/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13620419]

>prove it

All of philosophy BTFO with two easy words

[Anonymous No.13620427]

People that say this, haven't read philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13620428]

>>13620419
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.13620430]

>>13620419
based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.13620435]

>>13620427
I have a Masters in Philosophy and a practising Hegelo-Fichten Hindu, I think I’ve read enough phil*s*phy to say this, pal.

[Sage. No.13620493]

Prove that things can be proven

[Anonymous No.13620592]

>>13620493
I can’t, philosophy BTFO.. AGAIN

[Anonymous No.13620598]

>>13620435
>phil*s*phy
I always wonder what it’s like to be a * person

[Anonymous No.13620602]

>if my scientific overlords dont approve something it cant be true

[Anonymous No.13620604]

>>13620435
*ahem*
prove it ;)

[Anonymous No.13620694]

>>13620419
WTF I CAN'T

[Anonymous No.13620717]

>>13620419
Prove you aren't a massive faggot.

[Anonymous No.13620741]

>>13620419
philosophy cucks defeated by SCIENCE once again

[Anonymous No.13620742]

>>13620598
It’s liberating

[Anonymous No.13620749]

>>13620604
>>13620717
NOOOOOO IT WASNT SUPPOSED TO END LIKE THIS STOOOOOOP

[Anonymous No.13620797]

The philosophy is no philosophy

[Anonymous No.13620803]

>>13620592
Prove that you can’t

[Anonymous No.13620835]

>>13620419
>>13620435

[Anonymous No.13620872]

>>13620419
>>13620741

Ever heard of Godel, Russell or Frege?

[Anonymous No.13620883]

>>13620835
Imagine thinking that was a genuine refutation in the comic

[Anonymous No.13620896]

>>13620883
Imagine thinking a materialistic explanation of the universe inherently gives us answers to anything.

Imagine actually being this retarded :3

[Anonymous No.13620898]

>>13620419
These two words actually kill science. And I can't prove it

[Anonymous No.13620899]

>>13620896
imagine u being straight

[Anonymous No.13620919]

>>13620883
>>13620899
>>13620592
prove it

[Anonymous No.13620938]

>>13620919
>prove it
prove that you're not gay

[Anonymous No.13620944]

>>13620899
I live that experience breh :3

[Anonymous No.13620970]

>>13620835
nice strawman but no one says that. we prove things in math all the time without any empirical evidence required. big differences between something like math and philosophy though
first of all, if a philosophers make a „prove“ that even just involves 5 steps you can probably disagree with every single step and its conclusion. in math something is either allowed or it isn't. in philosophy it really comes down to opinion if something is a logical step or not. and that's for something simple as a 5 step prove. if a philosophical prove requires even 1 page you know it's full of shit meanwhile a mathematical prove can go on for 100s of pages.
and second of all, we recognize that axioms in math are arbitrary. we just use them because they produce interesting results. meanwhile philosophers like to pretend they discover objective truths they pretend the axioms they use are fundamental truths because else their philosophy would be nothing more than just a opinion

[Anonymous No.13620988]

>>13620938
prove it

[Anonymous No.13620992]

>we recognize that axioms in math are arbitrary. we just use them because they produce “interesting” results
Oh no no no

[Anonymous No.13620994]

>prove it

[Anonymous No.13621318]

>>13620872
Prove they exist

[Anonymous No.13621324]

Anus field.

[Anonymous No.13621347]

>>13620419
>prove it
Is where philosophy precisely starts. Dread it. Run from it. The problems of knowledge still arrive.

[Anonymous No.13621366]

>>13620419
>1 - every proof needs another proof and this one too ad infinitum
>2 - reciprocal argument: a proof needs a method and a method needs a proof to exist
>3 - dogmatic hypothesis: its taken that some statement is true without any proof
BTFO^2

[Anonymous No.13621392]

Shitposting aside, demand that to prove it it's actually pretty correct way to make out the truth from falsehood, and sadly philosophy is pretty hard to prove, and so very open to falsehood and bullshit, that way is easier to be a philosopher than to be a mathematician.

[Anonymous No.13622220]

>>13620970
>t. doesnt know math or philosophy

if you knew any mathemathics you'd realize every time a new important proof comes out, everyone argues about it, and there is tons of interpretation. some statements can be proven to directly follow from axioms and defenitions, but when you're talking about higher level stuff, there is always an ambiguity. the bigger the proof is, the more has to be done through each line, and a lot of proofs are done by bringing the tools from one branch into another, where no convention has been set, and the reader has to learn a lot, which forces the reader to interpret a lot.

secondly, there are tons of philosophers that deal with the "axioms" of their philosophy. people like kant or descartes for example, generally most people dealing with ontology or epistemology. the philosophers that dont deal with the foundations of their beliefs, and rather try to find surprising conclusions, that derive from other beliefs most people hold, dont pretend to have an opinion as to the absolute truthness to their underlying axioms. if you ask a sociologist "bro but all these theories about how humans behave assumes that causality is real and that logic is universal, and you havent proven that" they're just gonna respond "ok, but most people think they are, and im just writing for those "most people""

also, "noone says that" is not true. logical positivism essentially thought exactly what the smug guy says in the first panel. they changed their mind very quickly after though lol

[Anonymous No.13622450]

>>13622220
at least math proofs can, no matter how complicated, turn out wrong
meanwhile in philosophy
>oh look someone just released the 1001 critique of kant. lol who cares
philosophy is just one giant blogpost. whoever attracts the most followers is taken seriously and everyone else can fuck off