[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 5 KB, 165x115, 7d8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17316918 No.17316918 [Reply] [Original]

>Open a philosophy book
>Read the axioms
>Reject them as complete nonsense
>Filter through 99% of all philosophy

>> No.17316936

>>17316918
Me with Spinoz

>> No.17316941
File: 1.91 MB, 1033x1033, 150282_0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17316941

>>17316936
based

>> No.17316995

>>17316918
Me with H*gel

>> No.17316999

>>17316995
what are Hegel's axioms?

>>17316918
who are those 1%?

>> No.17317014
File: 64 KB, 841x778, 1598261737870.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17317014

>>17316999
Pyrrho

>> No.17317015

>>17316936
Name the axiom and refute it.

>> No.17317018

>>17317014
based

post more suggestions lol

>> No.17317043

>>17316999
>forall x, x in A iff x in B implies A = B

>> No.17317056

>>17317043
>forall x, x in A iff x in B implies A = B
more like
>forall x, x in A, if x in B then A in B

>> No.17317071

>>17317056
False axiom and awkwardly phrased. The biggest flaw is you were meant to say A subset B

>> No.17317097

>>17317071
>False axiom and awkwardly phrased. The biggest flaw is you were meant to say A subset B
1. how can a axiom be false
2. also yours it's written like shit
3. in and subset are mathematically equivalent

>> No.17317120

>>17317043
this doesn't seem like hegel
where the fuck did you read that

>> No.17317528

>>17316936
Basado

>> No.17318662

>>17316936
Cringe

>> No.17318695
File: 72 KB, 300x577, 1538594846947.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17318695

>Open a philosophy book
>Read
>Don't understand 99% of it
>Assign it whatever meaning I assume it has based on the few words I manage to comprehend

>> No.17318719

>>17318695
me with Hegel
https://youtu.be/W2jtkakoWG4

>> No.17319260

>>17316936
basado

>> No.17319284

>>17317014
based, the skeptics cannot be refuted

>> No.17319285

>>17318695
Ah, the Jordan Peterson strat. I've heard it works wonders.

>> No.17319500

>>17319285
top fucking kek