/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20721308]

Skeptical philosophers always resort to faith and belief instead of justification, which they claim is impossible, to ground their interpretation of the world. But how can you resort to belief when you don't even know if you have a faculty of belief, or if beliefs exist? If that is the case, then you can't ground your interpretation like that. Jacobi and Kierkegaard seem to do this without showing it's valid. How do you fix this?
Is there any grounds for justification or certainty?

[Anonymous No.20721383]

>>20721308
Justify DEEZ NUTZ

[Anonymous No.20721398]

>>20721383
IN YO MOUF

[Anonymous No.20721464]

>>20721398
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

I just checked my post. Holy kek

[Anonymous No.20721473]

>>20721308
>Skeptical philosophers always resort to faith and belief instead of justification
I think that you've kind of answered your own question here. The two you mention are both influenced by Hamann with his whole play on "Glaube" (meaning either belief or faith) who drew on Hume in not justifying beliefs (e.g. beliefs in causality) with proofs but explaining them as natural habits of mind. Hamann, Jacobi, and Kierkegaard are all Christian authors who are essentially indifferent to any thought without direct bearing on authentic, passionate, faithful Christian life. With Kierkegaard especially it's not about getting you to accept a set of propositions, but about "indirect communication" inducing a transformative effect on you.

[Anonymous No.20721555]

>>20721473
Transformative effects can't even be recognized without some form of sense certainty. You have just spewed some pseud historical trivia without answering my question.

[Anonymous No.20721616]

>>20721555
The answer was that they've dispensed with justification.

[Anonymous No.20721687]

>>20721616
To pad it out a bit more for clarity's sake, it seems like you're missing that these were quite fundamentally anti-intellectual men.
>to ground their interpretation of the world
>you can't ground your interpretation like that
>Jacobi and Kierkegaard seem to do this without showing it's valid.
>Transformative effects can't even be recognized without some form of sense certainty.
They are not grounding anything as I was trying to get at with the illustration of Hume. Similarly, they take Hume's ironic talk of belief in miracles as itself miraculous and essentially go "this but unironically". Faith is seen as something passionate and immune to reasons. They are simply not playing the game.

[Anonymous No.20721772]

>>20721308
ding ding ding
philosophy is all bullshit

[Anonymous No.20721775]

>>20721308
True skepticism is Platonic Academicism, exemplified by the Is'maili saying, "nothing is true, all is true."

[Anonymous No.20721831]

>>20721772
>ding ding ding

[Anonymous No.20721854]

>>20721308
SKEPTIC & BARBARIAN by Emil Cioran

IF it is not hard to imagine all humanity in the grip of convulsions or, at least, of fear, it would be an over-estimate of the race to suppose it can ever raise itself as a whole to the level of doubt, generally reserved for a few elite outcasts. Yet humanity accedes to doubt in part during those rare moments when it changes gods and when men's minds, subject to con-tradictory solicitations, no longer know which cause to defend, which truth to adopt. When Christianity burst upon Rome, the slaves appropriated it without hesitation; the patricians resisted, needing time to shift from aversion to curiosity, from curiosity to fer-vor. Imagine a reader of the Pyrrhonian Hypotyposes faced with the Gospels! What artifice could reconcile not two doctrines but two universes? How greet in-genuous parables when one is grappling with the ultimate perplexities of the intellect? The treatises in which Sextus Empiricus, early in the third century A.D., reckoned up all the ancient world's doubts are an exhaustive compilation of the Unbreathable, the most dizzying pages ever written and, it must be said, the most boring. Too subtle and too methodical to compete with the new superstitions, they were the expression of a world already consummated, future-less, doomed. Yet skepticism, whose theses they had codified, managed to survive a while on lost positions, until the day when Christians and barbarians joined forces to reduce and abolish it.
A civilization begins by myth and ends in doubt; a theoretical doubt which, once it turns against itself, becomes quite practical. No civilization can begin by questioning values it has not yet created; once pro-duced, it wearies of them and weans itself away, ex-amines and weighs them with a devastating detach-ment. For the various beliefs it had engendered and which now break adrift, it substitutes a system of un-certainties, it organizes its metaphysical shipwreck-with amazing success when a Sextus is on hand to help. In the twilight of Antiquity skepticism possessed a dignity it was not to regain in the Renaissance, despite a Montaigne, nor even in the eighteenth cen-tury, despite a Hume. Pascal alone, had he so desired, might have saved, might have rehabilitated it; but he turned away, leaving skepticism to straggle in the margin of modern philosophy. Today, when we too are about to change gods, will there be sufficient res-pite for us to cultivate it? Will it find itself back in favor or, on the contrary, banned outright, will it be smothered by the tumult of dogmas? The important thing, though, is not to ascertain whether it is threat-ened from without, but if we can genuinely cultivate it, if our powers permit us to confront without suc-cumbing to it. For before being the problem of civili-zation, skepticism is an individual case, and as such concerns us without respect to the historical expres-sion it assumes.

[Anonymous No.20722805]

>>20721308
>Skeptical philosophers always resort to faith and belief instead of justification, which they claim is impossible, to ground their interpretation of the world. But how can you resort to belief when you don't even know if you have a faculty of belief, or if beliefs exist? If that is the case, then you can't ground your interpretation like that. Jacobi and Kierkegaard seem to do this without showing it's valid. How do you fix this?

>"the Academics are unaware that they are conflicting with themselves. For to make unambiguous assertions and denials, whilst at the same time as stating as a generalization that no things are cognitive, introduces an undeniable conflict:
>How is it possible to recognize that one thing is true and one thing false, and yet still entertain perplexity and doubt, and not make a clear choice of the one and avoidance of the other?"

>St. Photios 'the Great' of Constantinople,
>Myriobiblion
>9th Cent. Byz.

[Anonymous No.20722893]

>>20721308
>How do you fix this
So long as you don't insist on certainty, you don't. Absolute doubt requires absolute skepticisim, at which point any propisition held, either in the macro or micro, is held out of preference to the alternatives. So it goes.

[Anonymous No.20723663]

>>20721308
>don't even know if you have a faculty of belief, or if beliefs exist?
kek if you actually believe this why pick on just the "skeptical" philosophers?

[Anonymous No.20723788]

>>20723663
The argument is not denying that these things are real. Rather, it is showing that they are impossible to justify within your paradigm of empiricism and materialism.

[Anonymous No.20723808]

Is everything just a faith?

[Anonymous No.20723873]

>>20721854
I’m not seeing his point here. Is it simply that skepticism corresponds to a particular phase of civilization? Is he endorsing skepticism? I am not following.

[Anonymous No.20723895]

>>20721854
What’s crazy to me is how many so called philosophers just accept rank skepticism, which I see as really nothing more than a throwing up your hands at objective truth, but the suppositions which would lead you there in the first place are so problematic that you’d have to be a moron to accept them. There’s no doubt that our culture accepted rational empiricism before it accepted skepticism, but for any thinking person in retrospect, rational empiricism is obviously wrong. So just go back. Why be a skeptic? What leads you there in the first place is a falsity. Every problem in Western philosophy was addressed in somewhere manner, starting a millenia before it.

[Anonymous No.20723908]

>>20723808
I think that all systems necessitate a leap of faith at some point, but some systems are more coherent and self-validating (not self-justifying) than others. When Buddhists tell me that they arrive at an impersonal absolute by way of intuitive knowledge, I have a hard time accepting that because it defies logic. Meanwhile, Christians, some Christians at least, claim a personal sort of absolute and validate it with both logic and intuition, or mystical experience. This to me is easier to recognize in my brain and in my heart. Is it still belief? I suppose it is, but it’s less a matter a belief than the alternative.

[Anonymous No.20723921]

>>20723873
Of course he is endorsing it by associating it with "few elite outcasts" and calling Christians and other dogmatists barbarians.

I am a fag too for posting one fragment from an essay. The essay is Skeptic and the Barbarian. He calls Skeptics big brained elites and others who are full certainty barbarians. You should checkout his full essay in the book The Fall Into Time, its PDF is available on z-library

[Anonymous No.20723929]

>>20723895
>the suppositions which would lead you there in the first place are so problematic
Such as?

[Anonymous No.20723940]

>>20723921
I don’t think he meant the Christian’s are Barbarians. What he’s saying is the Roman Empire fell into skepticism, and that was ended on one hand, by the Christians, and on the other hand, by Germanic barbarians.

He’s not the first person of his time I’ve seen “accepting” skepticism but look at what I’m saying here >>20723895
I don’t see why for the life of me they would. Skeptics seem to accept an evolution of rational thinking that doesn’t make sense. That to me is ironic. I’ve never seen a skeptic raise a point that wasn’t addressed by a Christian theologian already, or which doesn’t have phony presuppositions built in. So while I agree skepticism is in a way appropriate for our time, why would any thinking person be one? If what he’s saying is right it would necessarily be the thinking of the misled masses.

[Anonymous No.20723946]

>>20723908
>in my brain and in my heart
Predestination and problem of evil would like to have a word with your brain and heart.

[Anonymous No.20723960]

>>20723929
Off the top of my head, empiricism.

[Anonymous No.20723966]

>>20723940
>Christian theologian
All of them presuppose God and most of their "arguments" requires same old "blind faith" to be proven right.

[Anonymous No.20723972]

>>20723966
Everything presupposes God. No claim can be justifiable without God.

[Anonymous No.20723973]

>>20723960
Sextus Empiricus killed it long ago

[Anonymous No.20723974]

>>20723946
See this is the thing. You really believe these are problems which no one in Western or Christian thought have ever addressed don’t you? The problem of evil to even be a problem necessitates accepting presuppositions that are wrong and the answers are not that difficult to find. So how can it really be a problem if the only way it arises in the first place are false presuppositions or straw men?

[Anonymous No.20723982]

>>20723972
>No claim can be justifiable without God.
Yes they can be "justifiable" on the basis of pragmatism and probability.

[Anonymous No.20723985]

>>20723966
And they make logical arguments to show why that’s the logical thing to do. People think they’re refuted by using straw men. Western thought is built on a house of cards which all go back not to Christianity but a straw man of Christianity as far as I can tell. So it goes back to the problem of the skeptic as an individual. If the culture has accepted these strands of thought then obviously the culture will become skeptical, but for the individual truth seeker who can clearly sniff out these problems why he skeptical at all?

[Anonymous No.20723994]

>>20723973
The point is, empiricism is just one of the many strands of thought which have gotten us to this point of skepticism, but there are obvious problems with empiricism that are easily addressed and have been addressed a million and one ways. So why be a skeptic?

[Anonymous No.20724002]

>>20723974
>accepting presuppositions
They take this shit from their own holy books. But see these are muddy waters and both groups are still waving their dicks at each other after hundred and hundreds of years in the sacred halls of philosophy. Nothing ever is solved.

[Anonymous No.20724003]

>>20723982
And on what basis are pragmatism and probability justified…?

[Anonymous No.20724014]

>>20724003
On what ever basis God is justified

[Anonymous No.20724017]

>>20724002
They’re not though. They are straw men. The problem of evil is a perfect example. The only way you could think that it is a problem for Christians is if you have a strawman impression of Christianity. Now, if that’s sincerely the impression you’ve been provided by the culture or history or whatever then your raising the problem would be understandable, but once it’s been raised we can easily see that it’s not actually a problem. You just have to be willing to go back to presuppositions, and no one seems to be. You can’t argue strawmen forever just because you didn’t know they were strawmen and call yourself a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.20724029]

>>20724014
Right, so you admit he was right and they’re all ultimately justified in the same way, namely, God. That’s what he just said.

[Anonymous No.20724047]

>>20724017
Stop screeching straw man everywhere.

"Justifying" religion through so call logic and rationalism is gay as fuck, Shestov would like to have a word with you. Anyway, you talk of supernatural and justify it through same so called bugman means? Fuck it bro. I will become christcuck the day I will see flying angels in the sky, dope as fuck miracles, other worldly monsters and angels guarding the souls of ascetics etc.

[Anonymous No.20724063]

>>20724029
Of course bro let him believe in Zesus, Kek or Schopenhauerian Will or whatever he wants. Let him bet.

[Anonymous No.20724066]

>>20721772
>philosophy is all bullshit
Do people still think philosophy mean anything in this day and age?

[Anonymous No.20724074]

>>20724047
Why would I stop pointing out what is central to my point? The currents of thought which have resulted in skepticism within our culture are indeed built upon straw men, false presuppositions, and bad arguments. Why would I not continue to highlight that?

It sounds like you’re having trouble following this conversation honestly. Skepticism regards truth, objective truth, and the possibility thereof. Whether you think any one particular argument is “gay” and accept the contrary is just affirming my point, which is that the culture may fall into skepticism out of being completely retarded but someone in pursuit of truth need not. If the arguments are bad, why would you accept skepticism? There is no reason to other than being the sort of non-thinking bugman you claim to hate.

[Anonymous No.20724085]

>>20724063
The difference is that the Christians make sound arguments and give an account for how knowledge and truth are possible at all in their system. No one else does this. But this is the point isn’t it? You will never actually look at those arguments. You actually do not care. You will dominant paradigms, relativism, skepticism, whatever and all the presuppositions totally unchallenged and think you’re on to something.

[Anonymous No.20724136]

>>20724074
Here you're talking about new atheist Skepticism. I am talking about Pyrrhonism. If I was one I wouldn't be here arguing with you. I would end up in a mental hospital due how perplexing that way of philosophical thinking is for me personally. But argument that I haven't seen cool supernatural shit is utterly sound and I stand by it. Fuck reasoning and written justifications.

>>20724085
>Christians make sound arguments
Yeah according to the latest consensus by dick waving scholastic organization #474

[Anonymous No.20724164]

>>20721308
>Is there any grounds for justification or certainty?
What constitutes 'grounds for justification' exactly? Tell me that and you'll have your answer.

[Anonymous No.20724214]

>>20724136
Have you not considered that Pyrrhonists accepted false presuppositions as well?

I think Christians make sound arguments because I actually went and read through the history and theology and listened to their apologetics. To me, the Trinity seems to be the best account for knowledge there is. I realize most people wouldn’t accept their arguments but usually, it’s because of their own very particular and nuanced conceptions of what can constitute proof rather than whether or not proof is actually provided.

[Anonymous No.20724283]

>>20724085
>The difference is that the Christians make sound arguments and give an account for how knowledge and truth are possible at all in their system.
Such as what? Christians can't even make a rational case for virtue without queering the pitch by pretending some retarded jewish law is the same thing 'as' virtue.

I think what you're meaning to say is that Christians have the hubris to make-pretend they have the answers to things, that those answers to things are answered with 'God'. Which is no answer nor any explanation, nor case.

[Anonymous No.20724297]

>>20721308
It's been over 2,000 years and philosophy has not definitively solved any single problem whatsoever. It's all made up phooey, people creating systems to stroke their intellects and then arguing with each other over them, well aware that neither of them can ever definitely prove or disprove either position. So no, there's no grounds for believing any of it. It's all the same so just pick one out of a hat and join the """great conversation""".

[Anonymous No.20724301]

>>20724214
>Have you not considered that Pyrrhonists accepted false presuppositions as well?
Look a vulgar christcuck is accusing the most nuanced autists of accepting """false""" presuppositions. Quite is sight it is.

[Anonymous No.20724327]

>>20724301
So no, you haven’t considered it then.

[Anonymous No.20724338]

>>20724283
No. What I mean to say is that the Christian conception of the Trinity is the most coherent account of God and how knowledge, not just about God but knowledge generally, is possible at all.

[Anonymous No.20724364]

>>20724338
>Christian conception of the Trinity
Ok.. but this is something Jesus never mentioned so it's not really 'Christian' if we're being serious about it.

I think, also, "how knowledge (can exist)" is a self-evident thing anyway; all creatures acquire knowledge (of the working of things) from interacting with the world. I was never moved by the "great mystery" of this question, myself, especially when it's easy to demonstrate that many humans are more stupid than common animals (lacking self-preservation, easily led into self-harm via perceptions of majorityism, e.g.).

[Anonymous No.20724365]

>>20724327
You're right regarding your beliefs lad if you accept the external world and so was Sextus. Will you you pray for me? I wanna see cool miracles

[Anonymous No.20724395]

>>20724364
>Ok.. but this is something Jesus never mentioned so it's not really 'Christian' if we're being serious about it.
>Christianity isn't the religion but my personal interpretation limited to only the texts I personally choose to talk about heehee
Why do retards like you exist?

[Anonymous No.20724415]

>>20724364
>Jesus didn't say it bro. I only know what Jesus said from the Gospels by the way, which record Jesus giving religious authority to the Apostles. But I'm going to ignore the Apostles because the only parts of the Gospels that are reliable are the ones that I agree with as a 21st century secularist.

[Anonymous No.20724442]

>>20724395
>Why do retards like you exist?
Jesus never endorsed the trinity idea, this was much later. Jesus also never referred to himself as being the fucking embodiment of Logos.

beyond this, I just stated common knowledge observable in humans and animals; that they have the ability to learn by interaction with their environment - to figure out right way to get coconut and the 10,000 wrong ways to get coconut (i.e. errors).

[Anonymous No.20724447]

whereas humans can be observed to do the error, tell themselves it worked when it obviously didn't, then pretend like they have a coconut.

thats religion or non-logos

[Anonymous No.20724454]

>>20724442
>Jesus never a bloo bloo
See >>20724415

[Anonymous No.20724469]

>>20724454
lol resort to baby-speak when met with logic; that's how much a christian actually respects the "divine wisdom of creation". pure surface level.

[Anonymous No.20724476]

>>20724469
You've presented no logic whatsoever. The only sources from which you can derive Jesus's words are the sources in which he vests religious teaching authority in certain disciples (the ones you want to ignore).

[Anonymous No.20724487]

>>20724415
>the Apostles
Paul the murderer who never met Jesus, who went insane form gilt form his real crimes then tried to displace his guilt onto all mankind by saying "its impossible to be good, only (the evil god of the jews) is good,"

he deserved what he got.

What other 'apostles' have you got for us?

[Anonymous No.20724502]

>>20724487
Since you've rejected Acts you now you Luke, which I assume you're fine with. On what basis do you accept the others as being remotely factual?

[Anonymous No.20724508]

>>20724502
>Since you've rejected Acts you also lose Luke
What I meant to say

[Anonymous No.20724511]

>>20724476
That's no"logic" - you claimed that Jesus represented the empiricism of rational logos (the aspect of inquiry in rhetoric), "how did he do this, why would a barbarian society be taken seriously on this subject when their customs are shit and their society pitiable, etc," this is my argument or my logic.

You're hinting at the gnostic gospels, I think, which present a better version of Jesus. Okay, fine. Is he, there, ore accomplished or worthy of anyones study than Galen the physician or Appius Caecus the inventor?

[Anonymous No.20724519]

>>20724511
I'm not the same person and am objecting to your bog standard "well Jesus didn't say it" crap.

[Anonymous No.20724529]

>>20724502
Acts and Romans is where Paul can be shown to be demosntrably insane.

>On what basis do you accept the others as being remotely factual?
I don't but I don't see any reason to ignore Jesus; even Paul and Jesus together make my case that the hebrew society and hebrew theology was evil and Jesus came to try and help the Jews out of it.

I personally see no reason why any non-jew would be interested in any of it, since we can cite our own pre-christian civilizations at length and demonstrate a far superior grasp of everything. Why must we become jews to then reject judaism and follow jesus to logos if we already have logos? It only makes even partial sense if was for a Hebrew in the first place,that was my earlier point anyway.

[Anonymous No.20724539]

>>20724519
oh, well, he didn't say it. That was easy, wasn't it? Cite where he claimed to be Logos and cite where he mentions "the Trinity". You won't be able to lol, these are later things plastered onto Jesus by the Greek-speakers.

[Anonymous No.20724540]

>>20724529
>I don't
Then your argument is irrelevant. You don't know what Jesus said at all since you accept no reliable source for any of his words, so your appeal to what he did or didn't say is meaningless. Starting to get my point now?

[Anonymous No.20724543]

>>20724063
What's nothing?

[Anonymous No.20724545]

>>20724364
But this is really a perfect example of my point. Who told you that Jesus needed to spell it out for you in black and white? And if he did, would you even believe him? Probably not. You are saturated with this presuppositions or conceptions of how things are how they should be, the point where you never actually get to the authentic root of the argument.

And that we require knowledge isn’t an account for how knowledge is possible. If anything, it’s the primary way by which false systems are refuted.

[Anonymous No.20724549]

>>20724539
I don't have any reason to do that because I reject your presumption that such things must be proven solely from the words of Jesus (which you admit no valid source for to begin with). Do you honestly not see what my objection is? Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.20724568]

>>20724543
Sneed chuck mixed with chum cum

[Anonymous No.20724580]

>>20724540
>>20724549
>You don't know what Jesus said at all since you accept no reliable source for any of his words, so your appeal to what he did or didn't say is meaningless. Starting to get my point now?
I guess I agree with you then. Can we put the christians to bed now and start using this time to discuss and emulate the character and great insight of Galen instead? probably not, right

>>20724545
>And that we require knowledge isn’t an account for how knowledge is possible.
I just don't see what's so fascinating - how do we know that we know? In mystical terms? We don't need to go there; we can prove a thing true or not true by using the metrics of cause and proof to verify a thing; we can't use these metrics outside of actual reality, however, which is where - conveniently - all of the god claims are made.

Plotinus pointed this out to the christian-gnostics; of the absurdity of having a concept of the divine which was outside of any realms of proof or material action (i.e. an inactionable thing; to consider the science of agriculture cheaply by comparison to the mysticism of the cosmos).

[Anonymous No.20724591]

>we can't use these metrics outside of actual reality, however, which is where - conveniently - all of the god claims are made.
ed. luckily, of course, things outside of actual reality don't exist.

[Anonymous No.20724616]

also,
>>20724580
>Plotinus pointed this out to the christian-gnostics; of the absurdity of having a concept of the divine which was outside of any realms of proof or material action (i.e. an inactionable thing; to consider the science of agriculture cheaply by comparison to the mysticism of the cosmos).
This is precisely why and how religion (setup outside of reality) constitutes an anti-logos; it establishes pathos or ethos (human emotionalism, human opinion) as being superior to actual logos (the actual material sciences), rejecting logos as consequence by valuing it in third place after demented suffering (pathos) and local cultural opinion (ethos), both of which are irrational and caused themselves by the rejection of logos; the rejection of wisdom and reality.

[Anonymous No.20724638]

4/4
>>20724549
>>20724545
and more to the point, anons, how on gaias earth does Jesus - by his words or deeds - constitute "logos"? He's not even speaking sense sometimes, I mean, where is the wisdom in his actions? He does magic tricks, I think you'll recall. This is not logos by any stretch of the imagination.

[Anonymous No.20724659]

>>20724580
It’s not merely mystical. Yes, proper Christian theology would affirm that you can come to knowledge by way of mystical experience, initiation, rites. But it also affirms knowledge by way of logical arguments, by way of the intellect. And if these things are in perfect unison and not in contradiction with each other, doesn’t that make more sense that throwing up your hands in skepticism on the basis of bad presuppositions, or accepting a worldview where intuitive knowledge contradicts intellectual knowledge? What constitutes proof? How do you even know? These are questions which as far as I can tell only Christians can answer in any way that is at all coherent. And that’s the thing. It’s not merely about proof, but what proof is and how you know. It is one thing to demand proof, but another to account for how and why proof is reliable at all in the first place.

[Anonymous No.20724671]

>>20724545
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen#Mind–body_problem

[Anonymous No.20724728]

>>20724659
>It is one thing to demand proof, but another to account for how and why proof is reliable at all in the first place.
Alright, but in what scenario would this be raised in opposition 'to' hard proof? Who would raise such questions except in defense of something (or someone) knowingly and proven to be in error (or guilty) which that person was attempting to defend - using this as a last ditch when other arguments had already failed?

e.g.
Jim was found with the bloody knife in his hand stabbing John to death and crying aloud "Now I am killing you because of (this this and this), you bastard," but......
>but what (is) proof and how (we) know(?)

Once you leave the realms of demonstrable reality you are, in my opinion, already somewhat knowingly in the wrong on whatever it is you're saying (i.e. you know it yourself). Moreover, if 'you' cannot make a case in reality then how did 'you' arrive at your conclusion yourself? You're saying, hypothetically, 4 and 4 together makes 8 - but you can't show your working so you yourself have no solid idea as to how that equation is made. You 'could be right' (the answer is, in this example anyway, "8") but you yourself cannot make the case as to why it is.

>coherent
I strongly disagree. "Initiation, rites," what has this got to do with 'knowing' anything? And would not a man in a big hat feel himself noble and powerful by comparison to a workman - is he? no. does he know 'anything' - anything useful or actionable - no.

[Anonymous No.20724817]

>>20721308
Is that hanged man?

[Anonymous No.20724894]

>>20724728
The example you gave doesn’t work because of normative logic but what we’re talking about here are the presuppositions inherent in worldviews. It’s not the inferences we can draw between two points of sense of data, but the logic of inferences themselves. If it made sense to stay strictly within the realms of demonstrable reality, that would suit you because you’re excluding the possibility of being wrong from the start as a presupposition but you can’t because what we‘re dealing with here is are in fact the presuppositions themselves. You can use the empirical method to reason logical inferences from experiments but how would you demonstrate the validity of the empirical method, for which there is no empirical evidence, in the first place? You have no choice but to go higher and higher into logical arguments, which themselves will be justified with logical arguments. Demonstrable evidence? Not really. It’s circular. Logic to justify logic? If you’re a Christian, you’re going to justify the possibility for logic then in God, and while you may not accept God you have no choice but to accept that what they’re putting forward is coherent but a skeptic can’t do that. They’re just going to be ad-hoc and tell you that logic works and thus is demonstrable, without being able to give any account at for how it’s able to work. That’s not a justification and it’s not coherent. It’s not even really demonstrable. Demonstrable reality is only reliable if you can justify it in the first place. It’s rather that it’s the only way arguments don’t fail or result in ad-hoc incoherent nonsense.

[Anonymous No.20724926]

>>20721308
No grounds for certainty or absolute knowledge means that faith is a viable option for interpreting the world and one's experiences. Faith itself does not require any form of certainty to justify it, only belief. With that comes the equal opprotunity of one's faith being false, but humanity will never know the wiser. Doubt is not an evil to the faithful, it's simply a reevaluation of one's beliefs in a groundless world.

[Anonymous No.20724982]

>>20724894
>the presuppositions inherent in worldviews. It’s not the inferences we can draw between two points of sense of data, but the logic of inferences themselves.
The inferences or deductions 'are' the logic, it's not more complicated than this. Whereas, worldviews can be removed as not being derived from logic and needing logic to know whether they're valid or not valid - if it's the idea of 'ethos-stuff' that's making it hard (for a person) to grasp the focus on just logic alone.

>but how would you demonstrate the validity of the empirical method, for which there is no empirical evidence, in the first place?
> You have no choice but to go higher and higher into logical arguments,
Disagree.

Proof of prediction is how, this is how any theory is proven. If you've accurately predicted what will happen in XYZ then you're highly likely to possess the true working knowledge of how XYZ occurred, as you've been able to accurately predict what will happen. That's not necessarily 'full' knowledge of the processes occurring, but it's an actionable grasp on the thing and is superior anyway to 'no' actionable grasp on the thing.

>You can use the empirical method to reason logical inferences from experiments but how would you demonstrate the validity of the empirical method, for which there is no empirical evidence, in the first place?
It is itself the process 'of' evidence; the Cause and the Proof (for each Cause), that is: if it the evidence accurately predict a thing (next consequence in a sequence of events) then it would be in error as it would have failed in its predictive test.

>Demonstrable evidence? Not really. It’s circular. Logic to justify logic? If you’re a Christian, you’re going to justify the possibility for logic then in God,
I always think this is like the "reduction to the absurd", except in the other direction; "expansion to the absurd" where the person isn't content to understand how fucking useful it is to have mastered agricultural science, then they start wondering about other things which are progressively less and less actionable (see: image attached). I don't understand where the value is in doing that.

It seems more likely that the (see: image attached) person hasn't actually grasped how actionable their findings were in the first place, as they've brushed it aside and begun to muse upon the distant galaxies instead of using the knowledge they've gained for anything useful.

I think perhaps this is the massive difference in "the material vs. the spiritual" lol

[Anonymous No.20724993]

oh shit. that was the wrong chryisppus-quote.jpg

I meant this:>>20724982
>"the stupid person does not know how to use what he already has before immediately wanting something else which he also doe not know how to use."

[Anonymous No.20725007]

>>20724066
Sadly, yes.

[Anonymous No.20725017]

>>20724982
>if it the evidence accurately predict a thing (next consequence in a sequence of events) then it would be in error as it would have failed in its predictive test.
son of a bitch,
I mean:
if the evidence **did not** accurately predict a thing (next consequence in a sequence of events) then it would be in error as it would have failed in its predictive test.

it was a long day.

[Anonymous No.20725111]

So what do you think about phenomenological certainty? I find it to be the closest thing. You can be aware of what you're feeling with your body, the thoughts you're having, and the emotions you're feeling. You can then investigate those objects within your experience like the Buddhists do.

[Anonymous No.20725127]

>>20721308
Joshua is based.
OP is cringe.
Simple as'

[Anonymous No.20725132]

>>20723973
Perhaps you shoud go outside, touch grass and gave some sextus, nigga.

[Anonymous No.20725168]

>>20725132

[Anonymous No.20725266]

>>20721308
Skepticism, like all epistemic positions, are sentiments

[Anonymous No.20725274]

>>20723808
Almost all beliefs and knowledge implore faith in their validity, yes