/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20885513]

>refutes causality
Why do people still argue over first causes and necessary beings and infinite regresses? The simplest explanation is that causality isn’t even real and that everything simply exists coincidentally

[Anonymous No.20885548]

>>20885513
Shoot yourself, it won't kill you as causality is merely illusory

[Anonymous No.20885557]

>>20885548
I’m coincidentally designed to believe in causality in practical affairs because historically this has helped humans survive. Doesn’t mean it’s actually real though. This world could exist exactly as it is without a law of causality. It doesn’t even make sense for a law to exist. Where does it exist? Why does it exist? How does it keep existing? It is just an unnecessary assumption and leads to more problems.

[Anonymous No.20885568]

>>20885557
Sorry guy, but you heard the man.
Shoot yourself.

[Anonymous No.20885576]

>>20885568
don’t feel like it

[Anonymous No.20885589]

>>20885576
Due to causality not existing, there is absolute no cause that would prevent you from shooting yourself.

[Anonymous No.20885596]

>>20885589
you’re correct. It just happens that I currently do not want to

[Anonymous No.20885601]

>>20885557
Because for evey action there's a reaciton it's very simple if you have more than 2 brain cells you do someting something happens something does something and something happens try shooting yourself (action) you die (reaction) maybe your family buries you (reaction of the reaction) and so on but there's always a begining you don't always know the first action but that doesn't mean that there isn't

[Anonymous No.20885626]

>>20885601
If causality didn’t exist, then this exact world could still be replicated. It would just be the case that there is no cause for anything. Everything would simply exist. The fact that this is possible means you have no way of distinguishing a causal reality from a non-causal reality. The non-causal reality requires fewer assumptions and is much simpler. But feel free to waste your time pondering the cause of existence.

[Anonymous No.20885636]

>>20885626
Fuck it im shooting my self to prove it to you sucker

[Anonymous No.20885651]

>>20885636
No arrangement of events would prove causality. Even if God existed and appeared to create the universe, even this would not prove causality, as it could all just be a coincidental correlation.

[Anonymous No.20885687]

>>20885651
Then your argument is incorrect since you use discursive logic for it to attain. If there is no causality there is no discursive logic since A being true cannot lead to B. You therefore should scrap the argument and try another one, one that conforms to your discovery, basically spout non sequiturs by yourself alone in a padded room. At any rate I will carry on as usual, and also, I disagree with you and you cannot prove to me why I should

[Anonymous No.20885697]

>>20885687
If there is no causality then there is no causality. It doesn’t matter if I use logic or not. It’s already been shown that causal patterns can still exist in the absence of causality, logic is a particular example of this. There is no contradiction here.

[Anonymous No.20885705]

>>20885687
This is like saying we aren’t just chemical brains because we can’t trust our brain to tell is that it’s just made of chemicals. But if our brain really is just made of chemicals, and it tells us this, then there is no lie or contradiction.

[Anonymous No.20885716]

>>20885697
Yes but it does not follow from "causal patterns can still exist in the absence of causality" that causality does not exist, for it to follow, causality MUST exist
>NOOOOO BUT IT IS JUST A PATTERN
it doesn't matter if it is a pattern, it cannot follow from it being a pattern that causality does not exist

[Anonymous No.20885722]

>>20885705
>if it tells us this
Then the chemicals are telling you this, ergo you are and you can't be the chemicals since the chemicals need to inform something or somebody

[Anonymous No.20885743]

>>20885716
Yes, you’re correct. But this doesn’t contradict non-causality. Non-causality could of course be true regardless of how we try to apprehend this with logic. Again, this conversation is perfectly possible in a non-causal reality

[Anonymous No.20885748]

>>20885722
Yeah it’s a figure of speech. There is no “I” of course

[Anonymous No.20885792]

>>20885513
he didn't refute causality, he just argued that it's inherently intelligible to us. hume never asserts that "causality isn't even real"

[Anonymous No.20885867]

>>20885748
ok so the chemicals tell nothing to nobody whence you don't exist and are just a hylic, a computer. Also, it follows that I am not having a conversation with you, since there is no you, therefore I have no business listening to you, nor does anybody for that matter, it would make as much sense as talking to the sky or to a rock. No truth is to come from a rock about the human condition, and any poetic association any human makes is coming from that human in question, not the rock. Equally, you have no insight for me. It is a shame that you are a mineral, but I don't need to listen to you as you know nothing

[Anonymous No.20885871]

>>20885792
yeah but now the thread is at least /lit/

[Anonymous No.20885875]

>>20885743
No, I am not correct. You cannot say that as it does not follow since nothing follows from anything. Equally, you cannot interact with anything or know anything, as you said, it does not follow. So you should go to a padded room and just blurt out non sequiturs all day. As for me, I am not convinced by you because if I were, I should immediately not be, since it does not follow.

[Anonymous No.20885879]

>>20885875
>Yes, you’re correct
Uh, ok. Thanks for playing

[Anonymous No.20885886]

>>20885875
oops >>20885879
Meant to paste:
>No, I am not correct
same thing

[Anonymous No.20885892]

>>20885879
No, you cannot say that as for you it does not follow. If you say it does you would be wrong

[Anonymous No.20885908]

>>20885513
Why hello there 14 year old intellect that just discovered Hume. The reason first causes are still discussed is that academia and the broader world recognizes that Hume was taken to task on this and thoroughly refuted by G.E.M. Anscombe in her paper ‘Whatever has a beginning of existence must have a cause.’ Welcome to the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.20886034]

>>20885513
>explanation
You just appealed to logical causality to say logical causality isn't real.

[Anonymous No.20886038]

>>20886034
It’s just a way of getting across the point. Of course I could just as easily say there is no explanation at all, or that the question doesn’t make sense, or that the problem doesn’t exist in the first place. Think harder

[Anonymous No.20886053]

>>20885513
Hume's point isn't that "causality doesn't real", but that we cannot prove causation rationally.

[Anonymous No.20886066]

>>20886038
>I could say
Could you? I don't see how. If we're always picking out of the chaos the parts with apparent causality there's no difference, that's still logical causality. If everything is pure "coincidence" with no selector then there's no reason to expect or rely on the coherence that allows you to say things.

[Anonymous No.20886073]

>>20885557
> Where does it exist?
God.
> Why does it exist?
God.
> How does it keep existing?
God.

[Anonymous No.20886103]

>>20886066
>If everything is pure "coincidence" with no selector then there's no reason to expect or rely on the coherence that allows you to say things.
And? If everything is pure coincidence..then everything is pure coincidence.

[Anonymous No.20886123]

>>20886103
>And?
The idea doesn't predict observations or do anything. There's no reason to think it's true and all reason to think it's not.
The only coherent version is one where you add a process of selection. Then you have a criticism of standard ideas of causality that isn't nonsense.

[Anonymous No.20886156]

>>20886123
>The idea doesn't predict observations or do anything. There's no reason to think it's true and all reason to think it's not.
It’s the simplest model and clears up endless questions. I don’t lie awake at night asking myself about why something exists and infinite regress and necessity and contingency and God. It’s all just a game born from unnecessary assumptions. Thousands of years of philosophy and theology and people are still trying to answer these questions. The question doesn’t need to be asked in the first place

[Anonymous No.20886181]

>>20886156
>It’s the simplest model
Not in any sense. It's not even a model. Normally what we call chaos is just some process too complicated to model.
No questions are answered, all questions are unanswered and now you have no way to reason about anything.
>I'll still use reason
Why? Because of reasons?
You're proposing willful ignorance as a valid model.

[Anonymous No.20886193]

>>20885513
>refutes Hume

[Anonymous No.20886218]

>>20886181
>No questions are answered, all questions are unanswered
No, the questions wouldn’t make sense in the first place. It’s not that there’s answer and we don’t know it, there’s neither an answer nor a question. The problem is your own creation. But I reject unnecessary assumptions so I don’t have any problems. There isn’t even a hard problem of consciousness because this also relies on assumptions like an objective reality in which subjects emerge rather than there being nothing but subjects, or nothing but pure experience. There is nothing prior to or outside of consciousness to explain consciousness. It just is. Be content with this wisdom or die trying to make sense of your assumptions and never having solved anything

[Anonymous No.20886236]

>>20886218
>the questions wouldn’t make sense in the first place
It's the same thing, it's all unraveled.
>there isn't even
There's isn't even anything. You can't say things or build computers.
I'm not the one pretending models are the same thing as reality, that's your braindead issue. Having no model is not better than having one. Using the model, working from the assumptions within it does not mean I believe it is absolute reality.
Your only actual argument is the consequences of all coherent models make you uncomfortable but willful ignorance comforts you somehow.

[Anonymous No.20886258]

>>20885513
How did he refute it/

[Anonymous No.20886350]

>>20885548
shooting yourself doesn't necessary kill you, so the casue(shoot) doesn't equal the desired effect(killing yourself) cause and effect in this case is contingent to things like your aim, and the conditions of the gun
and the physical world having cause and effect doesn't corelate to the metaphysical world having them, so for example the theory of the first cause can't be proven by causes in the physical world

[Anonymous No.20886353]

>>20886258
he didn't refute it, he recognized it as an error in the logical faculties of the mind in that it is naturally employed in our logical reasoning but it cannot be proved via logical reasoning. OP is retarded and thinks he was saying that if you sit on the toilet and release your sphincter gold might come out, which is not his point (although not entirely contrary to it either). his point is that the necessary, a priori connection of your sphincter to whatever comes out of it in your reasoning must be an error and ultimately an illusion, as it is a chimerical logical leap, confusing experience and association with pure reason. He does not posit that there is no connection, just that none can be isolated and identified in pure reason, let alone one that clearly defines the cause and the effect.
kant of course offered a refutation of his theory, but hume was a genius for recognizing the issue, regardless of wether or not you think he was right.

[Anonymous No.20886356]

>>20886073
how do you know that god exist?

[Anonymous No.20886379]

>>20885908
>that academia and the broader world recognizes that Hume was taken to task on this
not really, even Kant had to recognize the logical contradiction on a first cause, since a first cause break the chain of causation by posing something outside the notion of cause and effect, that is a cause that is not in itself an effect

[Anonymous No.20886390]

>>20885513
He doesn't really deny causation per se, he psychologizes it. But this psychologized causation still plays a big role for his later ideas.

[Anonymous No.20886479]

>>20886379
Hello other 14 year old. Elizabeth Anscombe lived far more recently than Kant. Philosophy has progressed since then.

[Anonymous No.20886689]

>>20886073
Based and Al-Ghazali pilled

[Anonymous No.20886757]

>>20886193
>Judea

[Anonymous No.20886830]

>>20885867
Wow this is an impressive level of missing the point.

[Anonymouṡ No.20886975]

>>20885513
This silly nonsense reminds me of Leibnitz. His argument went something like this, IIRC:

* Everything is made of monads
* What's a monad, you ask? Hush.
* Monads are perfect
* Perfect things are self-sufficient
* Therefore they aren't affected by anything else
* What's that? Why aren't they?
* Because, if you're affected by something else, you "needed" that something else to do what you did, so you aren't self-sufficient
* Therefore monads don't actually interact with one other
* Yes, I know things in the universe APPEAR to interact with one another
* What actually happens is, they all just whizz around doing their thing so as to make it LOOK as though they are interacting
* What? That's ridiculous? Yes, people often say that.

[Anonymous No.20887213]

>>20886353
Only anon in the entire thread who actually reads

[Anonymous No.20887231]

>>20886353
>that it is naturally employed in our logical reasoning but it cannot be proved via logical reasoning.
Imagine being this retarded. No wonder Schopenhauer refuted him so easily. Hume is confusing reason with a faculty of reason. Do yourself a favour and read Fourfold Root before you parrot more of Hume's nonsense.
>his point is that the necessary, a priori connection of your sphincter to whatever comes out of it in your reasoning must be an error
Which literally no one ever asserted before Hume. The bigger issue in Hume's thought is showing that cause and effect is problematic in itself, when it in fact is not (because it is literally the structure of all thought and will, not just a tool of thought). It also hinges of the confusion between the conditions as cause and things as cause, which Schopenhauer rectifies by showing that conditional aggregates are properly causes, and not "things", like sphincters.
>kant of course offered a refutation of his theory
Not one that was actually coherent. That was Schopenhauer.
>but hume was a genius for recognizing the issue, regardless of wether or not you think he was right.
There is no issue, it's just confusion on Hume's part. Then there are retards who can't think for themselves and convince themselves that because Hume is popular he must have uncovered some sort of real problem, like a vicious circle.

[Anonymous No.20887238]

>>20886975
leibniz, newton and descartes were colossal pseuds who were only good at math and physics

[Anonymous No.20887243]

>>20887231
>There is no issue, it's just confusion on Hume's part. Then there are retards who can't think for themselves and convince themselves that because Hume is popular he must have uncovered some sort of real problem, like a vicious circle.
That's what happens in all fields not just in philosophy. More than 90% people are non-human (midwits) that exist only to perpetuate that vicious circle

[Anonymous No.20887247]

I never understood what exactly the issue was with an infinite regress. Seems fine to me.

[Anonymous No.20887256]

>>20887247
It depends on the type of regress. Hierarchical infinite regress is impossible because it is like arguing that infinite zeroes added together can make 1, but a generic regress is not necessarily problematic (adding one to itself infinitely and having an undefined "infinite" result). Whenever this issue is brought up the first one is obviously being referred to.

[Anonymous No.20887264]

*refutes Empiricism*

[Anonymous No.20887268]

>>20887247
Something needs begotten and cannot begot itself. A son cannot be his own father. You can't have a loop of descendants.

[Anonymous No.20887273]

>>20885557
>It doesn’t even make sense for a law to exist.
Read the section "Force and the Understanding" from Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit or go to hell

[Anonymous No.20887287]

>>20887268
It’s not a loop, it’s an infinite line

[Anonymous No.20887313]

>>20886353
Thanks for the effort post, anon.

[Anonymous No.20887321]

>>20886356
prime mover argument

pic unrelated

[Anonymous No.20887694]

>>20885513
>Why do people still argue over first causes
I actually agree that this in 50/100 is a pointless waste of time;
the sort of "what caused the galaxy to appear" bullshit that zealots go on about (as if it matters at all) is brought up half the time or more when you hear 'causes' brought up. Real causes, however, and the observation of them is how any knowledge we/you possess will be attained (let this sink in).

How did this grow, how can it grow better, this helps it grow, this harms it growing, etc etc. when we figure these things out we've attained a scientific understanding of the workings of a thing.

see: Chrysippus.

>>20885548
>>20885568
true and true.

[Anonymous No.20887704]

>>20885548
>>20885568
t. Haven't actually read or comprehended Hume

>>20885513
t. Hasn't read or comprehended Kant

[Anonymous No.20887714]

>>20887704
wow anon, i wish i could do this and be like you so i could be a fucking loser as well.

[Anonymous No.20887801]

>>20887714
What are you so mad for? Kant is literally the go-to for responding to Hume. Saying he's not been refuted when you haven't read THE guy to refute him is just you being ignorant and retarded.

[Anonymous No.20887965]

HE REFUTED ITS LOGICAL NECESSITY NOT ITS ACTUAL REALITY. IT WAS AN EPISTEMIC ARGUMENT FOR EMPIRICISM INSTEAD OF RATIONALITY NOT AN ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. THINGS VERY OVIOUSLY HAVE A PATTERN IN TIME BUT THE POINT IS THE PATTERN ISNT LOGICAL, MERELY EMPIRICALLY AFFIRMED.

[Anonymous No.20888013]

>>20885513
hume himself was refuted by thomas reid

[Anonymous No.20888016]

>>20887801
kant didn't really refute hume, rather he built on hume's concepts and reconciled it with rationalism

[Anonymous No.20888025]

>>20885513
Just because it isnt real it doenst mean it isnt an useful concept

[Anonymous No.20888026]

wonder why metaphysics is more difficult than physics given that causality is intelligible and that's the fundamental ingredient of physics, but metaphysics is based on logic which is a priori knowable

[Anonymous No.20888149]

>>20888026
>metaphysics is based on logic
not necessarily. especially when questioning logic itself, which is where metaphysics starts for many

[Anonymous No.20888883]

>>20887801
I already refuted Hume (or this argument) in a few lines, I don't need to go read Kant to do that when I can do it already and with far less ambiguity.

>you so mad for
My sanity, sir, is not in question.

Mind you, anon seems to be saying that Hume (this position) is somehow confirmed by Kant, or something? So I have no interest in this battle of wits. If you want to watch two actors engage in overly elaborate fake fighting, go ahead and turn on the TV.

>>20888013
>hume himself was refuted by thomas reid
few men ever read reid
bazinga

[Anonymous No.20888928]

>>20888026
>>20888149

only in your stupid brains on crack (religion).

Take the matter away from opinion and concentrate on material science and you find causes and proofs suddenly become tangible and demonstrable without any crying about it whatsoever.

cold. hard. ****

[Anonymous No.20888956]

>>20887268
>>20887273
>>20887313
>>20887287
>>20887321
>>20887694
>>20887704
>>20887714
>>20887801
>>20887965
>>20888016
>>20888013
>>20888025
>>20888026
>>20888149
>>20888883
>>20888883
>>20888928
See >>20887264

[Anonymous No.20888992]

>>20888956
ah but the truth of causality is confirmed even by your animosity towards it, you are without a doubt someone who believes in a god. how did i know this. because one position is predisposed from the other.

also, see: >>20887714

[Anonymous No.20889002]

>>20888992
You nearly sounded like a human but your post is like an ai made it

[Anonymous No.20889018]

>>20889002
>ai
if a pocket calculator an outsmart your ontological positions then you're in deep trouble, citizen. i suggest you learn a trade.

[Anonymous No.20889023]

as the gentle motion of a saw upon wood goes back and forth steady in your hands and you see the effect of a cause of your own making, then you will understand.

[Anonymous No.20889024]

>>20889018
Right but you've not said anything to contradict Reid and seem to completely misunderstand what an AI is.

[Anonymous No.20889050]

>>20889024
I already made a joke about Reid. I don't know or care who he is at this time, and if he's arguing against 'causes of things' then he's on the wrong side of even the mot elementary of science and reasoning.

Honestly I don't think Hume even said what is claimed here. Likely you have all misunderstood something in his eloquence.

>AI
another joke.

Actually Artificial Intelligence most verbatim refers to a false or constructed intelligence, such as polling or twitter opinion or youtube views or even, dare say, political or theosophical narratives.

we can go as deep as you like, if you're a girl.

[Anonymous No.20889099]

>>20886479
she didn't refute Hume, she just proposed a different model more in line with wittgenstein thheories, a model that a lot of people don't find all that robust, but she never articulated how Hume is wrong or a contradiction on his argument

[Anonymous No.20889148]

>>20889050
Okay this can't be a person. You aee 100% a bot or braindead. Nothing you've said makes sense.

[Anonymous No.20889224]

>>20889148

[Anonymous No.20889351]

>>20887694
fuck you

[Anonymous No.20890133]

>>20885513
Contemporary philosophers that do this?

[Anonymous No.20890147]

>>20890133
they're all in the schizo wards, as that is what they're articulating. with a splash of religion.

sad really.

[Anonymous No.20890399]

>>20887238
Name one argument to refute Descartes. If he was a pseud, then it should be easy. I’m waiting.

[Anonymous No.20890416]

>>20888928
>Vain materialism
I’d rather play with my GBA.

[Anonymous No.20890422]

>>20890416
>I’d rather play with my GBA.
Nobody's stopping you playing with your gay balls and anus.

[Anonymous No.20890429]

>>20890422
Glad I got your confirmation, then I’d play with my balls and anus while you tongue Dawkins’ rectum.

[Anonymous No.20890439]

>>20890429
hahaha, well you know, if you reject the external world as vain materialism then you obviously turn your attention inwards, up your own butt.

bazinga.

[Anonymous No.20890452]

>>20887321
Prime mover argument is outdated BS. Aristotelian physics are wrong, so the argument is wrong.

[Anonymous No.20890472]

>>20885548
> shoot myself
> half-miss because nogun retard britbong.
> Now still alive but half the face is missing for rest of my life.
AHAH GTFO HUME!

[Anonymous No.20890651]

>>20885513
hume never said causality doesn't exist, that would imply pretension to understand things-in-themselves. hume is simply saying we can never have any certainty that things will continue as they have because all of our empirical observations are little better than "the sun has risen X times so it will rise again tomorrow"

[Anonymous No.20890787]

>>20887231
>Then there are retards who can't think for themselves and convince themselves that because Hume is popular he must have uncovered some sort of real problem, like a vicious circle.
The funny thing is you going on this rant just after regurgitating Schopenhauer which no one takes seriously.

[Anonymous No.20891174]

>>20885513
>>failed to see the possibility of synthetic a priori judgements
pathetic

[Anonymous No.20891251]

>>20885513
Who?

[Anonymous No.20891281]

>>20890787
Schopenhauer isn't taken seriously by academia because hes a "le heckin' problematic chud" which has no bearing on his actual epistemic positions

[Anonymous No.20891313]

>>20889148
It could be an old person, they have that cadence

[Anonymous No.20891376]

>>20885513
refuted by kant
/thread

[Anonymous No.20891918]

>>20885557
>I’m coincidentally designed to believe in causality in practical affairs beCAUSE historically this has helped humans survive

[Anonymous No.20892466]

>>20887264
Who?

[Anonymous No.20892588]

>>20887231
Bro it's obvious you skimmed the Schopenhauer wiki entry before skimming the Kant one, and you're embarassing yourself big time

[Anonymous No.20892834]

>>20890399
>be Descartes method
>irrefutable
>don't believe anything without proof
>can't find physical evidence of God so makes up a word salad to prove his existence so he doesn't get lynched by Pope
>?????
>naMe oNe aRgumeNt to rEfute DescaRteS

[Anonymous No.20892840]

>>20891313
Its not cadence its just nonsense. Even 300 year old books are easy to read.

[Anonymous No.20892846]

>>20891376
Explain to me how, or give a source that is not just full Critique of Pure Reason

[Anonymous No.20892870]

>>20892840
>"his cadence"
my god you youngsters are fucking faggots xd

[Anonymous No.20892878]

>>20892405

[Anonymous No.20892943]

>>20892466
Thomas Reid

[Anonymous No.20893125]

It's too hard to cope with the idea that my whole life is necessarily a mere incident and I suffer through it unnecessarily without any possibility for redemption.

[Anonymous No.20893594]

>>20885513
Look at how decadent he is. How do you people trust these stupid fat thinkers?

[Anonymous No.20893813]

>Gives good reasons to never believe in materialism and empiricism ever again

Thanks Hume!

[Anonymous No.20893816]

>>20892834
I expected a counter argument, not your sexual diary.

[Anonymous No.20893820]

>>20885513
>causality isn’t even real
Not really, what he did was prove that causality cannot be demonstrated by reason, yet everyone knows it exists so there must be a God. You will get filtered by this post.

[Anonymous No.20893822]

>>20885557
Ockham was a mistake

[Anonymous No.20893833]

>>20885687
Didnt spinoza argue that the principle of sufficient reason is distinct from causality

[Anonymous No.20894632]

>>20893820
>yet everyone knows it exists so there must be a God
That’s a funny conclusion that Hume never drew, but he could and would have give him more nuance that being a mere empiricist.

[Anonymous No.20894639]

>>20893822
His assert is completely unrelated to Okham’s razor, who advocated for the simplest explanation. But simplest might not always be the most practical.

[ἐποχή No.20894660]

>>20885548
Every cause was once an effect.

[ἐποχή No.20894672]

>>208873
This model relates a cosmology founded upon an impersonal generative principle and not an individuated intelligence.

[Anonymous No.20895837]

I love all the suggested books and philosophers in this thread!

[Anonymous No.20895898]

>>20895837
I bet you love cocks in your mouth too

[Anonymous No.20896507]

>>20894672
Hey baby lets hook up