[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 98 KB, 379x512, 1593819811090.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17703715 No.17703715 [Reply] [Original]

All irony aside is this the end of philosophy? Why the fuck would you even bother with anything else once you've read the pyrrhonists? This is both definitive and liberating.

>> No.17703741

>>17703715
Clearly not as people have continued doing philosophy for the last 2000 years regardless.

More seriously, I think that skepticism is helpful to prevent errors in reasoning, but giving yourself over to it completely is sort of like suicide. Just as the one who commits suicide takes a step out of proportion to their problem, the one committed to skepticism takes a step out of proportion to the problem of epistemic uncertainty.

>> No.17703758

>>17703741
>giving yourself over to it completely is sort of like suicide
But accepting anything else is just larping. Forgive the meme term but it seems appropriate. Once you know about skepticism, you can't really move on to something else without being somewhat intellectually dishonest.

>> No.17703816

>>17703758
Faith is its own epistemic category. Just because there cannot be certainty doesn't mean you can't authentically commit yourself to something. You should obviously be aware when you are doing it, but the was things are sometimes requires that we take that step into the unknown.

>> No.17703828

>>17703816
Why have faith in anything aside from what is most necessary for daily functioning?
I'm especially talking about any kind of faith in metaphysics here.

>> No.17703855

>>17703828
If I could give you a reason, would it really be faith?

Anyway, I think it depends on your own intuition. In my opinion authentic faith comes from a personal awareness of an Other which establishes your existence. It's just what people do who have that awareness. If you don't ever wonder what is behind the curtain, then ok, I'm not going to make you.

>> No.17703866

>>17703715
Scepticism is parasitic anti-philosophy

>> No.17703869

>>17703855
>If you don't ever wonder what is behind the curtain
But I do. I simply acknowledge that I'll never be able to know for sure.

>> No.17703878

>>17703866
>Scepticism is parasitic anti-philosophy
Sounds based

>> No.17703887

>>17703866
Yeah, because it makes everything else collapse on its foundations.

>> No.17704359

bump

>> No.17704427

Plato destroyed it. Pascal also wrote very eloquently against it.

>> No.17704438

>>17704427
>Plato destroyed it.
No he didn't.

>> No.17704468

>>17703715
Scepticism is the only rational option when dealing with the politics of the empire of chaos, the US.

>> No.17704486

>>17704468
dont comment when you clearly haven’t read any of the subject matter at hand

>> No.17704580

>>17704438
He did. Without intelligibility there is absolutely nothing.

>> No.17704585

Because judgment is good. You use it all the time to help make good decision, and suspending your judgment for everything is going to lead to poor decisions and unhappiness.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism#Augustine_on_skepticism

>> No.17704604

>>17704580
Which dialogue addressed skepticism?
>>17704585
But there is no reason to form judgment on anything else than what helps you live your life and function normally.

>> No.17704636

>>17704604
All of them. Have you read any? The dialogues are always showing the intimate relation of his metaphysics/ontology and his epistemology, and the inherent and necessary intelligibility in all things is the key point to both, or link between then.

>> No.17704649

>>17704636
I'm not seeing it.

>> No.17704661

>>17704649
Skeptics can’t see much indeed, that’s why they are in that middle part Plato mentions in the Republic. It’s all just opinion.

>> No.17704672

people who call themselves skeptics should not be taken seriously.

>> No.17704680

>>17704661
>It’s all just opinion.
Well, yes.
You still haven't explained how Plato refuted skepticism. How do you demonstrate the "inherent and necessarily intelligibility in all things"? You cannot.

>> No.17704742

>>17704680
You are asking me to show how each thing is what it is?

>> No.17704749

>>17704742
No. Your statement is tautological.

>> No.17704756

Isn’t Pyrrhonism just cryptobuddhism?

>> No.17704763

>>17704756
No, Buddhism is a religion and makes truth claims despite what its followers will tell you.

>> No.17704812

test

>> No.17704832

>>17704749
Yes for how can I prove to you what is evident?

>> No.17704834

>>17704604
>But there is no reason to form judgment on anything else than what helps you live your life and function normally.
That would be a larp and not Pyrrhonism.

>> No.17704842

>>17704834
Why?
>>17704832
You're saying "things are because they are", this doesn't refute anything.

>> No.17704866

>>17704842
I’m not saying this and the post you accused of tautology was a question, precisely to show how absurd skepticism can be: deny intelligibility.
Things are what they are not because they are solely but also because they are not. That is, sameness, identity and difference constitute intelligibility. How can you know the difference between doubt and certainty? Dogma and skpetic affirmation?

>> No.17704871

>>17704680
>it’s all just opinion
>well, yes
You already refuted skepticism.

>> No.17704879
File: 373 KB, 1424x2048, C789A5C1-29CB-498E-836C-0559D558FF5A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17704879

Husserl’s phenomenology beginning through epoche begins with the pyrrhonian skepticism and sees what you can still say and do philosophy about at that point. His entire philosophical model is based on this kind of skepticism. The key is that no matter what kind of skepticism you hold, the statement “there is an experience of phenomena” more or less isn’t breakable: as it makes no ontological truth claims, claims nothing about like it side of man or any noumena or what occurs beyond the consciousness. The entire model being autistic analysis of consciousness and phenomena from the first person perspective. So no, as many phenomenologists come after Husserl there is no end to philosophy with pyrrhonianism.

Check out his Cartesian meditations for an intro.

>> No.17704901

>>17704866
>deny intelligibility.
Something is being perceived, but that alone says nothing of the quality of what is being perceived, let alone allows you to make any kind of metaphysical claim. The idea that the truth is inaccessible still stands.
Maybe I'm verging into pomo rather than skepticism.
>>17704879
>“there is an experience of phenomena” more or less isn’t breakable
It's not, but I don't see where you go from there. Grossly speaking, the only think I can demonstrate to myself is that my awareness exists. We're still very far from any kind of legitimate metaphysical model here.

>> No.17704913

>>17704879
>there is an experience of phenomena
Yes, so it already posits a consciousness of an intelligibilty beyond phenomena itself, no? How can it comprehend, or how can there be a comprehensive consciousness if not through this kind of “transcendent perception”?
What does Husserl say about Descartes argument on God? I think what I just said is linked to it because of what both resembles: the classical ontological argument of Anselm.

>> No.17704929

>>17704901
>something exists
What? What exists? Something is? Just like the other reply to the other post yiu are positing Being, Subject and Object and its own intelligible pattern of cognition. This is already metaphysics.

>> No.17704943

>>17704929
I only know that my awareness exists, I can't be sure of the existence of anything outside of it.
I guess you can call solipsism metaphysics but it's not particularly interesting and grants no insight, we're very far from a complex system here.

>> No.17704952

>>17704901
>It's not, but I don't see where you go from there. Grossly speaking, the only think I can demonstrate to myself is that my awareness exists. We're still very far from any kind of legitimate metaphysical model here.

Check him out he takes his basic idea and produces a pretty strong model and latter folks like luc-marion have produced full fledged theological systems with it.

>>17704913
>so it already posits a consciousness of an intelligibilty beyond phenomena itself, no?

Nope, it takes no position concerning what occurs beyond consciousness or phenomena. He at most can reduce down to the transcendental ego or “givenness” but of beyond that he does not allow himself speculation.

>How can it comprehend, or how can there be a comprehensive consciousness if not through this kind of “transcendent perception”?

Once more, he personally reduces down to the transcendental self and later through his analysis develops a conception of the intersubjective “life-world” which are pretty easy to stretch out into full on theological models.

>What does Husserl say about Descartes argument on God?

Not of his concern and he says he would require too much time studying if he were to produce a truly rigorous treatment of theology so beyond a few stray statements he sticks to the analysis of phenomena.

>> No.17704967

>>17704943
So you can’t know difference? You can’t know the Object, but the Subject? So what can you not know?

>> No.17704996

>>17704952
What i meant was that being aware of consciousness of phenomena already puts it beyond phenomena itself.

>> No.17705011

>>17704967
I can't prove that I am ontologically distinct from what I perceive.

>> No.17705019

>>17704842
>Why?
>than what helps you live your life and function normally.
That's not suspending your judgment. Pyrrhonism is suspending your judgment on everything. If you're selective about your judgment, that itself is a judgment, you're making judgments, not suspending your judgment.
>Diogenes (9.62) reports Antigonus as saying that Pyrrho’s lack of trust in his senses led him to ignore precipices, oncoming wagons and dangerous dogs, and that his friends had to follow him around to protect him from these various everyday hazards
This is probably false, but it's the logical conclusion of Pyrrhonism. David Hume said true Pyrrhonism is probably not possible for humans.

>> No.17705048

How do you know reality fundamentally operates on logic?

>> No.17705079

>>17703758
How does skepticism refute my knowing of right and wrong?

>> No.17705089

>>17705011
But why can you state the difference between what you regard as knowledge, truth or whatever you call it, as skepticism and what you think is dogmatism? Moreover, proclaim a value judgement of one over the other.

>> No.17705100

>>17705079
Right and wrong are opinions.

>> No.17705104

>>17705089
I don't get your question. Dogmatism is a belief held without proof of it being true, which would encompass everything aside from the admission of my own existence.

>> No.17705112

>>17705100
They're not, I just know what's right and wrong.

>> No.17705116

>>17705112
Ok.

>> No.17705117

>>17705116
Now never make stupid threads again, pleb.

>> No.17705124

>>17705117
I just said "ok" so you'd leave and take your retarded opinions with you.

>> No.17705134

>>17705104
You said you can’t prove what is different, how do you posit a value judgement on dogmatism? Isn’t it, like every assertion consequently, dogmatic?

>> No.17705135

>>17705124
You said "ok" because you can't refute it, but nice cope.

>> No.17705145

>>17705135
There's nothing to refute, you made a baseless dogmatic claim, which I dismissed. Fuck off now.

>> No.17705154

>>17705145
You not only did a dogmatic claim too but you value what is good and bad according your own opinions. This leads to subjectivism and therefore annuls itself.

>> No.17705164

>>17705145
Your system collapsed, sorry kid.

>> No.17705168

>>17705164
Yes, I'm not a strict pyrrhonist, otherwise I'd question literally everything and would be a vegetable. Nice insight, bub.

>> No.17705177

>>17705168
You're not anything. You're a pseud who doesn't understand the first thing about philosophy.

>> No.17705178

>>17705134
You mean how do I know that suspension of judgment is superior to dogmatism? I don't. Dogma cannot be verified, while suspending judgment is backed by my previous obersvation that I can observe my own awareness without doubt. From there, choosing to follow a dogma is a matter of faith

>> No.17705189

>>17705177
There's no need to be frustrated, midwit.

>> No.17705199

>>17705189
Consider your concession accepted. Back to the drawing board with you.

>> No.17705211

>>17705178
Well, dogmas don’t necessarily reject the self-evidence of consciousness. But you expressed repeatedly how this naive skepticism leads to its own annulation.

>> No.17705213

>>17705199
How does every thread on skepticism always manage to make at least one dumb dogmatist seethe extremely hard? Sorry for being irrefutable bro.

>> No.17705226

>>17705211
I didn't imply they did. I'm merely saying that based on the first and only observation that I seem to exist, the following actions (beliefs) are essentially a matter of choice. They aren't inevitable realizations, unlike the fact that I am currently aware.

>> No.17705238

>>17704486
Oh but I have.

>> No.17705243

>>17705178
How do you observe, perceive this awareness? Do you see it? Do you touch it? Smell it? How do you know it is consciousness and how do you know it os yours?

>> No.17705256

>>17705213
Yes, Pyrrhonism is irrefutable. So are my objective morals. Your double digit IQ doesn't allow you to understand the discussion.

>> No.17705262

>>17705226
See, you are just saying that everything is valid (yet you posit judgment dogmatically).

>> No.17705264

>>17705243
Qualia is self-evident.

>> No.17705279

>>17705256
Indeed, baseless faith claims are irrefutable. Thinking this kind of asinine statement is worth sharing is some r/philosophy tier midwittery. You should try the Joe Rogan Experience

>> No.17705295

>>17705262
One fundemental observation is valid, the rest is to be taken on faith.

>> No.17705304

>>17705279
Sorry you got BTFO, brainlet.

>> No.17705321

>>17705264
This has nothing to do with subjective experience, we are talking about awareness and its own self-recursion. Anyway this discussion will lead us nowhere, sterile.

>> No.17705327

>>17705304
>midwit can't tell he has already gotten btfo from the very first reply
Nothing personnel

>> No.17705331

>>17705295
Do you understand your own words?

>> No.17705337

>>17705327
The cope is excellent. Continue.

>> No.17705340

>>17705337
There is no need to be frustrated.

>> No.17705346
File: 35 KB, 600x539, 1594736269197.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17705346

>>17705340
Keep going.

>> No.17705352

>>17705048
It seems to

>> No.17705375
File: 61 KB, 467x424, 1587765635801.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17705375

>Keep going.

>> No.17705400

>>17705375
Good bitch. Keep going until I'm bored of you.

>> No.17705410

>s-since I got btfo at least g-give me the last word
Sure thing my dear brainlet

>> No.17705429

>>17705410
That's my good girl.

>> No.17705444

>>17705429
Verbally abuse me more, I'm almost there

>> No.17705465

>>17705444
Same.

>> No.17705468

>>17705465
Glad I could help

>> No.17705484

>>17705468
<3

>> No.17705631

>>17705048
Logic forms the necessary scaffold for any statement about reality. It "makes" reality insofar as reality is the sum of true propositions made by people. Any statement that is not logical cannot be true. The relationship this has to some kind of "bare" reality is irrelevant.

>> No.17705651

>>17705631
>The relationship this has to some kind of "bare" reality is irrelevant.
Sounds like a huge copout. You're making up your own system with no regard to if/how it actually applies to the noumenon.

>> No.17705706

>>17705651
No, your obsession with the noumenon is the problem. Dividing things into appearance and reality is an awful way to deal with occurrences like illusions or dreams. Abandon considering a "whole reality" and just take facts and propositions as they come.

>> No.17705745

>>17705706
This is what I do in my everyday life. I need to assume there is no difference between appearance and reality for practical purposes.

>> No.17706449

>>17704585
>It doesn’t make you happy, so it’s bad

>> No.17707267

>>17704359
Stop that.

>> No.17707285

>>17706449
Happiness is literally the objective of Pyrrhonism.

>> No.17707448
File: 121 KB, 681x785, 1606004496064.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17707448

>>17703715
>transcends phyrronism
nothing personal