/lit/ - Literature

>>5008461
probably something along the lines of the contradiction being a limitation of langauge and not reality

They don't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it proves language is incomplete

>>5008464
If I had just used a few less exclamation points my post would have been first.

>>5008464
>>5008469
this. don't fool yourself into thinking you can know anything, /sci/tard

By blaming logic and language for their stupidity.

>>5008761
>he thinks logic and language are infallible

>>>/sci/

Would it be possible to have a language based entirely off of mathematics and/or logic?

Or is that fedora-esque and dumb to even consider?

>>5008803
philosophy professors certainly seem to think it's a good idea

>>5008461
The true position of all intelligent epistemological nihilists is that 'the law of noncontradiction does not hold', not 'all things are false'

if the law of noncontradiction does not hold, the law of noncontradiction can hold and it doesn't matter that it's a contradiction.

please OP, slap your back for being so clever

>>5008822
What am I even looking at?

>>5008794
No, I'm saying you're stupid. The anti-science attitude here is very pathetic.

>>5008835
What's stupid about it?

>>5008835
>name calling and no argument

typical scientism dogmatist

go back to your religious cult >>>/sci/

>>5008850
Oh fuck off you raging asshole. I'm not even who you were bitching at but it's obvious you have no fucking clue what you are talking about

And yes, logic is by definition infallible. If it's fallible it's a priori not logical. Jackass.

>>5008840
Getting upset because both don't do their beliefs justice.

>>5008856
>more name calling and an argument that isn't self-sustaining even within its own parameters

>>>/sci/
>>>/abook/

>>5008856
>And yes, logic is by definition infallible

Hhahahahahaha. Oh jesus christ you guys are adorable

>>5008835
Erm, If there is an anti-science attitude, it should just be a vocal minority..

There is an anti-modernism attitude, which I'd say is justified. As modernism is a bit of an incomplete view of reality.

>>5008881
you're both confusing 'anti-science' for anti-scientism. the poster I am (attempting) to engage in debate has been indoctrinated by the religion of empiricism and as such can't think critically about concepts that devalue and deconstruct this modal of thinking

>>5008803
Math and logic are languages, numbnuts.

>>5008461
Epistemology is concerned with knowledge, not truth. They're related but different. Truth falls under philosophy of language. Also, I'm not sure what "epistemological nihilism" means; are you thinking of global skepticism?

>>5008840
The anti-science on /lit/ is stupid because /lit/ is filled with armchair philosophers who can't even understand Wittgenstein, then try to lecture others on philosophy

It can't be true can it. Lets be clear here though, by negating 'nothing is true' as a truth, we are not implying the opposite. We are simply negating this one truth, if the statement 'some things are true' is given to a nihilist they will then negate that as well.

the apparent self-referential paradox is illusory, it implies a realm of truth accessible to logic, which the Nihilist would also deny. A Nihilist is fundamentally incapable of making positive logical statements, all they can do is negate. When taken this way each statement is unique, localized, independent of others, and to negate 'nothing is true' does nothing except negate the notion that we would know if something were true, or if it could be true.

You have to imagine Nihilism as a methodology, not a positive statement, or it won't make sense

also fuck your language games im so sick of self-referential paradoxes

>>5008911
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Epistemological_nihilism

>>5008917
>/lit/ is filled with armchair philosophers who can't even understand Wittgenstein, then try to lecture others on philosophy

/lit/ is full of all kinds of dilettantes who like nothing more than to speak as an authority on topics they barely understand. the humanities are based on it

>>5008917
>wittgenstein
>worth reading

lol

>>>/sci/

>>5008876
>>5008870
dat samefag tho

>>5008931
>scientism cultists mad 'cause their dogmatics are getting BTFO

>>5008833
Either sheer genius or true autism. I don't I'll ever be well-versed enough in philosophy to know which, though

Why would you care what nihilists think?

>>5008921
Outside of Wikipedia, I've never seen "nihilism" used in the context of epistemology. I suppose it could be an extreme form of skepticism according to which our beliefs aren't merely unjustified, there is no such thing as justification to begin with.

>>5008959
read more

>>5008856
Logic isn't infallible, that term doesn't even apply. We talk about logic in terms of soundness and validity, not (in)fallibility.

>>5008965
I'm a phil major who will be graduating next spring; I've taken multiple courses on epistemology. Engage with me or fuck off.

>>5008917
Yep. I personally do that shit. People reply to me as if what I'm saying is worth responding to, but I haven't even really read more than 2 or 3 introductory philosophy books.

Whatever.

>>5008984
You're dealing with the same kid that posted
>>5008939
>>5008876
>>5008870
>>5008794
>>5008489
I would advise you calm your jimmies and move on. It's Friday night and the kids are bored

>>5008984
>I'm a phil major who will be graduating next spring; I've taken multiple courses on epistemology

If you're implying this makes you any sort of authority on the subject you haven't learned a thing in your time spend studying

>>5008995
>le baseless insults
>le patronising buzzword
>le total lack of argument

totally epib, my /b/rother!

>>5008461
a nihilist can´t call herself a nihilist. it´s a word invented for the academics, for the non nihilistics. anyway, i don´t know what you mean with epistemological nihilists.

>>5009037
stop talking out of your ass

>>5009048
out of your ass i see a big and enormous and bigger enormous deep ocean of space and your tini dick dazzling in your own mouth. you are a special feeling.

>>5008998
>If you're implying this makes you any sort of authority on the subject

I'm not. Learn to read.

Ineffectively?

Absurdly?

With no confidence?

Indifferently?

I dunno...nihilisticly... (as in, there's a reason it's a word)