How to escape pessimism

[Anonymous No.15298895]

And nihilism
Pic very related

[Anonymous No.15298915]

>>15298895
Read Wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.15298935]

>>15298895
The pic is idiotic and betrays a misunderstanding of the purpose of proof and reasoning.

[Anonymous No.15298938]

>>15298895
Find some drug that doesn't completely fuck you up but gets rid of the depression if you don't want to commit suicide.

[Anonymous No.15298943]

>>15298935
Which is?

[Anonymous No.15298945]

regressive circularity desu

[Anonymous No.15298962]

>>15298943
To generate new beliefs in a truth-preserving way based on prior beliefs.

[Anonymous No.15298971]

>>15298962
So it's just about beliefs, not truth
That is, you're asserting the third option, it's axiomatic. That's cool and all but it doesn't in any way disprove or somehow invalidate the trilemma.

[Anonymous No.15299001]

>>15298971
based

[Anonymous No.15299010]

>>15298895
if you include God in the equation the trilemma becomes a perfect unilemma

[Anonymous No.15299040]

>>15298971
arguments against axioms can be incredibly arrogant. i'm not saying that axioms shouldn't be reevaluated consistently and competently, but the idea that there exist no axioms that cannot be further reduced to truth strikes me as self-indulgent and overly human-centric. axioms and truth may exist interchangeably, or even synonymously.

[Anonymous No.15299063]

>>15298962
There are truths which cannot be reached by reasoning alone.

[Anonymous No.15299075]

>>15299063
Source: axiom

[Anonymous No.15299081]

>>15299040
I agree with you, I"m just saying that we are therefore using the third one. I think it's the best one too desu. We have to constantly be questioning our axioms but so long as they are holding up to scrutiny we should remain with them.

[Anonymous No.15299101]

>>15298971
No, you moron.

>>15299063
No shit, Sherlock. Stay on topic.

[Anonymous No.15299123]

>>15299101
>No, you moron.
Literally yes you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.15299200]

>>15299123
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.15299206]

>>15299200
>MOOOOOM LOOK! I POSTED IT AGAIN!

[Anonymous No.15299289]

>>15299123
>>15299206
Reread the pic in the OP, shitforbrains.

[Anonymous No.15299334]

>>15299200
Actually, literally yes.

[Anonymous No.15299370]

>>15299334
Reasoning has nothing to do with "accepted precepts", dumbass.

[Anonymous No.15299389]

This is not new and is literally one of the central problems of all thinkers and all literature. I don't want to be a gaywad, but this question is a dead-end trap because it is based on a misrepresentation of the problem so I must suggest you read more of the western canon.

In particular, you ought to read the meno and hamlet, both address this problem very directly.

Some highlights of how we got here

Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, the Bible, Ptolemy, Aquinas/Maimonides, Kepler, William Harvey, Francis Bacon, Newton, Pascal, Descartes, Louise Bernard

That should keep you busy for a while

[Anonymous No.15299408]

>>15299389
>Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, the Bible, Ptolemy, Aquinas/Maimonides, Kepler, William Harvey, Francis Bacon, Newton, Pascal, Descartes, Louise Bernard
You want to maybe narrow it down a bit, or are you trying to say that a native command of the entire oeuvre of the entirety of classical philosophy is necessary to talk about "this" (what is "this" again?) without boring our more erudite readers?

[Anonymous No.15299416]

>>15298895
nice post OP

[Anonymous No.15299438]

>>15298895
Clearly the answer is that there is no such thing as truth

[Anonymous No.15299607]

>>15299438
Is that a truth?

[Anonymous No.15299641]

>>15299607
This is a fruitless line of reasoning. He will answer in the negative and you'll misunderstand his meaning.

[Anonymous No.15299648]

>>15299607
Evidently not, if there's no such thing
It can approximate what you consider a truth or have a tendency towards it but it's probably an asymptote-like arrangement

[Anonymous No.15299670]

>>15299648
So thats untrue

[Anonymous No.15299773]

>>15299408
>a native command of the entire oeuvre of the entirety of classical philosophy

I was replying to the "Munchausen Trilemma"

[Anonymous No.15300124]

>>15299670
There is no truth for untruth to exist in comparison to in this scenario, smartarse

[Anonymous No.15300126]

>>15298895
Pic related is what you get when you don't understand that reasoning is impossible without premises.

[Anonymous No.15300127]

>>15298895
U cant

[Anonymous No.15300152]

>>15300124
It's not possible, genius.
You can't say "there is no truth anymore" and then use your reason to say that I'm wrong when I tell you that your sentence is therefore untrue, since you are appealing to the truth in doing so.
The truth is the correspondence between X and what is
If my sentence matches what is = it's true.
If there's no truth your sentence is false because it doesn't correspond to anything that is
It's even worse than false because it can't hope to be true at all without truth.
It's just useless.

[Anonymous No.15300209]

>>15300152
Answer this then: What is?

[Anonymous No.15300288]

>>15300209
The phenomena

[Anonymous No.15300383]

>>15298895
read U.G and throw it out, bastard

[Anonymous No.15301787]

>>15300152
boom, rekt

[Anonymous No.15302205]

>>15298895
OP, your pic would only apply in a situation in which you and your interlocutor agreed on nothing. Which is impossible. Issue dissolved.

[Anonymous No.15302220]

>>15298895
Coherentism is fine. No really, it is.

[Anonymous No.15302229]

>>15299408
>are you trying to say that a native command of the entire oeuvre of the entirety of classical philosophy is necessary to talk about "this"
Not that guy, but yes. The "this" may be a placeholder for anyhing you want.

[Anonymous No.15302314]

>>15298895
Easy. You start with an axiom that, if denied, would make you incapable of refuting the truth. So, for instance, you could start by saying that tautologies are true. If someone denies this, just reply that the word "deny" for them has no meaning since it is no longer tautologically equal to itself, and therefore is equal to everything and loses all meaning. Checkmate.

[Anonymous No.15302339]

>>15299040
>axioms and truth may exist interchangeably, or even synonymously.
This depends on what axiom you use, and since no system can question it's own axioms internally since any propositions made with that system relies on them, then there is no proof for such truth.

[Anonymous No.15302350]

>>15299010
God is the third option, as god is an axiom which is then rationally built off of according to a sublogic which itself is part of a greater logic that allows the theory itself to be constructed in the first place.

[Anonymous No.15302354]

>>15298895
I see nothing wrong with the axiomatic option. In fact, that is how most philosophy is conducted. I fail to see how this is a trilemma. It's more like two spooks and reality.

[Anonymous No.15302386]

>>15298895
>nihilism
Serve the Other without the expectation of recompense. The more charitable actions you perform will automatically cause one's psyche to see the individual receiving the service to have genuine value, a self-perceived value which will only increase the more selflessly you serve, as otherwise there would be no reason for the service in the first place. The increasing of value for the individual eventually continues toward a greater self-perceived value of ones Self and, inevitably, a greater perceived value for the totality of life itself. Through sheer compassion life will become beautiful.

>pessimism
can't help you

[Anonymous No.15302413]

>>15300126
>premises
Or, in other words, an axiom, which is option 3.

[Anonymous No.15302465]

>>15302413
There is no need to "accept" the premises for an argument to be valid.

[Anonymous No.15302497]

>>15302465
That depends on your definition of valid.

[Anonymous No.15302712]

>>15302497
No, it does not.

[Anonymous No.15302748]

>>15300209
? is a symbol put at the end of sentences to make it clear that a question is being asked

[Anonymous No.15302775]

>>15302748
The question was "What is?" not "What is '?'?"

[Anonymous No.15302808]

>>15298895
you can't be both nihilist and pessimist

[Anonymous No.15302839]

>>15302775
I was just shitposting

[Anonymous No.15302898]

>>15302839
And I was pissposting

[Anonymous No.15302921]

>Nothing exists;
>Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and
>Even if something can be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.
>Even if it can be communicated, it cannot be understood.
t. Gorgias

The only eternal thing that exists is change, if something changes it is nothing.
we live in the present, which soon ceases to exist in the next moment to the infinity so on, so we live in nothing as well

Nothing, nothing
you will soon die and no one will remember you
this species will also go extinct very soon in cosmic perspective and all it has made will be... nothing
this Universe as well will recycle itself, or die forever

Now you can go clean your bedroom