[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

File: 330 KB, 700x700, 1457875350538.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

7923210

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 16:49:42 2016 No.7923210 [Reply] [Original]

Every assumption is either

.) a dogma,
.) at the top of an infinte regress
:) or trapped in circularity
(Agrippa, back in the times of the toga)

Logic was not broken by Russel, it never was a functioning system for every situtation in the first place.

How can you talk about anything when there is no way to even define the meaning of "meaning"?

"I know that I know nothing" should therefore be: "I do not know if i know nothing"

Goedel showed us that a complete system is not creatable, but by proving this, he admitted to have been working in an incomplete system, which makes his whole argument invalid, as there is no way we can scientifically prove anything in an system that does not work all of the time (which it does not, since it is not complete).
I have lost interest in life after realising all of these things i just wrote down.
Help me get back on the horse and explain to me, why what i just stated is incorrect.
please.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 17:29:55 2016 No.7923310 >>7923210 start by trying to understand Gödel

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:12:48 2016 No.7923424 >>7923210 agrippa the younger?

>>

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:30:14 2016 No.7923477
File: 577 KB, 685x630, q.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7923210
You need to stay off the horse, anon. Building your life around the pursuit of knowledge is a sure way to end up miserable without knowing more than the rest.

What you need are quietism and therapeutical philosophy and anti-philosophy and things like that.

Pyrrho, Wittgenstein, U.G. Krishnamurti, Bodhidharma, Laozi, those type of lads.

You need to realise that what ails you is cured not by solving problems but by not creating problems. By realising that there are no problems in the first place without you constantly spawning them by getting caught up in some sort of linguistic neurosis. You need to realise the desire to know is your problem, not your inability to know. If you don't desire the impossible you will have no problem.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 18:48:29 2016 No.7923536 >>7923210 >>7923477 You're both right. Now kiss.

>>

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 19:37:45 2016 No.7923708

>>7923310
i actually spend quite some time on trying to do so.
did I not?

>>7923424
idk, he lived ate the same time as cicero

>>7923477
>wittgenstein
the young one or the old one?

>If you don't desire the impossible you will have no problem.

I like that there was a picture for this specific occasion.

>>

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 19:44:12 2016 No.7923727
File: 483 KB, 1156x1228, incompleteness theorem is not a meme.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Goedel showed us that a complete system is not creatable, but by proving this, he admitted to have been working in an incomplete system, which makes his whole argument invalid

Negro, I'm so sorry for you. I really am. Please refrain from debating topics that have the appearance of simplicity but that are grounded in deep mathematical issues. I suggest that you read Torkel Franzén's 'Gödel's Theorem: an incomplete guide to its use and abuse'. Really. Since you have no training in logic or even elementary arithmetic, you're misinterpreting the meaning of 'complete system', and you don't know the scope of Gödel's proof. In other words, your ignorance is showing. I'm not posting to belittle you, or to say that you should give up on philosophy. I'm just saying that you don't have enough knowledge about these matters to have any insightful (or minimally correct) opinions about it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 19:45:31 2016 No.7923733 >>7923708 >the young one or the old one? The late one, unless you buy into the fact that he solved philosophy the first time around.

>>

Anonymous Thu Apr 14 19:46:13 2016 No.7923735

>>7923727
Here.

If you really don't want to read anything serious about the subject, at least do yourself a favor and read this: http://www.philosophybro.com/post/64892657380/g%C3%B6dels-incompleteness-theorems-and-you-a

It's written in a dudebro Chad style but at least the message is very clear.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 19:49:30 2016 No.7923742 >>7923727 Seconded.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 19:56:50 2016 No.7923768 Unjustified assumptions don't imply that the system is invalid As long as you're clear that all your conclusions are merely the implications of your assumptions, you won't overstep your bounds

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 14 20:05:52 2016 No.7923787 >>7923727 >Negro ? >all the other stuff thanks. thats pretty much exactly what I was looking for. no offense given, none taken. >>7923768 thanks.