/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20387677]

But why?

[Anonymous No.20387699]

>>20387677
Because we don't actually know anything, and never will. The components of our material plane don't make sense. Everything about us and our world is suspect and somehow "wrong," but we're shackled to bodies that require affordances. The frame problem persists for this reason.

[Anonymous No.20387715]

>>20387677
Bugman chart. Why ends in faith which is God given. Read Augustine whose epistemology is superior to whatever crap some literal who wrote.

[Anonymous No.20387729]

>>20387715
Faith is on the right side of the chart. A brute fact

[Anonymous No.20387734]

>>20387729
Faith is a cognitive process not a fact, learn the difference between an entity and a relation

[Anonymous No.20387737]

>>20387734
>Faith is a cognitive process not a fact
Most christcucks try a little harder to hide that their faith is non-factual.

[Anonymous No.20387742]

>>20387734
Filtered by the Greeks, hmm?

[Anonymous No.20387757]

>>20387737
Facts are inferior to faith. Why would anyone willingly downgrade faith to the meaningless nature of facts?
>>20387742
Stop pretending you have a point. It's transparent that you have nothing to add.

[Anonymous No.20387785]

[Anonymous No.20387815]

>>20387757
Mate, you need to open a textbook. Being unfamiliar with Pyrrhonism is one thing, making assertions about a neurophysiological phenom without grounding in epistemology is something else.

[Anonymous No.20387818]

>>20387757
>meaningless nature of facts
>Stop pretending you have a point

[Anonymous No.20387826]

>>20387715
>>20387757
Faith is just a method of finding truth just like reason and empiricism, retard. You don't know what you're talking about. There are no hierarchies, they are all God given faculties of man.

[Anonymous No.20387833]

>>20387826
>You don't know what you're talking about.
>God given faculties of man.
And you know this because?

[Anonymous No.20387845]

>>20387677
This trilemma presupposes that you can only justify claims with claims. If this was true, then it's conclusion would follow, for a claim can never support a mere claim, as a claim is the mere stating of some proposition. But this evidently isn't true. We can justify claims, for instance, with definitions, which are not themselves claims.

[Anonymous No.20387847]

>>20387833
see >>20387677 the chart

[Anonymous No.20387851]

>>20387815
Pseud post, don't post again ITT
>>20387818
See above
>>20387826
Only faith can reach God, which makes it superior. Yes there are hierarchies. See above for further directions regarding your conduct.

[Anonymous No.20387852]

>>20387845
You haven't understood the trilemma. Falling back to verificationism isn't a solution here.

[Anonymous No.20387856]

>>20387845
>definitions, which are not themselves claims
Oh no?

[Anonymous No.20387860]

>>20387699
Let's suppose you know this for certain. But the very nature of your claim would make it so that you don't know it for certain, which is absurd. Thus, you can never know that you can't know anything for certain, which implies this is merely a claim.

[Anonymous No.20387861]

>>20387845
Definitions are just dogmatic claims, retard.
Why are you a faggot? because (You) are defined as being a faggot anon.

[Anonymous No.20387863]

>>20387851
You have to be beneath a pseud to claim the superiority of faith, which is an obvious concession to those too simple-minded to understand or evaluate anything without recourse to trusting magicians

[Anonymous No.20387874]

>>20387856
Nothing is claimed in a formal definition. It is not a factual statement about the world or a relation of ideas, but a mere stipulation.
>>20387852
I don't understand how what I claimed was verificationist. I merely outlined the presupposition that the trilemma made, and provided a likely alternative.

[Anonymous No.20387878]

>>20387863
Stop posting

[Anonymous No.20387881]

>>20387861
You are confusing real and nominal definitions. Real definitions describe something actual, and as such make claims. Merely stipulated defintions don't. See Aristotle and Locke for the distinction.

[Anonymous No.20387886]

>>20387874
If nothing is claimed then you ought to be silent

[Anonymous No.20387889]

>>20387677
>Tradlarper crashes thread with his BS

every time

[Anonymous No.20387890]

>>20387878
Go touch snakes

[Anonymous No.20387891]

>>20387889
Oops atheists got btfo again so they start crying

[Anonymous No.20387896]

>20387891

[Anonymous No.20387897]

>>20387891
>uhh no I'm not claiming anything I am just definining things and there's no claims involved in discourse
>you need a reason? just believe me, okay? all you need is faith
yeah really demolished the neurotypicals there didn't you

[Anonymous No.20387905]

>>20387886
What? I am merely saying nothing is claimed in a stipulative definition, which is necessary to any foundation of certainty. This doesn't say that it is impossible to claim anything, for we can base claims off of these stipulated formal definitions.

[Anonymous No.20387911]

>>20387897
>somehow is stupid enough to equivocate two posters with completely different opinions

[Anonymous No.20387912]

>>20387897
Someone forgot to take their SSRIs today

[Anonymous No.20387914]

>>20387881
It doesn't matter, both kinds of definition make claims. There is no nominal definition that doesn't make a claim.

[Anonymous No.20387922]

>>20387905
You can make war upon common sense all you like. What "stipulated definition" is not a claim? Are you going to retreat into the thesaurus and call forth "pro forma designations," or perhaps "efficacious postulates," maybe "projected concurrences?" It's a claim. You are claiming something is what you say it is. If a rock isn't a rock but some word salad you've made a claim.

[Anonymous No.20387923]

>>20387911
They’re one in the same

[Anonymous No.20387924]

>>20387874
NTA, but it seems like your objection is predicated on foundationalist/coherentist epistemology, but the trilemma presupposes inference, if that makes sense. There's a better way to word this, but I'm ESL and don't have the vocabulary.
>>20387881
>Locke
What does Locke say?

[Anonymous No.20387927]

>>20387914
And what is this claim? For it is purely stipulated and thus completely arbitrary, so there is no room to claim anything. Your concept can even be completely unintelligible.

You speak quite dogmatically for someone who is trying to attack dogmatism.

[Anonymous No.20387928]

>>20387911
>>20387912
What use is there in telling apart tardlarpers? You'll be Muslims by next quarter anyway

[Anonymous No.20387933]

>Ahem

[Anonymous No.20387937]

>>20387922
Here you are equivocating definitions which attempt to capture how a word is *used* by people (that is, a form of description) with stipulated defintions.

[Anonymous No.20387943]

>>20387923
>faith and definition are equivalent

[Anonymous No.20387946]

>>20387937
You keep claiming "stipulated definitions" aren't claims. Can you provide some reasoning or is this another faith based argument that leads to Platonism and schizophrenia?

[Anonymous No.20387948]

>>20387943
How do you know your definition is true?

[Anonymous No.20387949]

>>20387928
And you'll still be a depressed pseud lol

[Anonymous No.20387953]

>>20387851
>>20387878
>don't post again
>stop posting
the ultimate adolescent cope

[Anonymous No.20387954]

>>20387677
>how to answer Why?
>1) answer it
>2) refer to your previous answer
>3) answer only once and never again
>repeat until satisfied
Seems a little limited in scope, rather computer-like too.

[Anonymous No.20387959]

>>20387953
What did I tell you?

[Anonymous No.20387964]

>>20387924
I was using Locke and Aristotle merely to point out that there are multiple types of defintions, that are easy to equivocate. The people who have replied to me so far have mostly been equivocating different types of defintions, without seperating them according to type.

As for my objection, there are two parts to it. The first is showing that the trilemma is not a necessity, and I do this by showing it presupposes certain qualities of justification. In the second part, I make the stronger claim that it is false by demonstrating an object which is purely stipulated, and thus does not involve any claims, but also frequently acts as part of the reasoning process.
>>20387928
I have made no religious claims, first of all.

[Anonymous No.20387980]

>>20387948
Stipulated defintions don't have normative or speculative requirements. They are arbitrary.

As for >>20387946 I have already provided reasoning (it is even justified in the comment you are replying to), but this comment should make it more clear for you.

[Anonymous No.20387983]

>>20387954
They've rolled back to pre-apologist Christian theology. They just testify and wait to be criticized, and the criticism is taken as proof of their righteousness.

[Anonymous No.20387998]

>>20387980
So you don’t know your definition is true? Why should I care about it then?

[Anonymous No.20388020]

>>20387998
What you are saying makes no sense, the concept of truth doesn't apply to a stipulated defintiion. You are, in fact, confusing stipulated defintiions with actual definitons.

[Anonymous No.20388021]

>>20387983
I know le truth doesn't exist in your atheist condition but things that happen in your head are not the reality anon

[Anonymous No.20388031]

>>20388020
If your stipulated definition is just some arbitrary bullshit, why should it have any bearing whatsoever?

[Anonymous No.20388038]

>>20388021
>things that happen in your head are not the reality
Take your own advice christtroon

[Anonymous No.20388043]

>>20388020
>confusing stipulated defintiions with actual definitons
So they are literally claims after all if they need to be proven to be actual

[Anonymous No.20388049]

>>20387845
Definitions are axioms and they're mentioned in the 3rd branch

[Anonymous No.20388055]

>>20388038
Point out the post where someone ITT claimed to be righteous because they were criticized. Quote it and argue how it does what you claimed or admit it's all in your head.

[Anonymous No.20388060]

>>20388055
refusal to elaborate and further doubling down on what unjustified drivel one has already said is a kind of implicit conceit and self-righteousness

[Anonymous No.20388067]

>>20387927
A claim made, however arbitrary or unintelligible, is still a claim. Give me a nominal definition which does not make a claim. I'm waiting...
>You speak quite dogmatically for someone who is trying to attack dogmatism.
When the fuck did I ever say that I was against dogmatism, retard?

[Anonymous No.20388071]

>>20388060
Thanks for demonstrating it's all in your head

[Anonymous No.20388090]

>>20388071
Setting up arcane games of formal logic where definitions somehow are not claims and then using them to support theism is a rather old strategy. You are obviously not focused on having these theologically-slanted axioms because you want to argue for atheism. So deny what is in my head all you like, it won't make what's in yours any more accurate

[Anonymous No.20388701]

>>20387874
If definitions claim nothing then they do no work. Only that which can act is substantially extant.
>definitions are noise
uh ok but it doesn't help much with the trilemma.