>He believes in idealism

[Anonymous No.14809496]

Anon, I...

[Anonymous No.14809513]

Daily reminder materialism has never been refuted and there has never been a “great” pomo philosopher

[Anonymous No.14809515]

>>14809496
Philosphy is like the wheel. People think they can reinvent it. They try to, and though some few succeed; it never takes off.

Most just make a steaming pile of shit, like your thread; and call themselves the creator of a masterpiece.

[Anonymous No.14809521]

>>14809515
t. diogenes

[Anonymous No.14809523]

>>14809496
I don't even know what idealism means, lmao

[Anonymous No.14809561]

>>14809496
Okay anon you've convinced me. Can you give me a proper definition of materialism/physicalism so that I may convert?

[Anonymous No.14809565]

>>14809523
>forms exist
>roundness is real apart from round objects
>math is realer than reality
>the soul exists
>the LORD is in Heaven
>QED
Basically childish fantasies that people wish were real and are not. That's the christcuck version, here's the libtard version:
>reality doesnt real
>everything is chaos bro
>intersubjectivity is all that exists
>Everything is just a solipsistic dream between feeling subjects
>order is an illusion
>there is no morality
>death to the white man!

[Anonymous No.14809571]

>>14809561
There is no valid justification for believing in anything that cannot be observed to occur in reality.
ie
>no heavenly forms behind what occurs in reality
>no soul behind what occurs to humans in reality

[Anonymous No.14809574]

>>14809565
Sounds pretty dumb desu

[Anonymous No.14809575]

lets pretend like wittgenstein, sellars, quine and rorty never happened!

[Anonymous No.14809583]

>>14809571
>There is no valid justification for believing in anything that cannot be observed to occur in reality.
But humans are extremely limited in perception and knowledge considering all there is to know. Reminds be of that "Dark matter" thing where scientists tried to replicate the Universe and a large percentage was just unknown/unindetifiable.

[Anonymous No.14809584]

>>14809575
>retards who sat in their moms basement and tried to claim the soul is real
You're the living embodiment of pic the above pic >>14809496

[Anonymous No.14809591]

>>14809583
>Reminds be of that "Dark matter" thing where scientists tried to replicate the Universe and a large percentage was just unknown/unindetifiable.
Dark matter isn't real, or it has been observed. It doesn't matter if we're limited in our perception; we can't possibly know that unless we have paradoxically observed it to be so

[Anonymous No.14809592]

>>14809571
But suppose we discovered 'heaven' or the 'soul' were real tomorrow. Would they not be incorporated into the physicalist worldview? Point being, it seems the physicalist is really just saying 'whatever exists exists,' or to use your word, 'reality consists of whatever is real.'

[Anonymous No.14809600]

>>14809575
>lets pretend like wittgenstein, sellars, quine and rorty never happened!
Indeed, unless you can explain what practical consequences their claims have. I'll wait.

[Anonymous No.14809610]

>>14809592
They would because then we would have justification.
I am making an epistomological claim, not a metaphysical one. The epistomological claim informs my metaphysical outlook. There is no justification outside observation. inb4 "whaddabout logic" - inductive reasoning is observation based and deductive reasoning relies on a first observation and simply consists of examining its finer details and consequences.

[Anonymous No.14809664]

>>14809513
>I accept my demonstrably fallible senses as proof of what 'real' is
>I cannot into quantum physics

[Anonymous No.14809670]

>>14809610
Bracketing issues of whether all knowledge is truly the result of observation, how do you know 'observation is a reliable and essential part of justifying knowledge?' Because you've observed it in practice? Seems circular at best and meaningless at worst to me.

[Anonymous No.14809676]

>>14809565
>there is no morality is an idealist position
Show me a molecule of Justice, fag

[Anonymous No.14809687]

>>14809496
This was made by a frustrated brit/american midwit idealist who thinks "materialist" (fr. matérialisme, de. Materialismus) is the same as "material" (fr. matériellement, de. materiell).

[Anonymous No.14809688]

>>14809670
How do I know observation is essential to justification? Because there is no other way. Everything we know that is useful and testable is based on observation. It is true in itself.

[Anonymous No.14809694]

>>14809687
>has no descriptive critiques of materialism
Checks out
>projects low IQ onto others
Checks out
>french
checks out

[Anonymous No.14809717]

>>14809664
Can you explain what the practical applications of quantum physics are? Because as far as I've seen, there are none and it's a silly exercise in autism

[Anonymous No.14809719]

>>14809688
I'll grant 'it works' is concrete justification for believing something, but to say that amount to 'truth' seems a bit of a stretch. Surely you're aware history is filled with examples of theories that were wrong but practically close enough to suffice with contemporary ways of living?

And again, it doesn't seem you have an answer to the problem of justifying observation with observation. Perhaps if you had some non-observable propositions as well...

[Anonymous No.14809729]

>>14809688
>>14809719
Plus what evens counts as observation anyway? Suppose I see someone murder a child, and I say, 'that is morally wrong.' How is that a different kind of observation from seeing a dog in my lawn and saying 'there is a dog in my lawn?'

[Anonymous No.14809740]

>>14809719
Fuck off pseud. I told you that observation is the only way because it's true in itself
Truth is a spectrum. A symbol is true the more it relates to reality. A might be truer than B might be truer than C
Is my model that female attraction is 60% looks 35% status and 5% behavior true or false? Well, it describes reality better than 99% of the theories on the internet yet it could probably become truer

[Anonymous No.14809747]

>>14809729
The first is an analytic statement and the second is an observation. The first does not attempt to describe reality so it is neither true nor false. The second does so it can be evaluated as true or false.

[Anonymous No.14809761]

>>14809740
>Truth is a spectrum.
Can you show me this spectrum so I can observe it? Have a nice day, anon.

[Anonymous No.14809767]

>>14809761
I just did: "Is my model that female attraction is 60% looks 35% status and 5% behavior true or false? Well, it describes reality better than 99% of the theories on the internet yet it could probably become truer"
The spectrum is an abstraction, ie a set of observations.
Goodbye, pseud retad. Go babble about forms and keep thinking you're intelligent

[Anonymous No.14809786]

>>14809747
But I observed the immoral act.

>>14809767
I'm closer to a physicalist, actually, I just don't think the debate is so easily settled and certainly don't believe everything is all reducible to 'observation.'

[Anonymous No.14809792]

Are there good arguments for idealism?

[Anonymous No.14809794]

>>14809496
Idealism is for schizo pseuds.

[Anonymous No.14809820]

>>14809786
>But I observed the immoral act.
What do you not understand? Saying "he killed the child" would be true, saying "it's morally wrong" depends on some other definition of morality so it's analytic.
>I'm closer to a physicalist, actually, I just don't think the debate is so easily settled and certainly don't believe everything is all reducible to 'observation.'
You're a retard who likes to overcomplicate things to feel nice and smart

[Anonymous No.14809825]

>>14809565
> That's the christcuck version, here's the libtard version
I cannot imagine what goes through someone's head to unironically still use the word "libtard."

[Anonymous No.14809826]

>>14809792
No, just sophist bullshit and assertions

[Reasonmaster66 No.14809829]

>not being a humean chad

[Anonymous No.14809830]

>>14809591
>Dark matter isn't real
retard

[Anonymous No.14809833]

>>14809825
>I cannot imagine what goes through someone's head to unironically still use the word "libtard."
go back

[Anonymous No.14809841]

>Can you explain what the practical applications of quantum physics are? Because as far as I've seen, there are none and it's a silly exercise in autism

[Anonymous No.14809842]

>>14809820
>"it's morally wrong" depends on some other definition of morality so it's analytic.

But I'm not deducing it, I'm literally observing it. Why is this observation not valid?

>You're a retard who likes to overcomplicate things to feel nice and smart

Why make the thread if you don't want the discussion :^)

[Anonymous No.14809868]

>>14809842
>But I'm not deducing it, I'm literally observing it. Why is this observation not valid?
Saying "he killed the child" would be true (observation), saying "it's morally wrong" depends on some other definition of morality so it's analytic (evaluation of observation based on prior assumption).
>Why make the thread if you don't want the discussion :^)
Discussion is fine, autism is not

[Anonymous No.14809876]

>I perceive the material world through my mind therefore material exists and my mind doesnt
Materialists are gay

[Anonymous No.14809879]

>>14809833
>>14809841
>>14809767
>>14809591
>>14809496
Your wojaks are not original or funny and are completely vacuous. You are worse than twitter or tumblr at this point. I simply cannot understand how low in life one has to be to find enjoyment in ad hominem wojak pictures on 4chan. And no, this has nothing to do with my ideological preferences, I am criticized all the wojak-posters in this thread, no matter what their intention.

[Anonymous No.14809898]

>>14809868
>(evaluation of observation based on prior assumption).

My point exactly for this entire thread.

[Anonymous No.14809899]

>>14809876
>being this dense
My mind is a part of the material world retard
>I observe the material world
>I must have an infinite soul outside of the material world
>heeheee Im special!1!11!

[Anonymous No.14809903]

>>14809898
>My point exactly for this entire thread.
This isn't a thing for descriptive statements though, asshole. Saying "the child died" isn't based on prior assumptions. It's not analytic.

[Anonymous No.14809910]

>>14809717
idk nuclear energy? valence bond theory? quantum optics?

[Anonymous No.14809912]

>>14809879
>I am far too intelligent to post memes to aid me in my pontification and argumentation.

[Anonymous No.14809916]

>>14809910
Does any of that rely on new age woo-woo slit experiment garbage or is that just the prediction of the location and interaction between microscopic particles?

[Anonymous No.14809918]

>Your wojaks are not original or funny and are completely vacuous. You are worse than twitter or tumblr at this point. I simply cannot understand how low in life one has to be to find enjoyment in ad hominem wojak pictures on 4chan. And no, this has nothing to do with my ideological preferences, I am criticized all the wojak-posters in this thread, no matter what their intention.

[Anonymous No.14809924]

>>14809918
Wojak poster doesn't even know how to properly reply. to be expected.

[Anonymous No.14809925]

>>14809729
>Suppose I see someone murder a child, and I say, 'that is morally wrong.' How is that a different kind of observation from seeing a dog in my lawn and saying 'there is a dog in my lawn?'
'That is morally wrong' is a judgement rather than an observation statement. What colour is morality? What does it taste like?

[Anonymous No.14809928]

>Wojak poster doesn't even know how to properly reply. to be expected

[Anonymous No.14809932]

>>14809916
>the prediction of the location and interaction between microscopic particles
This is what the “woo woo slit” experiment is about. Stop learning science from leddit.

[Anonymous No.14809933]

>>14809903
>This isn't a thing for descriptive statements though, asshole. Saying "the child died" isn't based on prior assumptions. It's not analytic.

How do you know any of these statements are true? Observation?

[Anonymous No.14809941]

>>14809933
>How do you know any of these statements are true? Observation?
Like I said earlier, the only way to know if a symbol is true, ie correctly models reality, is observation of reality

[Anonymous No.14809946]

>>14809928
see >>14809879

[Anonymous No.14809948]

>>14809496
>has more than a century of phenomenological philosophy available
>still reads Plato as a two-world metaphysician, like a literal child

Perhaps some were meant to be handmaidens to autistic STEMFAGS.

[Anonymous No.14809949]

>>14809925
>'That is morally wrong' is a judgement rather than an observation statement.

"I observe a dog outside" is an observation statement. "There is a dog outside" is an epistemic claim.

>What colour is morality? What does it taste like?

What colour is knowledge? What does correspondence theory taste like? C'mon, anon.

[Anonymous No.14809957]

>>14809941
You observed the statement "'the child died' isn't based on prior assumptions?" You've seen normative and description statements in the world, much less the synthetic/analytic distinction?

[Anonymous No.14809971]

Don't post like this.

[Anonymous No.14809973]

>>14809949
>"I observe a dog outside" is an observation statement. "There is a dog outside" is an epistemic claim
Nice! I like you, pedant.
>What colour is knowledge? What does correspondence theory taste like?
They don't have either colour or taste, because we don't observe them with our senses. Likewise morality.

[Anonymous No.14809980]

>>14809925
>What colour is morality? What does it taste like?
These symbols are meaningless, similar to "the runs sideways sky bot twelve three Hitler"
The fact that you're spewing this shit tells me you're not arguing in good faith

[Anonymous No.14809989]

>>14809957
>You observed the statement "'the child died' isn't based on prior assumptions?
What are you babbling about? The only way to evaluate the claim of the statement is to observe reality. How is this hard for you to understand?

[Anonymous No.14810004]

>>14809980
How so? I'm arguing (in good faith) that morality isn't something we see, hear or whatever with our senses. It's something we bring to sense experience in order to make sense of it.

[Anonymous No.14810008]

>>14809973
I think you're misunderstanding the point I was making and instead see it as a literal position I hold.

>>14809989
My point is you can't 'observe it,' it is based on a priori truths/assumptions, much like you're starting from the position of "my senses are reliable epistemic tools."

[Anonymous No.14810014]

>>14810004
>How so? I'm arguing (in good faith) that morality isn't something we see, hear or whatever with our senses. It's something we bring to sense experience in order to make sense of it.
What does this have to do with materialism? Morality isn't real silly, materially it's just patterns in human behavior, desire, and emotion.

[Anonymous No.14810017]

>>14810008
>My point is you can't 'observe it,
I can't watch a child die?
>, much like you're starting from the position of "my senses are reliable epistemic tools."
My senses are the only epistemic tools. This is evident in every single thought and observation.

[Anonymous No.14810047]

>>14810008
Ah. You're saying we know things that we don't observe?

>What does this have to do with materialism?
Well, if there are any non-material things, such as moral 'facts', or universals, then materialism isn't true.
>materially it's just patterns in human behaviour...
Question status: begged.

[Anonymous No.14810079]

>>14810017
>My senses are the only epistemic tools. This is evident in every single thought and observation
Which sense is it that allows you to know that
>senses are the only epistemic tools
?

[Anonymous No.14810096]

>>14810017
>My senses are the only epistemic tools
As expected, the materialist drone doesn't use reason.

[Anonymous No.14810097]

>>14810079
>Which sense is it that allows you to know that
All of them plus me thinking about what I sensed>>14810047
>Well, if there are any non-material things, such as moral 'facts', or universals, then materialism isn't true.
By definition, if it's not material, it doesn't exist. Idealists aren't just gay for believing in heavens and forms. They're gay because they have no justification and if they were right those things would be material.
If there is evidence for it, it is observable. If it is observable, it is in our reality.

[Anonymous No.14810100]

>>14810096
>reason
You mean imagining an arbitrary world you'd like to live in, writing about its details for 600 pages and thinking you're intelligent?

[Anonymous No.14810103]

>>14810100
I meant reason.

[Anonymous No.14810116]

>>14810097
>All of them plus me thinking about what I sensed
So... thought, which isn't a sense, is an epistemic tool that allows you to know that
>My senses are the only epistemic tools
Are you sure about this?
>By definition, if it's not material, it doesn't exist
>Hey kids, let's assume what we're going to prove!

[Anonymous No.14810119]

>>14810097
>If it is observable, it is in our reality.
This is an idealist position

[Anonymous No.14810124]

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS GO ON 4CHANNEL UPLOAD THAT WOJAK AND GET THAT SWEET DOPAMINE RELEASE WOOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.14810144]

>>14809717
>Can you explain what the practical applications of...

You would have said the same about calculus or electricity while they were being developed.

[Anonymous No.14810151]

>>14809496
Do any idealists have counterarguments to pic related?

[Anonymous No.14810166]

>>14809899
The mind has not ever been observed.

[Anonymous No.14810174]

>>14809841
>>14809717

[Anonymous No.14810180]

>>14809918
>>14809879

[Anonymous No.14810184]

>>14810151
Read Fichte: "In Idealism, the object appears without the aid of the intellect, as present merely in its existence, while its essence is determinable by the free intellect"

[Anonymous No.14810187]

>>14809928
>>14809924

[Anonymous No.14810190]

Seriously though, are there good arguments for idealism? So far this thread hasn't had any arguments for it, good or bad, and the only arguments against seem to be either
>Idealism silly!
or
>But idealism isn't materialism anon, and materialism is true because materialism*
*Replace 'materialism' with 'physicalism' if you're a bit more, y'know, sophisticated.

[Anonymous No.14810206]

Does a single person in this thread even know what idealism is?

[Anonymous No.14810214]

>>14809496
>"believing in idealism"
>"believing"

[Anonymous No.14810220]

>>14810206
Good. Let's define it. Here's my effort:

>Idealism def. The belief that everything that exists is either a mind or an idea in a mind

That was the kind of shit Berkeley was on about, wasn't it?

[Anonymous No.14810224]

>>14810190
It's basically applied solipsism/skepticism, how do you know that the world you conceive is not a product of you thoughts?
That's the argument, and you can't really deny it.

[Anonymous No.14810225]

>>14809740
Observation is true so far as it is "there",
but your interpretation of your observation is inane and naive, like a child's.

The experience of seeing a ball is true, but you can't say that there is a ball "outside" of what you're experiencing that is exists independently (The exterior ball is there only so far as the whole of undivided existence is there)

Its easy to think of what interacting with a ball is like, seeing it, touching it, but can you think of the ball outside of that? Its absurd, to try to image a ball outside of your senses, to imagine what it would look like without your brain to do the looking.

To believe that your experience mirrors anything at all outside of itself, is naive and absurd. At the same time, your experience must be rooted in something. Since you are created, there must be something that has created you. Your existence as a complex entity that can be divided into ever-smaller parts necessitates that you are founded upon these parts, and really are them. From these two points we can see that your existence must be based on principles. These principles, whatever they may be, are not found within the content of experience, but rather the form of experience. Take, for example, the sentence "I am seeing a ball". "ball" is the content of experience, which is really inconsequential to discovering "truth". "I am seeing" is the form of experience, which is what is philosophically important. However, this line of thinking takes us away from "material" objects (since that's really just content of experience, which the materialist only explains in terms of itself, like explaining what red looks like by saying its similar to scarlet) and redirects us toward ideas (here, red becomes somewhat "metaphysical", and exists ideally as a complete form, which can only be described either by itself or by an undivided Absolute).

tl;dr: think about the form of phenomena, not its content

>Truth is a spectrum
No. There is only one truth. It may split like white light splits into a rainbow through a prism, but it originated in one source, and that source is the one truth.

[Anonymous No.14810226]

>>14809496
ok but remove the /lit/ part so I can post this on twitter

[Anonymous No.14810235]

>>14810151
Idealism isn't solipsism.
>>14810017
How can you confirm, through observation, that observation is the only way to confirm something? Don't you see the circular logic? The starting point is not based on observation.

[Anonymous No.14810237]

>>14810214
Second this, op is retarded, you don't "believe" in a philosophy
>>14810151
Retard, how do you know the object exists while you don't see it?

[Anonymous No.14810241]

>>14810224
>It's basically applied solipsism/skepticism
No and no. Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel accept the material world as real and existing and they also accept the validity of scientific knowledge. In conclussion they accept that the material world does exist and that we can have objective knowledge about it

[Anonymous No.14810273]

>>14810241
Accepting the material world is literally the opposite of idealism, according to the definition of course. The argument of "you are wrong because this guy didn't think that way" is simply ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.14810277]

>>14810224
Is that it? In the case if Berkeley:
>(1) I can't prove (with sense experience) that there's a material world 'out there' beyond sense experience
>(2) If I can't prove it, it ain't true.
>Therefore (3) There's no material world 'out there' beyond sense experience
(1) is too demanding and (2) is ad ignorantiam. There's got to be better than this.

[Anonymous No.14810294]

>>14809916
>>14809932
the “woo woo slit” experiment and other "quantum weird" is 99.9999% explained by the math, there isn't much that is mystical about it. the remaining 0.0001% lies in things way beyond ordinary things on Earth, like black holes, creation of the universe...etc. not even smashing particles near the speed of light can help much given what we know now.

>>14809571
dued what is this "reality" thing? i keep reading about it but i've never encountered it befoer, should i go to a doctor?

this is my 2nd day on /lit/ and i already get the sense that there's a group discussion of all the major "untenable problems of philosophy" every other week and of course there is no resolution because its a shout-match and the lights are off. all in the name of good fun though :^)

[Anonymous No.14810304]

>>14810277
Can you deny the possibility?
I know you can't, so shut the fuck up already, take it or move on.

[Anonymous No.14810305]

>>14810220
Berkley was an empiricist. "Things I can't see don't exist" is empiricism. Idealism is the position that the human mind moves the world, materialism is the opposite of that.

Kant's thing-in-itself (the unknowable world) is the most important distinction he made, and the later idealist philosophers rejection of it is their greatest failing. He thought that the mind overlays itself onto the material world. The world would still exist without humans, idealism doesn't deny that. But we make sense of the world and give it order in our minds. When we represent a thing-in-itself in our minds, we are only creating an idea of what we think it is, not what it objectively is.

[Anonymous No.14810329]

>>14810261
>>14810261
>accepting the material world is literally the opposite of idealism
No. Since Descartes the existence of something distinct from the mind has been accepted. Idealism accepts that in our mind occur perceptions that itself does not create, that is, perceptions caused by something else; what Idealism denies is that the form of that perception is determined by what causes it.

>>14810273
>The argument of "you are wrong because this guy didn't think that way" is simply ridiculous.
No. If you went and said that Christians believe the soul reincarnates and insisted on defining Christianity as a religion in which the soul reincarnates, Christians would be right in telling you "you are wrong, this religion doesn't posit such doctrine"

[Anonymous No.14810338]

>>14809496
>>14809513
most if not all postmodernist were materialists

[Anonymous No.14810341]

>>14810184
>Read Fichte: "In Idealism, the object appears without the aid of the intellect, as present merely in its existence, while its essence is determinable by the free intellect"
>essence
Essence isn't real. Also before I read him, please explain the practical applications of his theories. I'll wait.

[Anonymous No.14810346]

>>14809565
retard skipped literally every relevant time period in philosophy

[Anonymous No.14810353]

>>14810305
Thanks.
>Idealism is the position that the human mind moves the world
is vague. Could you say more about what you mean?
>Kant's thing-in-itself...
Did Kant really think the thing-in-itself is unknowable? If so, what made him think there was such a thing?

Also, what the hell is absolute idealism, and does it have any connection with Berkeley's idealism?

[Anonymous No.14810357]

>>14809610
this is circular reason and you still haven't defined materialism
>it's like reality without heaven or souls, unless heaven or souls exist, then they are physical

[Anonymous No.14810361]

>>14809496
WHAT THE FUCK
IDEALISM IS MODERN NOT POSTMODERN
I AM GOING TO KILL YOU
I AM GOING TO KILL YOU AAAALLL
YYOUHEAR ME?
ALL OF YOU
HAHA HAHA HAHAHAH HAH

[Anonymous No.14810362]

>>14810341
>please explain the practical applications of his theories
His is a philosophy of freedom and action. He develops a philosophy of Law.

>Essence isn't real.
He just means the way things appear to us, don't be pedantic

[Anonymous No.14810374]

>>14810225
>No. There is only one truth. It may split like white light splits into a rainbow through a prism, but it originated in one source, and that source is the one truth.
You are equivocating words. I am defining truth as statements that line up with reality. You are defining truth AS reality.
>To believe that your experience mirrors anything at all outside of itself, is naive and absurd
Ok retard, go shoot yourself and see what your experience mirrors

[Anonymous No.14810382]

>>14810235
>How can you confirm, through observation, that observation is the only way to confirm something? Don't you see the circular logic? The starting point is not based on observation.
By observing that I cant know anything other than by observing

[Anonymous No.14810390]

>>14810382
When did you observe the necessary truth of 2+2=4 or p=p?

[Anonymous No.14810399]

>>14810294
>dued what is this "reality" thing?
Some of us just can't see it...
>this is my 2nd day on /lit/
You need to go back

[Anonymous No.14810400]

>>14810353
>Could you say more about what you mean?
I am referring to what exactly drives history and why the civil world is the way it is. Idealism says that human ideas drive history, while materialism says history is a reaction to material conditions.
>Did Kant really think the thing-in-itself is unknowable? If so, what made him think there was such a thing?
Yes? It's the most important part of Kantian philosophy. It's simply extreme subjectivism, the idea that no 2 people see the world the same way.
>what the hell is absolute idealism
Hegel's pseudo-theological idealism, where God is replaced by the Absolute, and history dialectically moves towards man's realization of himself as the Absolute. (or something like that)
>does it have any connection with Berkeley's idealism?
No, Berkeley was an empiricist more than anything.

[Anonymous No.14810406]

>>14810362
>His is a philosophy of freedom and action. He develops a philosophy of Law.
Ok nice buzzwords. "Freedom" "action" "Law" -- all these are laughable, meaningless pseud mental masturbation topics.
Please elaborate on the practical meaning of his philosophy

[Anonymous No.14810416]

>>14810406
>"Freedom" "action" "Law"
>meaningless topics

[Anonymous No.14810417]

>>14810362
>He just means the way things appear to us, don't be pedantic
Maybe he shouldn't have been pedantic then. Maybe he should have spent less time with his head up his ass and written "To idealists, objects exist outside of the mind but the way they appear to the mind is determined solely by the mind "
"the object"
"free intellect"
What a clownish loser

[Anonymous No.14810422]

>>14810382
>how do you know only your observations are true?
>my observations told me so

>how do you know the bible is literally the word of god ?
>the bible told me so
really makes you think

[Anonymous No.14810429]

>>14810390
That's not true, it's poo. See my other comment on this. Analytic ""truths"" are not the same thing as real, descriptive truths.
2+2=4 is poo because it follows from the definitions of 2, +, 4, and =.
Furthermore, even your poo statements are based on reality. We only talk about 2+2=4 because when you add 2 real objects together they equal 4. Quantity is an attribute of material, not vice versa

[Anonymous No.14810441]

>>14810416
yep, because they don't have definitions. What is "Freedom"? Lol it's a meaninigless buzzword at this point and I can't take you seriously for saying "It's a philosophy of Freedom and Action". You understand how meaningless and vague that is, right?

[Anonymous No.14810444]

>>14809833
>libtards le epically destroyed
>>>/r/the_donald is that way buddy

[Anonymous No.14810447]

>>14810422
Imagine if the Bible were the only book in existence.It just got a whole lot more credible

[Anonymous No.14810448]

>>14810400
>Yes? It's the most important part of Kantian philosophy.
Is it consistent though? We don't know anything about the noumenon. Oh, but we *do* know it exists.
>Hegel's pseudo-theological idealism...
Nice
>Berkeley
I'm still having Berkeley as the ideal example of an idealist - a 'metaphysical' idealist, who thought everything was either a mind or the contents of a mind.

[Anonymous No.14810450]

>>14810447
You have no way of knowing that, since you’ve never observed a universe where the bible was the only book in existence

[Anonymous No.14810464]

>>14810450
Yes I have, I imagined that universe. Using that I can imagine it would be more credible based on the way my biological impulses responded to the fake image. That's observation retard
Now name one thing you know without observation and give me the justification for it

[Anonymous No.14810476]

>>14810464
>imagine
>that's observation
Everybody, look at this fucking moron

>>14810464
>Now name one thing you know without observation
That I was born

[Anonymous No.14810480]

>>14810464
>I’m right because I imagined a universe where I’m right
lmao

[Anonymous No.14810487]

>>14810429
>Yeah mathematics is just a symbolic game we made up
>Yeah no it's an amazing coincidence how successful mathematics is at describing the real world, given that it's just a game we made up
>Yeah haha I'm going to put the word 'true' in lots of quotation marks in order to pretend that analytic statements aren't just straightforwardly true, despite the fact they don't depend on observation.

[Anonymous No.14810511]

>>14810329
> Since Descartes the existence of something distinct from the mind has been accepted
You can't be this retarded, and i'm saying retarded literally, seriously, you are just stupid, cognito ergo sum means that the only thing we know for sure it exists it's our own mind, literally the opposite of what you are saying.
Also, i never said "idealist people think like this", i talked about the definition of idealism itself, I don't care what they think, the definition is there.

[Anonymous No.14810523]

>>14810429
>2+2=4 follows from the definitions of 2, +, 4, and =
lol you do see how you fucked up here right? nothing in the number 4 contains the number 2. what is at stake is, how do you get 4 from 2 + 2? you presumed to know that 4 contains the premise of 2 + 2, but how? couldn't be from experience, as there are plenty of instances of 2+2 you haven't observed. if it was based on experience, you have no more evidence to say 2 + 2 = 4 than you do to say that every crow is black.

[Anonymous No.14810530]

>>14810511
>cognito
that's not the right word anon

[Anonymous No.14810533]

>>14810429
How do you think 2+2=4 follows from the definitions of these symbols? Please give relevant definitions.

[Anonymous No.14810543]

>>14810530
typo

[Anonymous No.14810547]

>>14810374
>I am defining truth as statements that line up with reality. You are defining truth AS reality.
How are those different? How does it "line up with" reality? What does that mean?
If anything I am saying truth precedes reality. However, I don't know what you're saying.
>kill urself
Cool argument

[Anonymous No.14810551]

>>14810511
>cognito ergo sum means that the only thing we know for sure it exists it's our own mind
I take it you didn't finish reading meditations on first philosophy. He stablishes that there are two substances, the mind and the extension (the bodies), the mind is that which we can know much better. He also stablishes we could not live in deceit, and therefore bodies do exist. Descartes does not say the only thing we can be for sure it exists it's our mind, he says it's the first thing we can know for sure; big difference.

>>14810511
>i talked about the definition of idealism itself
Idealism is not a definition, it's a philosophy and philosophy is made up of the books in which is written. It seems that you've never read any idealist philosopher and that's why you only want to discuss your wrong definition of idealism

[Anonymous No.14810574]

>>14810382
>How can you confirm, through observation, that observation is the only way to confirm something?
>By observing that I cant know anything other than by observing
What was this observation like? Can you put it in the form of an observation statement?

[Anonymous No.14810595]

>>14810551
That's it, i can't take it anymore, discussing with idiots will drive me insane.
Just look at this:
>"I was talking about the definition of idealism"
>Idealism in not a definition"
Even your way of answering other post is retarded, you don't need to reference the ID number two times.

[Anonymous No.14810603]

>>14810382
Ah, so you can observe an abstract idea? You can observe something without using your senses? That's really cool. Sounds a bit like rationalism to me, but cool.

[Anonymous No.14810609]

>>14809496
Deleuze is a materialist you absolute psued.

[Anonymous No.14810656]

Idealism is irrefutable. You can only argue in which forms it manifests itself

[Anonymous No.14810660]

>>14810656
prove it fagot

[Anonymous No.14810661]

>if only you knew math you'd be a materialist bro. Math is perfect!
Lol. Dumb physics undergrad.

[Anonymous No.14810670]

>>14810660
Sure thing brother. Its all in here. Short and sweet too.

[Anonymous No.14810684]

>>14810476
>That I was born
Observation by proxy retard

[Anonymous No.14810688]

>>14810487
>how successful mathematics is at describing the real world, given that it's just a game we made up
It's not though
>despite the fact they don't depend on observation.
Then they're not true. Name one thing that is true that doesn't rely on observation

[Anonymous No.14810692]

>>14810670
This is the gayest way to argue. I was looking forward to your response, too.

[Anonymous No.14810699]

>>14809496
>elevating materialism and math
>charged with political resentment
The only good thing about this meme is the detail. The onions has a nice color to it

[Anonymous No.14810703]

>>14810660
You are on the right path but have the ideas confused. You can only prove logic and math.

[Anonymous No.14810706]

>>14810688
the interior angles of a proper triangle add up to 180 degrees

[Anonymous No.14810708]

>>14809513
materialism has never been refuted in the same sense a lot of stupid things have never been refuted, I don't think that suffices as a defense. Many things evade refutation for reasons that have nothing to do with their integrity, like utilitarianism.

[Anonymous No.14810713]

>>14809600
>what practical consequences their claims have
That's an exceptionally embarrassing way of telling everyone you've never read Quine, who is fixated on "practical consequences" to a fault

[Anonymous No.14810733]

>>14810523
>othing in the number 4 contains the number 2.
Yes it does, for is defined as 1+1+1+1, 2 is 1+1, so 4 is 2+2 and so on.
>you presumed to know that 4 contains the premise of 2 + 2, but how? couldn't be from experience, as there are plenty of instances of 2+2 you haven't observed.
No, it was from observation. I don't need to see every instance of groups of 4 in the universe. My fingers are enough. When you learn words, including numbers, you learn them by observing their images. You learn 4 by seeing a group of 4 things.

[Anonymous No.14810743]

>>14810533
Well all you need to do is define 1 and 2 by image, but you can define 4 by image too. But if you define 1 and 2 by image, showing what those numbers are, and you define the next numbers, increasing in increments of 1, to be 3 and 4, then if follows by definition that 2+1+1 = 2+2 = 4.

[Anonymous No.14810750]

>>14810733
>for is defined as 1+1+1+1, 2 is 1+1, so 4 is 2+2 and so on
this is synthetic, you are making associations outside of 4, and it is a priori, as you did not gain this knowledge by observing instances of 2 + 2. let me present it to you another way. if 4 means 2 + 2, and you gained knowledge of it through experience, then you should be totally read to accept an instance where 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4, right? you hold that you might find an instance one day where 2 + 2 = 5?

[Anonymous No.14810765]

>>14810574
>What was this observation like? Can you put it in the form of an observation statement?
Yes. I observe my knowledge by thinking of it, then I observe in many instances that all my justifications are based on observations. By inductive reasoning, I conclude that observation is the only way to justify knowledge, with my justification being my many observations that of my justifications for other knowledge. inb4 "you can't observe thought" -- yes you can, though is literally sensory, usually auditory but sometimes visual. The base material at the heart of this observed phenomenon is the brain

[Anonymous No.14810769]

>>14809717
>Lack of practical application means it's not real
The absolute state of the modern world.

[Anonymous No.14810771]

>>14810706
That relies on the observation of a triangle.

[Anonymous No.14810772]

>>14809717
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing

[Anonymous No.14810783]

>>14810771
no, it literally doesn't, and you can prove it mathematically even if you had never seen a triangle.

[Anonymous No.14810785]

>>14810692
I agree completely. See the meme - "has no descriptive critques of materialism" and "can't elaborate his position for empiricists, just PSEUOOOOOOODS". ie links a book by a dead guy nobody likes instead of making his own point, especially in a topic where everything is verbal anyway and your own point can be made without having to refer to empirical sources
>>14810670
Shame on you

[Anonymous No.14810788]

>>14810713
>you've never read Quine
You're right, and I probably never will. However, that might change if you can explain why he's practically relevant?

[Anonymous No.14810792]

>>14810771
No. We know the interior angles of triangles in Euclidean space add up to 180° without having to observe every single one of them.

[Anonymous No.14810793]

>>14810765
Im observing my thoughts and they are saying that you are a faggot. This means that you are truly a massive fag, because I observed that I thought so.

[Anonymous No.14810808]

>>14810750
What? No, you're overcomplicating things. Numbers are based off material with that quantity.
> if 4 means 2 + 2, and you gained knowledge of it through experience, then you should be totally read to accept an instance where 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4, right?
No, because I defined 4 as 2+2. This is like saying, "if black means no light, and you gained this through experience, then you should totally be ready to accept an instance where no light is not black, right?" No, I defined "black" as the same thing as "no light". They're 2 sounds referring to the same image.
You're really caught up in semantic tricks and it's kinda gay tbqh. You think that your sophistry means heavans exist with magical heaven numbers or something and when someone says you're wrong you just try to confuse them with more tricks. It's see-through and gay

[Anonymous No.14810816]

>>14810808
and if you defined a crow as being a black bird, you would still hold it open that an experience of a white bird would make you change that definition. why is it that 2 + 2 = 4 should be any different if they are both simply based on experience?

[Anonymous No.14810817]

>>14810793
First off, you're shutting down because you got BTFO. Second, I never said that all thoughts are true. Thoughts are symbols and symbols can be true or false. But you still observe the symbols themselves.
This is so obvious, I shouldn't have to explain it to you and it kinda shows that idealists are midwits who can't meta-cognate and so they confuse their mind with an alternate, infinite heaven-reality

[Anonymous No.14810822]

>>14810816
>and if you defined a crow as being a black bird, you would still hold it open that an experience of a white bird would make you change that definition
No, why would I change that definition? Crow means black bird. That's what I hypothetically mean by crow. Any black bird. Period. An albino Corvus brachyrhynchos isn't a crow.
Yet if I had the notion that all Corvus brachyrhynchos were crows and I saw an albino one, I would change my belief accordingly.

[Anonymous No.14810831]

>>14810792
>No. We know the interior angles of triangles in Euclidean space add up to 180° without having to observe every single one of them.
Right, based off an observation of one that it is impossible for an object to both be 3 sided (a triangle) and not have 180 degrees total

[Anonymous No.14810833]

>>14810771

Imagine thinking mathematics is empirical kek

[Anonymous No.14810834]

>>14810822
So if I define God as existing, It must exist, right? Because a non existing God would not be God, right?

[Anonymous No.14810839]

>>14810817
>Thoughts are symbols and symbols can be true or false
How do you observe if a thought is true or false?

[Anonymous No.14810840]

>>14810831
>>14810793
In other words the 180 interior degree stipulation is hidden within the definition of triangle since it is impossible in space for a 3 pointed polygon to not have 180 degrees total. This was discovered after observation. The 3 pointed object was named after observing ones. When we observe subsequent ones we classify them and know things that arent obvious to a 5 year old based off of past observation of other 3 pointed polygons

[Anonymous No.14810842]

>>14810822
so you are a solipsist who doesn't care if his knowledge corresponds to reality, good to know I don't need to waste any more time on you

[Anonymous No.14810847]

>>14810834
What is the image of God and the image of "existing". If you define God as reality then God necessarily has being, yes. But if God is a deity then no, you are no longer defining his image, you are making a claim about that image

[Anonymous No.14810852]

>>14810688
>Maths is not successful at describing real the world
K.
>Name one thing that is true that doesn't rely on observation
The claim that
>All bachelors are unmarried men
is a true claim that doesn't rely on observation.
>>14810743
What does 'define by image' mean?>>14810765
>Yes. I observe my knowledge by thinking of it
>Yes, I will tactically redefine 'observation' so that it applies to anything you like. I will also claim that my 'observation' is necessarily true...
Also
>The base material at the heart of this observed phenomenon is the brain
You got an observation that will back this up?

[Anonymous No.14810855]

>>14810399
bitch-ass the point is that you can't reliably make a segregation between the concepts you are referring to. can you even reliably speak about coherently about anything if there is no material referent as is the case of mind-based "content'? myself i'm not sure about it but you shouldn't be so much perhaps.

and i am pretty certain i have been on 4chan longer than you have, not that it really matters at this stage of its life..... maybe i need to leave for my sanity

[Anonymous No.14810856]

>>14810831
>based off an observation
No. Because any knowledge based off observation is liable to be different under a different circumstance. I may observe that Kant walks by my house everyday at the same hour, but this doesn't mean that he HAS to walk by my house everyday at the same hour.

A triangle in Euclidean space necessarily has 180°, but nothing about empirical knowledge tells me its propositions are necessary

[Anonymous No.14810857]

>>14810842
No, you''re BTFO so you can fuck off first off LMAO.
Second, there is a difference between definition of symbols, which is the image you assign to them, and then claims about that image.
You're just getting confused over semantics and it's quite sad and revealing

[Anonymous No.14810865]

>>14810857
>bro I defined man as a featherless biped, of course that plucked chicken is a man

[Anonymous No.14810879]

>>14810852
>is a true claim that doesn't rely on observation.
No, you defined bachelor as unmarried man. This is not true or false. As for what an unmarried man is, that depends on observation. You cant escape it no matter how many games you play. Every symbol eventually refers to reality, and if it makes a non definitional (trivial) claim about something it must be empirically justified. Ie all bachelors are gay when the image of bachelor is just an unmarried man.
Quit playing with words, you either know you're a sophist or are just dumb
>What does 'define by image' mean?
All symbols ultimately derive meaning from an image or set of images that a symbol or set of symbols ultimately refers to. Ie you cannot just define words by other words forever. If you're a child I can't just hand you a dictionary, I have to show you what a "Tree" is, point to it, see "tree". Then the child knows what a tree is.
It is the same when the child learns to count. I show him 3 of something, take one away, tell him it is two of something, add two more, we call this 4 of something, 2 more this is six of something. Once he memorizes the image he can get abstract and start to count the order of numbers.
>You got an observation that will back this up?
Yea, you can try it at home. I want you to stab a knife through your foot. Done? Try observing a thought. Still works, right? Ok, now stab through your abdomen. It hurts but you should still be able to think for a little while. Now, put the tip by the soft part of your skull on the side of your head and ram the thing in there. If you can still think at all, I bet the extent of your thoughts is very diminished.
Now, try believing that you're not going to die. This is the ultimate proof against subjectivism. You will eventually experience death and that you are wrong

[Anonymous No.14810886]

>>14810808
>No, because I defined 4 as 2+2
Why choose that 'definition' over 3+1 or 7-3, or infinitely many other 'definitions' of 4?

[Anonymous No.14810887]

>>14810703
im sorry but ever since the 19-20th century you cannot really "prove" anything in logic or math asides from the context of an axiomatic system, which itself is only justified by "well, it kinda makes common sense; and its the best thing we have.... plus it so so pretty"

>>14810833
but it kinda is. without the grounding in the physical universe, (modern interpretations of) math is just symbol pushing. if you look at earlier math a lot of their arguments are based off some kind of common sense (cf: historical development of the Intermediate Value Theorem)

[Anonymous No.14810894]

>>14810879
>image
I love when people get so btfo'd they try doing original philosophy like they accidentally solved the epistemological gap on 4chan and are about to revolutionize philosophy

[Anonymous No.14810902]

>>14810464
the concept of infinity

[Anonymous No.14810905]

>>14810856
>Because any knowledge based off observation is liable to be different under a different circumstance
>A triangle in Euclidean space necessarily has 180°, but nothing about empirical knowledge tells me its propositions are necessary
So you're saying a triangle under the same circumstances (these laws of physics, Euclidean space) is always the same? Profound. It's almost like the first statement is Not Even Wrong because knowledge always includes relevant circumstances.
How did you learn what a triangle is? Is it just in your soul or were you shown one when you were a kid?

[Anonymous No.14810913]

>>14810865
That statement is poo (analytically true)
Note that your definition of man does not include any other info. No cognitive abilities, biological info, nothing. So yes, both a plucked chicken and homo sapiens are "man"

[Anonymous No.14810919]

>>14810894
Thanks, if this notion of things being defined based on images is original, philosophy is in a lot of trouble. Maybe you're just not as well read as you think?

[Anonymous No.14810922]

>>14810902
Infinity isn't real. I don't believe in it since it can't be empirically demonstrated and I think you haven't thought deeply enough about it if you believe in infinity

[Anonymous No.14810923]

>>14810886
They're all simultaneously the definitions of 4, along with the image of 4 things

[Anonymous No.14810929]

>>14810879
>No, you defined bachelor as unmarried man. This is not true or false
>Definitions are not true or false
Well that obviously isn't true, otherwise there'd be no way to tell
>All bachelors are unmarried men
and
>All bachelors are married men
apart. At least some definitions are true, and some truths are true by definition.
>All symbols ultimately derive meaning from an image or set of images that a symbol or set of symbols ultimately refers to
Why believe this? What observation justifies this? What is the image that the word 'the' ultimately refers to? Or the letter H?
>Yea, you can try it at home.
You've managed to observe that thoughts have something to do with the brain. But I want you to show me the observation that justifies the claim
>The base material at the heart of this observed phenomenon is the brain
What is the relationship between thought and the brain? If I cut your brain open, would I see any ideas in there?

[Anonymous No.14810940]

>>14810894
So we need infinitely many definitions in order to get basic arithmetic going? Are you sure?
>along with the image of 4 things
That's very vague indeed. What is the image of 'thing'? Also, if you're defining 4 as 'the image of 4 things', your alleged definition includes 4, the thing you're supposed to be defining. What's the point in doing that?

[Anonymous No.14810957]

>>14810929
>Well that obviously isn't true, otherwise there'd be no way to tell
Wrong, it's correlations that are true or false. So the propositions that a thing has some quality that isn't evident in its image
>Why believe this? What observation justifies this?
Observing children learn language
>What is the image that the word 'the' ultimately refers to? Or the letter H?
First, some languages don't have "the". So it can be empty noise most of the time. Most of the time it constrasts with "a", meaining it implies a specific image as opposed to a set of things conforming to the symbols image that can be chosen from. "Give me an apple" vs "Give me the apple". In the latter, I want a certain apple.
>You've managed to observe that thoughts have something to do with the brain. But I want you to show me the observation that justifies the claim
If the experiment was too much for you, look up "lobotomy"
>What is the relationship between thought and the brain? If I cut your brain open, would I see any ideas in there?
wOuLd I seE IdEas iN thEre??? You already know it has to do with electricity and chemical reactions, you sophist loser. Stop arguing like a woman and have honestly

[Anonymous No.14810958]

>>14810894
Sorry lad, I meant >>14810940 for >>14810923!

[Anonymous No.14810969]

>>14810940
>So we need infinitely many definitions in order to get basic arithmetic going? Are you sure?
No you just need the image definitions. All the symbol-defintions refer to one image-definition anyway. So the infinite amount is just an illusion
> Also, if you're defining 4 as 'the image of 4 things', your alleged definition includes 4 the thing you're supposed to be defining. What's the point in doing that?
So you know what 4 is. Image-definitions include the content of the symbol it is defining. Symbol-defintions do not, they attempt to use other symbols whose images you already know to define a new symbol without directly showing you

[Anonymous No.14811001]

>>14810957
>it's correlations that are true or false
>But no, there's no correlation between definiens and definiendum
Yeah, no.
>So the propositions that a thing has some quality that isn't evident in its image
Where was this sentence going?
How does the observation of children learning lead you to the claim that
>All symbols ultimately derive meaning from an image or set of images that a symbol or set of symbols ultimately refers to
? You're making a very broad claim that you're not backing up.
>Most of the time it constrasts with "a", meaining it implies a specific image as opposed...
What is this 'image' of 'a specific image as opposed to...' What is the image of implication?
>You already know it has to do with electricity and chemical reactions, you sophist loser. Stop arguing like a woman and have honestly...
'Has to do with electricity and chemical reactions'? That's very vague. What is the image for that? What do you mean 'base material at the heart of this observed phenomenon'? This is just bluster.

[Anonymous No.14811020]

>>14810684
Sorry but I’ve already imagined the universe where we continue discussing this and it turns out you’re wrong and a faggot. No need to go any further with this conversation

[Anonymous No.14811026]

>>14811001
How do you not get that words refer to images? Are you an NPC? Can you not visualize?

[Anonymous No.14811028]

>>14809496
This seems awfully specific. Sure you aren't describing yourself?

[Anonymous No.14811029]

>>14810969
You're saying there are two kinds of definition, image definition and symbol definition, and that the image definitions - or rather definition, since it's just one image of a single thing, used as many times as you like - are basic. My question is, how do we know it's necessarily the case that 2+2=4? If we say it's by definition, how do we know that that's the right definition, and not 2+3=4?

[Anonymous No.14811032]

>>14811020
BTFO lmao
First one to adhom loses get fucked retard

[Anonymous No.14811033]

>>14811001
Certainly some words and symbols refer to images. You can define some words ostensively. But why believe they all do? What image does the letter H refer to?

[Anonymous No.14811040]

>>14811026
see>>14811033!

[Anonymous No.14811063]

>>14811001
This is entry-level Phenomenology.

[Anonymous No.14811072]

Deleuze is a materialist....

[Anonymous No.14811074]

>>14811026
>>14811033
>All symbols ultimately derive meaning from an image or set of images that a symbol or set of symbols ultimately refers to
This certainly works for some symbols, but I'm not sure it works for all of them. If you say 'hello' or stick your fingers up to someone, what you're saying or doing is meaningful - you're expressing something - but what is the image, what are the images, that are ultimately evoked by a 'hello' or a V-sign?

[Anonymous No.14811110]

>>14810922
meanwhile, in set theory, they don't give a fuck about your opinions and instead do real math with infinity

[Anonymous No.14811118]

>>14810919
it's not defined at all, that's the joke. people have asked you to explain what you are talking about but your thumb is so deeply implanted in your asshole you haven't done it

[Anonymous No.14811119]

>>14811032
>as hominem
nope, valid argument based off my observations

[Anonymous No.14811140]

>>14811033
>What image does the letter H refer to?
That refers to a sound smarty pants

[Anonymous No.14811148]

>>14811074
>- but what is the image, what are the images, that are ultimately evoked by a 'hello
Friendly actions
> or a V-sign?
idk not a nip

[Anonymous No.14811155]

>>14811119
triggered

[Anonymous No.14811161]

>>14811118
>image theory of meaning
Sounds like a Babby's First Philosophical Argument version of Witty's picture theory. He gave up on it (or at least decided it only applied to some kinds of language).

[Anonymous No.14811162]

>>14811110
No, they do real math with large numbers. That is, if their math is predictive at all and not just autistic sperginess

[Anonymous No.14811170]

>>14811148
>Friendly actions
>Yes that's right, the way I'm using the word 'image' is so vague that it means just about anything

[Anonymous No.14811184]

>>14811140
Yeah, you got me there. What about the / then, smart guy?

[Anonymous No.14811229]

>>14811162
>t. doesn't understand set theory

[Anonymous No.14811249]

>>14809767
how do you know that your observation is trustworthy?

[Anonymous No.14811298]

>>14811161
seethe more Im just defending basic reality
Sorry it's not autistic enough for you though retard
Go obsess over Critique of Pure Reason and seethe when people like me make fun of you for it because it's a gay text that has no relation to the real world and you're gay for wasting your time on it when you could be studying the Jewish Question

[Anonymous No.14811308]

>>14811184
>What about the / then, smart guy?
see my other comment, its an image or its meaningless depending on context

[Anonymous No.14811331]

>>14811298
>seethe more... autist... retard... gay... Jews...
What is the 'image' for irony? Is it you?

[Anonymous No.14811332]

>>14811229
Who the fuck does understand set theory? What practical usefulness does it have? What about to my life? Why should I care about your autistic number wonderland?

[Anonymous No.14811346]

>>14811332
>things aren't real unless they make a difference to me personally
solipsists get the rope

[Anonymous No.14811352]

>>14811331
>youre not as smart as me because I waste my time reading things with no practical meaning or relation to reality
t. the image of "pseud"

[Anonymous No.14811357]

>>14811346
nope, didn't say that, if it could be observed it would be real even if I didnt care about it. However, we're talking about the phantasies of autistics here, so they're not observable nor are they practicle. Essentially, they're worthless.
The fact that you can't understand the distinction between real and practical tells me a lot. Thanks

[Anonymous No.14811365]

>>14811308
>All symbols ultimately refer to images
>Except the ones that don't
>Oh, it turns out context is important too, not just images
What do you actually mean by the word 'image'? Do you just mean 'meaning'?
>All meaningful symbols mean something
Good work fella.
>>14811352
>I don't waste my time reading
Checks out.

[Anonymous No.14811377]

>>14811308
>>14811352
This has been fucking hilarious, but it's bedtime in Bongland. Leave me something good to read tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.14811380]

>>14811365
>it misquotes and thinks its smart
I don't waste time reading the low IQ shit you read. Trust me, I read a lot of relevant shit though

[Anonymous No.14811384]

>>14811377
Ok, answer me this: what is your favorite philosopher and how is anything he says worth reading about? How has it changed your life other than to allow you to appear smart on 4chan. Good night and Good morning

[Anonymous No.14811385]

>>14811357
yes you did, you said
>What about to my life?
as if mathematics has to appeal to you personally before you will assent to its reality. when shown a mathematical proof, rather than look for its solution, you ask "oh yeah? what has it done for me lately?"
>observable
by what metric? gravitational waves weren't observable till 2016, do you think this is when they came into existence? you are a fool. you are so far behind on the issue of epistemology and number theory it's actually embarrassing. at least you should feel embarrassed, had you and intellectual rigor whatsoever

[Anonymous No.14811397]

>>14811385
>as if mathematics has to appeal to you personally before you will assent to its reality. when shown a mathematical proof, rather than look for its solution, you ask "oh yeah? what has it done for me lately?"
Yea because what it can do for people is the only observable proof.
Seriously, I know you're struggling, but what is the practical relevance of set theory? Furthermore, why should I learn it? What can it do for me other than make me feel smart on 4chan? What has it done for you?

[Anonymous No.14811443]

>>14811397
>what it can do for people is the only observable proof
this is completely false. quantum physics was proven long before they started using entanglement in real applications. set theory is itself the foundation of at least a half dozen branches of mathematics, each with plenty of real world applications. do you consider genetic research to be real? DNA? because that field uses topology which is founded on set theory. read a book anon.

[Anonymous No.14811455]

>>14811443
ok now how has it impacted YOUR life? Why would I waste my time on hyper autistic math I'd never use?

[Anonymous No.14811473]

>>14811455
you don't have to learn it you fucking retard, something being real or not doesn't depend on your personal whims and preferences. you are literally a solipsist and it's fucking disgusting

[Anonymous No.14811480]

>>14811298
Shit for brains /pol/tard is more comfortable discussing le Jewish conspiracy memes than philosophy, news at 11

[Anonymous No.14811487]

>>14811480
Please explain how Critique of Pure Reason is more practically relevant than who controls your life?

[Anonymous No.14811512]

>>14811487
It's not, but if you bought into the JQ you are literally an intellectual midget, what the fuck are you doing in a philosophy thread

[Anonymous No.14812659]

>>14809565
>>14809571
/sci/ pseud. Science is literally just applied math, if you look at the history of science all developments are dependent on development in math i.e. in something beyond materiality.

[Anonymous No.14812987]

>>14810816
because we have a history of experience that solidifies them as truth

what is true history doesn't changes

[Anonymous No.14813055]

Why do people assume Idealism always has to be mathematical? Why can't we have Idealism that ignores mathematics and numbers as merely a potential psychological-valuing like in a Jungian sense.

[Anonymous No.14813157]

>all these daily philosophy threads
There really can't be this many people that does not know that Nagarjuna ended philosophy almost 2000 years ago.... Right? Tell me i'm hallucinating.
>2020
>still doesn't know that theorizing and views leads to nothing but antinomies and contradictions
guys...

[Anonymous No.14813269]

>>14810429
It took Principia Mathematica 379 pages to prove 1+1=2.

[Anonymous No.14813283]

>>14810609
>>14811072
>Deleuze is a materialist
He knows, this is just an attempt to muddy the waters and to troll.

[Anonymous No.14813362]

>>14812987
>history of experience
this is meaningless. there was at one point a history of experience that said the sun revolves around the earth. that was wrong, and it changed, because it is an a posteriori fact and therefore not necessary. 2 +2 = 4 must be true. architecture isn't possible if it isn't true. the laws of physics don't work if it isn't true. experience itself makes no sense if it isn't true. no amount of history could prove or disprove the thing which makes the very idea of empirical proof possible

[Anonymous No.14813410]

>>14809496
Posting wojak is a cause for automatic disqualification.

[Anonymous No.14813451]

>>14813157
Elaborate.

[Anonymous No.14813458]

Dumbass here, I don't understand the materialist view.
Why would you assume nothing exists outside of the physical if your capacity to observe, by virtue of being physical itself, cannot perceive anything outside of the physical world by definition?
In the materialist vs. idealist debate, isn't the rational stance skepticism?

[Anonymous No.14813592]

>>14809571

Your life is contingent on things that cannot be observed to occur in reality, like the State or the Law.

[Anonymous No.14813863]

>>14809592
Even if they were, the material conditions still have more influence on our behaviors. If i was literally starving, i could undoubtly steal food. Does that make me bad? Most of our choice are influenced by our material condition of living. That's why moral, value, traditional religions are less important than the mode of production, and tradcucks glorifying Capitalism don't get it. You cannot go to Church sunday morning, and monday go back managing a ruthless business. This is a major contradiction, and explain why people like Jordan Peterson loose their mind.

[Anonymous No.14813881]

>>14809496
I thought Deleuze was one of the few major explicitly antiplatonist philosophers

[Anonymous No.14813904]

>>14809496
I thought Deleuze was one of the few major explicitly antiplatonist philosophers

[Anonymous No.14813922]

>>14809496
I don't know what/who platonic forms, idealism, empiricists, postmodernism, Deleuze, projecting low IQ onto others, descriptive critiqued of materialism, normative whaddabouts are. Please explain any of these to me.

[Anonymous No.14813937]

>>14813922
This explains all you need to know
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYOHpiGlpgE

[Anonymous No.14814039]

>>14811298
>Seethe more
[he seethed]
>It's da Joos!
>>14811380
>Trust me, I read a lot of relevant shit though
Is this is a high-functioning troll or low-functioning stupid?

[Anonymous No.14814078]

>>14810151
The real answer is neither the cup nor the object exist outside of the world of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14814081]

>>14809496
Deleuze is a materialist

[Anonymous No.14814083]

>>14813458
Best post was by dumbass
>Why would you assume nothing exists outside of the physical if your capacity to observe, by virtue of being physical itself, cannot perceive anything outside of the physical world by definition?

[Anonymous No.14814097]

>>14814083
>Why would you believe in materialism when idealism feels better?

[Anonymous No.14814104]

>>14810661
whitehead was based

[Anonymous No.14814107]

>>14814097
>Why wouldn't you beg the question when question-begging feels so good?

[Anonymous No.14814128]

Once you get over philosophy you can start reading about the juicy stuff like western esotericism and hermeticism.