[ 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: 539 KB, 1200x1252, 1386081820562.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4362045 No.4362045[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Why do you believe in objective reality, /lit/?

>> No.4362048

why do i bother believing or disbelieving? what's in it for me either way? why not just be an empiricist?

>> No.4362053

Because laws of the universe are independent of whoever tests them.

>> No.4362056

>not being an absurdist

>> No.4362060

>>4362045
>being a solipsist

>> No.4362064

>>4362045
Because I am made out of objects. And by me I mean my consciousness.

>> No.4362066

>>4362064
dis nigga gets it

>> No.4362067

>>4362045
Because it brings me pleasure. I only do it as far as it brings me pleasure.

>> No.4362094

Because I've grown up. Subjectivity is for manchildren.

>> No.4362098

>>4362094
thats just like youre opinion bro

>> No.4362479

because i hope this is just empirical subjectivity.

>> No.4362522

I don't really give a fuck about this bullshit pseudo-debate which doesn't matter at all. You should go out drinking and discuss poetry instead of this.

>> No.4362534

>>4362056
this, and you will be happy

>> No.4362540

I don't know what objective reality is meant to be.

>> No.4362543

We're all just living inside of a computer simulation anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

>> No.4362544

>>4362543
http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328

It's more likely to be a hologram of a 2d world actually.

>> No.4362551

>>4362522
>edgy

>> No.4362553

>>4362045
Because things that aren't social constructs don't appear to be altered by the minds that perceive them. Real simple OP.

>> No.4362554

>>4362522
NOTHING REALLY MATTERS
ANYONE CAN SEE

>> No.4362555

>>4362522

>pseudo-debate
>one of the most important philosophical issues

I mean, /lit/ may not be made up of the world's leading intellectuals, but debating this can only be a good thing.

>> No.4362568

>>4362045

top speed is objective

>> No.4362580
File: 7 KB, 261x193, freddie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4362580

>>4362554

>> No.4362617

>>4362555
This stuff is just words, words describing themselves. Every night the sun sets and people are still discussing words, thinking they discuss reality; someday it's gonna set and these words will be gone, bringing this useless debate with them. It's just language games; it's just bad poetry - everyone move on while it's time.

>> No.4362628

>>4362554
IS THIS THE BULLSHIT
IS THIS JUST PSEUDO DEBATE

>> No.4362629
File: 10 KB, 400x224, g.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4362629

>>4362048
>On the Profit of Believing
http://youtu.be/8dfDDOR717k

>Is Oneness the Way out of Skepticism?
http://youtu.be/fs1MeDUgEOA

>The End of Cause and Effect: What's More Than Logic?
http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/thread/4286631

>> No.4362634

>>4362617
If you have a good argument, those words can change everyone's view of reality. Don't you like knowledge bro?

>> No.4362638

>>4362617
You're just trying to create a debate about debating aren't you

Filthy post-modernists

>> No.4362640

>>4362634
View of reality? lel.

View of words describing reality. The only differences would be the use of different words to talk about words supposedly describing reality.

>> No.4362656

>>4362640
>View of words describing reality
Nope, view of reality. What you're saying makes no sense.

>> No.4362661

>>4362656
What you call reality is an idea of reality, based on the connotation of a certain ammount of words which you use to describe sensory phenomena.

These words are defined between themselves, not by reality. A dog isn't called a "dog" if there's no one to speak English around it.

The world isn't "objective" if there's no englishman to call it that way.

Subtle sophisms and a good access to organs of mass communication define reality, nothing else.

>> No.4362667

>>4362661
But words have meanings attached to them. Your argument is pointless. A dog might not be called a "dog" but you still think of a dog when I say the word "dog". Just because we use words to describe our view of reality doesn't mean we don't have a view of reality.

>> No.4362668

>>4362661
>A dog isn't called a "dog" if there's no one to speak English around it.
beautiful

>> No.4362669

>>4362045

No.

>> No.4362671

>>4362640
>philosophy will has not changed minds, only words
Read a history of philosophy.

>> No.4362674

>>4362661
What you're calling reality doesn't exist.

>> No.4362676

>>4362667
No. The meanings aren't attached to the words. They're imposed to the words through self-reference. A dog's a dog because its not a cat.

Language is human.

The "world" (can anyone point me to it, has anyone seen it?), the "reality", isn't human.

We don't speak "the world tongues", we don't speak the world, we speak human - we don't speak mountains and trees and flesh and life, we speak English right now, and there's nothing defined by language outside itself. The word "dog" defines a dog and what's attached to it. It doesn't define the mass of flesh and fur that walks around. It defines the word "dog". Chien. Hund.

Human language describes

itself.

Not reality.

>> No.4362682

>>4362661
remember that time when there was no language but stuff will still happening? wow.

>> No.4362686

>>4362674
Reality is language.

You may add christian stuff to it, if you feel it too nihilistic. Maybe the Being stands beneath language?

>>4362671
Maybe you should try to understand my point beyond the superficial level of your misreading of what - Russel's history of philosophy?

>> No.4362690

>>4362682
see >>4362617

>> No.4362693

>>4362676
Can we experience reality?

>> No.4362694

All pre and post-socratic philosophy is just theological poetry. You need to stop believing.

It's just language playing with people too naive to realize it's not them playing with it.

>> No.4362695

>>4362676
Wow deep bro

You're still wrong though. Words aren't defined solely by their references to each other, if that was true than language would never have been developed.

>> No.4362698

>>4362676
Mathematics describes itself, but it is still useful for determining how reality functions.

>> No.4362702

>>4362693
Of course. Reality's what you're filtering right now. The filter's language.

>that's you hahaha filtered fuck u stupid trip

>> No.4362703

>>4362676
If words have no meaning then why don't you shut up

>> No.4362705

>>4362695
Interesting point. Self-referential systems cannot be created, is that what's your saying?

Well I'm going to point you to this post right there: >>4362698

>> No.4362713

>>4362705
>>4362698
Oh, oh, oh.

If mathematics as a self-referential language may exist, it is because it is based on axioms.

What's the axiom of language?

To Be.

That's the real genealogy of morals and God.

The word "being". It's just a caveman pointing himself, who invented God.

>> No.4362714

>>4362705
>Self-referential systems cannot be created, is that what's your saying?
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. But the main function of language is communication, and you communicate information, and there has to be a relation between word and information for that to work.

An "apple" might be defined to you as "a fruit" but when people invented the word it was supposed to represent a specific object that exists regardless of the word, and without that object the word is indeed meaningless. But the object exists and the word represents it.

>> No.4362718

>>4362714
What object in reality does the word "but" represent?

>> No.4362726

>>4362713
Being isn't reality itself?

>> No.4362729

>>4362718
None, you use it to connect words to communicate information more clearly.

The fact that some words do exist only in reference to other words doesn't mean that that applies to all words.

>> No.4362730

>>4362718
Something that has two butt-cheeks and the same something that is capable of occasional fart.

>> No.4362740

>>4362702
I can understand where you're coming from.

OK, would you agree that the better our language (and thus ability to express ourselves), the finer that filter is, and the more exact our experience of reality can be?

>> No.4362743

>>4362729
All words exist in reference to other words. If it were any other way, they'd just be noises without meaning.

>> No.4362749

Because even if reality was subjective, mental, ideal, phenomenological, etc...
it would still be ethically necessary to treat reality as something real for itself

>> No.4362752

>>4362743
>All words exist in reference to other words
Sure, but most of them exist in reference to reality as well. I never denied that.

>> No.4362753

>>4362555
>one of the most important philosophical issues
"ok, we have agreed that reality is not real, now what?"
every
single
century

>> No.4362754

>>4362676
this is so laughably terrible

>> No.4362755

>>4362740
The finer the filter is, the more precise your understanding of reality is, the more subjective it is, and thus, the closer it is to reality. However - and we're going full [delusional Plato] here, - reality is not something that one may grasp.

>>4362726
being, with a lowercase "B", is your reality, but reality as OP conceives it, is not "being".

>>4362713
God, this is brilliant.

An index finger, pointing to one's chest, and we invented language. Humans truly are the greatest thing.

>But the main function of language is communication, and you communicate information, and there has to be a relation between word and information for that to work.

The information conveyed by a word is a web of words defining the word used.

>> No.4362758

>>4362676
>words don't describe every detail of an entity
>therefore philosophy is just unproductive word games
Words describe reality you schmuck. Better combinations of these words describe reality more truthfully.

>> No.4362759

>>4362752
>but most of them exist in reference to reality as well
what if I define reality as language?

>> No.4362760

>>4362749
Obviously SOMETHING exists, if only because we depend on existence to define it anyway, but that's not the point of the discussion.

>> No.4362761

>>4362754
It's not. Why do you think so?

>> No.4362765

>>4362759
>what if I define reality as language?
Then you're an idiot?

>> No.4362766

>>4362752
They're pointing at reality, you mean?

>> No.4362769

>>4362760
Something exists, but you can't speak for it. You can only speak for yourself. This is four hundred years old.

>>4362758
>>words don't describe every detail of an entity
Oh, they do, and so very fucking well, you have no idea.

But this entity, it's a word.

>> No.4362771

>>4362758
not him, but what about poetical language?, when a poet talks about the sea he is clearly not talking about what is simply given by the material reality of the sea
what is real?, material reality or poetical reality?, noumenon or phenomenon?

>> No.4362775

>>4362755
Your use of metaphors is shitty and unsubtle, don't quit your day job.

>> No.4362776

>>4362771
Language is poetry. Philosophy is just bad poetry.

>>4362775
I didn't use any metaphor, though. Well, yes, of course, haha!

>> No.4362779

>>4362766
Sure, I guess

>nb4 argument that depends on that exact definition

>> No.4362780

>>4362765
why?, it is a valid idea, if you cant express it, it aint real

>> No.4362781

>>4362758
Surely mathematics does the same thing more efficiently.

>> No.4362783

>>4362045

That quote doesn't make him sound very smart.... why would anyone put that on a picture??

>> No.4362786

>>4362780
>valid idea

>an idea
>having the property of being valid

muhsides.targa

>> No.4362788

>>4362780
>if you cant express it, it aint real
So what was reality like before language?

>> No.4362789

>>4362776
>Language is poetry.
not all language is poetry, there is no poetry in saying "the evaporation energy of water is 34 kilojules per mole", you can try to think that is poetical but it is quite obvious that it is a phrase meant to be understood in a sense that is no poetical, hence, no language is poetical

>> No.4362791

>>4362771
>what is real?, material reality or poetical reality?
Why not both.jpg

>> No.4362792

>>4362788
The same way as it is now.

>> No.4362794

>>4362761
because it just proposes there is the reality of, whatever you are assuming, forms, the thing in itself, and then there is language. It ignores the possibility of percieved reality outside of language, but also outside of the absolute.

>> No.4362796

>>4362788
there was no reality before language, think about a non linguistic reality without using language, you are assuming there is some kind of divine consciousness that experiences reality form every possible angle so that even when you die reality is still there

>> No.4362799

> why?, it is a valid idea, if you cant express it, it aint real
>>4362788
>So what was reality like before language?

A non verbal reality

>> No.4362802

>>4362794
No, not at all !

This is where it gets awesome.

The absolute is reality, and we're all part of reality, and reality is perceived through language.

Your language, your idiosyncratic use of phonemes and the particular connotation (for you - no one knows the same sea) of the words you use is your reality.

Of course, there's a reality beyond it. But who cares about it when you can have fun, trembling, shivering at the thought of the wonder that language is?

I'm gonna drop some kind of bomb, but I prefer language's reality to the "real reality", which I cannot grasp anyway. Language is beautiful; poetry is beautiful; why would I care about the cold, inhuman reality out there that I can't even see?

>> No.4362803

Subjectivity is stupid. Having every person with different opinions gets nothing done. The move towards individualism and post modernism has made social culture fall off of a cliff

>Fyi social culture isn't progressed by gay or civil rights thinking.
>Laws do not change though

>> No.4362805

>>4362796
If a bear shits in the woods.

>> No.4362806

>>4362796
which means, reality stops its existance after the death of the observer? So this includes past as well? Has anything happened then? Is this happening, in the long run, to say it nonchalantly, since I wont be able to match your vocabulary in this language anyways.

>> No.4362807

this guy should point an index finger to his chest and say shitlord

>> No.4362810

>>4362791
but I dont like dualism
>>4362788
it is an answer that cant be answered by its own premises
>how was something in an scenario where nothing can possibly be said about it?
>>4362786
what?, valid idea, an idea that is not meaninglessness
"what if reality is how many cactus are there in my pants?" is not a valid idea, "what if reality is language?" is a valid idea, not even true, just valid

>> No.4362811

>>4362805
You use three words which are yet to be defined without words.

Bear, shit, and woods.

>> No.4362817

>>4362796
>there was no reality before language
I'm sure you're using some very narrow sense of reality, but jeez does that sound dumb.

>> No.4362819

>>4362807
Why don't you want to contribute, instead of just dropping this kind of stuff in every thread I'm in? I mean, this discussion is awesome, and no one agrees. Isn't this the most wonderful thing one could wish for?

It's fucking christmas: we're discussing and no one agrees!

>> No.4362820

>>4362803
Whatever you say, Chairman Mao.

>> No.4362828

>>4362810
>for poetry to be meaningful and material reality to exist, you have to be a dualist
No

>> No.4362829

>>4362802
how's this awesome? This is just a surrender to the pointlessness of life with nothing in return, other than the promise of a beauty that doesnt exist outside of my mind.

>> No.4362832

>>4362810
you really have no fucking clue what validity, truth or "idea" even means. are you in highschool?
and what the fuck am i complaining about, what did i expect in a philosophy thread on 4chan?
i visited this site about a year ago and there was one guy who knew a little something about philosophy, linguistphilosopherscientist or something. is he still around?

>> No.4362833

>>4362829
But you're so fucking free. Isn't this enough?

>> No.4362835

>>4362811
That's because there are no woods.

>> No.4362838

>>4362829
Why do you expect to be rewarded simply for being?

>> No.4362841

>>4362838
THE WORLD OWES ME A LIVING.

>hyuk, hyuk

>> No.4362847

>>4362819
youre acting like this is some sort of enlightening, enriching discussion, but instead its just one guy saying "This is fucking pointless, but thats awesome" and other people going "no, its not pointless, it would suck if it was", the other again: "No, guys, it totally is awesome", the next: "WTF bullshit".


This is not the most wonderful thing we could wish for. It's just slightly on topic.

>> No.4362859

>>4362838
I'm just saying its not something incredibly praisworthy like that tripfag is making it out to be. Its just.. being.

>>4362833
Apperently I'm in my own perception's prison. Not that free, really. I mean, thats nothing new, but how is that fucking free?

>> No.4362866

because i said all this shit in the same threads two fucking years ago and much better at that.

but you are doing alright, remind me a bit of caracalla except you don't seem to be quite the type to reel off names whereas it's the first thing he'd demand off you when he was losing an argument (which was all the time) . please, keep whipping out all these well-worn ideas about language games and differances and transcendental signifieds and deaths of authors, etc etc. stan isn't around to get shat on so you will have to pick up the slack, sorry

>> No.4362869

>>4362859
It's not a prison. It's human condition, and it's wonderful.

If you weren't there, brooding in the dark this empire of chimeras, there would no poetry, no metaphor, no language, nothing. Well it would be "being God". But God's bored. He can't into poetry. He probably didn't even read Baudelaire.

>> No.4362874

>>4362859
What's the point of a negative attitude if there is no possible reward in it?

>> No.4362875

>>4362866
I'm not a structuralist, but I share some common ideas with them, about language. The thing is, I don't believe in their rhetorics, and I think that spending time writing, as a structuralist, is an act of apostasy.

>because i said all this shit in the same threads two fucking years ago and much better at that.
Really? What did you move on to?

>> No.4362882
File: 19 KB, 320x240, stan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4362882

>>4362866
nice alter ego stan

>> No.4362888

>>4362866
You're not the real Deep&Edgy. Get out, impostor.

>> No.4362893

>>4362888
of course, it's stan. dat writing style.

>> No.4362901

>>4362874
whats the point of a reward if there is no reward to the reward?

>> No.4362903

those are all poststructuralist concepts mate ffs

although i guess the death of the author one is a little suspect

>> No.4362905

The reason for the confusion is that we can be mistaken about the the world. Then you extrapolate into skepticism. So it is epistemological. But if you can fit into the realist story how we can be mistaken and yet have the outside world casualy creating our perception and our intentional object being the outside world, then I would believe the realist story. And I think this is possible. Because to say that we don't know everything about the outsideworld is banal, we used to know less but created telescopes, various other instruments and the scientific method. So we get closer all the time. This is how it should be, without the solipsistic hybris.

>> No.4362909

>>4362869
yeah, there would be something though, there would be more, real beauty, if your "wonderful" world wasnt right. You act like that's the best possible world. Instead, we are only in the best possible position in a shit one.

>> No.4362910

>>4362901
Sugar.

>> No.4362912

>>4362903
>poststructuralist
Indeed, indeed.

Hum - weren't you beuvian? Didn't you once argue about me not having enough "life experiences" to truly appreciate literature, by relating to the author?

>> No.4362920

>>4362893
So satan is just a D&E wannabe? Sad, actually.

>> No.4362926 [SPOILER] 
File: 17 KB, 400x302, manwholaughs_large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4362926

More like Phallis amirite

>> No.4362941

>>4362912
>"life experiences"
This is one of the most frequent buzzwords of sophists world-wide.

>> No.4362947

>>4362926
You just mad because he gets to legally fuck 14 year olds and you don't.

>> No.4362948

>>4362920
other way around

>> No.4362955

>>4362926

you used to be a good troll, stan, but now you are flirting with mediocrity. what happened?

>> No.4362962

>>4362947
Why would anyone want to fuck 14 years olds?

>> No.4362965

>>4362955
He's always been mediocre since the D&E trip leakage.

>> No.4362969

>>4362962
>Why would anyone want to fuck 14 years olds?

>> No.4362974

>>4362962
Some people happen not to be gay. I know it sounds strange.

>> No.4362980
File: 33 KB, 500x665, piece of shit tumbler caption.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4362980

>>4362947
>>4362948
>>4362955
>>4362962
>>4362965
>>4362969
>>4362974

>> No.4362985

>>4362974
That's what I was saying.

>> No.4363057

>>4362980
adrian pls

>> No.4363085

>4362796

You are assuming that reality does not exist without a human to experience it

>> No.4363111

>>4363085
Who else would make the 'reality' construct that we know of?

>> No.4363116
File: 27 KB, 775x387, science-vs-philosofaggotry.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4363116

Because science works.

>> No.4363127

>>4363085
Reality does not matter without a human to experience it.

>> No.4363128

>>4363116
that picture is so stupid.
you know nothing about actual contemporary philosophy

>> No.4363135
File: 44 KB, 576x713, philosofaggotry.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4363135

>>4363128
What contemporary philosophy? There is no contemporary philosophy. Philosophy died in the 19th century when science and math made it obsolete.

>> No.4363138

>>4363111
Something we don't know of, but that doesn't matter.

Just because we don't know of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Before the discovery of the solar system, it was there. If all humans were to die tomorrow, the solar system (and thus, a reality) would still be there.

>> No.4363139

>>4363128
you mean feminism and ethics?
lmao

>> No.4363144
File: 399 KB, 1504x413, 1386339874876.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4363144

>>4363116

>> No.4363146

>>4363127
Whether something matters is besides the point, that doesn't stop it existing.

>> No.4363154

>>4363135
you dont know shit. there is more interesting and relevant research being done today in philosophy than ever before.
>>4363139
noone actually gives a shit about ethics and feminism

>> No.4363157

>>4362629
>>4362629

>> No.4363159

>>4363154
Show me one relevant result of contemporary philosophy.

>> No.4363167

>>4363159
People discussing for a living.

>> No.4363170
File: 11 KB, 480x360, AmazingAtheist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4363170

>>4363167
Are you talking about pic related? He surely is a talented and highly intellectual philosopher.

>> No.4363172

>>4363170
Lacan was pretty rich, I heard.

>> No.4363175

>>4363172
He was a psychiatrist and not a philosopher.

>> No.4363177

>>4363175
>result of contemporary philosophy
>Lacan
>not a result of contemporary philosophy
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>> No.4363178

>>4363159
the very foundations of mathematics (and thus indirectly physics) are a rather recent result of philosophical investigations.
to call this irrelevant would just be obnoxious.
in many other fields, what you consider relevant is pretty much up to you. relevant for what? relevant to whom? one could call most research in physics irrelevant to most people, for example.
fields that have developed at a fast and growing rate include: philosophy of language, philosophy of logic and mathematics, philosophy of mind

>> No.4363184

>>4363135
Science and mathematics don't exist without philosophy to prop them up.

>> No.4363185

>>4363177
Do I really have to repeat it for you simpleton?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Lacan
>Jacques Marie Émile Lacan (French: [ʒak lakɑ̃]; 13 April 1901 – 9 September 1981) was a French psychoanalyst and psychiatrist

See? He was a psychoanalyst and psychiatrist.

This being said, his work is insignificant because nowadays we know that psychoanalysis is infeffective and sometimes even detrimental.

>> No.4363188

>>4363185
>poststructuralist psychiatry is not a result of poststructuralism, which is contemporary philosophy
k

>> No.4363195

>>4363178
>philosophy of language
Linguistics is a science and doesn't need baseless philosodrivel.

>philosophy of logic and mathematics
Logic has been formalized by mathematicians in the 19th century. Philosophers don't understand logic anymore because they are lacking the math background. Math works irregardless of whether you pseudo-intellectually ask yourself "hurr durr do numbers really real?"

>philosophy of mind
The most useless garbage to ever exist. Every toddler can shit out an uneducated opinion about consciousness. Since that nonsense is not scientifically testable, it is literally nothing but verbal diarrhea.

>> No.4363200

>>4363144
>can't see it; it isn't there
but it makes sense
if you cannot detect it through any means what difference would it make if it weren't there?

>> No.4363201

>>4363188
Psychiatry is applied neuropharmacology and neuroethology. Psychiatrists get paid for (at least temporarily) curing patients' symptoms, not for baseless and empty philosotalk.

>> No.4363207

>>4363201
>doesn't know Lacan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31iQQTPY-kA

Watch this and tell me again that Lacan isn't baseless and empty philosotalk.

>A neurotic's mind has the exact form of a tore
-Lacan

>> No.4363209

>>4363195
>Philosophy of language
>baseless philosodrivel.
>baseless

>Logic has been formalized by mathematicians in the 19th century.
>Philosophers don't understand logic anymore
>The most useless garbage to ever exist
>Since that nonsense is not scientifically testable, it is literally nothing but verbal diarrhea.

Lmao at the blatant wrongness of all of this. Screenshoting, even.

>> No.4363215

>>4363207
Psychoanalysis is dead. It isn't used anymore as a therapy and its claims have no scientific basis.

>> No.4363216

>>4363195
Mathematics is a conceptual system possessing internal necessity that can only be so and by no means otherwise, right?

>> No.4363219

>>4363209
Does your lack of counterarguments indicate agreement? You don't need to keep up that cognitive dissonance. Just admit you are convinced by the facts I posted.

>> No.4363223

>>4363216
Math simply works. We don't need to question 1+1=2.

>> No.4363226

>>4363209
lel, you are literally the guy in that caricature: >>4363135

>> No.4363230

>>4363219
Your post contains zero amount of rationality; let alone an argument. "Facts"? Guess I'll have to screenshot this one as well.

Keep it coming.

>> No.4363232

>>4363195
i suspect youre in highschool. this is so fucking embarrassing. im sure youve never been to a university in your life..

linguistics is an empirical science, it isnt even remotely concerned with the same questions as phil of language. if you call highly formal, precise and rigorous considerations on the nature of language "drivel", youll have to say the same thing about mathematics or physics.

>logic has been formalized bla bla
you dont know shit. the foundations of logic and mathematics were constructed by philosophers. you dont know anything about mathematics and you know even less about its foundations and logic.

in phil of mind ill agree that there is a lot of bullshit floating around, but there are really interesting research programs that use graph theory to model neural networks, just an example of proper philosophy

im writing my thesis on logic atm, i have a masters in mathematics and philosophy.
youre simply making a fool out of yourself here.

>> No.4363236

>>4363223
So, to your mind, the Principia Mathematica was a waste of time.

>> No.4363242

>>4363223
You don't understand the negative implication of what you're claiming, do you?

>> No.4363244

>>4363230
Why are you flailing your arms and throwing a tantrum? Are you too immature for debate? This site is 18+. You should be able to control your emotions and to form a reasonable and rational counterpoint, if you want to discuss here. Your kindergarten tier expressions of disagreement with facts for emotional reasons are an insult to this board and to the academic discipline of philosophy in general.

>> No.4363252

>>4363236
Yep. Only a deluded autist would wast thousand pages to prove 1+1=2, whilst every normally developped person instantly sees why it's true.

>>4363242
There is none.

>> No.4363259

>>4363244
>control your emotions
Why can't I hold all these ironies???

>> No.4363266

>>4363252
> whilst every normally developped person instantly sees why it's true.
i hope youre having fun at your highschool math classes. is the homework they give you challenging?

>> No.4363267

>>4363223

Ever heard of Principia Mathematica? Change the rules in that book and you don't have 1+1=2. Mathematics is a constructed system from certain human assumption that has then been developed as rigorously as possible by those rules. We have no reason to believe that this is objectively correct.

>> No.4363272

>>4363252
Oh, you're trolling. I understand now.

>> No.4363279

>>4363252
>Yep. Only a deluded autist would wast thousand pages to prove 1+1=2, whilst every normally developped person instantly sees why it's true.

>tfw sheeple really exists

>> No.4363293

>>4363232
>i suspect youre in highschool. this is so fucking embarrassing. im sure youve never been to a university in your life..
Why do you feel the need to project so hard? I am doing my MSc degree at a top tier European university. Get on my level, you pseudo-intellectual pleb.

>linguistics is an empirical science, it isnt even remotely concerned with the same questions as phil of language.
Exactly. Linguistics is concerned with the actually relevant questions which can be researched objectively while philosophy only consists of baseless opinions.

>if you call highly formal, precise and rigorous considerations on the nature of language "drivel", youll have to say the same thing about mathematics or physics.
Slippery slope is a fallacy and there is nothing "formal, precise and rigorous" in a philosopher's simple-minded musings. Every child can have an opinion and express it more or less eloquently.

>the foundations of logic and mathematics were constructed by philosophers. you dont know anything about mathematics and you know even less about its foundations and logic.
I know more about math than you ever will. The driving force behind the development of math was always the application in describing nature. Even within the academic community the "pure math" fags with their "muh foundations" nonsense are seen as weird autists far away from reality. This has nothing to do with philosophy however, since philosophers don't even understand math. That's why they resort to even more useless contemplations about ontology and similarly inane escapism.

>but there are really interesting research programs that use graph theory to model neural networks, just an example of proper philosophy
Applied math is not philosophy.

>im writing my thesis on logic atm, i have a masters in mathematics and philosophy.
Enjoy your no jobs.

>> No.4363302

>>4363293
confirmed for being 17

>> No.4363303

>>4363293
>as long as it works I don't care why it works

How scientific of you.

>> No.4363309

>>4363293
You're the reason Riemann hasn't been proved.

>> No.4363310

>>4363293
>Every child can have an opinion and express it more or less eloquently.

Wut. I think we are getting rused?

>> No.4363312

>>4363259
Perhaps you should look up the word "irony" in a dictionary. Even though you are too neurologically defective to ever understand it intuitively, let alone recognize or use it, you should at least know what it means formally, so you don't inappropriately abuse that word again.

>>4363266
Yes, it's very challenging. Do you want to help me?

>>4363267
Nobody cares about that "muh foundations" bullshit. No employer is gonna pay you for proving 1+1=2. Everybody knows that it's true and you must be severely autistic if you seriously feel the need to waste huge amounts of time constructing a rigorous proof of such a triviality.

>>4363272
>has no argument
>yells "troll"
Back to /b/, please.

>> No.4363316

>>4363310
>I think we are getting rused?
yes you are. noone can be this stupid.

>> No.4363321

>>4363302
I'm 21. What's your problem? Why do you feel the need to post insults whenever you lack the mental capacities to think of an argument?

>>4363303
Do you seriously question the truth of 1+1=2? What do you expect? Do you actually believe somewhere in the proof we might figure out that 1+1 equals 3?

>> No.4363323

>>4363293
6/10 for diligence, but try being more persuasive. Is quality trolling really that hard nowadays?

>> No.4363325

>>4363312
>No employer is gonna pay you for proving 1+1=2

No employer is gonna pay me for jacking off in the shower, either. Doesn't mean it isn't an important part of my life.

>> No.4363326

>>4363312
noone here is taking you seriously.
do you really expect people to beleive that youre studying at a university and know what youre talking about while youre showing of this tremendous ignorance?
just go to sleep kid, youre getting laughed at.

>> No.4363327

>>4363312
You haven't made any arguments. All you've done is yell "autist" and talk about how applied mathematics is all you need to run a cash register.

>> No.4363329
File: 70 KB, 500x283, riemann.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4363329

>>4363309

>> No.4363334

>>4363321
>you lack the mental capacities to think of an argument?
you havent provided a single argument, nor have you showcased any knowledge of the subject matter.

>> No.4363338

>>4363312
>Everybody knows that it's true and you must be severely autistic if you seriously feel the need to waste huge amounts of time constructing a rigorous proof of such a triviality.

The concern is that is it true in the sense that it is just a tautology? Is that what math is a self referencing system that has no bearing on the objective world and is just a construct we made to make sense of it?

This is a very important spiritual question dumb pleb.

>> No.4363342

>>4363321
If you understood what mathematics actually is, that question wouldn't even occur to you. What you're arguing is completely irrational.

>> No.4363348

>>4363327
I posted facts. What is your problem?

>>4363323
What part of my post do you disagree with?

>>4363325
You already showed us enough evidence of how pathetic your life is. We don't need to see more.

>>4363326
Cry me a river, you immature child. It isn't my fault that facts hurt your feelings.

>> No.4363353

>>4363348
0/10

>> No.4363354

>>4363321
> Do you actually believe somewhere in the proof we might figure out that 1+1 equals 3?
youve never taken a mathematics course at a university in your life.
stop denying this, its completely obvious.

>> No.4363356

>>4363348
>You already showed us enough evidence of how pathetic your life is.

That was my first post ;_;

>> No.4363359

>>4363334
>denial

>>4363338
>spiritual question
>important
Choose exactly one.

>>4363342
>>4363354
I know more math than you and my point is completely rational. Why do you resort to vague insults? If you actually had a point, you'd post your counterarguments.

>> No.4363365

>>4363321
>Do you actually believe somewhere in the proof we might figure out that 1+1 equals 3?
dude... I mean... Yes. You can, in fact, prove that.

>> No.4363367

>>4363359
>If you actually had a point, you'd post your counterarguments.
now im sure youre trolling
there can be no counterargument because there never was an argument in the first place.
and you obviously dont know anything about mathematics at all.

>> No.4363372

>>4363312
>Perhaps you should look up the word "irony" in a dictionary.
You might be cognitively retarded. It only takes to revisit your original post -- >>4363195 -- to see that it contains not a grain of sound reasoning and is smeared with emotions.

Now contrast your original post with this post: >>4363244

If unconvinced of the obvious irony, please consult the first sentence of this post.

>> No.4363374

bu I dont, its absurd.

>> No.4363377

>>4363367
I know more math than you, kid. Stop wasting your time with inane shitpost comments. If you have a counterpoint, then post it. Otherwise refrain from polluting this board with your lack of maturity.

>>4363372
Cry harder.

>> No.4363385

>>4363377
>I know more math than you, kid.
sure you do
have you learned about the real numbers yet?
did the teacher give you a nice definition to memorize? it may be in the class test, im sure you can get an a if you study hard, mom will be proud

>> No.4363390

>>4363385
D'awww, do you think you're the greatest maths genius because you got an A in your high school calculus class?

>> No.4363402

>>4363390
>>4363377
>>4363377
>Still no arguments
>complains about shitposts
>irony

You do know if you want to prove us wrong in any other way than appeals to common sense (ignorance and stupidity) you have to go the way of the philosophers argued ITT right?

>> No.4363408

>>4363402
whats even what you are trying to say?

>> No.4363409

>>4363402
You mean if I want to convince philosotards, I'll have to drop all rationality and resort to fallacies and insults because that's the only language they understand? Interesting hypothesis.

>> No.4363411

>>4363385
You learn about Real Numbers in high school calc, dude. Trying to act smart by namedropping them isn't helping you at all here.

>> No.4363427

>>4363409
The philosotards you speak of invented "rationality" and "fallacies"

>> No.4363430

>>4363427
Yeah, they invented a lot of fallacies and they're making frequent use of them.

>> No.4363437

>>4363411
Real numbers are only a hypothetical construct and they are suffering from well known inconsistencies, for example 0.999... = 1

>> No.4363438

>>4363430
Like you are now, right?

>> No.4363443

>>4363437
That's not an inconsistency.

>> No.4363446

>>4363443
Two distinct numbers being equal is a pretty significant flaw.

>> No.4363455

>>4363446
>.999...
>1
>distinct
nope, just counterintuitive.

>>4363437
All numbers are hypothetical constructs.

>> No.4363462

>>4363455
They already differ in the first digit. Of course they are distinct numbers. Do you even math?

>> No.4363467

>>4363455
>.999 ... and 1
>not-distinct
10/10

>> No.4363474

>>4363462
Yes, I do. Why?

>x = 5
>y = 6
>y = x
>NUH UH THEY'RE DIFFERENT LETTERS
Anyway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999......
Here you go, once you're done reading this and finishing up math class let me know.

>>4363467
They're two different symbols which can (and do) represent the same number.

>> No.4363477

>>4363455
>All numbers are hypothetical constructs.

No, the natural numbers exist in nature.

>> No.4363479

>>4363477
Please find me a "5" independent from any other object in nature and mail it to someone, thanks.

>> No.4363480

>>4363474
Are you seriously implying 5=6?

>> No.4363483

>>4363477
So does the idea of me fucking your mom in the ass

>> No.4363490

>>4363195
>Logic has been formalized by mathematicians in the 19th century
It was largely in the twentieth, actually. And while it was done by mathematicians, it was also done by philosophers, because most of the logicians of that time were both. Take Frege - he was both mathematician and philosopher, in addition to being the most important logician of the modern era. As he said, "Every true philosopher is at least half mathematician and every true mathematician is at least half philosopher."

>> No.4363491

>>4363480
Nah, I mis-typed 6 instead of 5, thanks for pointing that mistake out. Boy, do I feel dumb now.

>> No.4363496

>>4363483
You wouldn't want to do that. She's old and ugly.

>> No.4363498

>>4363467
Between any real number and another real number there lies another real number (infinitely many actually).

Due to the conventions of base-10 numeral systems, there is no number between .9999(infinitely repeating) and 1.

So they are not distinct.

>> No.4363502

>>4363490
>"Every true philosopher is at least half mathematician and every true mathematician is at least half philosopher."

No True Scotsman is a fallacy and that statement is blatantly wrong. Most philosophers can't even into high school math and most mathematicians don't give a shit about metaphysical drivel.

>> No.4363503

>>4363474
I realize it's just a typo, but that post looks hilarious now.


Also if you ever start feeling too good about humanity, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ConMan/Proof_that_0.999..._does_not_equal_1 .

>> No.4363507

>>4363498
>Due to the conventions of base-10 numeral systems, there is no number between .9999(infinitely repeating) and 1.

That's why the base 10 system is flawed. It would imply two different numbers being equal because it fails to represent the numbers between them.

>> No.4363514

>>4363502
>metaphysical drivel
The quote is dismissing most of what I would call 'metaphysical drivel'.

Also, I'm not actually claiming that you can't do math if you don't know philosophy (or vice versa). Don't be such a literalist.

>> No.4363516

>>4363502
But they teach you basic logic and proofs through geometry in high school math, which philosophers use. The ideas of logic and proofs are in the domain of both mathematics and philosophy, so it's not a "no true scotsman" fallacy to say that a person who can accurately be called either a mathematician or philosopher must have a knowledge of these fields which are both in philosophy and mathematics. Please don't misuse fallacies like this.

>> No.4363518

>>4363507
>the numbers between them
There is no number between them to represent. They are the same number.

>> No.4363521

>>4363518
They cannot be the same number.

>> No.4363525

>>4363521
Why not? Because they have different representations?

>> No.4363527

>>4363507
They are not two different numbers though. They are two different symbols for the same number. Even if we used a different base number system the situation would still exist, just with different symbols.

>> No.4363528

>>4363516
>philosophers
>using geometric proofs

nope

>> No.4363529

>>4363518
so which number are they? 1? or .9999..?

>> No.4363537

>>4363528
>implying I wasn't saying they used logical proofs
Geometry is just the easiest introduction to logical proofs, don't be silly.

Also, at this point you're being so pedantic I'm going to assume you're either trolling or stupid enough for your posts to be indistinguishable from it, so I don't see the point in responding further.

>> No.4363540

>>4363525
>>4363527
The representation of a number has to be unique. Did you fail your math class?

>> No.4363545

>>4363521
Is the word "dog" a dog?

>> No.4363546

>>4363195

I would just like to note that, though I disagree with your overall scientism, in the case of philosophasters like >>4363521, I am in complete sympathy with your attitudes.

>> No.4363549

>>4363545
Yes.

>> No.4363557

>>4363540
8/16 is the same as 1/2.

Also, I'm 70% sure you're a troll.

>> No.4363559

>>4363546
There is no such thing as "scientism". It's a made up pejorative buzzword only used by religionfags and philosotards who want to discredit science because it hurts their feelings.

>> No.4363567

Because I can claim something that can easily be falsified.
Everyone in this thread was waiting for me to respond, because they're all in the same room and have been tracking me for the past few years.

>> No.4363569

>>4363557
We are talking about decimals, not fractions. Decimals are unique. If you divide 1 by 1, you'll get 1 and not 0.999...

0.999... isn't even a number because there is no fraction whose division would result in that number.

>> No.4363577

>>4363559
>there is no such thing as 'scientism'
It's a thing, whether or not it is a bad thing. Also, I don't want to discredit science at all. I'm undeclared but probably going to be a bio major.

>> No.4363582

>>4363577
Biology is not a hard science.

>> No.4363584

>>4362064
Go to bed, smalltalk.

>> No.4363587

>>4363569
1.0
1.00
1.0000
01
001
00001.000

>> No.4363589

>>4363569
>.3333... isn't even a number because there is no fraction whose division would result in that number.
1/3

>> No.4363597

>>4363587
You don't write the zeros. Zero is just a placeholder for "here is no number".

>> No.4363603

>>4363589
Show me a fraction whose division yields 0.999....

Obviously 1/1 or 3/3 doesn't work because they yield 1.

0.999... is not a valid decimal number. It doesn't represent a fraction.

>> No.4363605

>>4363569
>0.999... isn't even a number because there is no fraction whose division would result in that number.
If .999...=1, then there is a fraction whose division would result in that number. If .999...!=1, then there is none. Therefore, that argument begs the question.

>> No.4363608

>>4363559
>it hurts their feelings
>hurts their feelings
>their feelings
>feelings

If you were a Christian you would be one of those "don't listen to his arguments, he just hates god" kind of Christian.

>> No.4363609

>>4363603
9/9 yields 0.999..., and 0.999... is 1.

>> No.4363613

>>4363597
But I can write the zeros, and the number would still be valid.

>> No.4363615

>>4363609
Did you fail elementary school math? 9 divided by 9 is 1 and not an infinitely repeating decimal.

>> No.4363622

>>4363608
I'm glad I am too intelligent for religion.

>> No.4363627

>>4363615
9/9 isn't a division, it's a fraction, and it becomes 0.999... when converted into a decimal.

>> No.4363630

>>4363622
Been watching this thread, and now that you've let the cat definitively out of the bag (bit lacking in subtlety, that last comment), I'd like to award you the 11/10 Astley Award for Best Troll. This is artistry.

>> No.4363642

ONE DOES NOT "BELIEVE" IN OBJECTIVE REALITY; ONE PERCEIVES IT.

>> No.4363648

>>4363642
I don't believe you.

>> No.4363672

>>4362698
I call bullshit. You understand natural numbers because somebody showed you what natural numbers are, just like you know what a "dog" is because someone showed you a dog. You can choose other starting points, like starting from sets instead of numbers, but you have to start from something.

>> No.4364431
File: 49 KB, 800x790, philosophy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4364431

>> No.4364462

>>4362676
you are gonna need to cite some linguistics and cognitive psych research here

>> No.4364507

>>4364431
k

>> No.4364512

>>4362617
>Communication is imperfect, ergo communication is useless

>> No.4364526

>>4363200
my god this question

the purpose of science is description of the universe. Collecting statements about it that can be accepted as true within how they perform and repeat.

Equating "unable to be observed" with "might as well pretend it doesn't exist" completely contradicts the spirit of science and intellectual pursuit itself.

If you do not recognize the inherent limits in our current scientific methodology you fail to properly achieve what science was created for in the first place

>> No.4364556

>>4364462
Obviously: Derrida, Saussure, Barthes, Deleuze, Foucault, Lacan

Less obviously: Heidegger

>> No.4364565

>>4362045
My reality is emanating directly from God. It's a constrained, divine subjectivism.

>> No.4364577

If by "objective reality" you mean an a perception-independent reality, my answer is that it's the only plausible method for explaining regularities in thought without appealing to idealism, and there's no reason to believe that our epistemology determines our metaphysics.

>> No.4364589

>>4364577
The ability of the knower to know doesn't determine knowledge?

>> No.4364590

I don't even know if I believe in anything. I don't know anything at all. Sometimes I wish I was dead.

>> No.4364606

>>4364589
truth isn't synonymous with knowledge.

>> No.4364607

"In science everything can be represented with numbers except for letters."

>Wrong again, Einstein. It's called "gematria."

>> No.4364611
File: 102 KB, 800x535, dr naruto.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4364611

>>4364607

Wow look at this smart guy right here thinks he knows better than a sciencist

>> No.4364621

>>4364611
That is correct. I do.

>> No.4364666

>>4362045

Climb to the top of a tall building and jump off. Why won't you do it? Because objective reality.