I solved epistemologi

[Anonymous No.20170251]

We see the world through our subjective perspective. We believe in concepts chairs and whales
Imagine for a second that we have a man who doesn't know anything about the world
He completly alien, free of bias
If he showed him a concept would he recognise it on his own? Would he see a chair?
If you say no you would agree with the next statement
Concepts are subjective
We have decided that certain vague patterns should be considered to be considered a concept
However, it is all arbitrary
Take a whale
If we showed the man a whale would he catogorize it as its own thing or would he lump it together with every other living being?
A cow might look distinct, but where do we draw the line exactly? Does it have to be a certain size? Behave a certain way? And if you do find some satisfactory answer to those questions why not be more specific? Or less specific?
Why do things need to be catogorised in the first place? Why can't all of reality be considered one monolithic thing?
That's a retorical question, we categorise to process reality, but my point is rather that the study of what makes thing, of what a specific concept entails, is arbitrary and pointless

Came up with all of this on my own btw

[Anonymous No.20170285]

>>20170251
>Came up with all of this on my own
it shows

[Anonymous No.20170291]

>>20170251
Most retarded thing I've read today, congrats!

[Anonymous No.20170302]

>>20170251
Already solved by Wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.20170303]

>>20170285
>>20170291
Name what is wrong with it

[Anonymous No.20170311]

>>20170251
>Would he see a chair?

He would see a chair, yes. You can look at a widget and not know what a widget is but you're still looking at a widget.

[Anonymous No.20170328]

>>20170311
He would look upon something YOU have DECIDED is a chair
There is no such thing as a chair

[Anonymous No.20170389]

>>20170251
>We see the world through our subjective perspective.
So your epistemology is subjective too. What you are describing is nominalism, and its retarded.

[Anonymous No.20170427]

>>20170251
>arbitrary
Yes.
>pointless
No, it has predictive power and saves processing time. Imagine this mf conceptualizing the nature of chair every time he wants to sit his ass somewhere.

[Anonymous No.20170511]

>>20170251
You're stupid as hell

[Anonymous No.20170551]

>>20170511
>can't tell me why
sizziling smoothbrain

[Anonymous No.20170639]

>>20170303
You say categorizing is pointless in a categorization of categorization. Also babby's first realizations

[Anonymous No.20170662]

>>20170251
>Why can't all of reality be considered one monolithic thing?
thats a categorization

[Anonymous No.20170716]

>>20170328
>There is no such thing as a chair
Except there is. You think you're deep, but your thoughts are embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.20170925]

>>20170251
You're either an autodidact, underage, or just plain stupid.

[Anonymous No.20171066]

>>20170303
>>20170551
>retard spouts retarded opinions
>nobody wants to go to the effort to correct his obvious stupidity because he's too retarded for people to empathize with him and care whether he believes stupid things or not
>retarded goes through the world with his beliefs uncontested, believing himself a genius
many such cases.
learn how to socialize before you try to think, or you will never get anywhere.

[Anonymous No.20171096]

>>20170925
>autodidact, underage, or just plain stupid
These are all the same

[Anonymous No.20171134]

>>20170925
>>20171096
>autodidacticism is... le bad!
Why is this board so obsessed with putting people down for not devoting 4-8 years of their life at a university for something as trivial and pointless as philosophy?

[Anonymous No.20171238]

>>20171134
Philosophy is very relevant nowadays

[Anonymous No.20171249]

>>20171134
hit a nerve huh?

[Anonymous No.20171268]

>>20171134
Because then they'd have to acknowledge their own life choices may not have been sound.

[Anonymous No.20171318]

>>20171238
Kek

[Anonymous No.20171330]

man I was about to sperg out in some fucking schizo post that I have to split into two because it reaches the character limit but just fuck you I'm not triggering my bipolar disorder over this fucking bullshit just read Plato's Theaetetus and Protagoras and Meno for an intro to epistemology man I can't fucking do this fuck you I fucking hate you for making this stupid fucking post I can't fucking explain all the ways you are naive without taking two hours to some full blown essay for you when you won't even care or read anything I write or even try to comprehend it and even when I tell you to read Theaetetus you won't fucking do it because you're a smug asshole like everyone else who thinks that he's smart as if I haven't been thinking constantly my entire life about this things and obsessing over them since I first gained an inner monologue drawing all your conclusions and leaving them behind so when I see you spouting the ideas that I thought of when I was 12 how am I supposed to teach you everything that I've learned since then to bring you out of your pig sty of ignorance literally fuck you I pray to God that you have an ounce of true intellectual curiosity but I've come to realize that nobody does. You are probably 16 or 17 years old and the fact that you've come to these ideas this late in life shows that you simply don't have the fucked up brain that makes someone truly obsessed with philosophy to the point they do it involuntary whether they want to or not so there's no point in me trying to explain these things to you because you won't do anything with them. You don't fucking care you are only thinking about these things in the first place because you want to think that you're smart. You don't think about them because you can't not think about them.

[Anonymous No.20171356]

>>20170251
AAAAAAAAAHH JNBSDJFB HGGGGGG HHAF HFTHBPATHH HSADH BG FROOPPPPPOTASDOFK

FKSDOIJKM KNGHJU"
AS:SF LJGFDS
GH FDKGH:FG
"SDFG
FSDG

KFMOISDG

[Anonymous No.20171467]

>>20171238
Cope
>>20171249
Also cope.

[Anonymous No.20171476]

>>20171330
Most emotionally stable Philosophy fan.

[Anonymous No.20171488]

>>20170251
Hey buddy, the /sffg/ thread might be more your speed >>20166267

[Anonymous No.20171500]

>>20171238
For the elites that control a dialectic, you mean. What use does it have for a rustic bookworm like you?

[Anonymous No.20172531]

>>20170716
>dude, God has actually that this shape is a chair
>what do you mean that I can’t define what exactly a chair is down to the last detail?
>I mean, I know it is a chair dude
>I just do

[Anonymous No.20172540]

>>20171134
Its just how this board is, just a bunch of whiny twentysomethings who are born into well off families.

T. 39 year old autodidact

[Anonymous No.20172555]

>>20172531
What is a chair really, then?

[Anonymous No.20172569]

>>20170716
Is being created necessary for being a chair? Is intent necessary? OP may be retarded but a failure at addressing it is more embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.20172596]

>>20170251
>mfw I return here each day to argue philosophy with retards and read stupid shit like this

[Anonymous No.20172653]

>barely anyone actually bothers responding to OPs point
>they just call him a retard without elaborating
What exactly is wrong with what he said? I don’t get it

[Anonymous No.20172688]

>>20172653
OP has discovered radical nominalism for himself and thinks that it's something cool.

Everyone is mad at him not for daring to argue for nominalism, but for thinking that nobody came up with the same shit a million times and found issues within it, while his position is so primitive that the very people that we know for making it popular described how it basically says nothing.

Few would call OP a fag if he had the capacity to scrutinize his own thoughts. And in case he just wants us to do it for him, we refuse simply out of spite.

[Anonymous No.20172708]

>>20172688
>Everyone is mad at him not for daring to argue for nominalism
I don't what you mean. Isn't he arguing for it without knowing what it is?
What are the problems with nominalism anyway?

[Anonymous No.20172759]

>>20172708
Anon, reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.20172785]

>>20172759
I get it now, but you could have worded it better

[Anonymous No.20172815]

>>20170251
fuck off

[Anonymous No.20172821]

>>20170389
how is nominalism retarded

[Anonymous No.20172832]

>>20172785
>blaming others for his own illiteracy

[Anonymous No.20172844]

>>20172832
>They aren't angry with him because he argues for nominalism, they are angry with him because………
much better

[Anonymous No.20172851]

>>20170251
>Imagine for a second that we have a man who doesn't know anything about the world
Doesn't exist. Can't exist. "Bias" (which is just reality) is necessarily in him because he is of the world. The thought experiment is refuted because it is not even possible to conceive of the hypothetical (which would be akin to conceiving non-conception).

[Anonymous No.20172853]

>>20172821
It's not retarded, but mostly pointless.
>- It's all just names, bruh!
>- Ok, so? It's not like we can just stop using categories.
>- I dunno lol just I mean you know, it's simply names. It doesn't actually exist.
Nominalism is really neat when it points out that something that we've come to assume as concrete and reliable is eventually just an arbitrary abstraction with malleable and dynamic properties of an arbitrary abstraction. It's useful as a critique when we're clinging too much.

Beyond it it straight up does not convey any actual meaning.

[Anonymous No.20172859]

>>20171066
Your idea of "being social" is just ceding to the view of the herd. You are not intelligent, which is not to imply OP is either, but at least he is a freethinker and has the possibility of maybe getting somewhere, unlike what you consider to be "progress" (which is consenting to group opinion, by "being social").

[Anonymous No.20172864]

>>20172851
I will give you a real life example
If you found a feral child, would he recognise our concepts?
Would someone from a undiscovered tribe recognise a refrigerator?

[Anonymous No.20172866]

>>20172864
>If you found a feral child, would he recognise our concepts?
Yes, they always do. A feral child recognizes and distinguishes between a man and a woman, he feels sexually aroused towards the latter without ever encountering a woman before.

[Anonymous No.20172868]

>>20172821
There's objective methods our brains use to classify metaphors and concepts, humans roughly conceptualize and perceive objects in a consistent fashion. Unless you want to argue about being unable to trust your senses (which is non-sense) because that'd be shifting the goal post towards the explanatory gap of consciousness. Say a concept like "love" or "justice" can be referenced, and you'll refer to it using your memories and senses (because it's a construct), but it's not a new concept instantiated each time. Similarly you can point to a concrete object and describe its properties, what type of object it is and its function, people will also agree with you because those are objective facts existing in the real world

[Anonymous No.20172873]

>>20172864
He would have his own concepts, so >>20172851 is right. An actual human being completely free from conceptual thinking is not conceivable.

An abstract mind completely free from conceptual thinking is entirely conceivable, and as much as we can tell it would be real fucking dumb.

[Anonymous No.20172879]

>>20172868
>There's objective methods our brains use to classify metaphors and concepts, humans roughly conceptualize and perceive objects in a consistent fashion.
Ah come on, man. "Objective"? They are group-subjective at best. Don't make me go Derrida on your ass.