sceptical relativism

[Badness !M0IeewiXU2 No.3654976]

Hey /lit/,

I took a little time off from my existential crisis, but I'm back on it now -- wallowing in angst and the empty hollows of meaning -- and it's going great; thoroughly enjoying every second of it.

I have reached the scepticism/relativism quandary, and so far I haven't read any philosopher who manages to bridge the implied unity between them. Any ideas on who to read? I have tried the main thinkers (from both sides of the argument).

The problem is: Once we accept that we can't know truth from falsity, what justification do we have for adopting a particular stance as being 'truth' when we can't verify it as truth? The only partial answer I have found is that 'a model being accepted as truth provides utility', and I somewhat agree -- it is beneficial to adopt things as truth. But the obvious opposition is that:
a) if it's wrong, the foundational premise could undermine utility, and:
b) how can you ever shift from the relative centre point towards one concept of 'truth' without the initial leap of faith towards one model?

tl;dr - blind faith in empiricism, or complete sceptical relativism; how can we have a middle ground?

[Anonymous No.3654979]

>>3654976

This is the third time I see this copy pasta here.

Will you ever give up, numbnuts?

[Anonymous No.3654993]

>>3654979
>This is the third time I see this copy pasta here.
No. No, this is the first time it's ever been posted.

You seem a little confused though. In 4chan terminology 'copy pasta' generally denotes something that's been posted before (quite often with monotonous frequency). As this is the first time my post has been posted, it doesn't fall under that term.

>Will you ever give up, numbnuts?
Give up having an existential crisis?

[Thúrin No.3654999]

>>3654979
Fuck of nigger, this is finally something interesting!

[Anonymous No.3655001]

>>3654993

Hiding thread now.

I also encourage others to do the same.

[Anonymous No.3655002]

>>3654999

Suck my black dick, white bitch.

[Anonymous No.3655003]

>>3655002

Ha! Pwned!!!

[Anonymous No.3655006]

>>3655002

LOL

[Thúrin No.3655007]

>>3655002
remember your place

[Anonymous No.3655008]

>>3655002

This.

[Anonymous No.3655009]

Why do we have to have truth of falsity? Cant we use the scientific method while knowing that it could be flawed?

>a) if it's wrong, the foundational premise could undermine utility
I get that, but it's all we have. What's the alternative? to do nothing?

>)how can you ever shift from the relative centre point towards one concept of 'truth' without the initial leap of faith towards one model?
By treating empiricism as one huge collection of models and approaching that with scepticism.

[Anonymous No.3655012]

>>3655002

HAHAHAHA

That kid should hold his head down in shame if he happens to have the balls, of course.

[Anonymous No.3655017]

>>3655002

>>maximum pwning!

[Anonymous No.3655020]

Has anybody heard of that trap who is so famous in /b/

[sage No.3655021]

Interesting

[sage No.3655024]

Spot on

[Anonymous No.3655027]

>>3655009
>Why do we have to have truth of falsity? Cant we use the scientific method while knowing that it could be flawed?

That's my concern. If we are exercising caution -- any caution at all -- the logical place to end up is relativism. How can you be 'mildly sceptical', when even the slightest seed of scepticism will naturally blossom into a view that weighs both sides equally. To avoid this, we either have to adopt a blind faith in empiricism, and/or ignoring any sceptical doubts, or have full scepticism (relativism).

[Anonymous No.3655050]

>>3655027

Deduction preserves truth

Induction does not but can be cogent

All suppositions are contingent (there is no analyticity)

Therefore, all truth is contigent

*between reference frames but not within them

>Familiarize yourself with the philosophy of science. It will help you with this.

[Anonymous No.3655053]

>>3655027
But it's not like that. Relativism is supposing that there is no distinction between truth and falsity, and the probability of either becomes 50%. Scepticism is supposing that there could be a truth, but our ability to know it is variable.

[Anonymous No.3655059]

>blind faith in empiricism, or complete sceptical relativism

A wild T-Mac appears to tell you kiddies about relativism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OX77Qv66qw

[Anonymous No.3655070]

>>3654976
Would anyone be so kind as to tell me the name of this gorgeous girl in the pic?

[Anonymous No.3655076]

Depends on the type of 'truth' you are looking for.

There are those personal insightful truths that cannot be explained by mere words. Which only arise at certain moments where action is needed.

There are scientific truths based on empirical data tested by the scientific method.

What model accepts both of these as their own truths? Why can't you trust empiricism for matters regarding physical forms and the other for more personal and philosophical problems?

[Anonymous No.3655084]

>>3655070
She's called Amelie. She's a model for femjoy.

http://peachyforum.com/t/amelie-femjoy-181232.aspx

[Anonymous No.3655139]

>>3655059
How could he say that with a straight face after his stoned ape theory and timewave zero?

[Anonymous No.3655174]

>>3655084
Thank you so much kind sir. I will now retire from this thread and have a special thought for you as I revel with my newly found dick-waving material.