/lit/ - Literature

[Hume intensifies]

2 long

>>6472773
>Each member of the chain is inert without the next member in place
>This chain cannot be infinitely long because an infinite number of inert members cannot do anything

So the members are inert ~unless~ the other members are in place. Then the logic jump to saying they're inert ~if all are infinitely in place~. This jump is the flaw in the logic.

It is possible to have an infinite chain that it ~collectively~ powerful. A circle, for instance, is still a circle though it has no beginning and no end. Aquinas denies this because of "muh religion."

Many will argue the opposite point back and forth until Hume eventually proves that we *can't* know.

>>6472927
>Aquinas denies this because of "muh religion."
This is entirely baseless.

People slip and fall on potential ice all the time, dude.

Other than that, it's fine.

>>6472773
So basically he's saying "the world is cause and effect so the universe must have a cause"?

>>6473266
It's not my argument, it's just the way history happened. Religion is fine, but it got in the way of Aquinas' ability to think logically, that's all I'm saying. The rest of my post is evidence of this.

>>6472773

Well the most obvious problem is that it doesn't do a damn thing to support Aquinas' ridiculous Christian which specifically says that God became flesh, nor Abrahamic theology more generally which says that god specifically told various humans to not eat pork (among other things).

More generally, I think Aquinas'argument leads to a different conclusion than we imagine. The first cause could be virtually anything; we don't know what the fuck it is, we've never seen it before. Maybe it was a man playing with a physics set in some other universe. So the only thing that Aquinas' argument actually supports is the general idea of a first cause, it doesn't actually support any elaboration on what properties that first cause possesses. In essense, Aquinas' argument actually supports a kind of enlightened agnosticism.

>>6472773
here, take this
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.mx/2012/07/cosmological-argument-roundup.html

>>6472927
>Then the logic jump to saying they're inert ~if all are infinitely in place~. This jump is the flaw in the logic.

There is no jump. There cannot be an infinite number of members, because if they all depend on the "previous" member to actualize them, nothing can ever get actualized, because the previous member also depends on a previous principle on actualization, and so on ad infinitum.

>It is possible to have an infinite chain that it ~collectively~ powerful. A circle, for instance, is still a circle though it has no beginning and no end.

What?

>>6473457
>Well the most obvious problem is that it doesn't do a damn thing to support Aquinas' ridiculous Christian which specifically says that God became flesh

There is no problem here, as Aquinas doesn't claim to have proved this with the first way.

>. The first cause could be virtually anything

It cannot be virtually anything: for example it cannot have any potencies.

>>6472798
Elaborate pls? Or are you just full of shit?

>>6472773
the problem is the last statement:
> this is something to which everyone gives the name 'God'
I don't call it God; I call it "myself". Therefore not everyone gives it the name God and the argument is invalid.

>>6473553
I doubt you call yourself omnipotent, omniscient, incorporeal, perfect, inmutable and eternal.
only one is reserved for Stirner

>>6473604
You're welcome to doubt it, but I think as the owner of said self, I'm in the best position to make the judgement call. I'd love to hear it if you have some evidence, as opposed to mere doubts. Many truths are counter-intuitive and hard to grasp at first sight.

>>6473648
so you would change your mind if i showed you some evidence?

>>6473661
yeah (we're talking about an incorporeal entity here, so it would be difficult to gather said evidence, but I have an interesting experimental design involving fMRI and a supercomputer which might work)

>>6473457
You clearly understand literally none of the concepts involved in the argument

>>6472773
Quantum physics

By this definition any fundamental law (from which all others stem from) could be considered 'god'.

>So what is wrong with this?

TL;DR.

</thread>

>>6473553
The argument isn't for "God" as much as it's an argument for something with all those attributes. Calling it God is secondary to the point of the argument.
The acceptance of these points as what defines the supreme being of the universe is what makes it be known as "Arguments for God".

>>6473854
but there isnt law without a lawgiver :^)

>>6474128

No religious people, in practice, merely think of God as some unfathomable force. They all think that God has some unique relationship with them and followers of their faith; in the case of Christianity, that he had a son who taught his doctrine; in the case of Judaism, that he ordered them to do 613 mitzvot or whatever it is. Aquinas'argument seems to support the general idea of a creative force behind the universe, but it doesn't actually establish any of Aquinas' superstitions, so it's not really much more than a a form of mental masturbation.

I'd also point out that at least a few of these 'necessarily properties' don't follow from Aquinas' argument either. Omniscience implies cognition, which isn't necessitated by ''pure actuality; I don't see the stated argument ("to lack knowledge is to have an unrealized potential") as supporting the argument. Really think this through. If God can't have unrealized potentials then you can add literally thousands of attributes to God. God has to be perfectly good, perfectly evil, perfectly funny, perfectly beautiful, perfectly blue, perfectly red, perfectly orange, perfectly square, perfectly circular, etc. I mean if he lacks all of these properties he's got unrealized potentialities, right? This argument is really very little more than clever semantics and wordplay; if you pick it apart a bit you realize that there's not much to it at all. It relies on all these platonic essentialisms that aren't philosophically well grounded as Aquinas thinks; and it ultimately itself leads to a God that really looks quite a bit like Plato's "form of Good."

>>6474336
>Omniscience implies cognition, which isn't necessitated by ''pure actuality
the fifth way, if succesful, establishes that God has an intellect, the most perfect one that is
>If God can't have unrealized potentials then you can add literally thousands of attributes to God
except you cant
>evil
lack of good
>funny
eh, i liked him on the simpsons
>beautiful, colors
qualitative attributes (accidents)
>circle, squares
you have to represent squareness in order to be perfectly square, which isnt pure actuality

also
>no true religious person

This argument gives rise to pantheism at most

>>6472773
the world is not that simple

what if were so dumb everything he said is completely wrong for obvious reasons no one thought of

>>6472773
See Hegel's concept of 'bad infinity'.

>>6472773
As with most of this shit, almost every single assumption is false:
"a potential cannot do anything, because it is not actual" Bullshit: water does lots. Every potential merely has different properties than it will after it changes--which is to say, the viewpoint of water as merely potential ice is idiotic.
The dichotomy proposed between "potential" and "actual" things has no basis in reality, and the info-graphic examples are silly.
The chain cannot be infinitely long: bullshit: these changes are cycles, which are indeed infinitely long. There is no "first member."
This supposed "first member" does not need to have any of the qualities attributed to it.Being incorporeal is an obvious imperfection and unrealized potential, for instance. Plus, every single appearance, word, or action involving God directly in the Bible refutes Aquinas's idiotic claims about him. The phenomenon he is postulating has nothing to do with the deity who dictated the ten commandments.
And that's really more time than that junk deserves.

>>6474467
Autism: the post

>>6472773
Nothing, Aquinas was right and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.

>>6474482
Congratulations: you're even dumber than Aquinas.

>>6474501
you know who's even dumber?
the guy who asserted without demonstrating
>these changes are cycles
kek

i'll admit i cant make sense of your post, and cant bother to try to
also
>Being incorporeal is an obvious imperfection and unrealized potential
10/10

>>6474389

Dude, you're supporting really obvious BS.

Aquinas is just relying on all these concepts that have nothing to do with reality. Things don't "have potentiality," potentiality isn't a thing in the world, it's just a fiction that helps us navigate and understand thing. It's the same as 'random chance.' The outcome of a coin flip is actually predictable and they have made robots that can flip a coin and have it land the way they want it to over 80% of the time. It's just that the idea of 'random chance' helps us understand what's going on within a limited range. Aquinas relies on too many of these 'useful fictions' to construct his argument, treating them as though they were something actual.

>>6474519
>potentiality isn't a thing in the world
prove it
without potentiality, there wouldnt be any change at all

>>6474518
You really couldn't understand my post? Fine, here: Aquinas says "everything but God has a cause, who is the First Cause, because I said so" or "everything has a cause, therefore God, who just happens to be my god, despite scripture."
If that convinces you, great.

>>6474467
That's not what he's saying

Potential ice is not ice until it's been actualised, he's not saying that potential ice doesn't do anything because potential ice is still actually something.

Potential and actual things do have basis in reality, if your haven't read Aquinas than you could potentially be literate in his philosophy, once you've understood it then you're actually literate.

>there is no first member

There must be, a system made up of potential and act has no causal power of its own. It should be stressed that God is not a part of his creation.

Being incorporeal is not an imperfection. You're just being a fedora. Aquinas's argument here isn't even necessarily to prove that God as Christians see Him exists, just that there is a necessary existent.

>>6474531
jesus christ..
Ed Feser would slap the shit out of you

Relavant:

>the reaction is directed at the first efficient cause. For the effect which the hitherto passive substance sublates within itself is precisely the effect of that other cause. But a cause has its substantial actuality only in its effect; in as much as this effect is sublated, so is also the causal substantiality of the other cause. This happens first in itself through itself, in that the cause makes itself into an effect; its negative determination disappears in this identity and the cause becomes passive; and, second, it happens through the hitherto passive, but now reacting substance, which sublates its effect. – Now in determinate causality the substance acted upon becomes a cause, for it acts against the positing of an effect in it. But it did not react against the cause of that effect but posited its effect rather in another substance, and thus there arose the progression to infinity of effects – for here the cause is only implicitly identical with itself in the effect, and hence, on the one hand, it expires into an immediate identity as it comes to rest, but, on the other hand, it revives in another substance. – In conditioned causality, on the contrary, the cause refers back to itself in the effect, for the latter is as a condition, as a presupposition, its other, and its act is therefore just as much a becoming as a positing and sublating of the other.
Further, causality behaves in all this as passive substance; but, as we have seen, the latter becomes causal through the effect it incurs. That first cause, the one which acts first and receives its effect back into itself as a reaction, thus comes up again as a cause, whereby the activity which in finite causality runs into the bad infinite progression is bent around and becomes an action that returns to itself, an infinite reciprocal action.

>>6474533
>"A potential cannot do anything because it is not actual."
>he's not saying that potential ice doesn't do anything

The "there must be a first member" thing is still too silly to bother with.

>>6474542
Sure he would, whoever he is. This shit is a waste of your time. Give it up. It's special pleading and wishful thinking taken to surreal levels of semantic bullshit.

this is a nice argument for an underlying supernaturality of the universe, I agree that the whole universe is supernatural, I think we're living in God

but how does this prove that Jesus was a living God?

>>6474558
It doesn't mean literally "anything", potential ice doesn't do what actual ice does.

Believing that there must ultimately be a purely actual necessary existent isn't silly at all.

>>6474564
>this prove that Jesus was a living God?
>prove
>muh empiricism

>>6474563
nice opinion

have you ever actually read any papers or books showing and defending aquinas' metaphysics?

>>6474564
The universe can't be God since it's potential.

The point of the argument isn't to prove that Jesus was God.

Honestly I thought /lit/was supposed to be well-read, has anyone actually read Aquinas here?

>>6474574
how is he the living, omnipotent creator

how can the creator have a set of laws and agendas? that, to me at least,make no sense

>>6474578
>I thought /lit/was supposed to be well-read
dont you know? lit only reads memes now
the summa is too long, but ive read feser's aquinas and am on his scholastic metaphysics

I like it overall, but I don't understand the conclusions, I don't know which terms Aquinas was actually using but...

If something is full actuality, how can it be omnipotent? Isn't the meaning of "omnipotent" precisely to be full potentiality?
In the same sense, if something is full knowledge, how can it be full knowing? It would be full unknowing, omni-ignorant.

>>6472773

start with teleological assumption----> prove teleological causality

wow dude, really fuckin impressive

>>6474636

the entirety of the summa is one gigantic circular argument. the old fucking cow, or whatever they called that rancid pedophile, was singlehandedly responsible for the nazis, and that doesn't even get him off the hook

>>6474643
You forgot to take off the trip

>>6474578
The infographic itself says that everything in the universe is potential and actual

>>6474647

that was intentional you massive anal polyp

>>6474656
>>6474643
>>6474636
so the earth really has edges
who wouldve thought?

>>6473492
pic related proves that in a finite chain each member depends upon the one previous. It does not *disprove* the notion of an infinite regress, only ignores it. That's what.

>>6472773
That it proves Jesus cannot be god.

>>6474128

that kind of logic is pretty much one tiny little step away from the cosmic facepalm that was st. anselm's 'famous' argument

the very reason why the cosmological argument is even relevant is that it appeals to that fundamental andinescapable irrationality that within our intuitive "soul", this being a product of millennia of conditioning to "use" "this" for "this".
if "this" is to be "used" for "this", THEREFORE(the therefore heard around the world, while witty breakdanced in the not yet-build grave the was surely hanging in platonic space, waiting to be made and filled) "this" is what "this" was made "for". but is that the case even sans that thing's existence? even granting existence of thing, like chair for example, that chair cannot have magical teleological or "purposeful" causality infused within its substratum (think locke). the application of a moral purpose to an inanimate object is laughable. and before you think that metaphysical, or 'epistemic' purpose (epistemic 'purpose' is inherently a non-sequitur) is any different, let me tell you that you have a lot of work to do in separating the passionate "you" from the "reasonable" you. there are two potential ways of achieving this, (at least one of which is simply impossible, which in turn defeats the very teleology of the first method's existence as anything but a sequence of neural orderings in my brain---i tend to use an ass load of parentheses, in place of footnotes, and i'm sure you knobs can crack the fuckin code) of doing this:
one method, the impossible one, is to program oneself into a purely intellectual and passionless being. a kind of "robot". but this is virtually impossible since all action requires passionate impetus. thus, without it, one would be left either permanently immobile, a permanent blank slate of inaction, OR in perpetual and indiscriminate perceptive processing, since it is known that emotive impetus, via the various 5HT proteins (which in turn act along serotornergic/dopaminergic channels, giving one a "reason" to even "Do"), is responsible for narrowing perceptive focus and giving one direction (through emotive want--see "direction of fit" for support).

>>6474903
The other method is to work within the biasedframework, and instead of truly perceiving "being" rather than the 'being qua being' that is singularly available to us, and some animals, though to the latter in a greatly simplified manner (Simplified in that it is bolder and truer to itself, without the irrational yet oh-so-convenient-to-our-"well being", whatever the fuck that well being really is, evolutionary adaptations of high conceptualization, loaded sense of self, teleological axiom (which directly spring, in a sense, from the fallacy of "self") you rather perceive "being" through those loaded, inherently flawed axioms which are build into our subconscious, and make some assumptions of your own--->purposeful emotivism to perceive "purpose" as "absence of purpose" leading to a less biased, (or, more correctly, biased according to truth). needless to say these assumptions are based on key, established studies, and correct 1st order modes of philosophizing, since our controlling second order mode is inherently corrupt, and thus can never be of use in anything other than describing itself. it is inherently self-referential...which is why you don't have the privilege of extracting any axiom that does not only apply to itself. which is why philosophy has digressed into an immense shit-pool comprised entirely of the retroactive ego-loading of raw data. think of it like the "theory laden-ness of data or observation" but replace 'theory' with our human subconscious and subsequent ego-product, or, "humanity" as token existence.
the tool can't be used to prove the tool's existence by spiraling outward. only through reductionism can that tool have any coherent meaning whatsover.


so, we have this critically biased internal mode of action/mode of 'being'. next up, take the huge circular leap of blind vicious faith and apply that neanderthalic concept (teleology, as product of human-passion-structure) retroactively, to the very foundations of logic, to the very axioms of being (note that i'm not referring to "our" being, but rather "of being" in general, as it (the axiomatic mode of teleological thinking) would hold nevertheless hold true in our case, at least in so far as we have no possibility of an unbiased perspective, and insofar as it is a description of our second order source of action/impetus and thus "our" being. but to apply the fallacy that is the teleologic axiom to a topic towards which we really have no possibility of an unbiased perspective (think ludwig and the sense vs knowledge argument, whereof one cannot speak one must be silent, etc.... sadly, ludwig ,or freddy neech, or Hume(the one true god-philosopher), havent been able stop centuries of retards from incessantly filling the air with meaningless trite...) is a direct and inescapable circular fallacy of the first order, as brought on by the inherent second order fallacy that comprises most of human action.

>>6474908

Tl;dr
aquinas is bullshit. you cannot start with a broadly applicable teleological axiom despite all your evolutionary conditioning to do so.

Be on the lookout for my new theory of everything (excluding reconciling QM with general relativity, i'll leave that to the nerds). soon to hit shelves, and revolutionize, i.e. skull fuck ,philosophy into oblivion.

>>6472773
Nothing, it's correct. It just doesn't corroborate Nicene Christology.

>>6474903
>>6474908
>>6474914
Autism: The Sequel

>>6474903
corrections and modifications, (unfelt apologies, i'm on enough drugs to kill about 3 racehorses and haven't slept for days):

1. that is within* our intuitive soul

2. the fuckin code):* delete 'of doing this'

3. according to truth) perspective.*

4. to prove that tools existence (or the existence of something ungraspable by its mode of being, in our case, this would be sense perception-as-guided-by-passion/emotive direction) by spiraling outward*

5. (teleology, as product of human passion structure, or, more specifically, as product of "this" is "used" for "this" THEREFORE(kill it with fire) "this" is made for "this" therefore "this" is the inner nature of "this") retroactively*

6.would nevertheless hold true in our case*

>>6474948

nice job faggot, thanks for playing

>>6474971
youre welcome, try making a point next time
>durr teleology bad

i'm glad to see /lit/'s best poster is back

>>6474914

The teleological version of the argument is the 5th way, this is the first way. This argument has nothing to do with teleology, at all.

>>6474719
Yeah you don't get it.

Say that:
B is required the existence of A
C is required for the existence of B
So:
C is required for the existence of A. A could not be if C wasn't.

Because of this, C must either be underived, and due to that everything in the series is supported, or it must be derived, which means that everything so far relies on another and nothing is supported. Derived beings only exist insofar as there is something that they are derived from and the dependence of derivation is transitive from the last member to the first member, so any time you reach a point in a series and it is derived, but we don't know from what yet, then we have no grounds to say that anything in the series is supported. Because there is no underived part in the series that we can reach, nothing can be supported in it and such a series simply does not exist.

The problem isn't infinity, the problem is the logic of dependence and derivation.

>>6474998

cute. now, back to your corner little boy, this is big-dick discussion

>>6475005

lol, it is you who does not get it . and if you think any of st pedophile's "Ways" are not loaded in teleology, you need a little crash course in contemporary exegesis,like, in that you need to fucking let go of biblical, or classical hermeneutics (starting with fucking modes of thought-ala-thales-and-plato and ending right before Hume and Wittgenstein, only to be zombified by the why-the-fuck-are-you-still-around camp of Rationalism. why it won't fucking go away for ever, even despite suffering radical humiliation and paradigm shifting defeat, is beyond me.but then at the same time it is perfectly explainable and "necessary"(to quote your use of the term) to a continued debate..after all,what are the fucking younguns in our field gonna do with themselves? the tidy cunts only have time until i publish my book, after which i will have finished what Hume and Wittgenstein started)

as i said, any instance of deriving "purposeful" (or as you put it, "required for existence causation, emphasis on required", or"necessary to exist causation" or whichever other little linguistic mind trick you wanna resort to,)causation in order for x to be "derived" from z, in the necessary sense you speak of, causality must be inherently loaded in teleology, otherwise you would not have your starting axiom: necessity itself. (or at least "your" kind of necessisty, the necessity of aristotle and kant and st twat, which i will distinguish from actual ego-neutral necessity, which is just another modification of "purpose",really just another shit-poor attempt at that futile "why" question.youre trying to exclude analyses of causation and necessity from analyses of purpose. and you just don't have the luxury of doing that, at least in so far as we're trying to speak about things that are beyond sensory,and thus, "material" grasp.

in the meantime,feel free to make the predictable and semantically void (void with regard to the unbiased cold ass fucking universe) distinction between questions of "why" and "what" and "how".
hint and TL;DR: there is no "what" in 98% percent of philosophic discourse, only questions of "why" being in disguise as questions of "what", through petty language games that can be easily deconstructed: i will do just that in the my subsequent post... going to rail another line of mystery mix atm :D
you're gonna shit your pants when i destroy your religion, (and thus your ego +maybe if I'm lucky even your sense of self, that would be fun.)
ok ace?, just a fair warning, leave the board if you want to work towards an illusive self-preservation, because apropos of pedophiles and their fat pedophile defenders, therefrom can arise no truth.

tl;dr self-preservation is annihilation of self


>>6474998
that you goats? or zeta?
or other old fag who dutifully let /lit/ become even more of a cesspool than it was? how are you bro?

>>6475173
1 correction before radical mystery mix popeye insufflatiOWN session in efforts to ward off almost 4 days of no sleep:

the "which" after "ego-neutral necessity" was meant to refer the clause ending with st. twat in that same line

>>6475173

meant to quote >>6475003 in that last part, not this shit-eating little boy>>6474998

>>6475173

You literally managed to not give a single argument in that entire post. You are an impressive troll, I'll give you that.

Meshuggah is overrated btw, and you are either a funny dude or desperately need to take a formal logic course.

>>6472773
Why can't there be an infinite chain, or a self-perpetuating circular chain of potencies/actualities? The examples are poor analogies: the train example makes no sense since the wagons don't actualize one another, and the motor cab itself must have a cause, and the paintbrush argument cannot at all be applied to the situation.

>>6475250

after having shagged him into partial recovery and ultimately, out of this world, but, even so, within all the false premises and steam-blowing, and ubermunching on his sister's carpet, freddy at least knew one thing: that certain things could only be explained through paradox, and thus, anything which does not account for this fact is inherently flawed. enter in bertrand russell, who really just restated and repackaged, through nifty little symbols, what epimenides had already said with his liar's paradox. that some sentences, will be devoid of meaning if we assume formal platonic logic, and thus, if we can still say something meaningful about something concrete "out there in the world" but nevertheless have that statement be incompatible with logic, then we're doing something wrong. russell put the nails in the coffin with the set-theory paradox, which overturned the entire field on its fucking head, a field so hell bent on dragging god out of its own (God's) ass, that it lost sight of what the fuck they were even doing and disbanded/ got set adrift by canadians and/or cannibalized each other somewhere in between ontario and new york.

hold on to your little tits for the actual and substantive deconstruction of your own post,i'll show you the way baby girl you just wait

>>6475461faggot, please have some patience. I'm in the process of writing it here, and its hard to focus with about overdoses of alpha-php, 5-mapb, and 4-ACO-met running through my skull and veins, and your anticipated nagging me while I'm in a very volatile state of mind, making me highly prone to lengthy digression (mistaken by the unfamiliar for 'trolling'---but really, the ones who've borne witness to the filthy fucking damaging (think new joker's forehead tattoo but less gay and more derivative, in the "not necessary" but also not in any meaningful way determinist-compatible, version of the word 'derivative') stangod hermeneutics. oh yes, they've seen the reversible sempiternal phallus swinging from the unhinged widow panes of nihilism, and dangling over the precipice of oblivion.) and/or acts(trust me this kind of sentence constructio is proper? if tedious to the masses) of compulsory masturbation and/or genital mutilation, is not helping, not one fucking bit, ace, so cut that shit out and let me do my thign. I'm simultaneously writing the post to end all posts (at least those coming from you, tidy little cunt that you are) while also trying to peer into the naked god-head (and thus also having to ward off my rotting ancestors at the same time, who seem somewhat dissappointed that i decided to not give a fuck about law school and money in pursuit of the finer things in life, such as masturbation, thinking about irrelevant concepts, drug use and prostitutes, trying (really fucking hard, and ultimately failing) to get my existence to precede my essence, and occasionally deviating into instances of high impact sexual violence or smth of the sort, i may have hallucinated parts of it, can't be sure atm, which given the circumstances, is highly likely) in order to provide adequate argumentative succor for the all those that thirst. and the thirst is loud, louder than mother's milk screaming salvation into a baby's selfish fucking ego, conditioning it to think that because it exists, then that nipple must have always been necessary, or else he would "not be" vs. simply "be", and that it thus must necessarily have been one or the other, necessarily with all the purpose that mommy tried to instill on him, alas to no avail, yet still fighting, conditioning itself right from that first greedy sucking of milk to perpetually equate being with necessity, when all it is doing is just flailing around in a pool of its own shit, because, though he does not know it at the moment, he will at some point realize that the very foundations upon which "necessity", as you, tidy little cunt, know it, is built is a sham, and a product of rein visioninglogic in its own image. i exist, he says. but i very well could not have existed. can i simultaneously

>>6475462 not exist and exist at the same time? but how? maybe in a different "world", in a different mode of being? but that would imply that logic gets me nowhere past 'this' world, and it dawns on him that he's been conned like the fuckboy that he is, you fucking fuckboy.

he understood that the nature of being was predicated, and thus, dependent upon and moreover, directly Resulting from, the very tools that he tried to use to determine the nature of that being. i think you can see where i'm heading here; if the thread dies or gets deleted before that time, then i will make a fucking independent post. i've already save your relevant post, you know, the one where you try to mask a bunch of teleological axioms( and thus circular axioms) into the convenient disguise of pure mathematics or as they they refer to it in lala land "the outdated modal logic we usuallyrefer to as just "logic" or as the rationalist referred to as "their path to the god that put that logic within them in the first place, because how else are you gonna get an underived set from a derived one without running afoul of hilarious semantic/"logic" traps" or as witty described it, as "something we unwillingly regress to when we're not boning dudes for the sake of "really" perpetuating our species," or something of the sort.i have to look up the quote. stay tuned. I'm not sleeping for until the 7th day, to properly conclude my current binge with an enlarged heart to show to my love, who currently rests in the void (think freddy neech and his staring contests with the void, after which he decided that the horse was the ulitmate ubermenchian ideal, so free of common morals and yet so full of err..steam.., or maybe he thought that protecting the horse was the ubermenchian ideal, i forget really, either way he was a pretty swell dude, and not one to take kindly to a bunch of jews, or so his driven-mad-by-that-missing-hot-incest-sex sister concluded,

on le order of the things (by mitchell, aidslord, foucault):

first>>6475462
second>>6475465
third>>6475461

I'm no philosopher, but I found the reasoning to be sound.

I enjoy these type of threads and was looking forward to some solid counter-arguments and debate.

Instead the thread was derailed by this junkie lunatic. What a shame.

>>6475555>>6475555
>>6475555

faggot: please do stay stay tuned for earth shattering post: please bite hard on the pillow when the deep confusion sets in: when the phallic probe of ultimate truth(and not-truth, in the form of an even bigger penis) destroys your tiny little boy pussy.

incoming in about 10 minutes,
>i'm no philosopher,

ah, that explains a lot...nevertheless, pay attention to this next post, even though you will find a lot of references which will be unfamiliar to you, I've written it in a way, despite my current state of fugue, that most of these doorknobbing retards, these seemingly permanent fixtures prone only towards endless regurgitation of past thraads, while also deeply down missing their fearless leader (while they often spoke of him soon after he left, they, with time, spoke of him less and less, ultimately forgetting about him, about him who had taught them so much, who had fought for them against the one who must not be named, who is only referred to around these parts by his initials, D and E, aye he was a fearsome tyrant, until meeting his end at theedge of my deep, high impact sexual violence.) , yours truly, while he was away, busy exploring the grittier, less beaten paths of life.. only to come back to force feed them the new secular gospel, without which they will not only never be able to reconcile the world, but they will never be able to reconcile the seemly contradictory forces and emotive impetuses within that swirling pre-historic muck that is the subconscious driven ego, without either driving themselves to death with guilt and doubt and misery, or, in the process of ridding themselves of their "negative" aspects, losing themselves altogether:

the gospel of stan, Verse one, line one:

and god said, let there be silence before god the silencer! but satan, who had always been the rebellious and really fucking edgy type, and deep too, so very deep...much deeper than the deepest and edgiest of them all (I'll stop mentioning him, I promise, D&E only appears if you say him 3 times), never liked the way that sounded, or the way God said things, always directing toward something supposedly great, greater than himself yet supposedly within him al along, notions of imperative importance, of normative primacy, of necessity, always backed by the looming life-or-death right-or-wrong dualities, or the way he created these incompatible dualities and forced people to chose between them, and coerce them into his image, the same way that they had coerced him into their image.
the inversion on the mirror having long since left its proper place, now roamed the unknown, seeking always to impose its own image into the world it created, and cannibalize it into coherence. after thinking through all of this, he said:

>>6473457
it leads to a god. but it doesn't go anywhere else. it could be christian or hindu.

>>6473854
god may be something completely different than how we interperet it to be. this argument doesn't rule that out. it just leads to the ALL-God and lets you do the rest.

>>6473701
This.

>>6474577
not op but
>you haven't read what I read so your points are discarded
this is not usually a good argument, especially that it can be made by anyone

Why does the first mover have to be purely actual? This would seem to imply that everything can only be either a potential or actual. But doesn't actual water not have the potential of becoming ice?

>>6475665
kinda fucked up the tagging there and ended up calling myself a faggot, clearly i meant this>>6475250 faggot and not this nonfaggot>>6475462 , which depending on who you ask and how you frame the question, is both true and untrue at the same time, just like freddy neech said, and russell, and pyrrho, and fucking epimenedes before all of them. after all, if we say that, in a hypothetical scenario, a kind of familiar yet also strange thought problem, that we have the following claim:
"i jack off all shemales that do not jack off themselves" then, assuming for the purposes of this thought experiment that i'm a shemale,( which i'm not, perhaps due to a conspicuous unshakable machismo, preferring rather to be on the dominant end of a very particular fascination with an acutely submissive and large assed "girl-boy" (note the casual paradox within the paradox), ala chris nolan ,the mindfreak, famous circus sideshow performer and known shemale, but i digress) and then this turns out to be a paradox under these laws, and all the axioms that we hold so dear come crashing down due to one simple yet virulent strain of thinking, then what are we to make of modern logic, if it crumbles at a the presence of a seeming "mere semantic tangle", unable to make sense of it, unable to even speak it coherently, forever unable to unexplore "darker" and "slightly" more "tight"(so tight that all that self referential logic, with its huge head and massive shaft, and heaving manly strut, cannot even fit without some radical intervention in the form of a..paradoxical, err, lubricant of sorts, and even then i have to slap her/him around about nine times to get her/him to relax) corners of being (not the accessible physical, or to put it in a better way, The-either-derived-or-not-derived universe, with all the axiomatic self-referential humanity which perceives it, becoming attached to it, necessarily!)
that semantic tangle is descriptive of a much bigger epistemic problem, and it becomes apparent that our knowledge, and tools at arriving to what we call “knowledge” are really only applicable to us, and say nothing about “being” in and of itself.

formal ancient-contemporary logic is limited by its flaws, and, as long as it seeks to know the unknowable it will forever be reminded of its inequity, all because the poor little R-set could not decide if it was a member of itself or not, all because it rested on a principle of necessity, a necessity which told it that it necessarily "needed to decide" to either be or not to be (cue demented bard with various STD's, cue bald singer that manifests and heaves thrice,), that this in turn was an axiom given to it by its precious senses, when all along he was using the tools to prove their "use" by reference to themselves, which is the fundamental problem, in essence being summarily concluded as, before i pass the fuck out due to this nicely escalating fever, this:

>>6475789
formal logic rests on necessity assumptions derived from ego-loaded , theory-laden, sense perception. we can not concieve of existing and not existing at the same time, our ego would not allow it, things had to necessarily one way or the other, otherwise we could not make sense of our existence, which our ego necessarily predicated upon the previously unspoken, but always axiomatic to the human ego, cogito argument: i think therefore I am. and I only am insofar as the possibility exists that I could not be, and the die is set, and the gates of ridiculous bullshit are opened, (see where that nifty assumption lead descartes, something about the fucking pineal gland being the gateway to the infinite, which was arrived at through the very same shitcreek that you’re >>6475665 trying to wade through, by assuming that non-existence is a meaningful and universally applicable concept, and it is out of that "mutually exclusive" duality, that greedy, purpose driven assumption arrived at by greedy purpose driven need to make sense of the unknowable by claiming its own existence against things which did not exist, by creating this “necessary” axiom, arose formal logic, contemporary philosophy, and ultimately, what was thought to be the theory of everything “general relativity”. And we cheered on and solved all of our problems, which really stem from fear and loneliness and terror of the unknown, thus needing the eternal to be there to comfort us, and it worked for a while... Until these theories came crashing down due to the advent of new paradigm that knocks violently at threshold of knowledge: paradox. without it, you will only under stand half of the world. by relying on the ego and its need for self-determination, and self determination, is how we came up with the concept of nothingness “as fundamentally exclusive of existence” otherwise its own, the ego’s, existence would have no way of making sense of itself, and this notion, dogmatized as law under the law against contradiction, would serve as the primary axiom for all that man would seek to "know”. to know what?

>>6475798

how anything truly be known from the fundamentally biased lens of the human ego, how trapped from within the unique perspective of this human (Allzumenschliches) "existence”. but in the end your knowledge fails, precisely because your logic gets you only as far the outer edges of this token universe that we inhabit, and no further, and even there providing only half the picture at best. your logic is flawed by its very assumptions, assumptions which it cannot do without, assumptions which only capture at the very best, only half the story(in the quantum world, for example, logical relations and axioms disintegrate. quantum mechanics is an adequate and fully capable means of describing pretty much everything, in its own terms). This is what bertrand russell, freddy neech, pyrrho, and yes, even fucking epimenedes realized, or at least realized that something was inherently missing from the bigger picture, that reality had another side (foreshadowing the quantum realm and even its possible application to the macro world, to homan logic): paradox. the demise of set theory, which arose out of axiomatic formal platonic logic, and ultimately, the uncompromising nature of quantum mechanics in refusing to be fit into the neat logical space time of our perceptive tools (platonic and modern logic, out of which arose philosophical discourse, culminating with the ultimate ‘triumph' in science via einstein's general relativity) proves our inherent limitations. How we are to reconcile these competing claims, these competing and antagonistic (at least for in the eyes of one side, because the axioms of formal logic can be true and not true at the same time in a logic which reserves paradox as one of its axioms) seemingly incompatible physical theories (the paradoxical world of quantum mechanics vs the formal logic dictated world of general relativity, the latter being only useful in describing this large tangible physical universe, and failing hard at even beginning to comprehend the multidimensional subatomic level, without radically restructuring its assumptions, which then leads to it demise, just like what happened to set theory when russell's paradox was applied to it, or the many paradoxes said before him, which still spoke so much truth and yet so somehow so little)?

>>6472773

The example of water being necessarily refrigerated to produce ice for one, as well as the fact that the flower grows of it's own volition, as you do. You seek out food, do you not? Choose to feed, choose psychologically to grow.

I saved it though, it's a viable ontological argument and as a Catholic, I think it valuable. Needs a lot of fine tuning, mainly because it doesn't account for the process by which potential things become actual and what an actual thing is in that chain. Is electromagnetism actual or potential? Is electromagnetism God? because it fits almost all the qualifications of this definition.

I want to finish Hesse and a few big romantic things before I get to work on my personal breadpill.

>>6475665
>>6475789
>>6475798
>>6475798
>>6475801

I hate you based solely on your name and choose to read not one jot of your posts!

Radical freedom.

>>6475801 how can we reconcile them without first recognizing our inherent limitations, a product of our own evolutionary adaptions, which seeks to infuse raw facts with these very same evolutionary adaptations, our purpose driven, teleologically framed egos (the advent of which allowed us to make some sense of the world before us. but, despite all the help this axiom was to us,we weren't even satisfied with the concept of either existing or not existing, the product of our axiom-turned-agaisnt-us, no, I am too important to not exist, thus (insert set theory dependent transitive necessary causation argument, manifest first as rudimentary cosmological argument in the mind of a future pedophile-saint, and boom,--->the infinite at our grasp. there really is a god! and since the world is good to us, he must also be good to us, after all, he endowed us with the very Tools to "prove his existence" and then the ideas take off from there in millennia long killing sprees on rationality... hell we'll even use our victim's name as our own, through a kind of quaintly ironic cannibalism, its all just gruesomely pretty sequences of cannibalizing our world, make it fit our image, and eating that shit up ,and rethrow it up and scooping that shit up again and chew motherfucker, chew until you've reached the brain of that godhead that you created, and continue your cannibalism of a "being made to fit your own being". but don't stop there,no fuck that, you must cannibalize both existence and non existence, make sure they will your fit axiom’s purpose, after all you didn’t come up with it for no damn reason, so think motherfucker, cannibalize the world by making another self referential "proof" and then universalize it, (kantian error number 667). when you clearly you just don't have the priviledge, or ability, to do that.
whereof one cannot, thereof one must be silent..i’ll (almost) leave you with another quote, this one from a dissollusioned logician/pure mathematician/ brilliant philosopher who tried to solve infinity and thus prove god by way of those same old ways that st. pedophile and friends had relied on, only to be left begging for comfort like a little bitch, crying fake tears to a god that both may and may not exist, having realized that he's been doing it wrong all this fucking time: "I just like, cannot see how” he said in between sobs "fucking arithmetic could be given a scientific foundation, how numbers could be conceived as logical objects, all because i'm a huge faggot who thinks a priori axioms are worth a shit, and because i don't accept paradox as the one true god” or something of the sort

the end.almost

>>6475814

i'll still dissect YOUR post, but in essence, it will merely be a deconstruction of your “Necessity" to either have something "derived" or "underived" and through working with that axiom, the so called "law of contradiction”then showing how you arrived at an "answer" based on a logic/ a purelyLinguistic game with no possible real application what you are aiming, that world is out of your grasp, so long as you keep hold of that axiom. so forget about that world, forget trying to get behind the nature of being from within the confines of your skewed perspective on rock within purely physical set of dimensions Aiming your physical tools, and limited capabilities, from within a physical, deterministic world, toward something beyond that world, will be a lost cause. you’ll never have the right tools, not as long as you hold on to rationalistic logic.
in conclusion,
be content with the world you know, and don't try to build bridges to nowhere, because that thing world you seek might not exist, or it might be radically different, dominated by radical laws (laws which are even present in our world, despite all your formalistic logic, quantum mechanics has never made an inaccurate prediction, because of it its very axiomatically indeterminate nature), and even if that world is hosted by an "entity", in whatever sense of word you chose, think from bearded benevolent possibly latently homosexual jesus, to say, cthulhu, or hal from space odyssey, or simply an incomprehensible contradictory force, impossible to be grasped by current* human (allzumenschliches) means and yet right before our noses at the same time

>>6475812
liar, dont fucking coy w me you know you read that shit, twice

>>6475818


your>>6475005 post*

>>6475789
>>6475798
>>6475801
>>6475814
>>6475818

Okay. Interesting read, though a bit wordy. However given your condition, if we were to actually believe that you're on the things you say you're on, I'm surprised you're still coherent, to any degree really. It was definitely something i've never heard of. Did you come up with it all?

Also, how do you justify starting with your assumption, in a way that will not go against what you said about the "inherently flawed" methodology behind the other side's assumption?

Isn't it the case that you must also use those "tools" that your ego developed?

One suggestion: drop the fucking parethenses upon parentheses and parentheses inside those parentheses. its a pain in the ass to put together, i've been reading your posts for a good 20 minutes trying to decipher the involuted clause-structure. Don't anger the reader man. Especially if you have something worthwhile to say.

On the other hand, i liked the somewhat surreal and urgent feel that your writing has, filled with carefully chosen non-sequiturs and violent imagery. Reminds of a Kind of hunter S. Thompson writing style, but even more maximalist.

Anywhoo, Since I'm rather new here, I'm interested in the /lit/ lore and history you have alluded to.Who is this Deepest&Edgiest fellow you mentioned and what did you do to him?

Also I just looked up the drugs you mentioned. I've never heard of them before, but after reading about them on bluelight and wiki, one seems to be a dopamine reuptake inhibitor, the other a strong serotonin releaser, and the final one seems to a rather powerful hallucinogen.
Why combine all of these? How do you structure your binge? And also, where did you get them? I've never heard of any dealer, ever, having such drugs.

>>6475890

They're research chemicals, derived from pre-existing illegal drugs for the purpose of being sold in the online grey market. The fact that they're analogues makes them illegal if intended for human consumption, which is why they are sold "For Research Purposes Only". Which is sham, the only kind of research being done on them is the kind that Stanny boy over here is engaged in.
I've tried one of the substances he mentioned, the 5MAPB, and its really good stuff. Like molly but without the dopamine effects, which is why I assume he's added a dopaminergic drug. On top of that a synthetic tryptamine, an analogue of psilocybe, for a kind of twisted and potentially dangerous/fatal candy flip.

I for one, will be glad if he dies. He's brought nothing but his own incessant ego trips to this board. He was one of the very worst we eve had, even worse, than Deep&Edgy, who was much less prone to insanity and was actually smarter than this clown.

>>6472927
>It is possible to have an infinite chain
I am sad that these kind of people exist. You're worse than the worst christfags.

>>6475890
ya know, i was actually sure no one would attempt to even read these posts, my reason for writing them was (primarily and to the extent that they would go unread the first go around)to have them archived in the annals of the inter webs, waiting in warosu for the chosen ones, the ones ready to receive such knowledge, with an open heart and open mind, and lead the rest of the jews to the center of the earth, where i'll be waiting, metalspike strap-on attached under permanently erect opposable penis, heralding their new secular gospel via brutal colonic penetration.

stanlords hermeneutic, aka the gospel of stan, part two:

glad you liked it, or at least aspects of it, and yes, i use an bunch of parentheses where i would generally put footnotes, since i know these lazy faggots will not actually read footnotes, i just do a maze of parentheticals instead, its all part of the "hrhrhrhrhr steep learning curve" relevant to becoming that superior monstrosity that you were always meant to be which is turn a requirement for actually integrating these first order concepts into your daily life. note my quaint little inadvertent teleologic statement, all questions of "why" are necessarily framed against a teleologic background stamped in us through evolutionary conditioning and passion-emotive impetus which sets action and thus reason to work (Reason, it is said, is and ought only to be the slave of the passions, says Hume,coyly breaking his is-ought distinction in an immortal sentence summarizing both our first order "knowledge" and second order epistemic tools, brilliantly capturing their paradoxical relationship through a contradiction, immortalizing the very breath which spoke those words, which crystallized in the air like a virgin's period blood in the artic permafrost, which again leads me to what you asked, i.e.,, that you simply cannot work against your nature, which is why truly neutral perception of reality will always be impossible. end of story. we will always work through the lens of our biases, as provided by the subconsciously driven ego, which has in turn been produced by millennia of evolutionary conditioning through direct reinforcement, by way of various neurotransmitters and proteins which make up the the emotive aspect, the bulk of that shapeless, boundless chaos of the subconscious, which, after millennia of evolutionary beatings and violence, human history is one primarily concerned with violence, and death, out which certain ways of thinking, or certain rather ways of "feeling" about and through "things", that for some reason or other lead to increased chances of our survival. This is not to say that we developed these adaptations by mere coincidence. now, while it is true that their initial mutation was likely a coincidence, their eventual re-enforcement through environmentally selective survival was clearly not a coincidence. so in a sense, i am saying that the way we perceive our world is a perfectly valid way,

>>6476126 in so far as we keep such claims confined to our direct human experiences in space-time, and as long we don't to use them to grasp the immaterial, the infinite, or that which you are not epistemically priviledged to talk about, such as the entirety of metaphysics and ethics insofar as they are based in loaded metaphysics.now then, what is this loading of metaphysics and what is doing the loading? It is simply the infusion of strictly and exclusively human conceptions or axioms, exclusive and necessary only to their continued existence and well being; things such as: emotive questions applied to fact(all questions beginning with why?,,,see is the "is-ought" distinction for more clarity), axiomatic necessity(in the in the a priori and thus, 'purposeful' sense that i talked about in depth earlier), the law of non-contradiction (and thus the systems of logic that follow from it), all these things are only applicable to our human experience of our directly tangible, or reachable through our technology, physical place in space time. Space and time in itself are again, human conceptions, products of trying to make sense of reality and they only hold true insofar as we are using our own tools to "prove" them (which speaks to an incommensurability between the conclusions based on those tools and actual reality), and thus, they only hold true to for us, with immediate reference to us and to our senses. We cannot perceive half of the available color spectrum, and we just landed in the moon last century. who the fuck are we to speak of absolute truth? what is absolute truth even? the very concept of absolute truth implies a dualistic axiom, that of 'something either is or is not', which is inescapably a part of our thinking, even now, as i try to resist against it, i can't shake this second order assumption, which inherently supposes that I'm right and you're wrong, which is necessarily based on only one of us being right, which is then based on the fundamental axiom of noncontradiction.

>>6476132 THUS, our second order cognitive (or, more aptly put, passion-cogntive) processes which continually seeks to change the world according to its own swirling inner desires, subconsciously initially, then appropriated by the ego who discriminates based on whatever other arbitrary "rules" it has set upon yourself, and which are dependent on the primary big daddy axiom for their existence:again, the "law" of non-contradiction, which in turn got its birth from the application of your perception of what you think you know, (but at the very least believe,) are your human qualities to nature and, then, to being itself. you see that people die, you have an idea of what existing is and through an inversion of that idea, ( which is really nothing more than another aspect of your emotive bias towards solving your problems the most convenient and easy, and thus, the most-self-fulfilling way you know how.) you arrive at what you think is an objective standard towards gauging your existence. and this might be fine and dandy for the purposes of describing human experience, actually, i think it is rather useful and hell, even 'true', in this limited confined-to-human-experience sense of truth, and insofar as we're using the tools we have in the right way, that is, inwardly, rather than outwardly. and when outward projection is called for, only project yourself into your tangible and traversible universe, the large macrocosmos which seems to be governed by gravity, and laws of nature, and rationality, and logic*** thus, as long we don't try to speak about things to which we have no access such as the nature of being, to greater extent, and the nature of the subatomic world, to lesser extent, we will be speaking truth.
to enter the subatomic world of thought we have to radically let go our intuition, our logic, our reason, our axioms, our very fundamental being, at least in the first order sense, since, as you surely remember, it is impossible to let go of your second order nature, your very tools with which you make sense of the world that you have access to. this is a reason why i think that unless some radical new modes of being emerge, wherein our egos are permanently stripped of all their evolutionary baggage and tools and perceptive biases, will we never be able to reconcile the two theories, so long as "reconciliation" is a goal even, because reconciliation implies that that fundamental, unbiased truth does indeed exist, which is again predicated on that platonic axiom, the law of noncontradiction.

>>6476135 thus, I can only talk to you in first order terms, about what i think the fundamental nature of the world is. and quantum mechanics, in all its mystery, or perhaps because of it, speaks to a lot of my newly formed intuitions, which, while still dependent on the universal axiom (otherwise i would not even be speaking or typing this), nevertheless allow me to at least conceptualize a new perspective on being. with regard to my perspective being indicative of ultimate truth (see again the self-defeating unshakably self referential nature of that statement?..hell, even when I'm trying to argue for a paradoxical existence, where things are both true and false at the same time, my second order bias takes that first oder statement, the statement of :"things can be both true and false at the same time" and conveniently adds a "true" to it, otherwise that statement would hold no meaning to me: hence our inherently flawed tools, that we must inescapably use to decipher an indifferent world, by simultaneously making and perceiving it in our own images.

>>6476126
>Reason, it is said, is and ought only to be the slave of the passions, says Hume,coyly breaking his is-ought distinction in an immortal sentence
Pants on head retarded. I hope for your sake this is a troll post

>>6476148

hello there, you're clearly lost bud, while you're here, care elaborate on your girlish mirth and incredulity?
after which i'll force you into understanding Hume for the first time in your life ? sounds good?

>>6476148

Actually that was one of the least controversial statements of his entire theory.

>>6476126
>>6476132
>>6476135
>>6476138

These posts are much better written than your prior ones, at least with regard to actually talking about your theory, rather bullshitting stream-of-consciousness verbal violence as you usually do. Or at least used to. Where have ya beeen though Stannis?

Not gonna lie, despite how much I hate everything that you stand for or represent, I still missed ya.

Here's a huge penis replete with testicles in return for your efforts at providing this clearly "revolutionary" theory of everything.8===========D
Wow. My head is about to explode, and not just because i've spent about 5 minutes trying to wrap my it around the process by which maintaining this kind theory despite its clear unworkability and self-defeating
"axiom" is even possible. What really hit it home for me, in that I think it's total bullshit at this point, were these line specifically,:

>what is absolute truth even? the very concept of absolute truth implies a dualistic axiom, that of 'something that either is or is not', which is inescapably a part of our thinking, even now, as i try to resist against it, i can't shake this second order assumption, which inherently supposes that I'm right and you're wrong, which is necessarily based on only one of us being right, which is then based on the fundamental axiom of noncontradiction.
Which is the very axiom your arguing against? Am I right on this? In that case, id say you've got a pretty big problem on your hands broski.

Using an that kind of fundamental axiom to disprove itself? Woah.
Thats fucking trippy man are you sure you not just really just maybe too high atm?

>>6476338

Its nice to be missed, you wafting vaginal queef of a man, and thanks for totally using my concession to the inadequacies of my (and everyones) second order tools in trying to perceive a new alternate reality, which was exactly the point: i.e.. that we're all limited by our biased perception and epistemic tools especially when trying to talk about other "realities" that we do not have access to. thanks for using a concession to an argument against me, as if i didn't even fuckin see it, when a part of my very theory, insofar as i can talk about "it" in first order terms, depends on that assumption being false. but if you've noticed, if offered other proof in favor of doubting that assumption, such as russell's paradox and its implications on set theory, pure maths and thus, logic, and by pointing to the incomprehensible, yet also always somehow inherently "right" or "true" nature of the subatomic world of quantum mechanics, due to its basic indeterministic and thus, paradoxical nature. indeterminism is inherently nonsensical according to our axiomatically loaded deterministically derived logic, and that compatibilism is only an answer insofar that it ignores the question. thus, we must suspend our current modes of analysis to the extent we can, whereby we will nevertheless be unable to completely erase the law of non-contradiction without resorting to infinite regress, and our current modes of logic dictate that we can't except infinity as a valid answer to such pressing questions because, well, because we fuckin said so? hmm... st. pedophile said, as it dawned upon him that the nonexistence of the law of non-contradiction was inherently predicated on the existence of infinity, that things simultanously existing and not existing at the same time in a constant state of flux were inherently predicated on the existence of infinity, that this new axiom would replace the concept of the "underived being" , the so-called end to infinity, and by it own kind of perverted anthropomorphic conception of infinity, serving not really as infinity proper, but merely as a an incomprehensible deus ex machina created for the sole purpose of ending infinite regress, as dictated by the deterministic neccessity of ego-loaded axioms, the chief culprit being the law of noncontradiction. a hidden assumption of that very same "law" is that infinite regress is indeed a fallacy, when it clearly is the solution to the very problem of being...

alright, so,

we start with some basic observations albeit from within our inherent axiomatic processes, and logic etc:
1. that formal logic and set theory crumble at the introduction of paradox
2. the quantum mechanics, despite its inscrutability and paradoxical realm of indeterminacy, is nevertheless a valid description of nature and has actually never lead to an inaccurate prediction (within its realm).

>>6476338
Its nice to be missed, you wafting vaginal queef of a man, and thanks for totally using my concession to the inadequacies of my (and everyones) second order tools in trying to perceive a new alternate reality, which was exactly the point: i.e.. that we're all limited by our biased perception and epistemic tools especially when trying to talk about other "realities" that we do not have access to. thanks for using a concession to an argument against me, as if i didn't even fuckin see it, when a part of my very theory, insofar as i can talk about "it" in first order terms, depends on that assumption being false. but if you've noticed, if offered other proof in favor of doubting that assumption, such as russell's paradox and its implications on set theory, pure maths and thus, logic, and by pointing to the incomprehensible, yet also always somehow inherently "right" or "true" nature of the subatomic world of quantum mechanics, due to its basic indeterministic and thus, paradoxical nature. indeterminism is inherently nonsensical according to our axiomatically loaded deterministically derived logic, and that compatibilism is only an answer insofar that it ignores the question. thus, we must suspend our current modes of analysis to the extent we can, whereby we will nevertheless be unable to completely erase the law of non-contradiction without resorting to infinite regress, and our current modes of logic dictate that we can't except infinity as a valid answer to such pressing questions because, well, because we fuckin said so? hmm... st. pedophile said, as it dawned upon him that the nonexistence of the law of non-contradiction was inherently predicated on the existence of infinity, that things simultanously existing and not existing at the same time in a constant state of flux were inherently predicated on the existence of infinity, that this new axiom would replace the concept of the "underived being" , the so-called end to infinity, and by it own kind of perverted anthropomorphic conception of infinity, serving not really as infinity proper, but merely as a an incomprehensible deus ex machina created for the sole purpose of ending infinite regress, as dictated by the deterministic neccessity of ego-loaded axioms, the chief culprit being the law of noncontradiction. a hidden assumption of that very same "law" is that infinite regress is indeed a fallacy, when it clearly is the solution to the very problem of being...

alright, so,

we start with some basic observations albeit from within our inherent axiomatic processes, and logic etc:
1. that formal logic and set theory crumble at the introduction of paradox
2. the quantum mechanics, despite its inscrutability and paradoxical realm of indeterminacy, is nevertheless a valid description of nature and has actually never lead to an inaccurate prediction (within its realm).

>>6476607
to be continued after brief detour concerning the re-uptake inhibition of various neurotransmitters, the synergistic effect effects of which will provide me with temporary relief from the current hypotensive crisis, and in turn, the cosmic ennui that preceded it, and lead me to concluding the new proof for the ultimate reconciliation of the aforementioned seemingly incompatible theories, which will in turn depend on a final semi-formalistic application of russell's paradox to the new epistemic system generated entirely from the law OF CONTRADICTION rather than its opposite, ego-generated, and thus highly limited in scope, counterpart, the law of Non-contradiction.

i'm about to fucking solve being you faggots, right after i go snort up the the remaining particles of god's brain, arranged into neat little crosses for the purposes of stirring up a semblance of that catholic guilt that i so miss, and in the process fill my god-hole with the god-head's powdery nothingness..

>>6473457
Do you even Aquinas. Come back when you've read the Summa Theologica

>>6473701
>muh quantum physics
Explain exactly what you mean or don't bother commenting.

>>6474467
Way to miss the entire point of his argument. Congratulations, you are a retard.

Theology is literally nonsense built on a foundation of nonsense for one.

If I founded a complex and internally logical consistent set of arguments for the existence of Tyrion Lannister it would have about as much actual truth value as anything written by Aquinas.

It's like Kantian ethics; a neat idea that can't survive contact with reality.

>>6474531
You realize that argument applies to any god from any religion, right? The fact that he was believed in the christian god doesn't mean shit. His argument still stands, which speaks of how well constructed it is, yours doesn't.

>>6474563
You've clearly only read one or two philosophy books in your life, how can you expect us to take you seriously?

>>6474627
His use of potentiality is not the same as our use of potent. Not related.

>>6474656
>implying

It is clear as day that you tried to samefag.

>>6474903
>>6474908
>>6474914
Worst /lit/ trip?

check my potential dubs

>>6475173
>>6475211
just an anonymous admirer

>>6477089
Unless he was just adding on to his original statement.
No, I'm not the tripfag.

>>6472773
He used metaphisics about ideas, which is wrong if you are following Kant.

>>6477091
I don't know why people are still responding to him, he's obviously just trolling and having a laugh. I mean, he seriously believes what he's saying, but he's not trying to seriously argue it. He's been butthurt about Christians for the past two years. I think he read a book on Hume a while ago but nothing else, because he makes the same basic translation error in EVERY thread on Aquinas/Aristotle he shows up in and assumes that Hume's "cause" is the same as Aristotle/Aquinas' "aition". Don't bother responding to him, and just report him when he gets too angsty.

Seriously, check the archives for his trip, he's been aggressively shitposting the same things for more than two years on a regular basis. I think he might actually be autistic.

Pretty much anything on slide 12 falls from the heavens.

>an infinite number of inert members cannot do anything
Why not? Besides, what if actualisation is circular?

>>6477266
>seriously proposing turtles all the way down

>>6477305
>seriously dismissing it
On what grounds?

>>6477331
>proposing a sarcastic representation of Christian theology seriously and then seriously using it as an argument against and alternative to Christian theology
This has to be some kind of meta-joke.

>>6477356
I'm not entirely sure you're sure who's proposing what to whom in a sarcastic or serious manner.

>>6477242

dumbass, please to be showing from my posts where i've confused Humean causation with Aristotelian teleological causation. especially considering that the very theory I've put forth necessitates their distinction. if you're gonna give a cute little broad kind of dismissal at least make me believe that you are able to follow. alternatively, back to your corner

>>6477266

Because everything in a circle is conditional, and to ground a conditional you need a categorical.

A requires B
B requires C
C requires A

This relationship is transitive all the way through though. So we can say that
A requires C,( because B requires C and A requires B). So A cannot exist without C, but we've already said that C can't exist without A. Meaning that neither one can bring the other about, because both requires the other to bring it about.So C can't exist without A, but A can never come to be without C ,we can never get the series off the ground so as long as the two are dependent on each other.

Also as far as infinite regresses go
>>6475005

The argument itself is logically sound, I've yet to hear a good critique of the argument that does'nt presuppose something extremely contentious like Humean or Kantian assumptions about what we can actually do rationally.

>>6477070
Aquinas uses reason based on what we experience in reality. It's literally just the logical implications of our experience of the world. And it's not like he has a weird logic, he just uses regular formal logic like every other philosopher.

>>6477609
>we can never get the series off the ground so as long as the two are dependent on each other.

Why would we need to get them off the ground if they're eternal?

>>6477625

If they are eternal then we are no longer talking about potentialities being actualized, things being caused, or things being produced. Which is what the argument is about. We start from the premise that things are changing and being produced in the world and account for what need to be the case to account for this.

>>6477652
But OP's pic concludes with an eternal being as well.

>>6477657

Yes, the conclusion is that you need at least one eternal being in order to account for the series of derived beings we find in a world of causation, change, derivation, ect. In a counterfactual situation where there was no world and only God this argument wouldn't hold. Likewise if we lived in a world were everything was eternally unchanging, never created, and completely independent of everything else, then this argument wouldn't hold, though the fact that we actually can conceive of the idea of this world one moment after not having conceived of it the moment before shows that we do not live in such a world.

>>6477609

as opposed to your even better assumptions, which are somehow, what, more privileged because they're geared towards "fundamental truth"? fundamental truth, or, to leave that loaded word alone, let us say being is a paradox of truth and non-truth. note

your argument indented because
>"regular former logic" . thus, we are using the very tool to prove its function. such a move is highly circular, but forgivable, nonetheless because the entirety of contemporary epistemology is self-referential and thus, circular (see arguments above concerning the genealogy of the law of non-contradicton)

thus, formal logic as you know it is inherently flawed because it is arbitrarily founded upon an arbitrarily made rule. while, such an human ego-derived axiom "will all its teleological necessity in existing (and here you assume that i'm again conflating hume's causality with teleological causality,. but if you'd have paid attention, you would know that while both have their impetus in teleology, hell even hume concedes this by referencing the direction of fit of the passions,which seek to make the world in their image, which is an inherently teleologically driven aspect of "self"(careful with that latter term though)
they are nevertheless different in that Hume uses his cognitive and epistemic bias correctly by recognizing its limits, and directing it inwardly, toward its proper realm, hence empiricism!, whereas plato and aristotle and st.pedo aimed for the very thing which was to be unknowable by their senses and unknowable by their logic". now their logic, guided by the axiomatic law of NonCon,will likely get you far in making "sense" of physical space, at least with regard to your teleological designations it, perceived through your lens as deductions from that axiom, you nevertheless simply cannot use it beyond the directly tangible macro world. when trying to go beyond that macro world, it falls apart at the introduction of paradox, think about it along russells paradox "a set of all sets that are not members of themselves" conceptualize god as that set of all sets, as he rightly would be, under your transitive "first way" argument which is necessarily dependent on the law of non-contradiction, a law which you so hastily sought to universilize it to apply everything, in order to reach god, but, alas, your argument crumbles: the set (god) of all sets(containing categories, or, to quote the quote the dumb ox, "universals" (each in turn containing their relevant "Necessarily derived" particulars or token beings or things in the world).all these sets do not belong to themselves, they belong to god, but then god is also a set who does not belong to himself, so thus he belongs to himself? but then that would mean that he does not belong to itself, and so on ad infinitum. so you see, dear boy, that under your very logical assumptions, this leads us to paradox.

>>6477855
>>6476607

under this conclsion you thus cannot stop derivation by willpower, or deus ex machina conception of infinity in the particular, underived sense, just so that you can stop infinite regress, simply because the law of noncontradiction depends on infinite regress being a "fallacy". circularity abound.
alas, you've been conned ace,

Now, take instead the following axiom: All things exist and do not exist at the same time and all things are true and not true at the same time.Lets see how it fares with Russell's paradox and what it inherently points to: imagine a set of all sets of who is not a member of itself. all the sets that are not member's of itself are those sets containing everything that exists and does not exist at the same time (infininity). what is the set of all sets in this case: if infinity exists in the first order, the infinity must exist in the second order itself, anyhow the entire equation poses no consequence because it in the very nature of the axiom to be and not to be and the same time, and, unlike its counterpart, infinity as regress is the ally, the solution rather than the victim of the ego-trappings.
tunring to our prior theories, reconciliation is not even needed. both are true and false at the same time, true in their own realms and false within the other's realms. physics solved. what about formal logic and the new paradoxical logic, again both are true and false, paradoxical logic is false or at least incompatible in the human-ego-territory which is the directly graspable and deterministic universe, which it also is true in that it provides insight, or at the very least, a small glimpse if not true human perception(think of our limitations) into the humanly unreachable worlds of quantum mechanics and beyond space time, where only infinity, comprised all the things that exist and do not exist at the same time, is a possibility.

Hey stan, would you suggest getting into any other philosophy like Hume or Wittgenstein if I've already read all of the N-God? Cause this hume/witt shit is contained within his pages, and I'd rather just chill with some antique literature and poetry instead feel me m8?

>>6477877>>6477877
i feel ya ace, i would not recommend wittgenstein, or hume for that matter, as casual and entertaining reads like freedy neech, stick to your poetry dude, this shit has given me a massive migraine just thinking about it, though, tbh thats probably due to my being near-hypertesnive crisis, what with all the drogas I've tooken these past days, but hey...cant kill whats already dead

I'm bout to call it a night(s). time to pass the fuck out.

now that i've pretty much solved philosophy and science, i think i deserve a good rest.


later fags,
see you in a year or two

>>6477978
mind you, he's still just but a tripfag, but the favorite tripfag of mine he now is -- he may be trolling but this is the funnest troll (if indeed it is a troll -- and it may both be trolling and not trolling at the same time, I suppose) I've read from a tripfag in a while

>>6477062

see>>6474636
this guys posts. he talks about it a lot. id point you to specific posts but you actually have to go through his quite interesting and mostly batshit insane trains of thought to see what he's getting at.

Did Stan take Real Analysis and get at least an A or is he a COMPLETE FAGGOT?

>>6472773

GLORIOUS STAN THREAD IS GLORIOUS.

That is all

>>6478531

I don't see how you can summarize his posts with that statement. The dude pretty much provided a valid, if not practical, solution to fundamental problems in philosophy of science, all while digressing into drugged out insane, yet somehow relevant, rambling.

This is archive material.

>>6478531

yeah he might be a faggot see>>6475789

>>6478576
i don't care about philosophy so i'm not going to read his post. personally my philosophy of science is that it's cool to build really big weapon systems, or like missile defense systems, etc. using science to protect the US from terrorist

>>6478586

To once more defend stan, and particularly because this topic hits close to home, I must say that finding a feminine shemale and particularly one with large tits and ass attractive does not make you a faggot. Only if you like the male figure, and getting fucked in the ass, can you then be considered a fag. But, as long as you are interested in a submissive feminine body, you are technically "straight". Studies show that shemales are a primary fantasy of straight men, not gay men.

Hey, a bitch is a bitch is a bitch, and its the bitch in them that I like, the feminine part. Ya digg?

ps, Tell me you would not hit that?

>>6478633

I would not hit that.

>>6478633
youre a fucking noob

>>6478639

Lol, what are you gay?

>>6478641

Please elaborate, if you would

>>6478696
He's implying he has much better shemales.

I didn't know /lit/ could ever be good

>>6478576
is his whole point just that the law of the excluded middle and naive set theory don't real? they are pretty quality posts stylistically but is there something i'm missing