[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 487 KB, 732x705, 1685550508187698.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22097227 No.22097227 [Reply] [Original]

> mfw logical positivists claim the only things which can be true are those which are empirically verifiable and I reply "how do you empirically verify that statement?"

>> No.22097240

>>22097227
It’s pretty simple. Compare people, cultures, and societies that use empiricism with those that do not, and see which ones actually survive and advance. For the ultimate test of truth is how well it serves our interests. Truth is will to power, and nothing besides.

>> No.22097262

>>22097240
>truth is will to power
Can you provide empirical evidence for that?

>> No.22097288

>>22097262
when people operate with false ideas, they tend to fail at their goals.

>> No.22097290

Women’s intuition is a candlelight for this gloomy uncertainty.
Called illogical, it is all mystical sense. Witchcraft and necessary.

>> No.22097293

>>22097288
That’s begging the question

>> No.22097353

>>22097293
just analyze humans from a biological perspective. All of our traits are with us because they were fit for our survival. That includes our reasoning abilities. Life is the same way, we evolve and our beliefs evolve to increase our chances of success. Otherwise the “truth” is irrelevant. Theoretically, if you could be immortal and happy regardless of what’s going on in the world, then you could believe absolutely anything and it wouldn’t really affect you. But certain beliefs lead to failure, weakness, and death and so they are called false beliefs.

It’s difficult to argue that truth is something beyond this.

>> No.22097391

>>22097353
When a normal person or a philosopher talk about truth, they refer to an ontological essence that has a kind of immutable quality of being real or factual, as opposed to something that is spurious. They don't mean "that which is convenient to me, or to my group", but rather "that which is, regardless of convenience". Your reasoning assumes that, as that which is convenient is not universal or constant, different things are the truth, depending on when and where, but this presupposes a relativistic conception of truth, which I don't think a positivist would really be concerned with (or maybe positivism is a relativistic ideology, I'm not sure). This relativism regarding the truth isn't empirically verifiable, so I don't think it's compatible with positivism.

>> No.22097398

>>22097227
ouch, this kills the logical positivist

>> No.22097404

>>22097227
Your solution: do nothing ever, for any reason.
Nah I'm good.

>> No.22097413

>>22097240
>>22097353
Atheists know absolutely nothing about philosophy.

>> No.22097416

>>22097391
> they refer to an ontological essence that has a kind of immutable quality of being real or factual
yes, because it allows them to impose their beliefs on others. They say “truth exists, and I have access to it, and you should follow me!” Thus truth is will to power.

>> No.22097418

>>22097413
Nah, it’s the stupid christcucks who know nothing of philosophy

>> No.22097424

>>22097416
>>22097418
Do you realize how embarrassing you sound

>> No.22097427

>>22097424
I ot have one post and it’s about the christcucks. I agree logical postivism is a dead end, but it hasn’t really been relevant in philosophy since the sixties so no one in my department even considers it. And again, it’s the christcucks who are the absolute worst at philosophy.

By the way, do you realize how stupid you sound?

>> No.22097436

>>22097424
Prove me “wrong” fag

>> No.22097444
File: 102 KB, 419x647, 1685476815394470.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22097444

All this "truth is just the will to power" nonsense that zoomers keep spouting is literally - not just metaphorically, but quite literally - demonic in nature.

>> No.22097461

>>22097444
Checked and blessed

>> No.22097466

>>22097444
The Pedophile Protection Network is here to proclaim their superiority, again.

>> No.22097467

>>22097444
says the guy who believes in fairytales just so he can go to heaven. You’re proving the “demons” right lol

>> No.22097490

>>22097444
if only Jesus had responded when Pilate asked him “What is truth?”

>> No.22097491
File: 334 KB, 962x948, 1667758537390.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22097491

>>22097466
uh oh
https://youtu.be/aMOk8EYI2J8

>> No.22097499
File: 146 KB, 1200x800, 1666540328122.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22097499

>>22097466
https://youtu.be/CXtfaToG5ss

>> No.22097526

>>22097240
The question isn't whats more practical

>> No.22097539

>>22097416
Not necessarily. You seem to be reaching here. Your definition of truth as that which helps a species to progress in an arbitrary direction seems much more contrived.

>> No.22097553
File: 1.25 MB, 2464x1640, 1677004385584.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22097553

>>22097539
Evolution is total nonsense and propaganda. It can't stand up to serious philosophical scrutiny, but that's ok because atheists don't know anything about philosophy (all according to plan).
https://youtu.be/8A7YE6b-crw

>> No.22097561
File: 63 KB, 425x490, s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22097561

>ask britisher how many particular times the particular ball has to fall before it's universally and necessarily true that "balls always fall"
>he gives an actual natural number
>ask britisher what the origin of the concept "two" is
>he says a caveman saw two rocks and recognized they were two
>ask britisher how he knew they were two if he didn't have the concept two
>he says it benefited the caveman to recognize two
>ask him how something that didn't yet exist could have benefited him prior to existing and come into existence as a result of this benefit simultaneously
>he starts talking about the amazon algorithm and mumbles something about a turing machine
>ask britisher what consciousness is, the consciousness that asks these questions to begin with
>he says nothing, just a word we give to organized matter, like "the computer's mind"
>ask britisher how the subjective quale of self-consciousness evolved if it is completely epiphenomenal and logically otiose in a mechanistic framework next to algorithmic p-zombies who behave exactly the same but don't have qualia
>he says "by natural selection of course! it affected the survival of the genes!"
>ask britisher the metaphysical character of the laws governing matter, if everything is matter
>he says "matter"
>ask britisher to define the ultimate constituents of his empirically and sensibly perceptible and experimentally confirmable matter, since they are all that ultimately exist
>he names 21 spooky string-theoretical quaternions and invisible mathematical functions and fields that can only be defined negatively by exclusion of other fields
>ask britisher why there is a world at all, and whether we can ever know this scientifically
>he says "of course!," then says that the scientifically obvious and empirically comfirmed nature of reality is "it just is"
>ask britisher if he believes in free will since he believes in a completely mechanistic world of material interactions
>he says "of course not! free will is idealist pishposh! i only believe in ontologically indeterminate invisible irreducibly random quantum sea froth at the base of all things, which is also mechanistically determinate at large scales!"
>ask britisher why the world has the laws it has instead of some other laws or changing laws or no laws at all
>he says "i don't know, perhaps more observations of gluons forming helical patterns in the large hardon collider will shed some light on this!"
>ask britisher what the purpose of philosophy for human life is
>he starts graphing a utilitarian trolley problem analysis to prove a point about abortion clinics minimizing harm
>ask britisher what the destiny of mankind is and what is the purpose of acquiring knowledge of the world
>he starts talking about how many teraflops the holographic chatGPT greeters at the mars colony's greggs will have and how we can mine asteroids to get more borax to keep the greggs cold fusion generators running

>> No.22097565

Serious question. I don’t know anything about philosophy, science, etc., but why do redditors, such as >>22097553 and >>22097561, talk like that?

>> No.22097571

>>22097353
You cage yourself in a reductive, cruel language that appears to bear truth, but it only limits thought to an ugly falsity shackled to Thrasymachus and bad Nietzchians.

>> No.22097576

>>22097561
good post

>> No.22097581

>>22097240
Wrong. There are some cases where the answer that is right is less practical than the wrong.

>> No.22097582

>>22097561
kek

>> No.22097583

>>22097565
subversive faggot

>> No.22097585

>>22097565
>I don’t know anything about philosophy, science, etc.
Yes that goes without saying, if you actually believe in evolution.

>> No.22097589

>>22097565
they’ve been raised on a steady diet of marvel movies and video games. their minds are only capable of outputting information in the format of memes and/or quips.

>> No.22097593

>>22097565
>>22097589
Do you think anyone is falling for this

>> No.22097596
File: 611 KB, 1080x1478, Screenshot_20220727-214729.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22097596

>>22097561

>> No.22097597

>>22097227
gottem

>>22097353
Darwinism alone cannot explain natural science, there is a definite Lamarckian element at play as well.

>> No.22097601

>>22097583
>>22097585
That doesn’t really help, but thank you for your time, mr. redditor.

>>22097589
Hmm…maybe. But there must be something more fundamental than that.

>> No.22097606

>>22097240
But how am I supposed to know what is truly practical or not? It can't, according to your definition of truth, be by accurately reflecting what is in fact practical, but merely by how practical it is to believe whether it is practical or not. But then I can ask the same question again, and again, etc. ad infinitum.

>> No.22097607

>>22097581
give an example
>>22097597
sure maybe

>> No.22097609

>>22097589
to be fair I'm sure they displayed those traits long before they decided capeshit was the pinnacle of cinema.

>> No.22097614
File: 54 KB, 444x580, 1685194369235492.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22097614

>N-n-no, YOU are the redditor if you don't believe in evolution!!

>> No.22097616

>>22097614
nice one, mr. redditor

>> No.22097618

>>22097616
Provide your epistemological justification for evolution.

>> No.22097622

>>22097561
It was a cave woman who recognized the difference between her twins. Two eyes, two arms, two feet, two nipples. Two as a concept always was, a word for it followed.
“Rocks”? those are tricky, as they’re often one rock that’s just fallen apart or been carved away to make a spear head. The concept is useful only on occasion when it’s true. This “true” bothers the males still. Women aren’t usually as bothered by it. Don’t even ask them about free will versus determinism. They feel it out just fine.

>> No.22097623

>>22097618
nice one, mr. redditor

>> No.22097625

Atheists have no argument. All they have is insults and logical fallacies. The irony in this thread is staggering.

>> No.22097626
File: 638 KB, 1080x1824, Screenshot_20220727-214748.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22097626

>>22097596

>> No.22097627

>>22097625
nice one, mr. redditor

>> No.22097650

If everyone under 25 were banned, it would take care of the atheist materialist problem on this board.

>> No.22097653

>>22097607
Suppose it is the future and there is a master psychologist AI that can detect the beliefs of humans within a prison that you are being kept in your entire life. Let's also say jews completely control the world, and if they sense any hint of awareness of this badthink in anybody the badthinkers will be anally raped for a week, and that detection software has been programmed into this robot AI for this purpose. You are stuck in this prison for life as an underclass genetic failure. Would you rather believe that Jews control the world, or that they don't control the world?
(This thought experiment only works if you're not gay)

>> No.22097654

>>22097561
Two exists because it's a word in the british language. When cavemen found the stone tablets containing the first british dictionary they didn't figure out what all the words meant right away because they didn't know how to read.

>> No.22097656

>>22097650
nice one, mr. redditor

>> No.22097660

>>22097656
nice one, mr. redditor

>> No.22097665

>>22097565
Have you ever met christards in real life? They’re mostly homeschooled by a fat stay at home mom. Their classes consist of them reading the bible with their 7 siblings as classmates amd then off to church where they talk with snakes.

>> No.22097670

>>22097660
nice one, mr. redditor

>> No.22097671

>>22097626
Love how Quine's argument against analycity boils down to "it's definition is circular", as if all "intensional" (not referring to actual concrete things) definitions aren't ultimately circular when you look and prod close enough.

>> No.22097684
File: 876 KB, 1440x1449, on covid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22097684

atheist admits that atheists can't even justify their own claims
https://youtu.be/KRgqMIqT1Yw

>> No.22097688

>>22097684
nice one, mr. redditor

>> No.22097692
File: 663 KB, 1440x1460, also on covid .jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22097692

>> No.22097695

>>22097692
nice one, mr. redditor

>> No.22097696

>>22097671
The more advanced analysis of the problem is the "scandal of deduction," the idea that deductive analysis generates zero information. Under popular definitions of information, Shannon Entropy and similar metrics, computation generates no new information, as program(input) output deterministically. There is even a proof for this with physical computation and Gandy machines.

But this makes no sense. When we get a giant dataset we don't know the answer until the computation is finished.

If you throw a sufficiently complex Hamiltonian Path problem at a super computer you could wait billions of years for an answer.

The problem is that our Platonist tradition in mathematics takes abstract objects to exist eternally and computation to be somehow illusory. The stepwise nature of computation is ignored in abstract contexts. It shouldn't be. Computation isn't necessarily reversible, which is why it is such an apt metaphor (model?) if causation. Nor is 6 + 4 or 5 + 5 the same computation, even if the results share an identity.

Kolmogorov Complexity fairs no better because it runs into the problem of non-constructive ridgid designators.

>> No.22097705

>>22097684
No one can ultimately justify their own claims. Justification grows out of those principles that we intuitively believe, or common sense. You could make an analogous problem of deduction if you really wanted to.

>> No.22097707

>>22097684
The only gods left are the absent minded ones or the now dead ones.
None of the revealed faiths can stand up to scrutiny.
Atheism isn’t a faith of the modern world. That’s state-capitalism and it’s sister church of the unquestionable science of state. The standards of science and atheism stand apart from that, better and more pure than even Protestantism stood from Catholicism.

>> No.22097729

>>22097653
kek
You think that you stripped me of being an INTJ? You did not strip me of anything.
The summa cum laude honor that I achieved is still mine.
My intelligence, multi-source analyst, linguist position at a three-letter agency is still mine.
My online business is still mine.
My beautiful wife and baby boy are still mine (and vice versa).
My properties and investments are still mine.

>> No.22097767

>>22097653
if you want to destroy such a system, then you would continue to believe that Jews run the world, enduring the rapes while plotting to rebel. But if they detect this also then they would probably punish you even worse, in which case you may just have to submit until you believe 2 + 2 = 5, because otherwise you’ll just be tortured and killed.

It all just depends on your goals and what you want to pursue. And we don’t actually know what will be practical until we try it.

>> No.22097782

>>22097606
experience

>> No.22097790

>>22097561
kek

>> No.22097838

>>22097650
>atheist materialist
You spamming this phrase is more of a problem than any atheist.

>> No.22097845

>>22097625
>Atheists have no argument.
Go to the Aquinas thread, plenty there.

>> No.22097925
File: 262 KB, 1200x1164, IMG_8535.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22097925

>> No.22097930

>>22097925
nice one, mr. redditor

>> No.22097938

>>22097930
fuck you, seriously. with your "mr. redditor" retort, regurgitative vacuous cunny. find the map of meaning. dwell on it and come back.

>> No.22097943

>>22097938
nice one, mr. redditor