[ 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: 62 KB, 600x769, David Stove.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3448928 No.3448928 [Reply] [Original]

While few will present this argument outright, the idiot's argument recurs quite frequently on 4chan, most often in the threads of newbies; but I suspect it lies hidden in the waffling of some of the more mature posters here about.

Hang around for more than a week or so and you will come across some variation of the Idiot's argument. It takes almost anything as it's target: numbers, morality, consciousness, the self, even reality itself.

It goes something like this:
1. We conceive of or interpret or understand or speak about the target in some particular way.
2. However, someone might conceive of or interpret or understand or speak about the target in some other way.

So far so good. Now comes the crunch that gives this argument it's piquancy:

3. Therefore, the target does not exist

Brilliant.

>> No.3448947

Well, let's use an example often discussed on this board, morality. I don't think the question is whether or not morality exists, but OBJECTIVE morality. So propositions 1 and 2 could conceivably lead one to believe that morality does not exist in an objective sense, but is rather a perception, construct, etc.

(I personally do believe in objective morality, but I don't think anyone could argue that moral relativists have an intellectually bankrupt argument)

>> No.3448971

>>3448947
"Tribe A and tribe B disagree as to whether infanticide is acceptable. So there's no correct answer."

A slightly more sophisticated argument is "Tribe A and tribe B disagree as to whether infanticide is acceptable and have no rational means of resolving this disagreement. So there's no correct answer."

The latter argument seems more persuasive, not least because the conclusion can be used as the antecedent of a true proposition, i.e. "If there's no correct answer to a question, then we should tolerate disagreement regarding that question."

However, the argument is still invalid: that we have no rational means of finding the answer to a question does not imply that there is no answer. We have no rational means of deciding whether or not Julius Caesar's hands when he crossed the Rubicon were stronger than Alexander the Great's hands when he cut the Gordian Knot, but that doesn't mean there is no answer to that question.

>> No.3448995

I thought this was going to be about Dostoevsky's The Idiot. What a dissapointment.

Also, what you're saying only happends because people don't read shit. They talk about, I don't know, "who is the most ubermensch guy ever??" or "r u team atheism or team religion???" or someone asks "wat is art??" and instead of bringing up something new, interesting, intelligent, people just vomit whatever is on their head, the face value, the common sense, whatever the hell notion they got from wikipedia.

So, yeah. Dumb conclusions all around. First comes some dumb kid and say "guys, there is this thing here" and then there is this asshole who say "but how u kno?" and the first dumb kid replies "omg r u retard? of course there is!" and the debate turns into an idiot with a certainty and an asshole who doesn't want to think. After all that, you come with the same stuff "guys, there is this thing here" and the first asshole, assuming you are as dumb as he is will say ">implying objective this thing here", which has nothing to do with what he says.

It all comes to the more you discuss with retards, the more retarded you become and the more retarded they become. And if you ignore these folk, they poke the ego "omg so u dont wanna discuss?!" and that's when we have to do what we have to do and don't mind this kind of shit.

Hide shit threads.
Do not respond to shit threads.
Do not try to discuss a somewhat complicated thing with someone who doesn't even know what the thing is.

>> No.3449009

>>3448947
>I personally do believe in objective morality
i do too; though i think you're in for a suicide mission, naively thinking of having a coherent discussion on ethics within the realm of 4chan, populated and inhabited mainly by cultural relativist teenagers.

will monitor this thread

>> No.3449012

Objective reality exists only as an idea, technically speaking. I don't see how this changes anything. I don't mean it in the same sense that the Jedi Council exists only as an idea.... for instance..

>> No.3449019

>>3449009
I just think it's easy to mix our terms. I think morality could be reduced to axioms, so it's as 'objective' as math - but both exist in the mind, technically.

>> No.3449023

>>3449012
If objective reality doesn't exist doesn't that mean that the world of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings is just as real as ours?

ie. You are all idiots.
Hence the idiot discussion we are having.

>> No.3449034

>>3449023
from >>3449012 I said:
>I don't mean it in the same sense that the Jedi Council exists
are you trollin', or what?

>> No.3449043
File: 2.88 MB, 240x180, 1357917730560.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3449043

>>3449012
>Jedi Council
This is what /lit/ has become...

>> No.3449055

Arguing against objective reality is like arguing for the existence of god.

We live in a reality in which an event/occurence can be recorded and observed by several people and or machines that all show the same results.

If someone drops a ball and three person see it hit the ground, and you see it float upwards it means that you are insane, not that reality doesn't exist.

>> No.3449073

>>3449043
>I'm 2 kewl for star wars
I am impressed!

>> No.3449079

>>3449055
existence is a concept and its home, so to speak, is in the mind. Without consciousness, technically speaking, there would be no 'existence'.

>> No.3449097

itt: stoner philosophy (or even worse, without the drugs)

>> No.3449104

>>3449079
That's what Bishop George Berkeley said:
"All the choir of heaven and furniture of earth - in a word, all those bodies which compose the frame of the world - have not any subsistence without a mind."

-and-

"To be is to be perceived."

>> No.3449106

OP are you arguing against someone using 'linguistic structures' as a basis for their attack?

Say the 'target' is abortion morality.

1. We interpret the issue through different semantic filters, different sets of ethical rules
2. However, someone else has a different view on the issue as they see the problem through a different set of -linguisticly derived- filters

3. Neither view on the morals of abortion is objectively correct

>> No.3449110

>>3449097
ITT: we call the most fundamental texts of all philosophy 'stoner'

>> No.3449121

>>3449104
damn, love me some Berkeley; gotta reread his treatise on knowledge

>> No.3449129

>>3449106
You're correct. Although I don't know what linguistics has to do with it.

Keep in mind that nothing in my OP suggests that we may be entirely unable to know anything about the world or about ethics. All that is being said is that our disagreement over these issues is NOT proof that ethics and objective existence does not exist.

I stated that one could not conclude that X does not exist based upon the fact that there was disagreement about what X was. It states that epistemic uncertainty does not affect metaphysical existence.

For example, Tribe A believes murder is evil. Tribe B believes it good. The fact that there is non-agreement between Tribe A and Tribe B and the fact that we don't know of an authority to establish which Tribe is correct does not lead us to the conclusion that there is no correct answer to the question of whether murder is evil. We are left with epistemic uncertainty, but not a metaphysical conclusion. The fact that we don't know which Tribe is correct and we don't know how to figure out which is correct just means we don't know who is correct.

(All of this begs a certain question, of course, which is how could we know what the correct criteria is for determining which tribe were correct. It seems reasonable to say that we could not know, but that just again points to epistemic doubt. The same can hold true for metaphysical questions and not ethical ones, though. For example, I believe the rock is white. It either is or it isn't. The fact, though, that I cannot be certain that my perceptions of the rock are accurate does not mean that the rock lacks color. It simply means I can't be certain of its color.)

>> No.3449143

>>3449129
I was using linguistics as it's a popular thing to attack with ethical issues. The idea is that ethics aren't material, so only exist as a linguistic structure. When the issue being argued over is pulled into one of semantics, the lack of consensus is usually used to show that we can only have subjective interpretation and no objectively correct position.

>> No.3449158

>>3449143
>we can only have subjective interpretation and no objectively correct position

We can't HAVE an objectively correct position, but that doesn't mean there ISN'T an objectively correct position.

>> No.3449181

>>3449158
Hey, it's not my argument. I'm just saying it's one I see on /lit/ a lot.

The reason given for why they think there is no objectively correct opinion, is that the issue doesn't actually exist outside of a language structure. The words good/bad are invented by us and used to overlay reality.

>> No.3449194

So is this thread based on a straw man, or is it just me?

>> No.3449269

There is no such thing as objective morality because morality is created by the subject. There is intersubjective morality, but 'morality' isn't itself woven into the universe. Morality is a social construct.

Conceding to the subjectivity of morality doesn't make you a nihilist, by the way, nor does it make ethics invalid.

>>3449194
Yup.

>> No.3449286

>>3449269
I feel you, but I'd say that morality could potentially be based on axioms.

>> No.3449289

>>3449269
>objective morality
For that to happen you need a universal purpose.

>> No.3449293

>>3449286
Then you end up with arbitrary nonsense like the maximization of happiness.

>> No.3449299

>>3449194
It's not based on a strawman. OP is presenting a form of argument commonly used on this board, much to its detriment.

>> No.3449304

>>3449079
But the point is, even if life and consciousness had not emerged, there would still be air, water, mountains, stars, galaxies, black holes, etc. even without anyone to qualify their existence.

>> No.3449309

>>3449286
There are no axioms, as everything can be disputed. Try picking up some Hume sometime if you can.

>> No.3449319

>>3449293
Not necessarily. I mean, by definition... if it was based on axioms then it wouldn't be 'arbitrary nonsense'...

>> No.3449320
File: 17 KB, 300x375, calvin and hobbes academia.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3449320

>>3449309
I've tried reading Hume and he seemed very pic related.

>Moral philosophy, or the science of human nature, may be treated after two different manners; each of which has its peculiar merit, and may contribute to the entertainment, instruction, and reformation of mankind. The one considers man chiefly as born for action; and as influenced in his measures by taste and sentiment; pursuing one object, and avoiding another, according to the value which these objects seem to possess, and according to the light in which they present themselves. As virtue, of all objects, is allowed to be the most valuable, this species of philosophers paint her in the most amiable colours; borrowing all helps from poetry and eloquence, and treating their subject in an easy and obvious manner, and such as is best fitted to please the imagination, and engage the affections. They select the most striking observations and instances from common life; place opposite characters in a proper contrast; and alluring us into the paths of virtue by the views of glory and happiness, direct our steps in these paths by the soundest precepts and most illustrious examples. They make us feel the difference between vice and virtue; they excite and regulate our sentiments; and so they can but bend our hearts to the love of probity and true honour, they think, that they have fully attained the end of all their labours.

tl;dr: 'Someone could say, if she wanted, that humans are creatures of passion.'

>> No.3449325

>>3449309
Everything *can* be disputed. I could dispute that 1+1=2, but nobody would take me seriously. That doesn't mean that there are no axioms.

>> No.3449346

>>3449320
iktf, shit's unnecessarily obtuse.

>> No.3449355

>>3449325
Axioms in morality. 1 and 1 being 2 is true by definition. We've defined one to be an abstract form and two to be one and one.

There is no axiom which would have any sort of bearing on my choosing whether to kill you or not.

And that people may think you're insane not to believe a thing doesn't mean that the thing is objectively true, that's an example of how intersubjectivity manifests itself.

>> No.3449357

>>3449325
Nobody would take you seriously if you suggested the earth was a globe in the middle ages, what's your point? Consensus = truth?

>> No.3449358

>>3449320
Don't try to read Heidegger. Pic related x92894942.

>> No.3449363

>>3449355
you just restated your claim that personal deniability makes axioms impossible. That's just wrong.

>> No.3449367

>>3449357
do you even know what an axiom is?

What are you even trying to argue? It sounds like you're in a different thread than I am (?).

>> No.3449371

>>3449289
Harmony.

>> No.3449377

>>3449367
Are you trolling? Every axiom is falsifiable. You can create an axiom with your friend, but it wont necessarily have any bearing on reality.

>> No.3449390

>>3449377
you just, again, restated the claim that deniability makes axioms impossible.

>> No.3449396

>>3449377
My post:
>do you even know what an axiom is?
your reply
>You can create an axiom with your friend
so I'll take that as a 'no', then.

>> No.3449398

>>3449390
I said:
>You can create an axiom

I also said:
>it wont necessarily have any bearing on reality.

>> No.3449399

>>3449371
There is little harmony in the universe, and whatever you do it bears no consequence on galaxies colliding, super novas exploding and taking entire spiral arms along with them. Take your Zen shitosophy some other place.

>> No.3449400

>>3449398
Birth is an axiom.

>> No.3449402

>>3449396
Oh, you are trolling.

>> No.3449403

>>3449363
Let me start over.

If at any point you derive morality from an 'axiom', I will say your axiom is only a truth by semantics or yell, "IS-OUGHT GAP".

>>3449390
Different people.

>> No.3449406

>>3449402
how do you figure?

>> No.3449408

>>3448995
>people just vomit whatever is on their head

And that's absolutely beautiful and a necessary part of the internet.

>> No.3449409

>>3449403
>Different people.
Doesn't matter. Same claim has been posted about 7 times so far itt.
>If at any point you derive morality from an 'axiom', I will say your axiom is only a truth by semantics or yell, "IS-OUGHT GAP".
8 times.

>> No.3449410

>>3449390
The point of an axiom is to create an uncontroversial starting point for rational argument, isn't it? You almost certainly disagree with that definition, so I'd like to hear yours. But personal deniability has everything to do with axioms the way I define them.

>> No.3449416

>>3449409
ITT: Your ability to disagree with me doesn't make me wrong, therefore my position is invincible.

>> No.3449422

>>3449416
An axiom is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.[1]

>> No.3449423

>>3449406
Because why would you reject my point on the inclusion of 'friend'?

You and your friend could sit down and come up with 1=1 independently of everyone else. You could also try claiming that 'birth is an axiom'?? and treat it as an axiom between yourselves.

I included friend as a demonstration of consensus. You could get the entire world to agree to your axiom too, and it wouldn't matter. Axioms can only exists within their respective models, but the model and axiom can be destroyed externally.

>> No.3449424

>>3449410
An axiom is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.

It is not a premise so evident that nobody could possible disagree with it.

>> No.3449430

>>3449399
>galaxies colliding, super novas exploding

damn it, the wild, pseudo-intellectual /sci/ zealots always trying to ruin the nicest threads we're trying to have in here.

>> No.3449433

>>3449424
"Accepted as true without controversy."

But people disagreeing doesn't count as controversy? How many people have to disagree before there is a controversy?

>> No.3449439

>>3449423
It still seems like you're just repeating the same claim over and over again.

>A philisophical axioim is impossible because some fag could always come along and disagree with it, no matter evident the premise.
How is your argument any different from the retarded greentext above?

>> No.3449438

>>3449409
I AM NOT SAYING AXIOMS ARE IMPOSSIBLE YOU DUMB TWAT, I'M SAYING THAT ANY 'AXIOM' DOES NOT ITSELF LEAD TO ANY MORAL DEVELOPMENT INDEPENDENTLY OF THE INCLINATIONS OF THE SUBJECT. I DON'T THINK IT'S THIS HARD.

This isn't good for my health, I'm sorry I engaged you.

>> No.3449445

>>3449433
>How many people have to disagree before there is a controversy?
Enough to be taken seriously by the people who matter.

>> No.3449448

>>3449438
>INDEPENDENTLY OF THE INCLINATIONS OF THE SUBJECT
I'm really not sure what you're saying. See >>3449079 .

>> No.3449449

>>3449445
9/10, you singlehandedly trolled the entire thread

>> No.3449466

>>3449439
There isn't an evident premise external to whatever model you are using, what don't you understand about this? It's not about someone disagreeing with it.

You form an axiom because you can accept it as a basis to function WITHIN that model. External to the model you know your axiom was a supposition to allow you proceed.

>> No.3449467

>>3449449
I don't see what's illogical.

an axiom is:
>a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.
And yet people itt are claiming that the existence of a philosophical axiom is inconceivable or impossible.

I just don't understand what their logical argument is.

>> No.3449476

>>3448928
>>3448947
>>3448971
"Tribe A and tribe B disagree as to whether Zeus or Jehovah is the one true God and have no rational means of resolving this disagreement. So there's no correct answer."

That we have no rational means of finding the answer to a question does not imply that there is no answer. Therefore there is a God.

That's brilliant OP, all along I never believed in a God but it turns out just as objective morality exists, God exists!

>> No.3449479

>>3449466
>external to whatever model you are using
I might be misunderstanding you... but how is that different from a mathematical axiom? 1+1=2 is only valid within the model of mathematics....

>> No.3449486

>>3449476
aaaaaand here comes the Dawkins' minions

>> No.3449493

I don't see what your fags problem is. It's not like I'm trying to claim that free will doesn't exist, or asking for evidence of consciousness... I'm just saying that the existence of a philosophical axiom is conceivable, according to the definition of the fucking term.

>> No.3449498

>>3449486
>>>r/agnosticism

>> No.3449502

>>3449467
I define [concept] as obvious truth. I define "obvious" as agreed upon by people who I respect. The fact that you don't agree on [concept] does not mean I'm wrong, because by definition it is still obvious.

You are either an irretrievable solipsist, or an idiot.

>> No.3449531

>>3449502
>I define "obvious" as agreed upon by people who I respect.
Well isn't that what's happening anyways? If somebody told you that 1+1!=2 would you respect that person?

>You are either an irretrievable solipsist, or an idiot.
cogito ergo sum? No? I am a bit of a solipsist, but not in a nihilistic 'yo bro, nothing is real, man, come hit this bong with me' kind of way. I believe in reality for all practical reasons but I guess I would consider myself a solipsist. What are the arguments against this?

And if solipsism has been refuted to the point where nobody you respect takes it seriously..... then aren't you also subscribing to
>I define "obvious" as agreed upon by people who I respect.
?

>> No.3449550

ITT:

>I define an axiom as a premise that seems evident to me. There is no philosophical axiom that seems evident to me, therefore a philosophical axiom cannot possibly exist.

>> No.3449570

>>3449531
Okay, I'm going to assume you're not a troll and actually respond.

I think our core difference is how we approach philosophy. The reason I discuss philosophy with someone else is an attempt to gain perspective or work out errors of logic with them. To do this it's inherently necessary that we speak the same language. Somebody who doesn't believe in any kind of external reality might not be stupid, but they certainly can't be talked to unless they at least entertain the idea that you also exist and have things to say.

That's why I don't engage in people who refuse to step back from an axiom I don't agree with: If they are so committed to the view of the world that they won't entertain other possibilities in conversation, then I either agree with them or not. There's nothing left to say. I try to enter conversations with only axioms that the other person also agrees on so a conversation can actually be had.

Lording over somebody in conversation because your axiom is already obvious to "people who matter" is not you attempting to philosophize, its attempting to patronize and establish dominance.

Axioms may be useful in practice (I believe in milk existing while I drink it), but if philosophy takes as axiom everything you experience, there's literally nothing to add. In that view, your thoughts are validated by virtue of having been thought by you. I philosophize to see if these things can be reasonably undermined.

So that's why I don't accept axioms as an argument. You can have your axioms and operate as though they are true and I won't disrespect that. But when you enter a conversation you have to be prepared to surrender them, or there's no conversation to be had.

>> No.3449572

Where did all the 'philisophical axioms cannot and will not ever exist' fags go?

>> No.3449587

>pretending to be banno'

you've let yourself down

>> No.3449613

>>3449570
>can't be talked to unless they at least entertain the idea that you also exist and have things to say.
I wasn't going to bring this up, but I thought of a reason to, so I will:
I think the idea that 'you' exist is an axiom. But I also disagree with it and find it insanely flawed (bear with me here). I think, logically, we're all essentially the same person. I don't wish to debate this, but I I found the concept of 'you' vs 'me' to be a flawed axiom, and I don't expect it to hold up in the future. The ONLY reason I bring this up is to point out that it's an axiom and yet I disagree with it. That does not mean it is no longer an axiom.

>I try to enter conversations with only axioms that the other person also agrees on so a conversation can actually be had.
Isn't this the same as saying "I refuse to discuss the validity of premises which I hold as axioms"? That's fine, I mean.. it's your life.

>Lording over somebody in conversation because your axiom is already obvious to "people who matter" is not you attempting to philosophize, its attempting to patronize and establish dominance.
Ok, so let's debate whether 1+1=2. Otherwise aren't you just attempting to patronize and establish dominance? [that was a rhetorical question, I'm just attempting to say that in practice, that's how things work anyways]

>Axioms may be useful in practice but if philosophy takes as axiom everything you experience, there's literally nothing to add.
So you're saying that if everything is an axiom then axioms are meaningless? Yes. Obviously.

>when you enter a conversation you have to be prepared to surrender [your axioms], or there's no conversation to be had.
Well if the person that wants to argue with you is retarded then would there be a conversation to be had anyways?

I've run out of characters, so I'll try to expand or provide a tl;dr in another post.

>> No.3449617

>>3449570
It seems like you imagine that you live in a world without axioms. You don't.

>> No.3449622

>>3449572
>Where did all the 'philisophical axioms cannot and will not ever exist' fags go?
Nobody said that. One guy said we cant have axioms in morality, and one guy said axioms are only true with respect to the framework they are created in.

>> No.3449626

>>3449622
what's the difference?

>> No.3449634

In case we've lost track of what we're arguing, this is the post that sparked so much controversy: >>3449286

>> No.3449650

While, strangely enough, this post sparked no controversy whatsoever: >>3449079

captcha: sagempQ POETRY

>> No.3449660

>>3449650
twist and turn as you please, but it is fairly accurate, honey-bunney

>> No.3449662

>Using a picture of Karl Popper
>Expecting to be taken seriously.

>> No.3449663

>>3449626
There's a huge difference. Your one is saying that no knowledge is possible. The second one is conceding that we can have axioms, but not with morality. And the final one is saying that we can have knowledge and axioms, but can't evaluate them to be objectively true.

>> No.3449666

>>3449660
I fucking made that post, honey buns

>> No.3449676

>>3449663
So:
#1
>No knowledge is possible
#2
>No knowledge is possible regarding morality
#3
>Knowledge is possible regarding morality

?

>> No.3449695

Welcome to Planet Derpington. On this planet, mathematical axioms include 1+1=3 , 1+1+1=3, 1+1+1+1=5, etc... Essentially, from our point of view, they're rounding up to the nearest odd number. Life on Planet Derpington is not that bad and everyone gets along, convinced that their way is the best. Your spacechip crashes on this planet and you instantly say to yourself 'ha, those are not axioms!'. Yet, you are, for all intents and purposes wrong. You die miserable and alone and life on that planet goes on as it always has.

>> No.3449730
File: 52 KB, 600x450, breathersphere.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3449730

>>3449695
Welcome to planet earth, human. Unfortunately, despite it looking three dimensional to you, we are actually in a non-euclidean five dimensional reality that looks like pic related. We tried your 1=1 as an axiom, but every attempt at empirical observation meant that items we were using for reference, like 1 cat = 1 cat, turned out to be completely false as there are a variable amount of particles spanning along additional dimensions that you, with your tiny human mind, can't detect. Here in reality 1 is never 1. Also, despite you thinking you are here, you are actually a simulation of a brain created by us. You can't remember it, but the language you're using is entirely your creation, and these bizarre semantic symbols that you call numbers are only truly comprehensible to you. We have our best researchers trying to understand your perceived map of reality though.

>> No.3449735

>>3449730
>assuming axioms have to be accurate in order to be axioms
nice try, but Planet Derpington is 3D. The people there are just dumber than us. And yet, life goes on for them. Shocking, eh?

>> No.3449776

So was my assertion here >>3449286 reasonable or does everyone still think I was trolling?

>> No.3449783

>>3449776
Go on then, lets see your morality axioms.

>> No.3449793

>>3449783
Well, first I would start with common ground we can all agree on, based on logic. Premises that someone, in order to be taken seriously, would have to agree with. This would probably take some debate, discussion, and possible reframing of some illogical beliefs which are held as axioms today (ruminants of our embarrassingly primitive recent history).

Even now.. it seems that we can all agree that torturing someone to death for fun is immoral [for now, setting decide the difference between morality and ethics](inb4 someone says 'I do not agree with that, therefore it is not an axiom!').

Given as that is so... I don't see how one could claim that moral axioms are impossible. It's as if you see axioms as these facts which are by definition unassailable. That's simply not what the word means.

>> No.3449817

>>3449793
>torturing someone to death for fun is immoral

I'm sorry, I can't agree to that as an axiom. It's not that I like torture, it's just that I have seen a few cases whereby people have voluntarily opted to be tortured, and even one case where a woman let herself be eaten by a Japanese guy. If two people of sound health choose to engage in something voluntarily, I don't think they should be prevented.

>> No.3449819

>>3449817
Well if the person enjoys being tortured then it's not really torture

Nice try

>> No.3449826

>>3449817
also
>inb4 someone says 'I do not agree with that, therefore it is not an axiom!'
saw you coming a mile away, faggot

>> No.3449828

ITT people equate intersubjectivity with objectivity.

>> No.3449829

>>3449817
>torturing someone to death for fun is immoral

If five people are torturing one person, then the collective pleasure outweighs the pain.

>> No.3449832

>>3449829
>inb4 someone says 'I do not agree with that, therefore it is not an axiom!'
saw you coming a mile away, faggot

>> No.3449836

>>3449826
It just seems really weird to have one condition for intention (whether it was for fun or not), but then to include another condition that doesn't have defined intention (that the person being tortured dies).

>> No.3449840

>>3449832
So that 'inb4' makes you immune to people disagreeing with you?

>> No.3449841

>>3449730
This post is pretty relevant at this point. Even 1=1 is not an axiom, according to you faggots.

ITT we redefine the word 'axiom' and insist that we're the ones getting trolled

>> No.3449844

>>3449840
You argument is that if someone disagrees with an axiom then it is no longer an axiom. Take your pants off your head! Please! It's simply not what the word means.

>> No.3449849

>>3449836
I'm sorry, I don't think it makes any difference, but I don't understand what you mean.

>> No.3449865

>>3449844
>You argument is that if someone disagrees with an axiom then it is no longer an axiom.

No I'm saying that setting up something and claiming it's an axiom, then using 'I said inb4' as a refutation of criticism is absurd.


cat= ice cream is an axiom
inb4 sum disagrees lol.

>> No.3449866

>>3449841
I didn't say 1=1 isn't an axiom. Do you know what an axiom is? I fully agree that 1=1 IS an axiom, I just presented a scenario in which our 'objective knowledge' could be faulty.

>> No.3449868

>>3449865
Strawman

>> No.3449872

>>3449868
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawan

>> No.3449873

>>3449865
I didn't claim it was an axiom, for what it's worth. I said 'it seems we can all agree'. But nevermind, that. Let's say I did. Then isn't this what happened:


Me:
>'not torturing people to death is an axiom'
You:
>ha! I disagree, therefore it isn't!

Yes?

inb4 you divert the argument into whether or not it's acceptable to use inb4 to point out the absurdity of the opposition's argument

>> No.3449879

>>3449866
it doesn't matter if you personally say it is or isn't an axiom. it IS an axiom regardless of what you think!

>> No.3449883

>>3449872
According to your logic, cats=ice cream cannot possible be an axiom, not because it's untrue, but because you personally disagree with it.

>> No.3449887

>>3449879
I'm glad you finally agree.

>> No.3449891

>>3449887
So this whole time you've been arguing that the ability to disagree with an axiom does not matter as to whether or not it's an axiom?

So then morality could, potentially, be based on axioms.

>> No.3449902

>>3449891
Yes, of course. As long as you accept that it could be 'objective incorrect'.

>> No.3449903

>>3449902
*objectively

>> No.3449911

>>3449891
Sorry, I hate this thread and don't want to look back, I don't think you've defined axiom yet, if you're the one I think you are. Please do that?

>> No.3449916

>>3449902
So you disagree with >>3449079 ?

I find it strange that that posted generated no controversy... but the post that there could potentially be morality based on axioms ( >>3449634 ) did.

It just seems to me that the whole idea of axioms is to build a discourse on things which a collective body (for instance, humans on planet earth) reasonably agrees upon. NOT things which are impossible to disagree with (you can disagree with anything, as >>3449730 pointed out).

So the whole concept of an axiom seems to acknowledge intersubjectivity... Which I guess... is why I find it so strange that people seem to insist that axioms are not instersubjective.... ? yes?

>> No.3449929

>>3449911
it's defined here >>3449422 and here >>3449424 .

>> No.3449946

What are you fuckers talking about? You can't have moral axioms. An axiom is about logical proofs, morality is a human construct and entirely subjective.

You can set up ethical systems, not axioms. Jesus Christ, it's like playschool in here.

>> No.3449955

>>3449929
Okay, so were going with 'axiom' in the sense meaning that a thing is taken to be true in a given philosophical structure?

That's unavoidable, every philosophy is founded on axioms, it's mundane and determined by subjects. It's irrelevant to conversation of 'objective' morality. The controversy was in a lot of people taking 'axiom' in the 'self-evident and universal' sense, like >>3449946

>> No.3449961
File: 38 KB, 740x238, xkcd.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3449961

Just read this comic while shitting. It seems tangentially appropriate. ina3 >xkcd

>> No.3449963

>>3449946
>You can't have moral axioms
wut

Utilitarianism:

"The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the measure of right and wrong. This is a fundamental axiom"
-Jeremy Bentham

>> No.3449969

>>3449946
I don't mean to derail things, but:
>As modern mathematics admits multiple, equally "true" systems of logic, precisely the same thing must be said for logical axioms - they both define and are specific to the particular system of logic that is being invoked

>> No.3449975

>>3449617
You didn't read my post. I have axioms, I have probably more axioms than I realize I have. But the point of discussing philosophy is to challenge preconceptions, not to take everything as self-evident.

>> No.3449980

>>3449955
Yeah I guess so. But as >>3449969 pointed out, 'self evident and universal' seems like a pleb tier way of looking at things.

>> No.3449981

>>3449975
>I imagine a world where I can come to a conclusion without a premise.

>> No.3449989

>>3449961
I don't normally like KXCD but that made me chuckle.

>> No.3450022

>>3449963
Okay, so if that's an axiom... How are axioms graded then? Do we have different categories of axioms?

>"The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the measure of right and wrong"
Is obviously not a logical proof like >>3449946 said. so how can it be an axiom?

>> No.3450020

>>3449981
>I'm a fucking idiot

I imagine a world where I can come to a conclusion with as few premises as possible.

>> No.3450028

I'm not going to read this thread but the problem I've found on this board is that people argue as though everything needs to be objective. There's no fucking objective anything. Period. There's no objective truth. It's why we have philosophy to begin with.

>> No.3450051

>>3450028
>No objective truth
That's a gross oversimplification, and an inaccurate one. If everything is clearly defined, then there is an objective truth for every question. For example, you either exist or don't. Objectively, one of those must be false, because it is impossible for both to be true simultaneously (leaving superimposition and physics to /sci/). We will simply never know whether the subjective truths we recognize are the same as the objective ones.

>> No.3450058

>>3450051
>because it is impossible for both to be true simultaneously
>implying law of excluded middle is objectively true

>> No.3450059

>>3450028
>There's no fucking objective anything

Welcome to post-modernism.

>> No.3450063

>>3450020
>using premises
don't you know that the whole point of philosophy is to endlessly debate shit and never come to any meaningful conclusion? you have to question everything! God, listen to this man >>3449975 He realizes that the point of philosophy is to challenge preconceptions. We should go in endless circles, not rely on a premise to come to a conclusion! That's the only way people will ever take philosophy seriously.

>> No.3450067

Hey everybody, let's all ignore this post: >>3449969 !!! Oh wait, that's what we're already doing.

>> No.3450076

>>3450028
That's why we rely on axioms, also, in any particular system of logic. Otherwise we're just chasing our tails.

>> No.3450078

>>3450051
>We will simply never know whether the subjective truths we recognize are the same as the objective ones.

That's the same as fucking objective truth. All this semantic garbage on this board.

>> No.3450087

and what I mean is that objective truth is spoken in a philosophical sense. It is the truth of the object. We can't know the truth of an object. It's fucking not within our abilities right now and may never be.

>> No.3450090

>>3450078
>objectivity is also subjective!
technically you're right I guess. That doesn't mean you have to stop believing in everything. Don't be such an extremist.

>> No.3450097

>>3450090
That's why I think it's a stupid thing to argue about. We need to work within the contexts of our beliefs. Everyone makes a leap of faith in their beliefs, being an atheist, a hindi, a christian, whatever. You are making a leap of faith just to be. So work within that context.

My opinion is it's mostly a waste of time to argue about truth.

Also, a big problem is half the board doesn't actually understand the way words are used in philosophical context.

>> No.3450098

>>3448928

This basically known as mis-framing the issue. Each interlocutor would frame the issue differently, thus creating an impasse. This impasse comes to be when there is no stasis for any interlocutor argue together on.

It's basically arguing without establishing a common ground. This is 4chan in a nutshell. Most of the time it's people purposely mis-framing an issue to instigate a contradiction, or an unwarranted claim--it's commonly known as 'trolling' Other times it's people either too lazy and bitter to ask questions to establish a common framework of reference, or are too lazy and bitter to establish it outright.

I don't see how you moved from the inability to talk about an issue from different perspectives, to suddenly establishing that the issue doesn't exist. If that were true, then how is it possible for the argument to arise in the first place? After all the issue doesn't exist. Or are you framing the issue differently over the expression of 'does not exist'

>> No.3450120

>>3450097
Yes, but is this discussion also present within mainstream philosophy?

I mean... do fags go on about whether or not things all exist only in your head or not? Or is >>3450087 accepted as a mainstream belief. And I mean... not in the way of denying all reality and running around with your pants on your head screaming 'nothing is real!'....

>> No.3450153

So I guess the thread is over. And in the end, since >>3449969 and >>3449079 generate no controversy, >>3449286 shouldn't either.

I can only conclude that you fags have the dumb.

>> No.3450161

>>3450120
It's been an accepted discourse for 3000 years or more. Truth is one of the basic questions.

Mostly, philosophy like that is dead. It's now bearing on context and it tends toward the discussion of context within context. Ie. look at Zizek and his circular paradoxicalizing things. Subjectivity is necessary to function. That or you head into mysticism...

>>3450153
I don't see why those posts should be controversial. Mathematics is a system within context and so is existence.

>> No.3450165

Interesting question for all the naysayers: would you consider the concept of "objective truth" to be valid if that truth was the sum of all subjective truths? That is, if you took every possible method of perceiving an object into account, have you determined the "truth" of the object? As a simple example, it would be like overlaying ultraviolet light on the normal visual spectrum. Only much, much more complicated than that.

>> No.3450169

>>3450161
I don't see why they should be either. But the 3rd one caused this thread to reach the insane number of replies this thread has got, and was widely regarded as trolling.

>> No.3450176

>>3450165
No, I wouldn't. Objective truth exists as an idea. There's nothing wrong with that, though. Our language is primitive and limited, though, so it's not the same as saying the Jedi Council exists only as an idea. It's our fucked up monkey language that gets in the way of philosophy.

>> No.3450174

>>3450169
/lit/ is full of creative writing students who respond to trolls for fun and exercise

>> No.3450175

>>3450165
You can never know if you know everything. There could always be something you overlooked or couldn't perceive.

>> No.3450180

>>3450165
You can't know.. that's the whole thing. And even if you did know, you still wouldn't know. It's endless. That's why it's a problem.

>> No.3450182

>>3450174
It wasn't trolling. There was absolutely no problem with that post; just a bunch of fags who don't know what an axiom is took umbrage with it.

>> No.3450189

>>3450182
you know this for truth?

>> No.3450193

>>3450175
>>3450180
I don't disagree. But is that enough to prevent objective truth from existing? I don't doubt that nobody will ever see it, but it's difficult to accept the argument that because we *cannot* know something, it does not exist.

>>3450176
I wish you'd stated that better, but I think I get it. It exists conceptually, but is unknowable?

>> No.3450200

>>3450189
>truth
I would say it's an accurate statement.

>> No.3450201

>>3450193
>I wish you'd stated that better, but I think I get it. It exists conceptually, but is unknowable?
basically ya

>> No.3450202

>>3450182
You don't know what an axiom is. We have logical proofs in areas where we try to model physical reality. Basic fundamental truths. Morality is a construct that applies to human(or animal, if you want) behaviour. The idea of morality was invented buy us, it's not a descriptive model or map of reality.

>> No.3450228

>>3450202
and yet you don't disagree with >>3449079 nor >>3449079 . Makes no sense to me.

So physical reality is a concept in the mind, and axioms define and specific to particular systems of logic, but axioms can exist only for something which is not a concept in the mind. Makes perfect sense.

>> No.3450245

>>3450228
Why would I disagree with that? If you didn't exist, you couldn't have consciousness. You need to exist to have consciousness.

>> No.3450256

>>3450245
What? Who said 'if you don't exist then you don't have consciousness' The post says:

>existence is a concept and its home, so to speak, is in the mind. Without consciousness, technically speaking, there would be no 'existence'.

what the fuck?

>> No.3450260

>>3450256
>Without consciousness, technically speaking, there would be no 'existence'.
Of course. unless you want to go into the state 'unconsciousness'. You need to exist to have consciousness. Without consciousness, technically speaking, you wouldn't exist.

>> No.3450265

>Without consciousness, technically speaking, there would be no 'existence'.
!=
>Without consciousness, technically speaking, you wouldn't exist.

what the fucking fuck

>> No.3450266

>>3450265
What's wrong?

If you had no consciousness, for you there would be no existence. Without consciousness, technically speaking, there would be no 'existence' for you.

>> No.3450272

>>3450266
what's wrong? Your reading comprehension is what's wrong. Those two statements are not equivalent.

>> No.3450274

>>3450266
esl pls go

>> No.3450285
File: 4 KB, 131x131, aa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3450285

>>3450266

wat da fucking fuck. define consciousness.

>> No.3450286

Anyways, in the end...

I understand that people here think axioms can only exist for mathematics. But I see no reason as to why that has to be, no benefit for why it should be, and nothing intrinsic to the concept of an axiom that means it would have to be. Mathematicians already admit that axioms define and are specific to particular systems of logic.
To preclude the possibility of philosophical axioms is to marginalize philosophy and make it irrelevant. And that's where philosophy exists today. In common practice, in our culture, philosophical might as well be synonymous with 'trivial'.

>> No.3450291

>>3450274
my first lol this whole thread

>> No.3450294

or if you would all just read berkeley you'd know that the object does indeed exist except not in the material reality and is therefore a mind dependent entity.

esse est percipi

>> No.3450295

>>3450272
No, what's wrong is your ability to phrase statements. The only reason I responded was because I saw your original post with 5 references saying "I can't believe this isn't controversial". As it stands, your statement is correct when referring to the individual, it would become nonsense if you're implying that reality would cease to exist. Someone already responded saying reality would still exists, so I thought I'd play along with the other approach. My 'reading comprehension' is just fine, princess.

>> No.3450311

>>3450295
>I will try to argue that it's noncontroversial because nobody here knows how to read!

>> No.3450326

>>3449304
'mountain' is a concept, and its home is in the mind. technically speaking, etc.
>>3450295
>princess
confirmed for sexist
>so I thought I'd play along with the other approach.
so you thought you would troll. gotcha.

>> No.3450337

>>3449304
see >>3449104 and >>3450294

>> No.3450346

>>3450337

it doesn't mean Berkeley is right

>> No.3450363

>>3450326
>'mountain' is a concept, and its home is in the mind. technically speaking, etc.
Almost, princess. The word mountain and the way you interpret it is in the mind, but the physical composition remains. In your mind your making all sorts of semantic decisions. For example, differentiating between a hill and a mountain. But these linguistic structures are irrelevant to the material. This is just a semantic grid coupled with neurological bias that you are overlaying, you are making a mental 'map' of reality and confusing it with the 'territory'. You need consciousness for it to exist as a mountain, but the physical thing before you will exist without your consciousness perceiving it.

>> No.3450365

>>3450346
>that fag is wrong
nice argument

>> No.3450373

>>3450363
I'm not going to even bother reading your post. First of all you've done nothing but troll so far:
>hurr durr my reading comprehension is bad. just kidding, I was only pretending to be retarded!
Second, you use feminine pronouns/titles in a negative way. I have no regard for your opinion.

>> No.3450400

>>3450373
>hurr durr my reading comprehension is bad. just kidding, I was only pretending to be retarded!

You wrote a terrible post that could have been interpreted two ways. I wasn't trolling you I was explaining the second way you were wrong. Don't be butthurt, princess.

>> No.3450404

>>3450400
you were pretending to be retarded.

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll find someone, someday, who gives 2 shits about what you have to say.

>> No.3450406

>>3450365

>nice argument
anon could restate too what berkeley said for nicer argument

>> No.3450418

>>3450404
>you were pretending to be retarded.
Grow up, kid. You're just annoyed that I could see through you pathetic attempt to get someone to reply your awful question. Also, don't pretend to be annoyed at being called princess when you throw retard and fag around as insults.

>> No.3450489

Hi there. It's me, the only guy on /lit/ who has read Derrida's works and understands them. Paul de Man and other FAILURES to understand deconstructionism make the same mistake that you have pointed out OP. Deconstructionism is not meant to point out nihilism. It is meant to point out free play. Now, contemplating exactly what Derrida means by "free play" is probably the key to understanding Derrida.

>> No.3451833

>>3450489
>what Derrida means by "free play"
Would this be "neti, neti"? Not this, niether that.

>> No.3451935

>>3451833
exposing hegelian dialectical underpinning without a hegelian attempt at synthesis, a celebration of pure difference and inevitable aporia inherent in logos

>> No.3451961

>>3448995
This. This a trillion times over. This post will be the salvation of /lit/; spam it a trillion times over.