/lit/ - Literature

Why?

>Holy shit
>This guy was an absolute retard.

Elaborate or you are the retard

Which one of his arguments fail to establish his thesis, in your opinion?

>>18529292
>This guy was an absolute retard.

>get into 17th - 19th Idealism
>my god, it makes perfect sense
>decide to take the Idealismpill
>continue reading Foundations of the Science of Knowledge, World as Will and Representation, and even throw in a bit of Berkeley
>talking with group of friends and family about nature of reality
>most are "i fucking love science" materialists
>i point out the limitations of science as a method
>explain inductive investigation can only ever yield probabilities, never universals
>point out the issue of phenomena and noumena given naive realist paradigms
>material reality is an abstraction of consciousness itself
>point out that a physicalist reduction of consciousness is impossible outside of wholesale eliminativism
>in fact, it is far more likely the ultimately reality of all things is actually consciousness
>"lol but anon this table isn't mind. look"
>she taps on it
>"wtf anon 'German Idealism' so are you like a nazi??"
>"uh, Berkeley is a university, anon..."
>"hey anon if you think everything is just in God's mind or whatever why don't you walk through that wall. after all it's not really matter lmao"
>I'm too low iq to explain all the philosophic arguments I've read
>just sit and stare blankly as they continue to pick up objects and ask if they can smash them over my head since everything is really just consciousness so it shouldn't hurt

>>18529354
>uh, Berkeley is a basketball player, anon..."

>>18529292
Berkeley's system can either be interpreted Panentheistically or as proposing a form of Bundle-Theory/Phenomenalism. Both interpretations are credible. Panentheism is currently undergoing a revival through Bernardo Kastrup, a scientist and philosopher (two PhD's), that believes everything is a disassociation of a single mind in which everything rests. I recommend his book "Why Materialism Is Baloney" for more on this. Then there's the Bundle-Theory/Phenomenalist interpretation, currently popularized by Donald Hoffman and widely accepted among scientific experts. Read "The Case Against Reality" for more on this. You're not deserving of any further effort.

>>18529354
how does inductive investigation only ever yield probabilities?

>>18529292
Filtered alert filtered alert

Don't be dissing my main man Berkeley

>>18529354
Cast not pearls before swine

>>18529468
>how does inductive investigation only ever yield probabilities?

>>18529499
honest question, let's debate and learn. I too want to reach universals, but what's wrong with inductive generalizations based on evidence?

>>18529499
He's right. It doesn't yield probabilities at all because a probability is out of 1, not infinity, and absolutely anything is possible.

>>18529509
An empiricist epistemology cannot guarantee anything because nothing in experience is necessary, unless something transcendental is posited through a rationalist epistemology. For instance, I could easily counterfactually envision a world in which the sun ceased from rising the next day. I cannot, however, imagine another world in which the synthesis of "2" and "2" is not "4". Humean Skepticism revealed the limits to empiricism.

Hello guys OP here, just realized Im retarded

>>18529538
I think the best apodictic ground is the Subject, or the I. It is what warrants experience in the first place, and is ontologically transcendental in relation to phenomena.

>thoughts in the actual mind of God would somehow be less real than a "substance" somehow apart from God
What did they mean by this

>>18529538
I think this kind of skepticism is quite frankly, not justified. Unless you ever saw the sun cease out of existence the next day, why assume that it could happen? You're basing your skepticism on pure paranoia.

Instead, what *is* right now should be believed to continue to be, since what being is best at is continuing to exist.

>>18529576
I think it's also necessary to posit an infinite mind. That immaterial conscious minds exist is certain, but I have to imagine an ultimate or absolute that is the efficient cause underlying everything, in whose mind we are perceived and vitalized.

>>18529586
>I think this kind of skepticism is quite frankly, not justified. Unless you ever saw the sun cease out of existence the next day, why assume that it could happen? You're basing your skepticism on pure paranoia.

>Instead, what *is* right now should be believed to continue to be, since what being is best at is continuing to exist.

>>18529586

>>18529592
>>18529603
is this the samefag? nice argument reddit.

>>18529610
>is this the samefag? nice argument reddit.

>>18529620
nigger. Does that offend you?

>>18529626
You don't have an actual argument. Read Hume to see the limits of empiricist thought, or just learn epistemology to learn the difference between necessary and contingent truths.

>>18529354
imagine writing this post thinking u come across as the smarter party in the exchange

>>18529636
*to understand the difference between necessary and contingent truths.

>>18529636
like I said, the skepticism that Hume calls forth is unjustified since it is based on absolutely nothing.

>>18529649
How? What exactly is NECESSARY about the sun rising tomorrow. Some cataclysmic event COULD feasibly happen, say a black hole or the release of Buck Breaking 2. Something is necessary if it remains true in all possible worlds. Why is it that you claim the existence of the sun AND the current conditions of the earth AND our solar system to be necessary?

>>18529662
because 1) evidence is on my side, and 2) being necessarily preserves itself because THAT'S WHAT BEING IS.

>>18529667
>because 1) evidence is on my side, and 2) being necessarily preserves itself because THAT'S WHAT BEING IS.

>>18529667
not who you responded to but please actually read hume

>>18529670
so far you're spammed image memes in the wrong context and tried to summon some academic verbiage to give more credibility to your argument. 2 swings and a misss.

Is this the best that Idealists are capable of?

>>18529680
I did and he's really not that deep. There is *no* possible world in which the Sun ceases to exist tomorrow.

There is skepticism, and there is paranoid based on nothing at all. You cannot use logic to deny logic.

>>18529682
You haven't read Hume so I can't take you seriously here. Counterfactuals, necessary/contingent truths, and Hume are all Phil 100 level shit. No Analytic Philosopher would claim some physical feature of the current world, like the (unfortunate) existence of Israel, to be necessary because 'being preserves itself' and whatever other brainlet shit you're talking about.

>>18529684
THE CURRENT EXISTENCE OF THE SUN IS NOT AN ANALYTIC A PRIORI TRUTH BY ANY MEASURE. YOU FUCKING BRAINLET.

>>18529640
>imagine writing this post thinking u come across as the smarter party in the exchange

>>18529693
so much for "rationality"; you're the one basing good and bad arguments on what others are saying, truly sad.

God (the ultimate being) can never cease to be, ever. And all beings which God creates -such as the universe and its contents- are also all preserved in their continued existence.

Maybe use that rationality you talk so much about and show those analytical philosopher who's boss, huh?

>>18529732
You have to go back you fucking faggot. Your spacing, your gay nu-science beliefs, and your literal homosexuality belongs back on reddit.

>>18529667
> the evidence is on my side
The very argument here is that any amount of evidence cannot lead to a completely knowable conclusion. Because you've never seen the sun ceasing to rise, you can rightly say that "it is improbable that the sun will stop rising". But you cannot say "the sun will never cease to rise" despite any evidence that you may have.

>>18529708
Wrong. It's possible that this world is necessary without contradiction, and from this it's trivial to show that that our world really is necessary.

>>18529708
Good for you, you learned the system and now deny the very reality in front of you. What great philosophical progress you've made. Make sure to use academic language to sneer at those below you who prefer to actually reason things out. Go on and continuing believing that it is "logical" to deny concrete experiential reality.

>>18529757
You literally have no proof of this nor do you have any solid logical grounds to hold such a belief.

>>18529764
If there's a possible world where our world is necessary, then for that possible world our world is the only possible world, so if possible necessity makes sense, to avoid contradiction, this possible world must be ours.

Be smart guys, truly smart. You're shilling a 200 year old philosopher and screeching because internet philosophers are not subscribing to your Hume/Berkeley/Kant system of thought.

200 years, and this is where this shitty system has brought you.

Maybe it's time to reason your way out of it? Think of your personal success, don't be a drone for a dead-end system of thought.

>>18529758
As an idealist, I don't deny my conscious experience. Physicalists paint a non-conscious picture of reality from a conscious perspective, like a painter pointing to their self-portrait and saying "that's me!" Anyways, I am a phenomenalist/bundle-theorist. This is supported by modern science. You can't deny that your experience of everything is sensory in nature. I know nothing other than bundles of sensations, but there are no grounds to assume that those bundles of sensation have extra-mental existence. That cannot be inferred through experience. My position is much more consistent than the Physicalist Materialist one.
>>18529774
That's not how it works. Something is necessary if it is true for all possible worlds, not just a few.

>>18529790
it is true in all possible worlds that God would create the universe, and it is true in all possible worlds that God would then preserve this universe's being and its contents.

I know this challenges conventions, roll with it.

>>18529790
The only way to get out of it is to deny the possibility of possible necessity as far as I can see.

>>18529804
So many of the recent replies originated from a reply against someone adamant over the epistemological validity of inductive-based reasoning. This is beginning to go towards an unnecessary direction. I'm a theist, like you, but I don't think its unreasonable to postulate a different universe created by God in which our source of energy came from something else. Another way to tackle the 'necessary existence of the sun' would be to claim that it has an intended extinction date, the end-times of humanity as planned by God. That could, logically speaking, happen tomorrow. The only necessary entity is God. His perceptions are contingent upon his desire to animate, but it could be supposed that he created the best of all possible worlds (a faith based assertion).
>>18529806
I don't think it's unreasonable to uphold a framework whereby necessary truths are rationalistically derived (mathematics, logic, dialectic) and contingent truths are accidental (like the existence of Israel). God is necessary given the proofs outlined by Aquinas in the five ways of the Summa (I think that's where they're from). Mathematical equations are likewise necessary as their truth remains as such in all possible worlds.

>>18529855
I'm glad you're a theist, truly, but there is much more to learn of God. God for example is sometimes explained by the Medievals as an endless outpouring of love; he endlessly pours his love for creation.

>>18529879
and I also forgot to say that God is simple, and any description of him should strive to give the simplest explanations for his objectives and essence.

>>18529879
I'm sure our views have a lot in common. I'm interested in Neoplatonic influence on Christian theology, Augustine, Aquinas, Eckhart, Schleiermacher, and Kierkegaard. But that isn't relevant in the conversation over logic and epistemology. Counterfactual reasoning is utilized in modern philosophy. Since Kant, the conception of necessary and contingent truths has also been fairly consistent. I might personally believe God created the best of all possible worlds, but to say that some aspect of his creation is on the same level of necessity as the creator is a stretch. Nothing about our physical world is necessary in that sense. Sure, the right conditions have been bestowed upon us, allowing convergent evolutionary trends to give rise to us, but it could have been done otherwise.
>>18529889
Yeah I too take the Negative Theology approach.

>>18529586
You cannot by way of induction know the laws of physics are not subject to change.

>>18529910
I would also agree that our highly active imagination means that perhaps in some other world, or universe, unicorns really do exist. I certainly do not pretend that I am not questioning why my thought appears to be so agile and how that can be.

But those unicorns are themselves a combination of universals and particulars. And those universals we can be sure of.

>>18529937
You don't have to believe in the existence of parallel worlds to use counterfactual reasoning. It's merely an exercise in determining necessary truths from contingent ones. Why don't you just do some studying. Here's a random epistemology video. Watch it before making further comments. https://youtu.be/oc75YUOOsyo

>>18529958
you don't need to patronize me like that. The problem is that once you adopt the language of the system of thought, you become trapped by it.

You realized that I do not freely use the "lingo", good for you. I do not use the lingo intentionally, because I strive to go farther than others. I guess you could call it being "meta". I wouldn't be the first to become an expert on Kant, so why should I do it? He's been strip mined of any new insights.

And yeah, I am quite confident in my arguments, which I've laid out, that the continued existence of the universe is not a "contingent truth".

>>18529978
You have no arguments and you deserve philosophical patronizing. Other anons here have pointed this out.
>>18529680
>>18529751
>>18529932

>>18529986
I genuinely invite you to use your rationality instead of simply cycling through your existing beliefs.

The last fellow, for example, said that you cannot by way of induction know the laws of physics are not subject to change. Well lucky for me I don't believe in laws of physics.

Again, it's called being meta. Call it "counter-factual thinking". What IF physics was wrong about the universe being run by laws, then what? It wouldn't be run by laws, but it would still have to be regular; what could possibly explain it? Think. You're not the only one to use counter-factual thinking, my friend.

>>18530003
Have you ever been mentally tested? I genuinely think you are low iq. Maybe your deficiency is the result of some birth defect. Could be autism, ADD, etc. Point is you're not as smart as you think you are. You're not being meta. This is a philosophical discussion and you refuse to engage in serious philosophy, continuing to entertain your midwit notions. Nothing good can come from this process of yours. Educate yourself. Otherwise nothing of worth will EVER come out of your mouth. This could just be a good troll, but there's an excess of retards nowadays so it's hard to tell.

>>18530003
>I genuinely invite you to use your rationality instead of simply cycling through your existing beliefs.
>
>The last fellow, for example, said that you cannot by way of induction know the laws of physics are not subject to change. Well lucky for me I don't believe in laws of physics.
>
>Again, it's called being meta. Call it "counter-factual thinking". What IF physics was wrong about the universe being run by laws, then what? It wouldn't be run by laws, but it would still have to be regular; what could possibly explain it? Think. You're not the only one to use counter-factual thinking, my friend.

>>18530003
That sounds retarded.

>>18530019
it always comes down to this, doesn't it, you immediately get defensive in the worst ways when challenged.

When you use counter-factuals to deny the sun could rise tomorrow, it's respectable philosophy. when I use counter-factuals to imagine a metaphysics that does not include the laws of physics, I'm mentally deficient.

You can't even see how ridiculous you sound, yet you are comfortable in your ignorance and superiority because others believe just like you. Pathetic.

>>18530030
Okay I cannot actually tell if you're trolling or not. Please fully clarify your metaphysical position. Make an effort post and enlighten me, schizo.

>>18530035
How about this, tell me how the hell the "law of physics" could ever actually run the universe? Go on and tell everyone in this thread that you believe the universe is a bunch of math equations.

>>18530039
Can't take you seriously anymore. Given your current derangement, it would be funny if you looked into Nazi UFO's, hyperborea, Atlantis, and Vril. It's a big meme but I'm sure you'd take it seriously. Something has gone terribly wrong at some point but you'd redeem yourself if you went full schizo. Now that would be funny.

>>18530049
Looks like you couldn't bring yourself to write that the universe was run by physics equations.

But again you resorted to the worst kind of brain farts and explosive writing to defend the fucking idea that you sun isn't certain to rise tomorrow, because a whole bunch of socially prestigious people are on your side.

>>18530056
>Looks like you couldn't bring yourself to write that the universe was run by physics equations.
>
>But again you resorted to the worst kind of brain farts and explosive writing to defend the fucking idea that you sun isn't certain to rise tomorrow, because a whole bunch of socially prestigious people are on your side.

>>18530063
this is what analytical philosophers are like when behind anonymity.

>>18530069
I'm literally a continental guy.

>>18530072
you haven't shown it, and evidence is all that counts.

Let's circle back and ask another question.

Why is realism the official position of the Catholic Church and not lol idealism. Does God know something you don't?

>>18530076
The only analytic I have ever liked was Bernardo Kastrup. All the other philosophers I read and appreciate are continentals. Anyways go back to >>>reddit or do some serious studying. Either go where you're appreciated or actually develop a worthwhile knowledge base.
>>18530083
Aquinas is the official theologian of the catholic church, but despite being an Aristotelean, he was most influenced by Augustine, a notable Platonist and former Neoplatonist. In Medieval times, Hylomorphist Aristotelianism was the craze and naturally the church embraced it. However there are certainly Idealist theological strands of thought worth devoting attention to. Also, I recommend looking into the Palamite Panentheism of the Orthodox church.

>>18530101
who you're trying to impress? You haven't made it clear why you deny realism, and you still believe the sun *may* not rise tomorrow.

Competence is not memorizing a bunch of useless trivia and lore, remember that. It may work on impressionable people, but you'll also be hated by the rest.

>>18530111
I don't think you understand what Realism is (which I take to be Physicalist Materialism). No Physicalist will claim that the sun's rising is a necessary truth of things. We mere humans cannot calculate all the activities in the Universe, so it's possible that a supernova or black hole could tear apart our reality at any moment. You're neither a realist nor an idealist. You've definitively proven yourself a retard.

>>18530083
>>18530083
>Does God know something you don't
God doesn’t “know” because god is omnipotent. God transcends knowledge because he is infinite and surrounds everything. The very concept of knowledge implies that it is a separate thing from your being. God can’t know because there is nothing for him to not know

>>18530128
Then what is the beatific vision?

>>18530127
No, you don't get to degrade Realism into Physicalist Materialism. I follow the same Realism that Aquinas believed in, and that the Church, the bride of Christ, defends.

Face it, your skepticism is not endorsed by all worldly authorities, and you'll have to learn to overcome it, because you're wrong.

>>18530152
Aquinas was a Hylomorphist. Saying you're a realist says nothing. You are a retarded faggot.

>>18530160
The academic (or academic-trained) philosopher is suddenly at a loss for definitions! How queer.

>>18530170

>>18530176
bro, you really have to let everyone know if you have a job in academia or if they just managed to snatch 200k out of your bank account, because your behavior is quite pathetic.

>>18529354
You should read Evola's Introduction to Magic. He and his buddies take Idealism and just run with it to the point that they can walk through walls and stuff.

I used to practice magic and it got me laid a couple of times and made for some neat parlor tricks at the very least. Then I let all my tapas get away from me and ignored my gnosis and now I'm profoundly depressed. If you manage to get in the "zone", so to speak, don't ever disobey the will of God. You'll regret it a hundred times over.

>>18530180
I'm just a passionate undergrad. You on the other hand are on the same intellectual level as reddit.

>>18530186
I am to assume that passionate undergrads like yourself don't browse reddit, from what you're saying?

>>18530187

>>18530160
Hylemorphism is the metaphysics, not the epistemology

>>18530203
Yeah Epistemologically speaking he could best be described as a mix between Platonist and Aristotelian.

>>18529468
In what sense of probability can inductive reason provide them? Not probabilities about universals I'm sure, so that's more like proportions, not probabilities

>>18529354
>talking with group of friends and family about nature of reality
I know this is an old pasta, but as a grim reminder to newfags: never do this