/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21642637]

We won nihilistbros

[Anonymous No.21642654]

>>21642637
How do you prove that regressive arguments don't simplify into circular arguments? I imagine this assumes there being an infinite number of truths?—Otherwise somewhere along the way we become an 'axiomatic argument' or stumble upon a previous truth which begins the cycle all over again. Though perhaps, a Hegelian might argue these truths different because of its dialectical history.

[Anonymous No.21642659]

>>21642637
Maybe the only way we can live is through axiomatic principles based on a leap of faith?

[Anonymous No.21642772]

>>21642654
>anon can’t tell fields of characteristic zero and non-zero apart
ngmi in abstract algebra

[Anonymous No.21642781]

>>21642772
Anon, real analysis filtered me, so yes.

[Anonymous No.21643199]

>>21642637
What about facticity, or argument from fact. It's not axiomatic as the fact is not necessary or posited a precept, but given in experience. The facticity of existence surely serves as a valid ground.

[Anonymous No.21643205]

>>21642659
Why would I need faith to live and accept my own existence?

[Anonymous No.21643577]

But where does the trolley fit in all this?

[Anonymous No.21643636]

>>21642637
That baron is such a fucking chad, entombed on a mine and what does the guy do? He fucking pulls himself out by pulling his own hair. Neva seen anything like it, I tell you.

[Anonymous No.21643687]

Profesor Zeidler from the University of Vienna already solved it, gg no rez

[Anonymous No.21643792]

4th argument: I don't understand and I don't care, furthermore shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.21643801]

>>21643205
Because you do.

[Anonymous No.21644273]

>>21642637
>hurr durr regressive arguments aren't valid because uhhh...something comes from nothing obviously
lol retard

[Anonymous No.21644298]

>>21642637
>'since the truth is usually required to have a proof, the same..........'
This statement itself is a universal truth claim, ie it is a claim of truth which transcends a particular time and space and is invariant from person to person. So this statement in your pic requires the same objective grounding as objective morality and all other universal truth claims. This is why unqualified claims of nihilist such as 'there exist no objective values' and the like are always self refuting.

[Anonymous No.21644344]

>>21642637
This is only confusing to dogmatic atheists. Presupposing everything is intelligible is not reasonable.

[Anonymous No.21645886]

god fixes this

[Anonymous No.21645999]

>>21642637
solution: münchhausen doesn't pull himself out by his own bootstraps but gets help from a third party not specified in the original description of the problem, i.e., dialectics

[Anonymous No.21646075]

>>21644298
So everything is self refuting... woah...

[Anonymous No.21646107]

>>21644298
>usually
>universal

[Anonymous No.21646368]

>>21644298
Gottem

[Anonymous No.21646431]

>>21642637
Munchhausen Trilemma is just a rudimentary form of Incompleteness and/or Undefinability, which only recognizes the limitation of formal logic systems. None of this says anything about the reality that definition via observation is a completely valid methodology, and in fact necessary for the vast, vast majority of things.

Only schizos playing head games think logic is the only way to find truth. Everyone else understands you can only do it through observation. You'd have to actually be insane to believe the universe gives half a shit for how we think about it.

[Anonymous No.21646445]

>>21642637
>all truths are required to have proofs

This is the mistake. A proof is merely a dialectical tool, made to persuade someone, by which you argumentatively make evident that which was not. The self-evident truth does not need proof by its own nature (you know it is true via direct experience of it), even if that means it will lack persuasive power to convince others through pure discourse.

[Anonymous No.21646524]

>>21646107
The .... indicates that the remainder of the statement must be taken in to consideration. It goes on to make the universal claim of proving the impossibility of proving any truth. The claim of the impossibility of truth is itself a universal truth claim. So is it a universal truth that proving a truth is impossible? If it is, then the statement itself would be true and it would also refute itself. It's a self defeating self referential claim, as are all attempts at nihilistic statements.

[Anonymous No.21646528]

>Implying any reality exists outside of my head

[Anonymous No.21646529]

>>21646368
Yeah, it's worded better here
>>21646524
This is why nihilism
is retarded.

[Anonymous No.21646533]

>>21646528
SOMETHING must exist outside your head since you can clearly differentiate between "your head" and "not your head". You wouldn't even have the concept of "your head" if that weren't the case.

[Anonymous No.21646545]

>>21646431

[Anonymous No.21646562]

>>21646533
I can make a differentiation in accord with my sensory perception, but the output of my senses is a product of the brain. When your eyes receive visual stimuli of some object, you are not perceiving it directly, but perceiving a reconstruction of the sensory input that is created by your brain. It has no necessary connection to anything that exists.

[Anonymous No.21646571]

>>21642659
tell me more

[Anonymous No.21646590]

>>21646562
(cont.) What this means of course is that not only can you not prove there is anything outside of your brain but that you can never directly interact with anything outside of your brain. Anything you perceive, feel, etc. is a perception created inside your brain.

[Anonymous No.21646605]

>>21642637
Also I would add that the inability to PROVE a universal truth would not be a refutation of the idea that there exists some universal truth.
> but the output of my senses is a product of the brain
This is a physicalist theory of mind or at least an appeal to the idea that neural correlates of consciousness can account for on a one to one basis. This is also begging the question in terms of the exact relationship between brain and mind. The physicalist CAUSAL model is certainly falsified though. See pic, specifically this
>The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information. The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry.
Notice that it does not say that the circuits have not been found. The entire related systems have been mapped, AND NO SUCH CIRCUITRY EXISTS. So there can be no physicalism of the gaps appeal to 'someday we will be able to account for consciousness with NCCs. The Physicalist theory of mind is FALSIFIED. And this is just ONE aspect of the various binding problems.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538094/

[Anonymous No.21646611]

>>21646562
whopps
this
>>21646605
> but the output of my senses is a product of the brain
This is a physicalist theory of mind or at least an appeal to the idea that neural correlates of consciousness can account for on a one to one basis. This is also begging the question in terms of the exact relationship between brain and mind. The physicalist CAUSAL model is certainly falsified though. See pic, specifically this
>The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information. The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry.
Notice that it does not say that the circuits have not been found. The entire related systems have been mapped, AND NO SUCH CIRCUITRY EXISTS. So there can be no physicalism of the gaps appeal to 'someday we will be able to account for consciousness with NCCs. The Physicalist theory of mind is FALSIFIED. And this is just ONE aspect of the various binding problems.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538094/

was to you

[Anonymous No.21646612]

>>21642637
I think therefore I am

[Anonymous No.21646613]

>>21646590
Anon, you're (presumably) a grown ass man, and you sincerely believe this? Not mentioning the self-refuting nature of your own argument, common sense refutes this.

[Anonymous No.21646626]

>>21642637
Scepticbros won. Nihilist make presumptive unwarranted claims like all other believers and ideologues.

[Anonymous No.21646638]

>>21642637
george santos...

[Anonymous No.21646680]

>>21646590
I would also add with regard to this
>>21646611
That you don't need to appeal to the brain if you want this sort of external world skepticism. The brain is never observed as anything other than a mental object emergent in mind(s), as is all matter. And so the brain is part of the same 'external' data stream as all that you wish to be skeptical of. Once you accept that an experiencial data stream can be beamed into your mind, then some observer independent brain with stand alone existent defined values in spacetime becomes superfluous. The correlation to say, damage to the brain and quality of consciousness could then be just the correlating of damage to an object of the quantitative data stream to the felt qualia of the qualitative experiential datastream. This would be a single player consciousness based virtual reality. It's not logically incoherent, but either is the idea of a multiplayer consciousness based VR.

[Anonymous No.21646752]

>>21646524
>So is it a universal truth that proving a truth is impossible?
I won't pretend to understand the ideas of whoever made the meme in the OP, but no, the trilemma doesn't indicate that proving truth is universally impossible. a nihilist argument would be that each leg of the trilemma is unsatisfactory, which makes knowledge of dubious value.

[Anonymous No.21647398]

>>21643205
You don't understand the concept of the leap of faith. Once you do you will understand why that question is dumb.

[Anonymous No.21647417]

>>21646638
Jej