/lit/ - Literature

>>19146102
No, you're just sane.

>>19146102
I'm the same, when it comes to the nature of the universe, why I'm alive, I marvel at the profound mystery, but other than that, I hate jews, trannies, niggers, jannies, etc

>>19146102
It’s called philosophical scepticism. Read Xenophanes, Protagoras, Sextus Empiricus (‘Outlines of Pyrrhonism’), Cicero (‘Academica’) Montaigne, Pierre Bayle, David Hume, etc.

>>19146102
Only virgins remain sceptical into their mature years. Chads pick an ideology based on aesthetic appeal and defend it with their lives even when proven incorrect.

>>19146161
Yes. Eventually I understand nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, I lay the doubt aside and choose what attracts me.

>>19146161
>>19146164
What did you pick?

>>19146161
This.

>>19146161
No, true chads switch ideologies depending on their mood, and assume and argue for opposing systems via different heteronyms, allowing themselves to express everything inside of them without bowing to the tyranny of consistency. This is the advantage of scepticism, it allows for infinite liberty and multiplicity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rae76PA_xkU

>>19146145
OP's pic seems like a kind of "mystical skepticism" for lack of a better term. I haven't seen Montaigne, Cicero, Hume or Sextus marvel at the dreamlike and ineffable nature of life, they're usually more down to earth in their skepticism.

>>19146244
Yeah I didn’t really read OP pic kek. And you’re right. That said Pyrrhonism does emphasise the tranquility that comes from renouncing attachment to views. It’s unfortunate because it can be confused with complacency, when ideally it’s kind of a humble resignation that nevertheless maintains its curiosity; a realistic and peaceable acceptance of the ultimate frailty of human reason, but not a cynical renunciation of it

>>19146277
>a humble resignation that nevertheless maintains its curiosity; a realistic and peaceable acceptance of the ultimate frailty of human reason
The most based worldview there ever was. How can dogmatists even compete?

>>19146102
It's actually NPCs who are obsessed with "truth" and chase after -isms to identify with. It takes intellectual honesty, clarity and lucidity to be able to suspend judgment

>>19146302
Because most people don’t find uncertainty peaceful even if it is justified.

>>19146347
Really? I find certainty restrictive and depressing.

>>19146102
Zhuangzi
>Words are not just wind. Words have something to say. But if what they have to say is not fixed, then do they really say something? Or do they say nothing? People suppose that words are different from the peeps of baby birds, but is there any difference, or isn't there? What does the Way rely upon,5 that we have true and false? What do words rely upon, that we have right and wrong? How can the Way go away and not exist? How can words exist and not be acceptable? When the Way relies on little accomplishments and words rely on vain show, then we have the rights and wrongs of the Confucians and the Mo-ists. What one calls right the other calls wrong; what one calls wrong the other calls right. But if we want to right their wrongs and wrong their rights, then the best thing to use is clarity.

Everything has its "that," everything has its "this." From the point of view of "that" you cannot see it, but through understanding you can know it. So I say, "that" comes out of "this" and "this" depends on "that" - which is to say that "this" and "that" give birth to each other. But where there is birth there must be death; where there is death there must be birth. Where there is acceptability there must be unacceptability; where there is unacceptability there must be acceptability. Where there is recognition of right there must be recognition of wrong; where there is recognition of wrong there must be recognition of right. Therefore the sage does not proceed in such a way, but illuminates all in the light of Heaven.6 He too recognizes a "this," but a "this" which is also "that," a "that" which is also "this." His "that" has both a right and a wrong in it; his "this" too has both a right and a wrong in it. So, in fact, does he still have a "this" and "that"? Or does he in fact no longer have a "this" and "that"? A state in which "this" and "that" no longer find their opposites is called the hinge of the Way. When the hinge is fitted into the socket, it can respond endlessly. Its right then is a single endlessness and its wrong too is a single endlessness. So, I say, the best thing to use is clarity.

>>19146358
I don't "get" Zhuangzi or philosophical Taoism in general

>>19146357
Yes. Most people want to find an answer and move on. This is why dogma is so attractive.

>>19146407
I mean, "there is no answer" qualifies as an answer, in a way. And it's the answer that affords the most possibilities of all.

>>19146416
Yes it is an answer in the intellectual sense, but not in the emotional sense. And I think it can be agreed that people seldom use intellect and often use emotion.

>>19146424
I would consider myself much more emotional than intellectual though, I'm not a paragon of rationality and don't care much for logic. I don't think it's just an intellectual answer: there is also an aesthetic and "sentimental" value in skepticism when it leads to rejoicing at the absolute mystery of existence, as said here >>19146244. I think the emotional aspect is precisely tied to the ineffability and that skepticism need not be a mere dry suspension of judgment. Just my opinion.

>>19146102
I have written a poem for you, OP

-Just look at that night
so deep and so ancient!
On Earth, no redemption
Above us? It might...

You se constellations
from Virgo to Cancer
...and shouting with passion...!
the sky gives no answer

Why bother to live
with darkness around
and hopeless within?

We are only to give
our bodies to ground
And crying... you win

>>19146161
Based.

>>19146204
Virgin flip flopper

>>19146463
That's very nice anon, although I think all will be fine in the end. We need not be hopeless in the face of perceived indifference.

>>19146161
it's true, decisiveness is the most chad quality
choosing to not choose is a sign of weakness

>>19146519
I'm not so sure about that

>>19146193
Orthodoxy

>>19146581
Now I understand why the orthodox threads are the way they are

>>19146358
Why must death proceed birth? Because we've seen it to be so? Maybe it isn't always like that

>>19146519
It would be so easy to choose. So calming. I could step off this journey I started five years ago and simply live in a small bubble till I die, somewhat depressed but content.

>>19146102
It's a self-contradicting paradox. You can't have the knowledge that all knowlege is unprovable and still commit to that belief. And if you don't know that this is the case but merely believe it, you can doubt it, which discards both the good and the bad consequences as it leaves open the possibility of a fully explicable universe (the principle of sufficient reason).

As Wittgenstein pointed out in On Certainty, some certainty must be at the foundation of all our commitments to do or believe anything at all. Otherwise, you're stuck in this infinite regress of doubt which I suppose is a kind of insanity.

>>19146724
>It's a self-contradicting paradox
Not at all. It's a belief.

Life is not a problem to be solved it is an experience to be lived. Existential uncertainty is a feature of any genuine quest for knowledge and encourages humility. It also encourages resistance to those who push absolute answers and seek to enforce uniformity of belief. Embrace the uncertainty and live a good life.

>>19146746
That doesn't go against the OP

>>19146136
>I marvel at the profound mystery, but... I hate jews, trannies, niggers, jannies, etc
From marvel to hatred in a single sentence that seems driven by fear with albeit with a faint sense of contradiction.

>>19146724
But skepticism isn't about asserting anything. So there's no paradox. It's an irrefutable position because it's not a position.

>>19146833
What's wrong with that? Not him

>>19146737
Read my post again.
>But skepticism isn't about asserting anything. So there's no paradox. It's an irrefutable position because it's not a position.
You must be certain that you are skeptical to be skeptical. If you are uncertain of your skepticism, it means that you believe there is a definite truth.

>>19147054
Also meant to tag >>19146938 in this post

>>19146807
>That doesn't go against the OP
It agrees with the OP

>>19147054
>there is a definite truth.
To clarify, it means you believe there *could be* a definite truth

>>19146204
/lit/ can't comprehend this lol

>>19147054
>>19147070
>You must be certain that you are skeptical
First off, there is no incoherence in claiming you believe the nature of reality is unknowable. You're making a truth claim but it's as valid as any other truth claim.
Secondly, why can't I be skeptical of logic itself? Why can't I embrace irrationality?
either way; there is nothing in the OP pic that doesn't make sense in the first place.

>>19146400
>>19146358
>People suppose that words are different from the peeps of baby birds, but is there any difference, or isn't there?

>everyone's words are actually their feelings
>their feelings don't matter
>everything is essentially empty (meaningless) that is to say filled with conflicting, unknowable feeling

>>19146102
I don't know, Anon. But that image sums up the conclusions I've come to recently. Thanks for posting it. fwiw, I do actually consider myself insane.

>>19147123
>>their feelings don't matter
>>everything is essentially empty (meaningless) that is to say filled with conflicting, unknowable feeling

I don't see how this follows. Acknowledging that there is contradiction in many expressions is not to say they are therefore meaningless. The passage you reference here:
>>19146358
implies that the contradictions can be transcended, as I understand it, by an apprehension of "reality" that is separate from one's feelings about it

>>19147156
What have you been reading recently?

>>19146102
>pic
Books on this, unironically? It's exactly what I believe.

>>19147291
>Bro what if we don’t even know anything??

Probably some dumbass stoner subreddits out there would blow your tiny mind.

>>19147310
Seethe harder, dogmatist

>>19147313
No

>>19147310
Not an argument.

>>19147327
Correct. I am not arguing. You asked for recommendations. If, like you said, “that’s exactly what I believe!” Than I don’t want to recommend anything over the 10th grade reading level and confuse your little brain.

What is it about skepticism that makes people rage so easily? Why is the mere admission that the foundations of our knowledge are shoddy so offensive to some people?
If we're realistic, all hypotheses on the nature of reality are probably wrong considering how restricted our perception is.

>>19147347
I don't know what makes you so angry about my worldview but whatever you say buddy.

Still asking for recommendations, if any anons want to chime in.

>>19147349
>What is it about exhaust deletes that make people rage so hard so easily? Why is the mere admission that the foundations of the the muffler and catalytic converters are simply for pollution controls? If we’re realistic, all air flow restrictions only hinder performance.

It’s because you’re running your mouth making noise and going nowhere like a Honda Civic. You don’t have the guts to stand your ground on anything and you think giving up is the same as being enlightened.

>>19147117
>First off, there is no incoherence in claiming you believe the nature of reality is unknowable. You're making a truth claim but it's as valid as any other truth claim.
But if you claim it, you can't know it with certainty, so what basis do you have to believe it? How can you know what is unknowable in principle? If it is true and you believe it, then you know or can know it. But then at least one fact about reality (that it is unknowable) is knowable, which is a contradiction. As the fact that the world is unknowable is just a fact about the world among others, which presumably can't be known. If you merely believe it is unknowable but it is false you are simply wrong.

So if you believe reality is unknowable is true then it is false that it is unknowable. As there must be some definite property about the world which you are able to identify that makes it unknowable and this is the grounds for justifying your belief .

So you can't know reality is unknowable, and if you believe it is unknowable if this belief is true then at least one fact about reality is knowable and the belief is false. If you have a false belief that it is unknowable then the world indeed is knowable at least to some extent.

Ok I realize I sperged out a bit here.

>Secondly, why can't I be skeptical of logic itself? Why can't I embrace irrationality?

You can, but that just means your stance isn't very substantive or interesting. You're just choosing to believe on a whim so there's nothing to argue about.

>>19147356
>angry
>arguing
Anon I suspect my assessment of your intelligence has made you defensive.

If you tell people you’re retarded and then ask for suggestions they’re gonna suggest picture books.

>>19147368
So you're mad because I don't buy into some meme like you?
It has nothing to do with courage by the way, just intellectual honesty. You can choose to make a leap of faith but don't expect everyone else to follow.

>>19146118
This.
Most of the other posts are shitposts (I hope. If people really take 4chan memes that seriously it would be depressing.)

>>19147373
In other words for you to be a radical skeptic you must take the position that it is unknowable that reality is unknowable to be consistent.

>>19147384
>So you’re *random and baseless leap of logic*?

Uh, no? Try only arguing against things I actually said the discussion will go smoother.

>>19147373
>what basis do you have to believe it?
What basis do you have to believe anything?
Also, I specifically talked about the nature of reality, which says nothing about provisional truths.
>>19147390
A true skeptic would not assert skepticism but suspend judgment.
However, I still don't see where the incoherence is in the OP pic: the assertion that the nature of reality is unfathomable is not contradictory insofar as it is possible to recognize some things are beyond our comprehension (I realize there's a subtle difference between this and "cannot be known" but in practical terms and on a human scale it's the same thing).
Knowledge relying on something that cannot be proven also seems reasonable with the Munchhausen trilemma.

>>19147385
You'd be surprised.
But honestly most people are not radical skeptics, so is there only a minority of sane people in the world?

>>19147429
All smorfs are borbles, but not all borbles are smorfs.
>so is there only a minority of sane people in the world?
Unironically, yes.

>>19147349
Midwits don't like being confronted to the fact that their beliefs are, in the end, entirely baseless

>>19146136
>I marvel at the profound mystery, but other than that, I hate jews, trannies, niggers, jannies, etc
kek

>>19147440
How do you address the claims made earlier ITT that radical skepticism is logically untenable?
I agree with you by the way, just wondering what your take is.

>>19147440
No one is sane. Just different types of insane. Some more "functional" in a sense than others.

>>19147454
Which ones? I can't be bothered to read the entire thread.
>>19147460
>No one is sane. Just different types of insane.
Congratulations on passing the sanity test.

>>19147463
>Which ones?
>>19147373
>>19147390

>>19147460
But some are more insane than others.

>>19147291
Anyone?

>>19147472
The skepticism applies to the big questions, or more accurately, it implies an openness to being completely wrong about the big questions. Most of me could be leaning towards one answer, and based on what I have seen and experienced all signs point to it being right, but the fact that everything I've seen and experienced also points to me being a fallible subject, that makes me skeptical of my ability to be objective, which is extremely hard, if not impossible, for a subject to do. (I am not claiming that there are no objective truths, just that it is hard for a subject to attain these truths, especially in regard to big questions, or ideological questions).
I also wouldn't call myself a radical skeptic, and I also think that some of the points made against radical skepticism are fair. For one to take skepticism to its extreme and to become a radical they've essentially become completely certain in their skepticism, which defeats the whole point. Though, if someone were to adopt radical skepticism in its extreme, I would be skeptical of their skepticism in the first place.
Something that I can be reasonably certain that is truly unknowable is the totality of God. For that would require omniscience, which would make that person God. So, unless this universe is on a weird loop where someone becomes God and then they create the universe which creates the conditions that creates that person, I don't see it happening. But again, when we're at fuckery level: God, who the hell knows.

>>19146400
There's nothing to "get". It's just a different mindset, you can't rationalize it from your own perspective.

>>19147565
How do you draw the line between radical skepticism and "sane" skepticism?
>the totality of God
I'd say God in the first place but sure.
In essence, I don't see why the claim that it is impossible (or extremely difficult etc if you want to be autistic) to know if there are objective truths is unreasonable. I think it's important to distinguish theory from practice anyway; in practice, it seems good to act as if there are no objective truths, since even if there were, could we ever be sure?
It just seems to me that epistemology is built on shaky foundations. When you take a step back from the theorizing it becomes jarring.

>>19146102
Pedro Calderon de la Barca

>>19147629
Radical skepticism doesn't really exist. It would turn you into a vegetable uncertain of whether to piss your pants or even eat. It's more of a romanticized ideal or worship of skepticism that isn't realistic or even attainable. You can't think without a degree of certainty. It's the same as people who think themselves perfectly rational, or who worship the rational and the objective. Computers are objective. They're also inanimate fucking objects. Rationality is an inanimate fucking object.
>I'd say God in the first place but sure.
For me that's the same as looking at a painting thinking there is no painter. If you believe in the big bang, a universe creating force, yet you do not bestow upon it the title of God, or creator, you aren't giving your creator the respect he/it deserves.
God existing is something I am as sure of as us existing. Of course, there is that slight degree of uncertainty that this may all be a weird dream of some sort and that there is nothing out there, but it's something I am more skeptical of than the existence of God since a creation having a creator makes more sense.
With objective truth it seems only logical that the same rules would apply across the board. We're not floating around one minute, then turning blue the next, so it seems that there is a concrete structure, laws that we must obey, even if we decide we don't want to. We don't decide our truths, we don't create our truths, since we don't create anything. Creation is an illusion, there is only discovery. Cake existed well before the first cake was made, just no one bothered to combine the ingredients.
Acting as though there are no objective truths doesn't work in practice. As evidenced by those who adopt that mode of thinking it becomes a power game where people fight not for what IS right, but to BE right. To impose their subjective truth on others, rather than try to find what is the truth. That is not conducive for survival, making it a strategy that is not viable, making it, in all likelihood, wrong.

>>19147373
>your stance isn't very substantive or interesting.
Rejecting rationality and embracing contradiction isn't all that uncommon. Nietzsche is the best example.

>>19147804
>there is that slight degree of uncertainty that this may all be a weird dream of some sort
I think it's a leap to claim that creationism/theism is more likely than anything else. The truth could also be none of the things we're talking about/something incomprehensible. I don't feel like God is the default explanation at all.
>there is a concrete structure, laws that we must obey
Yes, but they're arbitrary. Or absurd.
>Cake existed well before the first cake was made
You're making the assumption that realism is true instead of nominalism.
>To impose their subjective truth on others
Everything is about imposing one's truth if you cease to consider the individual as an element and start treating him as the center instead.

>>19147836
If the rules are consistent it's the most reasonable explanation. This goes back to what I was saying about having to be at least more certain of one answer than another, while leaving room for movement if new information is presented. A prime mover, the big bang, God, whatever you want to call it, is the most reasonable explanation that there is. It's entirely possible it's something else, but there is currently no better explanation. Even if this is a simulation then whatever is running the simulation is God. On a side tangent this being a simulation is actually somewhat reasonable and works with evolution. When you run a simulation you usually run something through a digital world and it is programmed to improve on each iteration. Since that is basically what we are doing I think it's entirely possible, but to what end? What the purpose of the simulation is? No idea. That would be something only God knows.
Even if they are arbitrary and absurd we don't have much of a choice but to follow them. If you want to jump out of a plane without a parachute, you can, but I wouldn't recommend it.
Nominalism, extending to the next point about subjective truth, in a solipsistic sense seems to be a self centered way to think. There seems to be an implication there that you are alone and no one else has sentience. This is like a prisoner's dilemma scenario. It's in both of our best interest to assume the other is sentient. If we want to play that game I can just assume you aren't sentient and kill you, but you know, since you are you, that you wouldn't like that, so why would you not extend the courtesy of the benefit of the doubt that I am sentient, too?

>>19148008
>is the most reasonable explanation that there is.
What makes it more reasonable than infinite regression, reality being a dream, or another incomprehensible explanation?
>There seems to be an implication there that you are alone and no one else has sentience.
No, the implication is that you are at the center of your own world because only your subjective perception is experienced.

>>19146102
Isn't this pic just Taoism? Someone explain the difference

>>19148070
God is the most comprehensible since it works with what we know. Infinity isn't practical.
If you are at the center of your own world, but so is everyone else, it's a bit of a moot point. If everyone is their own subjective center it is more likely that none of us are the center.

>>19146161
>>19146204
both super based

>>19148236
>Infinity isn't practical.
How so? It's just as comprehensible as God. A dream is also both simpler and easily comprehensible.
>a moot point
I don't think so, since it negates realism or any claims to objectivity entirely.
Either way, what I'm trying to say is that defaulting back to the ineffability of the nature of existence and refusing to assume anything is logically sound and doesn't have many counter arguments, if any.

>>19146519
Decisiveness is not just about being Chad. It's about being a conscious being. Consciousness implies binarity in thinking. Either you do something or nothing, either you do something right, or something wrong. If you are unable to come to a conclusion, you are really just a bunch of cells cobbled together. It's when all those neurons all reach an agreement, that you are truly conscious.

>>19148263
There's decisiveness in refusal to take a stand. Skepticism is not absence of thought, it's absence of a definitive stance on certain issues.

>>19147726
This. OP, read Life Is A Dream out loud in funny voices

Captcha: HAPAJ

>>19148281
Isn't that play just a metaphor and not about life actually being a dream?

>>19146102
Anon,

Yes, you aren't omniscient to know how to describe the indescribable cosmos.
What a ego, huh?

Now go live

>>19148328
>Yes, you aren't omniscient to know how to describe the indescribable cosmos.
Tell that to the entirety of /lit/ and the vast majority of the population in general

>>19146102

>>19148070
(I'm not who you was answering)
>What makes it more reasonable than infinite regression, reality being a dream, or another incomprehensible explanation?

Like, a first cause? I mean, at least humans would has a first human to sucede from 1 to 7 billions. But the logos or at least the material world has a infinite human to sucede from infinite to known universe + infinite? That's, for me, just like to say: X + 2X = 3X

What's the value of X, anon, regression infinite? Kek

Sincerely thoughts,

>>19148359
I didn't understand anything to what you just wrote m8

>>19148253
Infinite blue books in a library and infinite red books. If half the number of books in the library is an infinite number that makes no sense.
If every person is their own subjective center of the universe, yet we are all living in the same universe, with the same universal laws, then we might as well be living in the same objective universe.
The problem is you have to make some sort of judgement call, otherwise you are making the judgement call of certainty in uncertainty, which is taking skepticism to a foolish extreme. You have to start somewhere or you end up with your thumb up your ass waiting for something to happen.
It's still probably better than the inverse extreme of certainty to the point of genocide, though.

>>19148348
> tell that to the entire humanity

Hahaha we always tried to explain!

>>19148253
"Life is a dream"

Dude, we're at poesy class? Come on. This answer have 0% cognitive merite. When we don't care about the cognitive merite on your beliefs, we don't have beliefs anymoar, we just have incógnita uncognitive attitudes.

>>19148395
<Incógnita is a keyboard error

>>19148370
Yes, infinity defies logic, but so does any conception of the Godhead that isn't retarded.
>we might as well be living in the same objective universe.
The problem remains perception, there's no way to ascertain what perception is like from another frame of reference than yours. So the very idea of objectivity makes no sense. Everything unfolds from *your* vantage point.
>you have to start somewhere
Well, you can start with the beliefs outlined in the OP pic and be able to live a perfectly normal life.
>>19148395
Don't see what point you're trying to make. It's all hypotheses and none of them can be demonstrated.

>>19148366
TL;DR A first cause is logically necessary

>>19148418
No, infinite regression also makes sense. And the Aristotelian "proofs of god" can just be dismissed, no matter how you want to spin it there is no proof of the logical necessity of God.

>>19148415

> "Don't see what point you're trying to make. It's all hypotheses and none of them can be demonstrated."

That's a hypothesis and can't be demonstrated, so, there's no truth. Huh, come on, you insert the logic in your ass?

>>19148477
Are you being dense on purpose or do you really not get the very simple point I made? Go troll somewhere else

>>19148431
Yes, infinite regression is the other position but "logically builded" doesn't means is true, just like the other position who can else be false. But we know that if isn't one of these, there is no logical solution.


Infinite quantative is like nothing and all. If doesn't exists, for me can't taken as a value. That's my opinion

>>19148374
And yet everyone keeps clinging to what they think is the truth
Not to be that guy but even something like a strong psychedelic experience will have the person come back to say they saw things about reality that were simply beyond comprehension and beyond conventional logic even. Why assume we can figure out the important questions at this point? Can an amoeba understand what a computer is and how it functions?

>>19148509
>logically builded" doesn't means is true, just like the other position who can else be false. But we know that if isn't one of these, there is no logical solution.
Yes. The solution doesn't have to be logical anyway. It can be completely outside of whatever we can imagine.

>>19148487
I didn't get this, sorry.

You just say nothing can be demonstrated. If nothing can be, everything can't be.

Here we're using logics, I guess.

I just can agree with you mean that a human can't demonstrates everything, but can demonstrates a non-thing. That would means we can try seek truth by reason. That also means: Scientific methods can falsify or infallify hypotheses within the scientific possible (since method is not universal).

If we can propose theses and antitheses, we can formulate hypotheses. But if we cannot empirically demonstrate every hypothesis, or that, if we don't have a universal method, then nothing can be non-falsified? That's what I get.

>For me this is a reasoning of who ignores axioms
Like, if there's things self-evidents, there are demonstrated hypothesis.

>>19148511
What ego humans have, huh?

I like the way of: "The rule is LOVE! And whatever you wanna do later this". I think's from some scholastic saint.

>>19148532
I already used a equation on this thread, sorry, but

This is (for me) like to say: Yes, we can say the result is 2, but we can't logically build something.
Mean, this is faith! Lmfao, you just give me a future showers thoughts.

But proposes X+X=2 just from someone who knows the equation. I imagine people change the result and equation like:
> no, isn't 1+1=2, but 0,25+0,75=2
< no, isn't 0,25+0,75=2, but 0.66+1.34=2

What's the mean of result if we can't see the proposition?

>>19147291
Outlines of Pyrrhonism - Sextus Empiricus
Academica - Cicero

>>19146102
>not diving deep enough into philosophy and theology to understand the epistemological positions of each ideology as being on a spectrum from false-true
>thinking your state of avoiding due diligence is a state of enlightenment, rather than a stage demonstrating mediocrity and lack of will to find truth
cringe desu

>>19149381
what is the system closest to truth in your estimation?

>>19149405
I can elaborate on each point. This is not a comprehensive list, but I do have an epistemological rundown on basically every single religion, cult, and ideology (and where it falls between the listed systems):
FALSE-TRUE
Atheism - Wicca - Brahmanism/Indo-European Paganism - Theosophy - Freemasonry - Mormonism - Jehovah's Witnesses - Seventh-Day Adventism - Baha'i - Islam (Sunni and Shia) - Mahayana Buddhism - Theravada Buddhism - Shaivism/Vaishnavism/Shaktism/etc. - Vedanta - Rabbinic Judaism (incl. Zohar-based mysticism) - Yoga (Patanjali) - Syncretic Mysticism (incl. Hermeticism and deriratives) - Karaite Judaism - Oneness Pentecostal - Calvinism - Protestantism - Apostolic Christianity (Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy/Oriental Orthodoxy/Church of the East/Assyrian Church of the East/Ethiopian Orthodox)

Bump

>>19149525
lmfao
It's always the tradlarpers/orthobros who are the most threatened and seethe the hardest at skepticism. You people are so predictable.

>>19149256
>>19146244

>>19149771
radical skepticism and agnosticism is the chrysalis you abide in until you find the truth, you are not meant to stay there forever
to stay in it is a form of lukewarm pseudo-intellectual fence riding. are you a man, who desires to know the truth by any means necessary? or are you a mere animal, content to dwell in your den until the breath of your life passes?

t. former skeptic

>>19149802
did you experience divine revelation?

>>19149802
Nah, this is a huge cope like everything else. You didn't "find the truth", you just found your preferred brand of delusion.
I'm not interested in arguing with you because I know nothing I say will convince you, you're too deep in your bullshit to realize it.
But the pic in the OP is the most sane worldview someone can possibly have. I have always held that position and presumably always will, I'm immune to the bullshit peddled by dogmatists.

>>19147164
The Darkness That Comes Before, I'm not even kidding.

>>19149802
The truth is that all manmade belief systems and hypotheses on the nature of reality are complete nonsense, and that the answer lies so far beyond our comprehension that it is not worth investigating. You can choose to spin the hamster wheel, or you can choose to simply live.

>>19149823
yes

>>19149853
What exactly drove you to the conclusions expressed in the OP?
I'm asking because these are views I've always held, and every attempt to adopt a system has resulted in increasing cognitive dissonance until I defaulted back to this negation of epistemology. Sometimes I don't feel like I choose to hold those beliefs as much as they are a self-evident truth of their own deeply ingrained inside me and that I can't help but come back to as an intuition.

>>19149869
People's claims of revelation used to intrigue me but then I stumbled upon Prometheus Rising and everything clicked
Now I can't see those claims as anything more than strong filters superimposed on subjective experiences. Divine grace, yogic awakening, stream entry, shroom-induced certainty of God's existence, all of these are, in the end, purely subjective

>>19149841
>Nah, this is a huge cope like everything else
that's an assertion, not an argument
>You didn't "find the truth", you just found your preferred brand of delusion.
you can also find the truth, but you must be willing to undergo a journey. you would know experientially beyond a shadow of a doubt. the only reason you haven't so far, is because you are too attached to the material world (see: your ego) and as a consequence, too afraid to see what it would be like if you were wrong
>I'm not interested in arguing with you because I know nothing I say will convince you, you're too deep in your bullshit to realize it.
i used to hold the position in OP. you saying that nothing will convince me is just a useful argument because it conveniently allows you to not make a compelling case for your point, and to run away instead
>But the pic in the OP is the most sane worldview someone can possibly have
as somebody who used to hold this worldview, i absolutely disagree
>I have always held that position and presumably always will, I'm immune to the bullshit peddled by dogmatists
you say this completely unaware that by "always [holding] this position" and assuming you always will (eg. nothing can convince you, the exact same thing you projected onto me), you are actually also holding dogmatic beliefs - the only difference is that yours are not based on any solid epistemological evidence, but only your feelings

>>19149860
>The truth is that all manmade belief systems and hypotheses on the nature of reality are complete nonsense, and that the answer lies so far beyond our comprehension that it is not worth investigating
this extraordinary claim that every single belief system in the planet is complete nonsense requires extraordinary evidence. you are free to hold an irrational position not based on any evidence, but many people prefer to have a coherent worldview
>You can choose to spin the hamster wheel, or you can choose to simply live
a quaint aphorism, but in reality, this is just an excuse for you to take a position of intellectual laziness and refuse to do solid philosophy

>>19149891
the fact that mystical experiences are purely subjective is precisely the key observation which, ultimately, leads one to Christianity

>>19149906
A big wall of cope and bullshit. Believe whatever you want to believe, it makes no difference to me. But stop shilling your nonsense in threads where it's obviously not welcome.

>>19149906
>the fact that mystical experiences are purely subjective is precisely the key observation which, ultimately, leads one to Christianity
how?

>>19149906
I fell for the memes you did some time ago. Went on that "journey". It's vacuous self-delusion like all other ideologies. I'm not interested in your proselytizing, christianity makes about as much sense to me as African folk religion or whatever else, it doesn't even register on my radar as being on the list of possible explanations regarding the nature of reality. I maintain the ineffability of the truth and posts like yours only reinforce my impressions, your arrogant assertions on epistemology comfort me in the idea.
We also don't need evidence to assert belief systems are bullshit, your belief systems need evidence to convince people they aren't bullshit, which they have always failed to produce. Drop the pilpul and give me actual, hard evidence for your religion. You can't. You're either going to tell me some vague historical stuff that can be easily discarded or tell me some flavor of "just pray and you'll realize it's true" which just means "brainwash yourself until you believe", i.e. just let the mind virus overtake you bro. Not interested.
You're drunk on your beliefs like everyone else. Me included but at least I don't assert anything except that existence is strange and we should leave it at that.

>>19149256
Sextus Empiricus is often recommended but I didn't find him very convincing.
Also, something everyone ITT has apparently not noticed: OP's pic isn't actually skepticism.
Yes, "all knowledge is based on something that cannot be proven" is a skeptical statement, but it's a negation of knowledge, not suspension of judgment a la Pyrrhonism. If you're honest about where epistemology leads, this statement can hardly be argued, no? In the end, you need to make some kind of leap of faith about something.
Furthermore, "the true nature of the universe and our actions being unfathomable" is not skepticism. It's a belief, not a lack of belief. A belief in the nature of things being incomprehensible and unaccessible rather than permeable to inquiry.
So the guy in OP's pic, faced with the unreliability of knowledge, chooses to believe the nature of reality is unfathomable. How is that skepticism?
The perception of life as a dream or game isn't a very skeptical thing either, it seems closer to some flavors of Buddhism like Zen. It's also an implicit negation of everything that implies some kind of ontological nihilism — quite far from skepticism. Basically the belief expounded in that picture is more like some kind of hardcore acosmic apophaticism rather than skepticism, but anyone feel free to correct me.

>>19146102
>Am I retarded or something?
No, just a midwit.

>>19150002
Why?

>>19149916
>A big wall of cope and bullshit.
not an argument
> Believe whatever you want to believe, it makes no difference to me.
that you are indifferent to if any objective truth actually exists is further evidence that you are simply resting in an irrational state of lukewarm complacency because of fear
>But stop shilling your nonsense in threads where it's obviously not welcome
why would I listen to what you have to say without an argument for why i should do so?

>>19149943
because beginning on a spectrum where theological claims to truth are weighed on epistemological bases as being subjective leads one to inevitably contend with the question of how to weigh whether which, if any, of the mutually incompatible claims of two given "spiritual masters" are true. an easy way to start is to compare the truth claims of a homeless man claiming he is Jesus, versus the claims recorded in the Pali canon of Buddha. how do you know Buddha is more likely to be correct on a given issue, on an epistemological basis? investigating this logical basis of epistemology leads one to Christianity, incontrovertibly

>>19149961
>christianity makes about as much sense to me as African folk religion or whatever else
that you cannot weigh two claims against one another to see which is closer to being true shows your lack of philosophical rigour, and thus, the fact that you actually did not go on "that journey" (or that, if you began, you are actually still on it [unknowingly])
>I maintain the ineffability of the truth
then surely you would posit the via negativa as a valid means of coming to knowledge of the transcendentals - by saying that, for example, the Truth cannot be wholly grasped by a regular human being, coming to such a thesis through apophatic philosophy?
>We also don't need evidence to assert belief systems are bullshit
so if I assert that the belief system of the earth being non-flat is most likely false, this is as rational a claim in your eyes as if I claim it is an oblate spheroid?
>your belief systems need evidence to convince people they aren't bullshit
which they do all do have, obviously - the question is whether you are convinced, not if the evidence exists
>Drop the pilpul and give me actual, hard evidence for your religion.
the historical-epistemological case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ after His crucifixion
>some vague historical stuff that can be easily discarded
if you discard a given episteme, you should obviously have a rational and logical reason to do so, favoring an alternative hypothesis
>Me included but at least I don't assert anything except that existence is strange and we should leave it at that.
you actually assert many things, and hold a dogmatic belief system of your own creation based on an amalgamation of worldviews - the question is whether yours is true (and if you don't believe humans can grasp any subset of the truth, why assert your position that the proposition "any subset of the truth is ungraspable" is true?)

>>19150027
I read your entire post and the only thing that came to my mind was "cope".
Our worldviews are so fundamentally irreconcilable it's not even worth continuing this conversation.

>>19150059
>doesn't have a single argument to back up his position, wants to run away from challenging his worldview
okay, good luck with everything

>>19150062
I don't need an argument, I don't want to argue with you. Your beliefs are just boring nonsense to me. I haven't the slightest interest in what you have to say. I also don't challenge my worldview because I think I'm right and none of the alternatives I've looked into have ever even chipped away at my certainty. I'm running away in the same sense that you "run away" when you shut the door on a jehovah's witness.
Good luck with everything.

>interesting thread derailed by attention whoring from some christkike eager to shill his desert fairy tales
Many such cases.
>>19149997
This is true. I also think that this kind of worldview is more common than you would expect, it's fashionable to be part of an -ism crew on /lit/ but I suspect there is a sizable portion of silent lurkers who share these views. As another anon pointed out in this thread, it's a kind of sanity test. Are you so deep into life that you think your limited mind stumbled upon some grand answer, or are you still capable of looking at things with clarity and marveling at the mystery of existence?

>>19150027
I think that with the whole of epistemology, I'm only left with the silent answer. how far does our admission to the uncertain possibility of true objectivity take us with respect to our credibility?

>>19150074
>I also don't challenge my worldview because I think I'm right
and, with no animosity intended, this irrational and dogmatic way of thinking is exactly why you are wrong
>I'm running away in the same sense that you "run away" when you shut the door on a jehovah's witness.
i never shut the door to anybody wanting to discuss philosophy or theology. i will talk to a Jehovah's Witness until they want to run away, just like you are right now

>>19150090
I embrace irrationality. I don't expect you to understand.

>>19150089
if you are referring to our own credibility in dispassionately assessing epistemological claims, I would say that one can only truly assess dispassionately if they have deconstructed their prior belief system through exposure to increasingly complex objections and alternatives

>>19150095
i do understand that you are purposely embracing irrationality out of fear and attachment. it is quite a simple thing to grasp, because it is what most people do - you've just clothed your personal rendition of the average joe's lack of philosophical rigor in a cloak of self-deceiving mystery just good enough that you can remain the same as yesterday

>>19150089
Not him but I don't even understand how you can ever claim objective knowledge with a straight face. There is no way to be absolutely certain that you are not being deceived in some way or another. The only thing you can somewhat be sure of is that there seems to exist a conscious mind. But the rest? It could all be a vast illusion. Literally everything you perceive is uncertain, if you apply a rigorous skeptical method to it, you just have to admit nothing can be truly known. And yes I know about the "but can you know you can't know" gotcha but this has always seemed retarded to me because it's a matter of pure observation at that point, it's not just theoretical mind games. What certainty can I have that the reality I perceive is "true"? What certainty can I have that anything is true and not just a deception or mirage of some kind, or that "true" is even a valid concept? None. I can only make provisional assumptions that seem to work, but again this does not disqualify the possibility of some kind of illusory state.

>>19150109
>you're... le scared
kek yeah okay. I'm not the one who has to buy into some arbitrary superstition to feel at peace with life but sure. Have a good one.

>>19150113
>i'm not scared, but i'll be running away from the discussion now - because I don't challenge my worldview, because I'm right and nothing will ever convince me
ok mr. not scared, goodbye

>>19150109
>I would say that one can only truly assess dispassionately if they have deconstructed their prior belief system through exposure to increasingly complex objections and alternatives
how can one ever be certain that they have arrived at the apex of complexity and truth? is there not always the looming doubt of some greater complexity and fuller alternative model existing outside our scope in the ether?

>>19146102
How can you look at the universe around you and go
>oh yeah man I think I know what this is all about
The level of short-sightedness and conceit is baffling to me. Is it not enough to be in awe? I've never had an existential crisis in my life, the mystery in itself was always enough

>>19150115
Yes.

>>19150127
>is there not always the looming doubt of some greater complexity and fuller alternative model existing outside our scope in the ether?
There is, and anyone who tells you otherwise has a bridge to sell you.
People are terrified of the unknown and want to desperately grab on to something they believe is an absolute certainty. But it's a cope

>>19146102
Yes

>>19150127
>how can one ever be certain that they have arrived at the apex of complexity and truth?
one can never arrive there as an individual, even if reliably experiencing mystical union after renouncing the material - but that the most sophisticated system contains the fullness of truth is a conclusion that can only be reached through completing the epistemological task presented in the second paragraph of >>19150027

>is there not always the looming doubt of some greater complexity and fuller alternative model existing outside our scope in the ether?
no matter what your system is, or where you are coming from (even if a naturalist), the common purpose, what is ultimately important (and ultimately, the innermost desire of all humanity) is soteriology - and applying the most due diligence you can manage is the only requirement to find It

human knowledge is about usefulness not truth, truth is usually presupposed to be useful

saying you dont believe in anything is the same as saying you don't trust conscious thought to orient yourself in the world and that it's best to rely on intuition

>>19146102
>I just don't feel compelled to accept any of the ideologies I've read about as true.
You passed the test many got filtered by.

>>19150162
>human knowledge is about usefulness not truth
This is not incompatible with skepticism. You can lack belief and just choose to provisionally accept the most convenient/useful beliefs in order to navigate reality.

>>19150138
These people are just terrified. Look at all the shill threads (guenonians, christians, muslims, esotericists, political ideologues and so on) and tell me it isn't pure desperation
It unironically takes a kind of courage to refuse to hang on to a belief system, but they project their own fear and cowardice onto others because nothing is more anxiety inducing for the average person than being forced to face an absolute unknown

>>19150191
>it takes courage to choose not care about philosophy and just succumb to your urges and vices
lol copium overdose

>>19150208
Project harder, philosophy is the biggest cope there ever was, midwit
The fact that skepticism makes your kind seethe so fucking hard is telling

>>19150208
What's the problem with not caring about philosophy?
Provide an actual argument without resorting to an appeal to religion (which includes appeals to morality), as that would be tantamount to a concession.

>>19149872
It was a combination of a lot of introspection as a child, which eventually convinced me that I was taking almost everything (religion, science) essentially on faith. More recently, I've also developed this idea that the human brain isn't designed to find TRUTH; It's meant to survive and reproduce. There's no reason to assume our cognitive biases somehow allow us to understand the fundamental nature of the universe. In other words, pic related.

Now, I hinted at this earlier, but... I also believe in God. I believe in the Logos, specifically. I believe there's an animating reason to the universe, and it's fundamentally benevolent. I don't KNOW whether there is, but I'm choosing to believe it, due to a combination of cultural/genetic biases, personal experiences and logical reasoning.

Essentially, I regard myself as a meat-machine, driven primarily by chemical reactions and well-trod neural pathways... Who also lives in an incredible universe with a vast, mystical structure... And yet, who also has no way of interacting with that structure, except through jury-rigged systems designed mostly to just keep me alive and help me find a gf.

From this, I understand I have a Telos; My purpose is to survive and reproduce, on the animal level, and to understand the higher structure of reality, so these chemicals in my brain can eventually overcome themselves.

In other words... Pic related. I don't want to perish; I want to fight! It's my purpose to fight! I've seen what happens when someone fights, and that's something I want to participate in.

I also deal with mental illness. I accept these, and try to turn them into advantages. It's my mental illnesses that first put me on the path to seeing the Logos. Why? I don't know, I don't know... But the Telos demands I see this through to the end! I'd rather be insane than a hypocrite.

>>19150218
Imagine the mental gymnastics needed to rationalize your own mediocrity and lack of love for knowledge as something that makes you superior

>>19150169
>You can lack belief and just
you can't lack belief, actions presuppose a vast amount of self-evident beliefs, you need to believe there's a world to be able to orient yourself within it

holding other beliefs is done because they are thought whether consciously or subconsciously to be more useful than others, truth is often pursued as a proxy to utility

> accept the most convenient/useful beliefs in order to navigate reality
is just saying forget the proxy, approach what appears useful, not true

>>19150160
you say that the goal of humanity is salvation, but what about those who claim to embrace the suffering of life as one of its core components, as essential to the essence and triumph of life, and that the embracing of life in all its aspects is the fullest truth one can attain?

>>19150225
1. There may or may not be an afterlife
2. If there is not an afterlife, it is logical to live in the way which is happiest and most fulfilling (eudaimonia) - the solution to this proposition is found in philosophy
3. If there is an afterlife, it is logical to live in the way which is most likely to give you the best chance at having the best possible outcome when you enter it - the solution to this proposition is found in philosophy and theology
4. Therefore, regardless of one's prior position, the most ideal game theoretical option is to care about philosophy

>>19150229
>the mental gymnastics
Literally none
I just don't know kek, cope and seethe dogmatist
>NOOOO YOU HAVE TO PICK A SIDE, YOU HAVE TO SPIN THE WHEEL
lmfao

>>19150237
>what about those who claim to embrace the suffering of life as one of its core components, as essential to the essence and triumph of life, and that the embracing of life in all its aspects is the fullest truth one can attain?
they are doing this for the purpose of attaining salvation, whether it is freedom from chains of attachment within this life (eg. buddhism, including secular variants), or freedom from chains in the next

>>19150228
>the human brain isn't designed to find TRUTH; It's meant to survive and reproduce.
Look up Donald Hoffman, he came to the exact same conclusion. Some say his methodology is questionable but the assertion makes sense.
Was there a specific event in your life that made you believe in God? I can't personally reconcile this kind of hard skeptic stance with any kind of strong theism. The universe seems to have laws, but these laws are arbitrary, existence itself is arbitrary, so it could be literally anything. I see no all-pervading Logos in the absurdity.
What does it mean to fight? Seek a truth that you think is unaccessible to start with?

>>19150252
>I'm not a dogmatist, but my position is superior, I am right, and nothing will ever convince me otherwise
This is the Dunning-Kruger effect in maximum overdrive

>>19150236
Then you yourself are admitting the existence of truth is neither verifiable nor relevant and that the only thing that matters is pure utility.
>>19150247
>the solution to this proposition is found in philosophy
You don't need to read philosophy to live in a fulfilling way.
The basis is a leap of faith (whether or not there is an afterlife). From there you just do whatever. I can guarantee the happiest people don't care for philosophy.

>>19150272
>Dunning-Kruger
Thanks for outing yourself as a 110 IQ seething pseud :^)

>>19150247
You can believe in an afterlife but think it's not adequately described by theology. You would effectively be living as if you were an atheist, but philosophy/theology isn't needed even if you accept the afterlife hypothesis
If you don't accept it, then you just live in whichever way you see fit, and you don't need a rigorous philosophical backbone to figure out how to maximize pleasure and/or satisfaction while minimizing suffering.

>>19150280
>You don't need to read philosophy to live in a fulfilling way.
we were not talking about reading philosophy, but engaging with it (or as you put it, "caring" about it), even if solely within one's thoughts
>The basis is a leap of faith (whether or not there is an afterlife)
the basis is that whether X is true or false, the best option is to [care about] Y. no leap of faith involved
>I can guarantee the happiest people don't care for philosophy.
you actually can't guarantee that

>>19150288
>You can believe in an afterlife but think it's not adequately described by theology
if you believe in that afterlife, you are engaging with theology whether you know it or not, simply by your formulation of what you believe it to be, because it is a theological topic
>you don't need a rigorous philosophical backbone to figure out how to maximize pleasure and/or satisfaction while minimizing suffering.
i never posited that the solution was to have a "rigorous philosophical backbone", but only that the most rational option is to care about philosophy, even if that does not mean engaging with prior philosopher's written works. formulating a personal answer to the question of how to maximize pleasure and/or satisfaction while minimizing suffering is a philosophical endeavor by nature, proving the conclusion of the argument true once again

>>19146102
>>19149997
>you perceive life as if it was a dream or a game
Do any books or philosophers talk about this at all? I cannot for the life of me take anything seriously, even as a kid I had a fucked up thought process where I saw everything as temporary and whenever something bad happened I'd go "well everything ends with death anyway, no use worrying"
It's caused me genuine derealization over the years, the world feels insubstantial

>>19150280
>Then you yourself are admitting the existence of truth is neither verifiable nor relevant and that the only thing that matters is pure utility.
no, everyone orients themselves by what they consider truthful, which is a proxy for utility, you can't say truth isn't verifiable or relevant because it's at the core of everyone's experience

you're making claims about the absolute to try and discredit other peoples beliefs about the absolute, you're not any different from so called ideologists

>>19150301
>no leap of faith involved
Yes there is. The belief in an afterlife is a leap of faith.
>you are engaging in theology
You're playing with words here, I meant engaging in the sense of actually delving into theology. Self-contained pondering doesn't really count. You can call it theology but if it's entirely my own idiosyncratic beliefs that are formed purely through a priori reasoning, it's only theology in the semantic sense
>care about philosophy
So you mean care in the sense that you engage with it whether you want to or not. So according to your conclusion there is no way to not care about philosophy in the first place

>>19150316
Sounds like you're implicitly endorsing perspectivism

>>19150261
I was referring more to the likes of Nietzsche, who from what I understand fits neither of those criteria

An actual argument against the beliefs stated in OP's pic (and not a dumb strawman of them) has yet to be formulated

>>19150328
>Yes there is. The belief in an afterlife is a leap of faith.
I mean that there is no leap of faith in the argument presented here >>19150247, it is only based on the two options of where somebody is coming from on whether X is true, it doesn't ask anybody to change their perspective or take a leap of faith
>You're playing with words here, I meant engaging in the sense of actually delving into theology
The argument was never about whether one read texts or not, but I see how you could have been confused
>You can call it theology but if it's entirely my own idiosyncratic beliefs that are formed purely through a priori reasoning, it's only theology in the semantic sense
In the common and actual sense, yes. If you brought up those beliefs to another, you would be engaging in a theological discussion, per se
>So according to your conclusion there is no way to not care about philosophy in the first place
The way to not care about philosophy is for one to refuse to have discussions which challenge their position, internal or external. The moment one stops their search for knowledge, they no longer care about philosophy. This is the position of the person who ran away from the discussion earlier, characterized by "I am right, but I don't want to hear you argument for why not, and nothing will ever convince me"

>>19150343
Nietzsche's vision of triumph over life, and acceptance as it is, is absolutely a manifestation of mankind's quest for soteriology, albeit an attempt to formulate one in the face of lamentation of his society's mutiny against God

>>19150333
that's doing the exact same thing, presupposing absolute knowledge about perspective and knowledge as a means to discredit people who do the exact same thing

you haven't escaped truth-finding, you just put it on a level of abstraction that you can't figure out where to go from, where a religious person would put God

>>19150380
>there is no leap of faith in the argument presented here
Okay
But an apatheist/apathetic stance is also legitimate and serves the exact same practical purpose as the "no afterlife" option
>for one to refuse to have discussions
Don't see how that follows. You can just dislike debate. I don't like conflict so I don't like arguing with people about beliefs, especially since 99% of the time such arguments don't serve to change anyone's mind but just to try and assert your position over the other person's
That said maybe I don't care about philosophy, who knows. I enjoy knowledge but I don't feel like it's my duty or that I have an obligation to look for it
And if someone is absolutely convinced of the truth of their beliefs, why would they feel the need to confront them to other people's beliefs?

>>19150380
doesn't N reject the notion of removing the chains of attachment, instead arguing in favor of them, in essence against asceticism? what does man need saving from if he accepts life wholly and without exclusion of any of its elements?

>>19150418
the act of accepting life wholly and without exclusion is exactly the manifestation of his innate telos of salvation. every human literally spends their entire life manifesting that drive to salvation, and once you note it, you will begin to see it everywhere and in everyone, without exception

>>19150382
>presupposing absolute knowledge about perspective
No, nietzschean perspectivism applies to itself also. It is not an assertion of absolute knowledge. It's the same as anti foundationalism and all these other isms /lit/ dislikes because they influenced Pomo.
I don't see the problem however. There is no real argument against these positions.
I'm not looking to discredit people either.
>you haven't escaped truth-finding
I've displaced it. Truth becomes a function of subjectivity rather than an object to be sought and found.
>you can't figure out where to go from
No, see above
>where a religious person would put God
why should one choice be more legitimate than the other? If I find more personal meaning and fulfillment in my choice, that is.
In the end all of philosophy implicitly seeks to provide meaning to the one who partakes in it, if it fulfills this task then that's the best you could hope for.

>>19150429
>drive to salvation
From what? It seems like you're using salvation as a synonym for meaning
I don't believe there is anything to be saved from, my take is that life should be lived without anticipation. There is no soteriology here.

>>19150418
>>19150429
salvation from the chains of weakness I suppose? in that sense I suppose you're right, though one could argue for vastly different modes of salvation. so is the ascetic salvation superior to the weakness salvation or? which one is superior?

>>19150411
>But an apatheist/apathetic stance is also legitimate and serves the exact same practical purpose as the "no afterlife" option
That is why I included it
>You can just dislike debate
Not all discussions are debate. Philosophy is inherently a dual venture, even if it is one conversing with oneself

>>19150440
>>19150448
To be saved from that which is not ideal, to be at that which is, ad infinitum (literally, if one believes in an afterlife, and until death, if not).
>is the ascetic salvation superior to the weakness salvation or? which one is superior?
Salvation is One. The purpose of this journey, even if only reverse engineered from that telos (as the purpose of an acorn is to become an oak tree, so to speak), is to do the absolute most due diligence that you can to find It. To frame the same concept it in another way which will inevitably trigger some who read it, there is only One way to salvation - and you're all in on the search, whether you like it or not, so you might as well consciously realize that and try your best to find it.

>>19150473
>To be saved from that which is not ideal
What I said still contradicts this: just living life, without any grand purpose or goal, includes no notion of an ideal.

>>19150430
anti-foundationalism just assumes the negation of belief and value structures as its own value and belief structure. Negating untruth as a means towards truth, you're still navigating the same belief-space as everyone else

>Truth becomes a function of subjectivity rather than an object to be sought and found
the phenomenon of subjectivity presupposes knowledge about the objective, you don't get to change or subjugate truth-seeking to anything, it's still the exact same process everyone else partakes in

>why should one choice be more legitimate than the other?
it needs to be to be able to navigate the belief-space we inhabit, you don't understand objectivity is part of our orientation of the world

>>19150473
>That is why I included it
Apatheism is by definition a rejection of philosophy/theology
>Not all discussions are debate
Philosophical inquiry involves debate at some point or another.
>conversing with oneself
So simply asking oneself questions, or even remaining skeptical of one's own beliefs, qualifies as "discussion"?

>>19150475
>just living life, without any grand purpose or goal, includes no notion of an ideal.
try as you might, you literally cannot escape it. everything you do is a manifestation of it. if you can't realize it in your own pattern of behaviour, it just means that you are doing it unconsciously.

>>19147385
>This

You're lamenting people who take 4chan memes seriously while applauding a guy who has never wavered from defining himself by a 4chan meme. Are you just as worthless, or 'sane,' too?

>>19150478
>as its own value and belief structure.
No, it's the same thing as what I said with Nietzsche. It applies to itself. It's constant erosion.
>you're still navigating the same belief-space as everyone else
Do you believe this space can be escaped? Why/why not?
>the phenomenon of subjectivity presupposes knowledge about the objective
That's not true, otherwise solipsism wouldn't be unfalsifiable. Belief in an objective reality is a belief. Perception (empirical and a priori reasoning) alone only takes you as far as the subjective individual.

>>19150489
You're coping, the meme points towards a certain position, it's worthless and irrelevant in itself. What matters is the message conveyed. You're being disingenuous.
There is nothing more sane than questioning everything.

>>19150486
>you literally cannot escape it.
Can you substantiate this claim?

>>19150485
>Apatheism is by definition a rejection of philosophy/theology
I don't see how this is relevant to the argument, when one who is apatheist is still attempting to reach eudaemonia through the exercise of philosophy, regardless of if they are conscious of it
>Philosophical inquiry involves debate at some point or another.
One can engage in philosophy if they are by themselves in a cabin in the woods
>So simply asking oneself questions, or even remaining skeptical of one's own beliefs, qualifies as "discussion"?
Of course, you are asking a question and answering it, it is a monologue through simulated dialogue

>>19150505
Why are you posting in this thread? Because your mind assessed it to be (consciously or unconsciously) better than not doing it. In this way, then, that action is a manifestation of your self attempting to move from that which is less than ideal (not posting), to that which is more ideal (posting), which chain you have been perpetually continuing with every action you have ever performed, for the rest of your life. This is the essence of soteriology, and there are no exceptions. The actions of eating and committing suicide, however seemingly disparate, have the same telos driving them - the desire to progress from that which is less ideal, to that which is ideal. The system can make an inaccurate assessment, such as that doing heroin will lead one closer to that ideal state, but in the end, it is the same telos manifesting. You are all in on the quest for salvation, and the only question is whether you know it or not.

>>19150535
>You are all in on the quest for salvation
You have to admit your concept of salvation is unorthodox.
Do I consciously seek an ideal? No, I just float through life. Do I do this because I perceive it to be a better option than anything else? Obviously, it's almost tautological. But in practice, I'm not moving towards salvation as it's commonly understood, as I (consciously) seek nothing.

>>19150493
>No, it's the same thing as what I said with Nietzsche. It applies to itself. It's constant erosion.
its not, otherwise you wouldn't be able to exist, everything you do perpetuates it, especially language

>Do you believe this space can be escaped? Why/why not?
you're an instantiation of this belief-space, you would need to die before anything 'escaped'

>Perception (empirical and a priori reasoning) alone only takes you as far as the subjective individual
think about what you're saying, to even think this sentence you need an a priori belief about the existence of an objective reality, the content of the sentence is a negative value statement about absolute truth, don't confuse value with belief

>>19150552
>otherwise you wouldn't be able to exist
How does this follow from perspectivism applying to itself? Put anti foundationalism aside, I need to think about it
>you're an instantiation of this belief-space
What is it that instantiates?
Are you implying a "belief space" is entirely idiosyncratic? Where then is the propensity for objectivity?
>to even think this sentence you need an a priori belief about the existence of an objective reality
I need an assumption, not a belief. For all I know I'm talking to myself. Again: refute solipsism if you can, but it's a fool's errand.

>>19149891
>Prometheus Rising
Most people ITT would definitely benefit from dropping any assumptions about RAW and reading this book. It really shows you how literally everything you believe is built on extremely shaky foundations.

>>19150551
>You have to admit your concept of salvation is unorthodox.
Not at all, I am just formulating what everybody knows and affirms in a novel way (as far as I know).
>Do I consciously seek an ideal? No, I just float through life.
This implies that you are not manifesting your salvific telos through making conscious actions to reach that state. If you were an automaton, or a philosophical zombie, you would have a point.
You make acts of your own volition, and so you are, in fact, moving towards an ideal state - you just have to recognize it, and understand the meta-game of what you are actually embodying, and what inspires you.
>in practice, I'm not moving towards salvation as it's commonly understood, as I (consciously) seek nothing.
Please think about what I am saying - your conscious attempt to move towards nothing is exactly your manifestation of the telos of salvation. This is where you are in your quest, and you will keep moving towards it - or moving in a way which takes you further away. Why else would you make the conscious decision to eat tomorrow, or to be alive?

"All of us like sheep have wandered, Each to his own way we have turned".

>>19150609
>I am just formulating what everybody knows
Aren't you a Christian? I've never seen salvation formulated like that.
>you just have to recognize it, and understand the meta-game of what you are actually embodying, and what inspires you.
How can it be fully acknowledged? The closest thing I've found to what I'm doing is philosophical Taoism, but I'm not such a pedantic larper as to label myself a taoist. I don't understand why I have to weigh myself down with metaphysical considerations when all I do is simply be alive.
>your conscious attempt to move towards nothing is exactly your manifestation of the telos of salvation.
No, I get that. You're saying I've chosen a "soteriology of inaction" or something along those lines.
But this salvation you're talking about is purely individual then. There is no dogma here. Again, uncharacteristic for a Christian.

>>19146102
I used to believe this, and honestly a part of me still does. However, I feel like life gets boring if you just "go with the flow man" "create your own reality". It's a reddit tier belief and one which you can make up any excuse to be degenerate and egotistical.

>>19146204 is much more fun. Pick a belief system and make a choice to believe it and follow it. It's fun to experiment with different systems and argue for them. It often cultivates discipline and virtue

And see people as op as cowardly indecisive cunts who never feel strong convictions, just go around pathatic. A man needs strong principles and needs to cultivate manly virtues to defend them. You fags have no viritility or convictions

>>19150588
>How does this follow from perspectivism applying to itself?
a perspectivist entity presupposes objective knowledge to make the differentiation of itself into the purely subjective, its very existence requires objectivity, objectivity and subjectivity are co-dependant, a factual claim about subjectivity will necessarily require objective knowledge

>What is it that instantiates?
God is a-priori to instantiation, the source into the particular, the whole into the part, it's the metaphysics of every religion

>I need an assumption, not a belief
same thing, you make the distinction

>For all I know I'm talking to myself. Again: refute solipsism if you can, but it's a fool's errand.
this is the truth seeking process, you believe you are the what we have been referring to as the belief-space (every observer and potential observer) as a means to try and escape it and all other beliefs inside it, this is like truth-alignment and objectivity on meth

>>19150694
>. It's a reddit tier belief and one which you can make up any excuse to be degenerate and egotistical.
But that's not an argument against the belief itself. You can say it's reddit if you want but so what? You yourself say you still believe it's true, so you're just deluding yourself.

>>19150701
>a factual claim about subjectivity will necessarily require objective knowledge
Have you read Nietzsche? His point is that perspectivism, as I said, applies to itself. By saying what you just said, you're agreeing with him.
>God is a-priori
Why is god necessary? It just seems like a convenient placeholder for me. I see no evidence of god anywhere.
>this is like truth-alignment and objectivity on meth
I don't see how that addresses what I said.
As far as I can tell (note that I said tell, not believe, or assume, or anything else), only my awareness' existence can be confirmed. This isn't an affirmation of objectivity at all, it cannot be.

>>19150694
>you can make up any excuse to be degenerate and egotistical.
So?

>>19150741
>Have you read Nietzsche? His point is that perspectivism, as I said, applies to itself. By saying what you just said, you're agreeing with him.
never head him so I can't say that I agree with him, I started posting because unbelief and scepticism are non-sequiturs

>Why is god necessary? It just seems like a convenient placeholder for me. I see no evidence of god anywhere.
a placeholder is something that is undifferentiated, to call God that isn't any different from religions

>As far as I can tell (note that I said tell, not believe, or assume, or anything else), only my awareness' existence can be confirmed
saying that requires culture, language, the body, God, objectivity, the entire belief-space to make that statement, to perceive your own awareness is an affirmation of objectivity, its the perpetuation of your own instantiated belief and value structure. the content of that sentence is signalling to yourself and others how aligned you are to truth and objectivity. its confusing to you because you think the perceived negation of truth is actually distancing yourself from it when it's the opposite, it's strengthening your relationship with it

>>19150810
>unbelief and scepticism are non-sequiturs
>strengthening your relationship with it
To sum things up: denying truth is affirming truth.
I fucking hate epistemology.

>>19150820
better to figure it out young than to devote your entire life to it and gain nothing, or to live your entire life in dissonance because you don't understand it

لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله

>>19150882
>better to figure it out young
The meaninglessness of epistemology?

>>19150908

>>19147291

https://youtube.com/watch?v=4hmSELTAKZQ

>>19150267
>Was there a specific event in your life that made you believe in God?
There's been a few, but they're all anecdotal and I don't expect them to convince anyone. However, I don't believe existence is arbitrary. I do think it seems significant sometimes purely because we're here, but I do think we're (as a culture) falling into like, a reverse-anthropic principle. Everything seems arbitrary because universal laws aren't exactly the way we'd design them, so it MUST be arbitrary! This is a trap, in my opinion. After all, isn't it just as likely that they only seem arbitrary because I'm using cognitive systems meant to identify yummy berries to try and analyze reality?

Logically speaking, it also makes more sense for the universe to be derived from a small set of fundamental principles, than from absolutely NO principles. The only reason the NO PRINCIPLES outlook seems more logical is because we have an inbuilt preference for simplicity - Occam's Razor; But that Razor is *itself* necessarily a principle, then isn't it? Either that, or its just a heuristic we use to pick berries. If the former, then we have AT LEAST ONE principle, and we can use that to derive more fundamental axioms. If the latter, then the Razor can't be trusted!

>What does it mean to fight? Seek a truth that you think is unaccessible to start with?
That's correct. Yes, barring divine intervention, it's a hopeless endeavor. But it opens the possibility of meaning... And I think that's worth the hopeless battle.

Then again, I'm basically two steps out from schizophrenia. So maybe I'm insane. I don't care, though. I encourage you not to, either.

>>19150228
>More recently, I've also developed this idea that the human brain isn't designed to find TRUTH; It's meant to survive and reproduce.
The existence of ego death—enlightenment—is a clear-cut example of this. The ego's illusion of the individual is such a prevalent aspect of our experience, yet there is no real distinct differentiation to be made between the "self" and not-self. It's just a matter of perception.

>>19146204
based skeptic larper

>>19151096
Cool movie, liked the alex jones bit

>>19146136
Kek this is pretty much /lit/ summed up in a single sentence

>>19151344
I want to experience this but I'm a bit scared of shrooms

>>19146244
Not really. Ancient scepticism at least is motivated by solving a problem. By finding release.

>>19151898
ur mum helps me find release

>>19149802
I was Catholic dogmatist before coming scepticism

>>19152257
Based

>>19151898
But that's what I'm saying, ancient skepticism is methodical. OP's pic is an actual worldview.

What else should I read aside from Outlines of Skepticism if I want to deprogram my mind from dogma?
From what I've seen though skepticism ends up irremediably contradicting itself by asserting the skeptic stance, how did ancient skeptics deal with this?

>>19152307
The Pyrrhonists didn’t positively deny the possibility of knowledge, but rather said that, so far as things appeared to them, neither they nor any school of thought they knew had demonstrably attained it. Apart from Sextus I’d recommend Cicero, Montaigne, Pierre Bayle, Hume

>>19152373
>so far as things appeared to them, neither they nor any school of thought they knew had demonstrably attained it.
How can this possibly be assessed though, and how could they assert this?
If they didn't assert it then what's the point?

>>19152382
The Pyrrhonists don’t deny that people have experiences - for example, sense data of what appears to be the world around us. We can say that it appears that an object is before us, and we are not wrong about this. We are not positively claiming that the object *is* in fact in front of us. We could be deceived in some way without knowing - and our sense impressions of the world present us with examples of this, like people with schizophrenia. And we can say things about our state of mind, like, because of x and y arguments, z dogma does not seem credibly proven. The Pyrrhonist doesn’t deny that a proof may potentially exist. This is what distinguishes Pyrrhonist scepticism from (some) branches of Academic scepticism, which positively denied the possibility of knowledge. The Pyrrhonist simply reflects upon his own state of mind and admits that he has not been able to prove anything, and has not been exposed to any satisfying proofs. He does not deny that they might exist somewhere. I think this is a sensible position. We provisionally say, “I haven’t seen proof of x claim, here are the reasons why y arguments are not satisfying.” Not necessarily that “x claim is impossible to prove.” That would be an unjustifiable assertion. The sceptic can, however, operate on non-dogmatic assumptions about the world: for instance, that other people have minds, that the gods probably do or do not exist, etc. He just admits that he doesn’t certainty about these things, and that, at some level, they are “no more” provable than their opposites. This is particularly problematic for dogmatic schools of thought which profess to offer certain answers to the big questions about life - and especially those where non-belief is considered immoral.

>>19150654
>Aren't you a Christian? I've never seen salvation formulated like that.
At the risk of sounding repetitive, I am not speaking of final salvation (eg. what happens in the afterlife), but only the innate telos of soteriology which manifests itself within this life. My perspective on final salvation is what you would call orthodox apostolic Christianity.
>How can it be fully acknowledged?
Just the same as how one can acknowledge a lens like Jungian archetypes in everything - begin by attempting to analyze a given situation with the lens, and as you work out this muscle, it will become second-nature.
>I don't understand why I have to weigh myself down with metaphysical considerations when all I do is simply be alive.
Again, if all you were doing was simply being alive, you would have to be a person in a coma, or a philosophical zombie. Instead, you are doing a great many conscious actions in aim of some end (which I posit is salvation) - the exact opposite of what you presuppose.
>But this salvation you're talking about is purely individual then
It's individual in the sense that two painters attempting to encapsulate beauty itself can make two different paintings. Both are attempting to aim at something which is not fully graspable by any except the omniscient one.
>There is no dogma here. Again, uncharacteristic for a Christian.
I adhere to all dogmas of the ancient apostolic churches. I am just outlining exactly what principle is responsible for the search for meaning, nourishment, reproduction, and philosophical inquiry (indeed, every action).

>>19152257
You do not have a deep enough philosophical and theological perspective to understand what you are doing. You have chosen death and unknowing as your salvation. This is most likely a terrible strategy when averaged across the set of all possible afterlives/possible ways to live eudaemonia within this life.

>>19153018
Your opinion isn't an absolute truth. Stop being so prideful

>>19153128
This is not based upon my opinion. It is based upon a rational analysis of the set of all possible afterlives/possible ways to live eudaemonia within this life. The strategy that anon chose is not only likely to be terrible when averaged across all of those sets, but is potentially in the cohort of the very worst options.

>>19152863
This just sounds like a sensible, mild agnosticism that doesn't negate epistemology but just doesn't claim to have the truth one way or another. It makes sense and it's logically tenable but what does it really change in practice? You can basically be a pyrrhonist and believe anything on top of that. Pyrrhonism is just recognizing you don't actually know for sure?
Are other skeptics (Cicero, Hume etc) different in their analyses?

>>19153204
>a rational analysis of the set of all possible afterlives/possible ways to live eudaemonia
Dude you're just a fart-sniffing nobody, not a supercomputer. Read an actual book, skepticism isn't "le u can't know nuffin" meme

>>19153249
>Read an actual book, skepticism isn't "le u can't know nuffin" meme
That is completely unrelated to any of the claims I've made in the series of posts you're responding to.

>>19153254
What's your problem with skepticism then?
And your claim that you've explored every single possibility is simply laughable, get your head out of your ass

>>19150311
I'm exactly like you and my psychologist explained to me that it's basically a higher version of your flight or fight mechanism. I subconsciously chose to see the world as irreal because in that way I can keep it at a safe distance and not have to commit to anything, since deep down living proactively scares the shit out of me.
pic unrelated

>>19153326
>psychologizing metaphysics
Anon...

>>19153335
It's not a bad idea, by analizing your personal history and how it influenced your personality and your beliefs you can get a step closer to the truth since it can allow you to see wheter you believe in something because you actually believe in it or because you find it convenient.
pic unrelated

>>19153309
Every human should be skeptical of claims, but to adopt skepticism as one's main lens is simply a losing strategy, because it does not perform well across the set of claims. If it helps you to conceptualize this, think about applying Pascal's Wager to every system you personally know of, and see what estimated probability of success you would have if adopting skepticism as your "system".
>And your claim that you've explored every single possibility is simply laughable
I haven't claimed that. If a detective analyzes the most apparently probable explanations for which hypotheses explaining a given crime are true, one can say that he has performed a "rational analysis of the set of all possible hypotheses", not a "rational analysis of /all items within/ the set of all possible hypothesis - because an infinite number of answers are wrong, including those which have not yet been conceptualized, he has chosen the ones which are, based on the available evidence, most likely to be closest to the truth. I understand that that might not have been formulated in a clear way, so I can correct it to say it is based upon a "rational analysis of the most probable items within the set of all possible hypotheses", which includes /most/ knowable forms of religion, philosophy, and "ways to live [a good life]", including secular ones.

Hope this cleared it up - I'm not trying to attack your system, only explain why I could not maintain it as my main lens (and by extension, why I don't believe others should maintain it as their main lens, any more than I would recommend adopting the lens of Jungian symbolic analysis as their main one, even if it provides useful and actionable insights extremely often).

>>19153375
You can never really know though.
Does that belief make genuine sense to you? Do you really think it's true or do you use it as an excuse? If you're genuine then just roll with it

>>19153397
>think about applying Pascal's Wager to every system you personally know of
That's not what skepticism is though. See >>19152863
>rational analysis of the most probable items within the set of all possible hypotheses
You can't figure that out either. You can make guesses.

>>19153450
>That's not what skepticism is though
I know that that is not what skepticism is. That is my point - that when skepticism is adopted as a main lens, it performs less than optimistically when applied to those sets, on a simply probabilistic basis.

>You can't figure that out either. You can make guesses.
Just like how a detective cannot figure out the most probable explanation for a given crime out of the set of possible crimes? The human mind actually performs quite well at utilizing rational processes and heuristics to weigh different options epistemologically - there is no reason why the same process should not be used to analyze various religious/philosophical claims based upon the available evidence, and further corroborating/falsifying evidence.

>>19153473
But Pyrrhonism is skepticism adopted as a main lens.
>there is no reason to believe the same can't be true for analyzing the epistemological likelihood of various religious/philosophical systems
There is, because metaphysics are not observable. You can't prove anything or even demonstrate the likelihood of one option over another

>>19153505
>based upon the available evidence
...None?

>>19153519
>But Pyrrhonism is skepticism adopted as a main lens.
Which is exactly my point - adopting this system as a main lens is not an optimal strategy.
>There is, because metaphysics are not observable
And yet you weigh metaphysical claims as true or false all the time, consciously or not. If a homeless man tells you he is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ and that to not bow down to him will lead to your eternal damnation, how do you intuitively analyze that metaphysical claim as being false?
>You can't prove anything or even demonstrate the likelihood of one option over another
Only if you are living in an abstract realm where you don't actually think about anything, which is not the case for anybody barring philosophical zombies. You make decisions on what is true all the time, consciously or not.

>>19153532
The most intellectually honest agnostic/apatheists, like Graham Oppy, will admit that there is evidence for almost every religious claim, but that they fail to find those evidences compelling enough for them, personally, to accept a given claim. This is different from there being no available evidence, which is a claim made by those who are not actually doing their due diligence (with all due respect).

>>19153562
>adopting this system as a main lens is not an optimal strategy.
That's just your opinion
I don't think any religion's claims are likely to be true -> thus skepticism
>you weigh metaphysical claims as true or false all the time, consciously or not
No, that's an extremely disingenuous example. I'm not weighing a metaphysical claim, I'm deciding some dude is insane. At no point am I taking the "metaphysics" of the claim seriously at all
>there is evidence for almost every religious claim
You can call it evidence, but there's a reason why scientists and historians don't take it seriously.

>>19153607
>That's just your opinion
It's literally a statistical observation based upon the set of knowable systems which are likely to be true. My opinion does not play into it at all. If you perform the exercise yourself, you will see what I am saying.
>I don't think any religion's claims are likely to be true -> thus skepticism
Yet you inherently know that some religious claims are more likely to be true than others, which is exactly the point of the next example:
> I'm not weighing a metaphysical claim, I'm deciding some dude is insane
Except you literally are weighing a metaphysical claim, you are just doing so unconsciously (apparently). He is making a metaphysical claim, and you are deciding (based upon some set of apparently unconscious heuristics) that it is false. I am simply suggesting that you become aware of those heuristics you are already using - to put it in Platonic terms, getting your reason in the chariot driver's seat, so to speak.
>You can call it evidence,
It is literally, by definition, evidence, no matter what biases you have against it.
>but there's a reason why scientists and historians don't take it seriously.
There are many scientists and historians who do take it seriously. Your attempt at an appeal to authority doesn't actually pan out here, unless you actually think that every single scientist or historian does not believe any evidential claim of any religion to be an evidential claim. Again, with all due respect, an error like this could only arise if you haven't done your due diligence. To show you the folly of your reasoning, I could say that very many men vastly more intelligent than you (for example, Newton, Francis Bacon, Heisenberg, James Tour, Descartes, and Einstein) all became convinced, based upon various evidences, that some supernatural theistic claim is true. This rightly should not make up the totality of your position, but it is just to show you that your claim is demonstrably false.

>>19153679
>It's literally a statistical observation
It's your biased belief and nothing more otherwise you would've backed it up already
>Yet you inherently know that some religious claims are more likely to be true than others
No, I literally don't have any preference at all. I don't believe in any religion and they're all equal in my eyes
>He is making a metaphysical claim,
No, as I said you're just being disingenuous because we both know full well that a hobo babbling about the apocalypse is not metaphysics
Even then, as I said, I don't care about religion and metaphysics as it's all unverifiable, no matter the claim. Jesus being god is as likely to me as a random crackhead being god, that is to say, both extremely unlikely to the point that it's not worth seriously pondering
>by definition
>a sign which shows that something exists or is true
It comes down to your own biases in the end. Not all evidence is created equal I guess
>There are many scientists and historians who do take it seriously.
Yes, there are religious scientists and historians, I'm aware
Newton being a theist is meaningless. Very intelligent people often believe in strange and stupid things and I'm not even targeting religion here

>>19153739
>It's your biased belief and nothing more otherwise you would've backed it up already
It's a simple challenge that you have yet to take up:
"think about applying Pascal's Wager to every system you personally know of, and see what estimated probability of success you would have if adopting skepticism as your "system""
>No, I literally don't have any preference at all.
Yes, you literally do, but the fact that you cannot see it is just evidence that it is operating unconsciously.
>No, as I said you're just being disingenuous because we both know full well that a hobo babbling about the apocalypse is not metaphysics
First of all, I didn't say anything about the apocalypse. Second of all, what I did say (that you would weigh the claim of a hobo saying he is Jesus Christ as false) is literally a metaphysical position. Just because you don't like the conclusions that derive from that (that you engage in metaphysical heuristics), doesn't mean it is not definitionally a metaphysical claim.
>Jesus being god is as likely to me as a random crackhead being god
So you believe that it is equally likely that a random crackhead saying that if you do not bow down to him, you will go to Hell, is equal to the probability that Jesus Christ rose from the dead? You actually believe this, despite the fact that there is at least a case to be made for the truth of the resurrection (even if you do not find it convincing), versus an obviously far weaker case for the random crackhead? I find it hard to believe you actually think this, because it is purely irrational (epistemologically speaking).
>Yes, there are religious scientists and historians, I'm aware
Then your initial claim is obviously wrong. Nevertheless, we don't have to continue on that point ("scientists and historians don't take it seriously"), because we both now obviously recognize that as being an obvious falsehood.

>>19153778
>think about applying Pascal's Wager to every system you personally know of, and see what estimated probability of success you would have if adopting skepticism as your "system"
This is not skepticism, you're deflecting
>Yes, you literally do
A compelling argument but I'm gonna disregard it
>is literally a metaphysical position.
Cool, then everything is a metaphysical position and the word becomes meaningless.
>I find it hard to believe you actually think this
It's actually easy to believe because I haven't drunk the kool aid and dismiss unverifiable religious claims wholesale, whether they come from a crack addict, or from a 2000 year old book compiled by some dude in the desert, or by anyone else
>Then your initial claim is obviously wrong
Again with the insincere word games, a few religious people in the field don't speak for the community as a whole obviously
Just a question, are you that "epistemological weight" dude that used to shit up Buddhism threads? I sense a similar kind of autism

>>19153810
>This is not skepticism, you're deflecting
You seem to think I'm arguing for skepticism, instead of against its utility?
>A compelling argument but I'm gonna disregard it
You hold a set of metaphysical positions, but I understand it is hard to be self-aware of that when your metaphysical position's coherence depends on you not recognizing that
>Cool, then everything is a metaphysical position and the word becomes meaningless.
No, a claim about the amount of quarks in a hydrogen atom, for example, is not a metaphysical claim.
>dismiss unverifiable religious claims wholesale, whether they come from a crack addict, or from a 2000 year old book
Then your system of epistemology is simply deficient. You would understand if you ever experienced a mystical or supernatural event, but that generally requires going out of one's comfort zone (which your system was unconsciously chosen to limit).
>a few religious people in the field don't speak for the community as a whole obviously
Besides the fact that the vast majority of scientists in human history have been religious, and that the scientific method itself was formalized by devout Christians, right? The "scientific community" is not a monolith, so statements like "scientists and historians don't take [religious claims] seriously" are pretty much useless overgeneralizations borne out of your feelings, not actual rational knowledge.

>>19153862
>instead of against its utility?
You haven't
>is not a metaphysical claim.
That's right, it's an empirical one
>You would understand if you ever experienced a mystical or supernatural event
I don't believe brainwashing myself to be a good way of attaining truth but thanks for the suggestion
>the vast majority of scientists in human history have been religious
Yeah bro nothing to do with zeitgeistal factors at all
>scientists and historians don't take [religious claims] seriously
Yeah sorry my dear autist let me reformulate it
>21st century scientists and historians don't take [religious claims] seriously

>>19150074
Pwned

>>19153862
Also you didn't answer my question, are you the metaphysical weight guy?

>>19153920
epistemological*

>>19153903
>You haven't
You haven't responded to the argument for it's lack of utility, which I have repeated twice now. Here it is again: "think about applying Pascal's Wager to every system you personally know of, and see what estimated probability of success you would have if adopting skepticism as your "system""
>That's right, it's an empirical one
Thus, your claim that "everything is a metaphysical position" is wrong. Which was your objection to my claim that the act of disregarding the hobo is, in fact, an act of metaphysics and epistemology
>I don't believe brainwashing myself to be a good way of attaining truth
You can experience a mystical or supernatural event without "brainwashing yourself". It happens all the time, and I have met many people it has happened to, of diverse cultures and backgrounds.
>Yeah bro nothing to do with zeitgeistal factors at all
Moving goalposts, obviously. Your formulation here is still still:
>21st century scientists and historians don't take [religious claims] seriously
Except for the 21st century scientists and historians who do take them seriously. Can you not grasp this basic nuance, which renders your appeal to authority useless?

>>19153988
>Your formulation here is still still:
I meant "your formulation here is still erroneous".

>>19153920
Yes, although surely being truthful will amount to attacks on my character, in an attempt to continue dodging my arguments.

>>19153988
>think about applying Pascal's Wager to every system you personally know of
Again, this is not how the skeptic method works, just your meme idea of it
There is no pascal wager's in skepticism
>everything is a metaphysical position
You like stretching definitions to fit your arguments. Sure thing man a hobo announcing he's the messiah is metaphysics. Me saying I fucked your sister is metaphysics too since it's not empirical.
>You can experience a mystical or supernatural event without "brainwashing yourself"
The very experience is delusion/brainwashing
Literally convincing yourself you've realized some experiential truth. I can take DMT and go though the same thing
>Moving goalposts
Nope, you're just deflecting. I can cite fallacies too :^)
>Except for the 21st century scientists and historians who do take them seriously
Yes they indeed represent quite a sizable portion of the scientific community, I have been bested
You're embarrassing yourself with all the straw grasping
>>19153998
>surely being truthful will amount to attacks on my character
Yes the problem is always with other people, never with you

>>19146161
Chad doesn't care about ideology he just grills.

>>19154061
>Again, this is not how the skeptic method works
You are completely missing my point. I'm not saying that is what skepticism is.
>Me saying I fucked your sister is metaphysics too since it's not empirical.
You would be making a claim that is physical in nature, not metaphysical.
>Literally convincing yourself you've realized some experiential truth
A supernatural event does not have to be based around an intuitive knowledge of an experiential truth. For example, many people, including secular ones, have gone to "spiritual" locations/people in order to try to be cured of an incurable disease or condition, and many have left cured. Would you say that their experience is a "delusion"?
>Yes they indeed represent quite a sizable portion of the scientific community
That is not the claim you had made. Be more precise in your formulation and avoid false hyperbolic statements, unless you can back them up. Somebody who is extremely skeptical should surely recognize why a statement as false as "21st century scientists and historians don't take [religious claims] seriously" should not be taken seriously.
>Yes the problem is always with other people, never with you
When did I say you had a problem? If you would actually pay attention, it is always the people on the defense who put forward ad hominem attacks. It's a clear sign that one is reaching the end of their rational capacity.

>>19154097
>physical in nature,
Ok, a ghost fucked your sister
Now we're doing metaphysics
>Would you say that their experience is a "delusion"?
Yes, unironically read Talbot, this stuff is babby tier even kooky new age authors address it
>That is not the claim you had made
Do you have genuine autism? Not being facetious here. Your extremely tedious fixation on minor and irrelevant details that are made contextually obvious is sperg 101. Or maybe you're just that desperate to dodge my point, dunno
>When did I say you had a problem
Spare me the fucking pilpul right after the "muh attacks on my character" persecution complex shit.

Why are you arguing in earnest with a guy who unironically believes that there is "evidence" for Christianity?

>>19154134
I kind of lost interest when I realized he was just the epistemological weight schizo (he'll use that to feed his persecution complex as christians love to do) so yeah I'm gonna cut this short. You have to be really far gone to claim without a hint of irony that Pyrrhonism is rationally untenable.

>>19154121
>Now we're doing metaphysics
Discussing a non-physical phenomenon would be, by nature, metaphysical, yes. Not sure what your point is.
>unironically read Talbot, this stuff is babby tier even kooky new age authors address it
So somebody becoming cured of an "incurable" condition is a delusion? I'm curious to hear your argument.
>Do you have genuine autism? Not being facetious here.
Nope.
>Or maybe you're just that desperate to dodge my point, dunno
Your entire point was fallacious, so I'm not sure what I'm dodging. It was literally just an attempt to appeal to authority. Do you think that is some knock-down silver bullet that I am desperately afraid of? I have engaged with this argument probably hundreds of times, by now.
>Spare me the fucking pilpul
All I said was the truth, but sure, you can change the topic of conversation, if you'd like.

>>19154134
There is evidence for Christianity, just as there is evidence for the existence of Socrates. Just because you don't like the evidence, or find it convincing, doesn't mean it does not exist.

>>19154147
>he was just the epistemological weight schizo
As expected, you have run to the end of your rational capacity, and have resorted to childish name-calling, and not addressing arguments. This is not surprising.

>>19154164
>Not sure what your point is.
That you're being ridiculous
>I'm curious to hear your argument
Yes, people cure themselves from illness through self-suggestion, this isn't a groundbreaking concept
>pilpul, sophistry and cope
Yeah cool
By the way you have still to formulate a coherent argument against Pyrrhonism lmao

>>19154164
>There is evidence for Christianity
>bro some desert cultists got tortured and their testimonies were allegedly recorded by literally one dude (also one of the cultists) so that means there's a zombie jew watching over me
Pffffft

>cool thread with a somewhat interesting premise
>derailed by some retard shilling his larp to people who obviously don't care for it
It's all so tiresome. Can't wait for the trad zoomers to move on to the next meme, at least it'll be refreshing.

>>19154195
>the next meme
Still waiting for the golden age of /lit/ when the Taoist phase finally happens

>>19154090
chad goes to church before sunday football

>>19154227
Cope

>>19148114
Yeah pretty much, the Tao Te Ching just gives you a roadmap to act skillfully with the above thought.

>>19154284
What are the best translations?
How do you "act skillfully" with that thought; what does it mean, really?

>Yes, people cure themselves from illness through self-suggestion, this isn't a groundbreaking concept
The experience of the illness being cured is not itself a delusion, though, which was my entire point.
>By the way you have still to formulate a coherent argument against Pyrrhonism lmao
I have, yet you have continued to not address it. Here it is again, this time in an easily digestible form.
1. There may or may not be an afterlife.
2, There is a non-zero chance that there is an afterlife.
3. There is a non-zero chance, even if infinitesimally small, that an extant religion's view of the afterlife is true (even if by pure chance).
4. One can assume, that the likelihood of all religious claims are equally infinitesimally small (barring any further evidence increasing/decreasing an individual claim's probability).
5. Thus, we can posit that there exists at least two options - there is no afterlife (with X probability), and there is an afterlife (with Y probability), which exists in a certain way (eg. Y*A, Y*B ... Y*Z, where A/B/Z are, say, Islam/Christianity/Baha'i).
6. Thus, we can say that there is a non-zero potential that the nature of Y is eternal, and that the nature of Y may be one of punishment/suffering (as that is a claim of many systems, incl. [A,B, etc].
7. As far as we know empirically, this material life is finite.
8. Thus, giving up something within this life is, by nature, a finite loss.
9. But the potential for an eternal afterlife (eg. [Y*A, ... etc] to be true is non-zero.
10. If ending up in an eternal afterlife with punishment (eg. [Y*A, ... etc] has a non-zero chance, it would be, hypothetically, an infinite loss. If ending up in an eternal afterlife with reward has a non-zero chance as well, it would be, hypothetically, an infinite gain.
11. Because the probability that either X, or [Y*A, ... etc], is true are both unknown, there exists an unknown non-zero chance that either is true.
12. It is rational to choose a finite loss over an infinite loss.
13. It is rational to choose an infinite gain over a finite gain.
14. Thus, it is more rational to bet on the probability of a finite loss (giving up "sinful" actions) for infinite gain, over the prob. of an infinite loss for a finite gain.
15. Pyrrhonic skepticism as a main life-system (eg. not containing moral proscription to not do "sinful actions") does not perform well across the options of the Y*modifier set, although the potential for one (or more) of their afterlife claims to be true is non-zero.
16. Thus, Pyrrhonic skepticism is irrational, because it has a high probability of leading one to a negative afterlife, if a member of Y* set is true.

The next part of the argument would then show which member of the Y*modifier set is the most rational (eg. has the highest probability of leading one to positive afterlife). Letting you know, so that you don't bring up the common "well if Islam is true, you are going to Hell", or "God who sentences fideists only" objection.

>>19154356
Except "muh negative afterlife" is obvious fear mongering bullshit to scare peasants and that your autistic calculation is pretty much useless

In awe at the absolute epistemological weight of this lad

>>19154284
What is some good philosophical (not alchemical) Taoist literature aside from the TTC and Zhuangzi?

>>19154369
You have no evidence for that statement whatsoever, and have not refuted a single point of the argument. This is exactly the type of response I expected from you, so no hard feelings if you decide to run away at this point.

>>19154385
Liezi (I like the Eva Wong version), Caigentan (Vegetable Roots Discourse - Robert Aitken), Wenzi, Huainanzi (the Wenzi and important selections from the Huainanzi are available in Volume 1 of Thomas Cleary's Taoist Classics IIRC).

Would recommend The Taoist Experience by Livia Kohn and Thomas Cleary's Classics. Cleary also has good books The Way of the World and Taoist Meditation.

Hua Ching Ni has a Huahujing, and Kohn also has a Xishengjing too.

If you want expand your horizons, Alfred Huang's I Ching and I Ching supplementary books are great.

The Thread of Dao by Dan Reid is good if your interested in more meditation stuff. Eva Wong also has some cool books about Taoist folk stories if you are interested.

>>19154293
Victor H. Mair is the best, no question. Thomas Cleary is okay too.

>>19154534
Cope

>>19154795
How similar is Taoism to Zen?