/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11068546]

How do I have a conversation with a relativist without it devolving into semantics? Is it even possible?

[Anonymous No.11068615]

Apply the socratic method.

"Morality is baseless"

"Well if you know that morality is basless, you must know what it is"

"Of course, morality is concerned with what we ought to do, which we can't know"

"Can we know what a farmer ought to do to be a good farmer?"

And so on and so forth.

[Anonymous No.11068657]

>>11068615
I've seen this before and it went something like this:

"There is no absolute moral framework."

"If you know that there is objective morality is baseless, you must know what it is."

"What does that mean? My entire point is that the absolute moral framework isn't a thing. It isn't real; thus, no true statements can be made about its character. There's nothing to 'know' about it."

[Anonymous No.11068670]

Just because I'm a relativist doesn't mean I won't entertain your silly premises at least for the sake of a conversation.

[Anonymous No.11068685]

>>11068657
The best response would probaly be to ask what is real and what isn't and go from there. Just Socrate the shit out of him.

[Anonymous No.11068707]

>>11068685
To be real is to have a physical structure.

[Anonymous No.11068712]

>>11068707
The better argument is to tie motion to existence, believe it or not.

"To be real is to have moved". I believe this would be the correct way to start off.

[Anonymous No.11068716]

>>11068712
To be real is to be moved -- as in, anything real can be moved around in space?

[Anonymous No.11068717]

>>11068707
Does mathematics have a phyisical structure?

[Anonymous No.11068719]

>>11068716
everything moves constantly, at varying degrees.

[Anonymous No.11068728]

>>11068717
No, but "mathematics" is not an absolute. It is something that exists as a construction of logic in the mind of sapient beings. It is a mental framework. Logic itself is another of these.

>>11068719
The issue with using motion as a definition is that there are things which do exist, but can't be "moved" in any useful sense of the word; e.g., magnetism

[Anonymous No.11068743]

>>11068728
What is an absolute?

[Anonymous No.11068764]

>>11068743
I use "absolute" here incorrectly; what I mean by it is that "mathematics does not have a physical structure and does not exist independent of a sapient observer."

It comes from my poor English. I may also use the term "object" to mean something similar. I apologize for it.

[Anonymous No.11068773]

>>11068764
why not just correctly ascribe the status of absolute to God and be done with it?

[Anonymous No.11068781]

>>11068773
Because I don't believe that to be correct.

[Anonymous No.11068788]

>>11068764
So would you say that mathematics and logic are subjective?

[Anonymous No.11068807]

>>11068788
I am saying that there is a commonly accepted formal system that we call "logic" and "mathematics," and we can, if working in those formal systems, pull out self-consistent conclusions. But those frameworks are not absolute.

[Anonymous No.11068836]

>>11068807
I'd agree that mathematics, the use of numbers and so on and so forth is subjective but it describes a pattern in how the physical world exists.
Different cultures have created their own mathematical systems which differ in form but are the same in content. Every culture has established a counting system becuase it works. Same thing with logic as both were developed to describe reality. Mathematical systems describes universal archetypes in physical reality.

Is 1 + 1 = 2 objetively true, not in the abstract sense but in the practical ,is one object plus another object two objects?

[Anonymous No.11068886]

>>11068836
We speak of mathematics in subtly different ways: There is mathematics as a formal system with theorems and axioms, and math as a language of observation. Math as a language of observation can be used to transfer accurate statements about the world from one observer to another; likewise, it can be used to make inaccurate observations that do not necessarily reflect the Euclidean space in which we exist (e.g., non-Euclidean geometry) I don't mean to imply that simply because the framework itself is arbitrary that it cannot contain true statements. I mean instead that the system does not necessarily produce only true statements about the world.

Further, I'd say that if we can agree on what makes a single of an object, then we can also, using a arithmetic framework, agree that having a single of an object and another single of that object produce a double of the object; but arithmetic itself is a formal system (see the Peano Axioms). What makes "one" of something? What does it mean to "add" to ones of something? Ignoring the abstraction and only thinking in the practical sense necessarily means adopting a subjective framework.

[Anonymous No.11068902]

>>11068728
>No, but "mathematics" is not an absolute

[Anonymous No.11068920]

>>11068902
Godel didn't prove that math isn't an axiomatic system; he showed that it's impossible to describe the natural numbers in a set theory in a way that is both consistent and complete.

[Anonymous No.11068937]

>>11068836
>but it describes a pattern in how the physical world exists.
What about irrationality in mathematics?

I know this might seem a bit pedantic but this was an issue I was having with Euclid last night, apparently the 'medial' area doesn't exist, because it is contained by two rational lines which are commensurable in square only, which doesn't exist.

This is why medial areas, and therefore Apotomes, are irrational. These are book X Euclidean terms, not easy stuffs.

[Anonymous No.11068951]

>>11068937
Do you mean "irrationality" to be "obviously incorrect conclusion about the physical world," or "poor application of the rules and methods of logical reasoning?"

[Anonymous No.11068960]

>>11068920
>Godel didn't prove that math isn't an axiomatic system
wasn’t implying he did brainlet

[Anonymous No.11068965]

>>11068960
Then I fail to understand your point, and why you replied to that specific post with the specific picture, quoting that specific text.

[Anonymous No.11068983]

>>11068685
you’re an ant lol

[Anonymous No.11068990]

>>11068951
I'm assuming Euclid meant it as 'something that cannot exist'. For instance, rationality under Euclid is defined in relation so some given number of units/length. If the number of units is 'one', irrationality is defined as a space which is not composed of whole units. Technically the length exists, but not in whole numbers, and remember decimals were not a thing back then (and I don't see fractions being utilized until around Diophantus). So this irrationality was thought to CONCEPTUALLY exist, but not numerically. It existed as an idea.

Interestingly, this does seem to go against Aristotle a bit, when he defines the highest form of existence as numerical existence. So irrationality, therefore, must not exist numerically, only 'formally' (under Aristotleian metaphysics).

Very literally then, irrational numbers DO. NOT. EXIST. Even as far as you stretch out Pi, found by Archimedes, it is not a concrete number, only the form of the number.

Yes, since a medial area (and therefore an apotome) cannot exist, it is irrational. The entire book X of Elements is dealing with things that can never exist.

>mfw

[Anonymous No.11069003]

Aristo's Politics was full of contradictions, moreover he tends to distort facts when they don't smoothly apply for his theories.

[Anonymous No.11069016]

>>11068990
I mean, we agree that any mathematical system does not necessarily reflect reality; a Euclidean framework of geometry is no exception.

[Anonymous No.11069028]

>>11068990
lol faggot narcissist

[Anonymous No.11069037]

>>11069016
>>11069016
Yes but my point was, only some of Elements is dealing with numbers, irrationality is some other level of reasoning.

I would say reality, the things that exist formally, primarily, reflect reality. Irrationality is just a privation of numerical similarity. This is like privation of being, for non-being. To say the area doesn't exist is to say it does, so we leave it at that. And that's what book X of Elements deals with.

>>11069028
?

[Anonymous No.11069086]

>>11068546
Fuck them over with your car

[Anonymous No.11069093]

>>11069003
>Aristo's Politics was full of contradictions,

such as?

[Anonymous No.11069100]

>>11069093
All of Aristotle’s writings are objectively full of contradictions, you better get used to this argument. The idea here is that most of the contradictions aren’t even Aristotle’s fault though

[Anonymous No.11069118]

>>11069100
S
U
C
H

A
S
?

[Anonymous No.11069130]

>>11069037
you are a faggot narcissist, i can tell you like the sound of your own voice and if there were no laws and i knock out both of your front teeth. you’re an annelid, a writhing little nematode all of you are. i only vaguely feign respect for most people because of their propensity to assume you’re a predator if you treat them roughly. Filthy cthonic vermin

brw: if maths is not real, and sensory imputs are unreliable, you have way of using aristotilean whataboutism axioms or presuppositions to get out of the skeptic’s death trap, i hope you get mauled to death by coyotes

[Anonymous No.11069146]

>>11069130
Haha? I never said mathematics isn’t real. Numerical relations are the highest order Aristotelian relations. I have no idea why you’re struggling to find something to be passionate about. Trust me, no one cares about your post

[Anonymous No.11069157]

>>11068886
>You have changed my mind, thanks dude
>Having an informative discussion on a mongolian basket heaving forum, mfw

[Anonymous No.11069198]

Everything really is relative and arbitrary, though.

[Anonymous No.11069199]

>>11069146
mathematical relations are products of consciousness, Aristotle is a simping nigger who doesn’t understand how perception influences delineation of objects

[Anonymous No.11069212]

>>11068743
There is always a totallity of something.

[Anonymous No.11069238]

>>11069199
>mathematical relations are products of consciousness
They are inherent in the universe around us. Look at all the lifeforms and how they relate to unity and duality. Mathematics is inherent in the universe we live in. We simply discovered the system through thought.

[Anonymous No.11069260]

>>11069238
no thy’re not, that’s why they don’t exist anywhere outside of insciptions by sapient life forms they don’t even exist inside of computers. you’re a pleb and projecting your perception of the assumed validity of a human description of an irreducibly complex system, nature, which will conveniently never be rigorously tested (because it physically cannot be and we don’t have the time to do it) with the Real. Fucking disgraceful nitwit thought

[Anonymous No.11069283]

>>11069260
>irreducibly complex system, nature
wat

[Anonymous No.11069302]

>>11069260
Your posts are a grammatical nightmare and I'm almost positive you have no idea what you're talking about. I've been invoking Aristotle and Euclid pretty often, you.... I have no idea. Some blind hatred of mathematics? I don't know...

[Anonymous No.11069379]

>>11069238
I wouldn't say that mathematics itself is inherit the in universe, but certain relationships among object certainly appear based on the natural laws governing the mechanism of the universe.

>>11069260
Save everyone the trouble and take a few moments to calm down. Proofread what before you post and figure out what you want to say. Being upset doesn't help anyone.

[Anonymous No.11069393]

>>11068546
Just kill them instead.

[Anonymous No.11069396]

>>11068728
> in any useful sense of the word

you have the wrong sense of the word

[Anonymous No.11069400]

>>11069379
Explain unity and duplicity without mathematics. Explain the unity geometrically, without the number three.

(Both of these are impossible)

[Anonymous No.11069403]

>>11068781
what does something have to do to be correct? Not trolling, actually trying to discourse.

[Anonymous No.11069405]

>>11069396
Then how would you define "move" such that it includes things like gravity and magnetism?

[Anonymous No.11069415]

>>11069405
Because the gravity probably shouldn't be conceptualized as a force that exists with objects surrounded by it. Instead, gravity should be tied to the relationship it has to X or Y object. Gravity moves because gravity moves X or Y.

[Anonymous No.11069455]

>>11069400
I would say that "unity" and "duplicity" are not concepts innate in the universe, but in the categorization and perception of humans.

>>11069403
My view of what is "correct" is what I've taken to calling a weak relativist standpoint: There are some things which really exist, some that exist in the perception of sapient observers, and some that don't exist. When I say that I don't believe the specific statement that "God is the absolute (and implicitly then the only absolute)" is correct, I mean that it doesn't accurately reflect the true nature of the universe.

I'll need to think about what it means for something to be correct. It's a strange sort of recursion that occurs the more I think about it.

>>11069415
Isn't that internally contradictory? How can I have it be defined by its relationship to other things, but not conceptualized as a thing connected to other objects?

It makes me think of the Buddhist parable: Is it the flag that moves, or the wind? Obviously, the answer is that both move. But wind exists in a very literal sense as a mixture of chemical elements. Gravity doesn't "exist" in the same way. The exact mechanism by which gravity operates is, so far as I know, not understood. Can is be conceptualized in the same way? I don't think so. Wind moves a flag by physically bumping into it and interacting. Gravity doesn't cause it's effect by literally changing it's relative position in Euclidean space and thus effecting the relative position of other things.

Either way, "move" doesn't feel like the correct word. At the very least, it's no better than "something is real if it has physical structure," because then one can define physical structure in terms of fields.

[Anonymous No.11069495]

>>11069455
>I would say that "unity" and "duplicity" are not concepts innate in the universe, but in the categorization and perception of humans.
Unity is innate in the universe. For instance, the moon is unified in color tonight, implying it's not a full moon. Or you are not unified without all your parts (arms, legs, head, etc.), or another example would be I need to combine all the relevant car parts to create unification in the vehicle.

Duplicity exists when there are contraries, like how a full moon is unity, well the privation of this is a fully darkened moon. The gradations in between these two states, are evidence of the various parts implicit in the world as constructed.

[Anonymous No.11069529]

>>11069495
Those examples you give are observations of what you call unity and duality in the universe, not implicit features.

What I mean is something like this: There are certainly examples of circles in the universe. But the idea of a "circle" isn't implicit in the universe. There are definition of "circle" that relate to the fundamental structure of the universe, but "circle" is still, in the end, a categorization created by humans.

[Anonymous No.11069561]

>>11069529
But the categorization existed before you discovered it. Technically so do inventions, but inventions are just applied physics/mathematics. So you can say, much like how we discovered the law of gravity, we discovered geometrical relations.

[Anonymous No.11069586]

>>11069561
I disagree with that. The things that fit in that categorization existed. But that categorization didn't exist. It was only the pattern-searching mind of Homo Sapiens that create those categories; and, when I say "create" here, I mean that it came up with an arbitrary series of characteristics which define that set. The categorization still doesn't "exist" in the absolute sense of the word that I used earlier in the thread.

[Anonymous No.11070134]

The worst part about being a relativist is that I get associated with smug dickheads. Is this how the atheists and centrists feel?

[Anonymous No.11070297]

>>11070134

Speaking as an atheist, yes.

[Anonymous No.11070453]

>>11068546
Try making convincing arguments.

[Anonymous No.11070672]

>>11068546
No, because the subtle differences in language between different schools of thought are endless. There is no way to avoid getting dragged into the mud.

[Anonymous No.11070771]

>>11069586
So we have reason? Reason is necessary for existence and purpose. But it doesn’t interfere with how reality is MADE.

[Anonymous No.11070844]

>>11069393
underraped toast

[Anonymous No.11070888]

>>11070771
>Reason is neccesary for existence
Categorically incorrect, unless you mean that things like trees, hydrogen, and the strong force aren't real. Or are you taking a strong relativist position, in that nothing exists outside of what is perceived by an intelligent mind?

What is your point? You seem to be agreeing with me, in part.