptic does too.

>>18286965
Which one

>>18286902
>skepticism
>reasonable
Oops, seems like we found a criterion here guys.

>>18286893
>Sextus Empiricus differentiates between 'evident' and 'non-evident' things.
Are we presupposing the peripatetic axiom here?
>Nothing is known in the mind except what passes through the senses
In that case you're presupposing that you can trust your senses, which is begging the question.
>Why is the onus is on the sceptic to prove that he knows nothing
Because in making all of these radical assertions, the sceptic is presupposing the very things he is denying - objective truth, ethics, certitude, etc. He claims he is certain that nothing is certain. He claims it is true that truth is unattainable. He claims ethics are relative while making value judgments. The presupposition that truth is preferable/more valuable than falsehood is a value judgment that the sceptic presupposes.

>>18286971
I did not say metaphysics has disappeared (and the dogmas of the old Greek schools of thought were not restricted to metaphysics, but often were material explanations of natural phenomena, as well as ethical formulas). The sceptic is not a materialist, insofar as to claim that nothing non-material exists or matters is an unverifiable dogma.

>>18286893
> The sceptic says "yes, there are appearances before me"
>but he admits he cannot be certain of anything.
You can be doubtful of the reality or the truth of the content of the appearances themselves, but you can’t be doubtful about the fact that appearances themselves are simply occurring, that is that they are being presented to you, the existence of consciousness is self-evident, only a total fool or an NPC who isn’t conscious would say otherwise. And with that complete skepticism is debunked, because since no matter what they cannot cast doubt on the existence of their own consciousness, since it necessarily has to exist in order for them to be a sentient being capable of thinking and having doubts.

>>18286983
Do we agree that an object predicates a subject? Is this verifiable in evident experience?

Holy shit skeptics are being utterly btfo in this thread.

>>18286972
All traditions share a number of truths, a small common ground which is the reason why relativism is foolish. If something has been endorsed by all men throughout millennia it means it's right.

>>18285551
Read karl popper's logic of scientific discovery. Doesn't refute empiricus. It refines this initial idea.

Truth in a social paradigm is an intersubjective treatise, nothing more.

>>18286978
The sceptic doesn't trust his senses in the Epicurean sense. He only says that he appears to experience sensations which appear to provide him with information about an external reality of some kind. The unverifiability of the content of our senses is a sceptical talking point.
>He claims he is certain that nothing is certain.
No!
>He claims it is true that truth is unattainable.
No!
>He claims ethics are relative while making value judgments.
Which value judgements? Sextus Empiricus describes the sceptic making value judgements in a non-dogmatic way, in the sense required for daily functioning. But not in the sense of believing that a thing is "really" good or bad in some ultimate way.
>The presupposition that truth is preferable/more valuable than falsehood is a value judgment that the sceptic presupposes.
Humans are curious by nature, and derive satisfaction from attaining knowledge and being liberated from falsehood. Whether truth is "really" good or bad is uncertain. But Pyrrhonism has an ethical element in the sense that it has an idea of human happiness: that epoche (suspension of judgement) produces ataraxia (tranquility).

>>18285551
The criterion for what is true or not is imminent to the definition of truth, in the same way that the criterion for what is a sock or not is imminent to the definition of sock. That's literally what a definition does.

>>18285594
True

>>18287016
>If something has been endorsed by all men throughout millennia it means it's right.
Can you name one thing that has been endorsed by all men throughout millennia? The incessant quarreling of all men (particularly wise men) on all topics, the complete lack of unanimity, is a common of sceptic philosophy (consider Cicero's comment here >>18285641). Montaigne meditates a lot on the fact that even what we consider basic impulses and opinions (basic likes and dislikes) have numerous counter-examples (that even death is sometimes considered preferable), and that societies so often have radically preferences and practices. The Greeks consider pederasty a social good, the Christians consider it the basest evil.

>>18287038
>he only says that he appears to experience sensations
>non-dogmatic
>But not in the sense of believing that a thing is "really" good or bad in some ultimate way
I'm getting a lot of "no, but also yes" type answers here. The bottom line is this: you can't claim that nothing is certain, then turn around and claim that something is certain. That's a contradiction.
>Humans are curious by nature, and derive satisfaction from attaining knowledge and being liberated from falsehood
https://www.logicalfallacies.org/appeal-to-emotion.html

>>18285551
BASED BASED BASED DOGMATIC SUBHUMANS BTFO FAGMATIC SUBHUMAN BTFO

>>18287064
>Can you name one thing that has been endorsed by all men throughout millennia
no fap

>>18287082
Diogenes praised masturbation.

>>18287064
>Can you name one thing that has been endorsed by all men throughout millennia?
The existence of another form of existence after death.

>>18287091
Half of the Jews living in Christ's time did not even believe in an afterlife.

>>18286781
So they say it is true that they haven't seen any evidence to support truth? But I thought they could not find evidence for truth? That undermines itself.

>>18287103
The Jews are the incarnation of Evil, of course

>>18287103
Different anon here. Better to say what prompted classical metaphysics forward: that there is something rather than nothing.

>>18287080
Now read the thread.

>>18287038
If you are merely describing how things appear to you, purely personally, then there is no reason why I should be interested in your statements or take them seriously. That's not even phenomenology. It's being unwilling to stake a minimally normative, truth-apt guess, if it's even thus comprehensible as a description of appearance-to-you to other people, using words and concepts as it does.

>>18287067
The Pyrrhonists do not make a positive claim that knowledge is impossible, or that nothing is certain. What they do say is, there doesn't appear, so far as they can see, right now, to be any certainty.
>>18287067
Saying that humans experience an emotion is not the same as appealing to an emotion. I'm only describing the human emotion of curiosity to account for the desire to hold any kind of belief at all, whether it is a belief in, say, Platonism or in scepticism. The point is that it does not have to be framed in terms of truth being an intrinsic good. Truth can be an appetite. In describing it, we do not also have to prescribe it.

>>18287125
And if there is something relativism ceases to be valid.

>>18287125
Gorgias denied that there was something rather than nothing.

>>18287134
>there doesn’t appear to be any certainty
So they are not certain about it. There is nothing to argue from the pyrrhonist standpoint after this.

>>18287133
A guess is a non-dogmatic thing, though. Whether we can build our way up to positive truth claims from these non-dogmatic assumptions is what the Pyrrhonist doubts.

>>18287144
What did he deny?

>>18287134
>What they do say is, there doesn't appear, so far as they can see, right now, to be any certainty.
So instead of saying there is no certainty, they say they aren't certain if there is any certainty.
That's just adding an extra step before saying "nothing is certain"

>>18287163
A guess cannot be justified, if it could it would not be a guess anymore. It is so simple you people have to contort yourselves in the most shameful ways to dodge what is inescapable.

>>18287179
Have any guesses been justified

>>18287144
He actually didn't.

You know, this discussion is so boring. Check the archive if you seek to be crushed and wiped out by anons who actually have a wisdom. This thread has been made a thousand times. Otherwise, tell /lit/ why you find the skeptic/nihilistic worldview so appealing. You must have a reason, surely.

>>18287173
To be certain that nothing is certain is fundamentally different from being uncertain about whether or not anything is certain.

>>18287185
That is what I’m saying? And that is what pyrrhonism takes as its foundation: a guess? If a guess cannot be justified, there is nothing justifying pyrrhonism.

>>18287192
Why is it different? What makes this certainty certain?

>>18287189
>Otherwise, tell /lit/ why you find the skeptic/nihilistic worldview so appealing. You must have a reason, surely.
I don't. I spent years trying to avoid it. I had a terrible horror of uncertainty. I needed certainty. But I could not find it. It was mental torture, being unable to be certain. And only very slowly, by increments, did I accommodate myself to aporia, and learn to accept it.

>>18287163
Then you will never find out any possible truth if you insist on choosing between questionably coherent descriptions and instant attainment of unshakeable knowledge. A guess is a kind of positive truth claim which is non-dogmatic. It is not the case that there are only 'descriptions' of appearances to you and monadic, unshakeably-certain truth claims. Return to your Plato and do not collect $200.

>>18287195
Pyrrhonism considers itself to be in the same muck as everyone else. Sextus Empiricus compares it to a purgative medicine which expels itself along with the poisons which it is trying to remove.

>>18287192
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contradiction

>>18285661
Kek

>>18287209
This is not so much in contrast with theism, metaphysics. God is absolutely inscrutable, afterlife/theosis/returning back to the source, is above any thing we can think and imagine. It is uncertain how any of these are, but we can know they simply are.

>>18287219
Scepticism isn't a closed book. But I think it is difficult to justify metaphysical beliefs in light of it.

>>18287263
I have a lot of interest in theism and metaphysics, especially with descriptions of the mystery of God, and I am interested in seeing if there is anything that can sway me. The point is that, at present, I do not know that it "they simply are"

>>18287263
>It is uncertain how any of these are, but we can know they simply are.
Your belief in nothingness has validated skepticism for thousands of years.

>>18287209
That post reeks of falsehood. When you can't find the truth by researching philosophy and the sciences you devote yourself to poetry, and eventually find the road that leads to truth through beauty. All men with enough mental/spiritual experience get to that point, there's no exception.

If you are Faust, be aware it's a temporary phase.

>>18287222
Don’t you think this reflects its self-refuting nature? Remedy does not leave everything empty and dead like skepticism, but leaves a healthy body. Skepticism is useful in this way, and it is exactly this what Plato, Descartes, Husserl did.

>>18287279
What nothingness?

>>18287273
That’s where reason comes in.

>>18287282
>you devote yourself to poetry, and eventually find the road that leads to truth through beauty. All men with enough mental/spiritual experience get to that point, there's no exception.
And how can I possibly believe this? It's the attitude of German romantics, but not of, say, Kant or the Buddhists or Plato or Orthodox contemplatives, who view this sort of intoxication as delusion, something that leads away from truth.

>>18287285
I don't think that truthful trees necessarily bear good fruit. Cioran sees civilisational decline as a result of lucidity, I tend to agree with him. It is a little like the Advaita idea of Brahman: infinite paralysis.

>>18287291
Your whole system is downstream of something ineffable and inexplicable and yet you are certain of it, though unable to demonstrate it to anyone else without the same tastes and affects as yours.

>>18287264
>But I think it is difficult to justify metaphysical beliefs in light of it.
I dont think so, because even if you are skeptical about everything else the existence of consciousness is self-evident, and from there its a short step to metaphysics when you ask why and how does something which obviously exists, exist itself

>>18287301
Different person here but even I can see the poetry in skepticism. It is tragic, it reflects the anthropological ouroboros we find ourselves (I could point here Faith leading us beyond it in the same sense Christ did lead us beyond the foundational mechanisms of old mundane religions).

>>18287301
It's just one road, not the only one. Plato can say whatever he wants, but if there is a poet that conveys Platonic doctrines through verse, he must shut the hell up.

>>18287320
>It is a little like the Advaita idea of Brahman: infinite paralysis.
The Advaita idea of Brahman is infinite freedom, not infinite paralysis

>>18287340
Reason demonstrates this. Read Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics for example. Ineffable and inexplicable does not mean inexistent. What is in reality cannot comprehend reality. Read about apophaticism.

>>18287359
A sceptic doesn't deny that God exists, he just can't find a good way to sort between the different claims about if and what he is.

>>18287264
Historically, it is though. It is a form of resignation. You say you had a terrible horror of uncertainty, needed certainty. One thing you can have is a certainty of aim and effort. If you are absolutely terrified of uncertainty you forfeit the possibility of gaining access to the truth. Not being wrong, not being caught being wrong becomes your aim and thus you direct your effort. It is like flailing in quicksand. Read The Will to Believe by William James.

>>18287348
Who knows whether a Shelley could exist without a Plato. Arguably the latter did not suffer from the terminal despair of the former.

>>18287363
Say what God is is to define, limit Him. This implies comprehension in both senses.weird affirmation for a skeptic concerning God though, I know a lot of skeptics would disagree.

>>18285583
>he doesn't know about self evident truths
also how does Sextus have any criterion by which he discards criterion of truth if no such truth criterion can exist?
Skepticism, not even once

>>18287359
No thanks, I know exactly what you are talking about. To a non-believer if you are speaking in negatives to gird the existence of something you are speaking about a no-thing.

>>18287383
>but how do you know you can be skeptic of my truth claim
>therefore i am right, nothing to worry about
Based pilpul poster

>>18287382
>I know a lot of skeptics would disagree.
You might be confusing the colloquial meaning of skeptic with the philosophical meaning

>>18287388
This thread is enough to show what you need to know about your own position. Your resolution makes case for no further commitment.

>>18287398
I mean what skeptics themselves affirmed about it in this thread. Also did Pyrrho, Sextus Emp, Hume affirm God?

>You should believe something because um... you just should ok?

>>18287413
When I said sceptics don't deny God, the inverse is that they don't affirm him either (at least in the sense of saying that they can be philosophically certain that God either does or does not exist). But Sextus Empiricus did say that a sceptic will tend to be a "non-dogmatic adherent of his local religion", and Montaigne, who was a Pyrhhonist, was also an orthodox and devout Roman Catholic.

>>18287402
>how incredulous that someone would deny the incredible hmmpfh!

>>18285551
>23) If you argue against all your sensations, you will then have no criterion to declare any of them false.
>24) If you arbitrarily reject any one sensory experience and fail to differentiate between an opinion awaiting confirmation and what is already perceived by the senses, feelings, and every intuitive faculty of mind, you will impute trouble to all other sensory experiences, thereby rejecting every criterion. And if you concurrently affirm what awaits confirmation as well as actual sensory experience, you will still blunder, because you will foster equal reasons to doubt the truth and falsehood of everything.

Ironically enough the back and forth in this thread is very reminiscent of sceptical method, the presentation of both sides of the argument to the end of producing suspension of belief and ataraxia.

Even these sceptical arguments are to be overcome by the sage. The arguments are not proofs. They are something to break the ego upon.

>>18287636
Modern scepticism: "You can't know!"
Ancient scepticism: "I don't seem to know. Even if I do, I don't care."

>>18287636
how boring.

>>18285551
There, solved

>>18285594
>nive noe mov dol droud kelo kez conr ad