/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4434138]

A dilemma is a problem with two possible solutions, neither of which is particularly appealing – think of the idioms, ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ or ‘stuck between a rock and a hard place’. The two possible solutions are called the problem’s two ‘horns’, the idea being that you would rather not be impaled by either one. Kierkegaard’s dilemma is this:

Either (a) God exists or (b) God does not exist.
(b) If God does not exist, then it is impossible to prove that God does exist.

(a) If God does exist, then it is foolish to want to demonstrate it, since I have already presupposed God’s existence.

So, the dilemma starts with a problem in the form of a disjunction (either… or… ). The next step is to take up each horn of the dilemma separately, and see what happens. So we assume (b) God does not exist. But if we assume this is true, then how can we prove that God does not exist? Then we assume (a) God does exist. But if God’s existence is my starting point, then why bother trying to prove it? Of course I could prove it:

Premise 1: God exists.
Conclusion: God exists.

But such a proof, at least according to Kierkegaard, seems pointless.

[Anonymous No.4434156]

If the point of this post was to make my brain spin, congratulations, you've done it.

Agnostic atheism seems to be the only answer for me personally.

[Anonymous No.4434202]

>>4434138
What if you believe that God is the nature itself, defined as "the physical world around us" (or the material world, or whatever)?
In fact, just replace God with "physical world" in OP's post...

[Anonymous No.4434218]

>>4434138
>But such a proof, at least according to Kierkegaard, seems pointless.
He's not alone.
>>4434156
No-one cares about your opinion, provide the argument.
>>4434202
That would imply that you can find evidence for God's existence - aka hat God is a finite being. If God's a finite being he can't be a God. That's the point of it. Though it seems this approach might suffer to presupposing what you're trying to prove. Gotta ponder it over anew.

[Anonymous No.4434232]

>>4434138
>>4434218
samefag here, I forgot that Kant had a say on this. Can't remember where, but he said that existence is not a predicate, hence, proposition (a) isn't legit.

I think this is a variant of Descartes ontological argument. But the whole point of (a) is that you're not making a proposition since it requires subject and predicate and as existence is not a predicate, it's not a proposition.

[Anonymous No.4434242]

What if I believe God is an omnipresent force that the brain utilizes for predicting the future?

[Anonymous No.4434257]

>>4434138
>But such a proof, at least according to Kierkegaard, seems pointless.

I think the question of God's actual existence and the utility of proving that existence can reasonably be separated. Even if one granted as an article of faith that God existed, for example, proving that He exists puts the belief on a firmer footing in accordance with the natural exercise of the intellect, and helps one appreciate just what it is for God to exist. It can also help demonstrate His existence to those who do not believe He exists, if they are reasonable enough, and so bring them in contact with ultimate goodness. I dunno Kierkegaard just seems like he's talking out of his arse here.

[Anonymous No.4434266]

>>4434242
The congratulations, you're a fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.4434310]

this is not one of those huzzah-enlightened-tip-fedora posts, but what I find more interesting is seeing intellectuals across the ages trying to generate rationale justifications for/against belief systems whose geneses are ultimately non-intellectual. you know like, much of what generates a person's belief is going to be the beliefs of those around them, the hospitality of their neighbours, listening the beauty of the hymn in morning service, etc. all these things that aren't really communicable or accepted when it comes to philosophical discussion, but people feel the necessity to be congruent at all levels, especially the highly, highly intelligent. so you see them time trying to do this sort of mental magic to make it work philosophically as well. like, they manipulate all these axioms one way or another, putting forth dichotomies such as this, making clever huzzahs gotch yous, all the while never realising, because they're so ingrained in their current system, that the axioms they're working off are not universally accepted.

like a lot of people who might believe the argument put forth by kierkegaard above wouldn't inherently see that the conditions (i.e. the 'therefore must be X') he's attached to the two options are not inherent to said options (like, the existence of god doesn't inherently necessitate that seeking to prove him is fruitless, that's a side thing that comes up from certain christian philosophies), or that the proposition fails to exclude the idea of their being multiple gods (only, for someone raised really strongly in abrahamic religions, that there is only one god becomes almost axiomatic, and they can't realistically entertain the idea that it's not this way (of course there are people who buck the trend, but i'm talking in generalities here)).

i don't mean to present this as some sort of christian feature, because it's largely present for all ideological arguments. like i'm reading yukio mishima's sea of fertility tetrology right now and he does similar sort of mental arithmetic to try prove buddhism and transmigration. or, plato does similar things when trying to prove the existence of the soul. even in a modern context, today you see similar loop arguments with things like abortion or freedom of speech etc, where it comes down to well "if you don't agree that the freedom to express yourself is inherently important, you aren't human and why am i even talking to you".

it's because a lot of these ideological decisions are driven by unconscious calculations that are inaccessible to regular thought. i think it's all one of those really great examples where we see the limits of being human.

[Anonymous No.4434534]

>>4434138
fucked in the ass with a pineapple.

[Anonymous No.4434633]

>>4434310
Where shall you then start? It is the tragedy of all reasoning, that it is presumption of itself. We have no way of proving it apart a posteriori. We hence have to make the assumption we do, the question is whether the assumptions we do make are valid.
In the end, all arguments can be reduced to "No, you're wrong" "no! You are!"
But rarely do we entertain ourselves with notions of skepticism, for it is better to fail than sit around

[Anonymous No.4436029]

>>4434633
i don't really know the answer to this when it comes to ideological debate.

personally, i just simplify things for myself by looking at arguments as one means (of many means) to and end. the end being whatever i consider important (for whatever reason, emotional or intellectual)--with the knowledge that my cares are not universal, and maybe i care about that fact, maybe i don't--maybe others care about that fact, maybe they don't. whatever. the point being, because i consider many of these debates more products of a limited human capacity for thought than actual manipulations of universal truths, their intellectual grounds, in of themselves, i don't care about beyond, as i mentioned at the start of the first post, how entertaining they are. this is as opposed to things beyond the mathematical-sense say, what an ideology inacts people to do or the sense of communal solidarity it invokes--these things i do care about. i guess i approach even philosophy itself as a utilitarian.

it's important to note that i've layered the above with a lot of 'personallys,' because i do understand my thoughts are not universal. i get that the intellectual congruency is a stronger motive for most people. and i honestly don't really care whether these people or others agree with me _in general_, because i think these motives (even if they're, ultimately, non-intellectual) still provide more value to people's lives than the take away--in making people reach for the stars etc.

i (mostly) mention it now because i'm bored and i like the process of trying to refining my thoughts so as to make them communicable, and best of all someone might point out an alternate view/ or a logical fallacy i've made so that i can improve. although i will admit sometimes i pick apart these 'mis-axioms' if i someone's irritating me or the matter is of great importance to me.

this is all only when referring to ideological debate btw. i mean, in principle it does apply to other things, but the axioms are generally less wishy-washy as you move into other areas. like in medicine, most doctors operate under the basis of making people healthier. i might be fine to disagree with that intellectually, but you'll probably lose your license if you act on that basis.

[Anonymous No.4436075]

>>4436029
also i realised while taking a piss that no where did i actually sum up my main point. i'm not saying that debate is completely magical fairy stuff or arbitrary. like it is true that sometimes a person disagrees with you because they fail to understand a concept, they make a logical fallacy, or they're simply misinformed about some fact or other (or conversely, you're the other side of the coin). only, people generally debate like those errors of logic are the entire reason a person holds a different view point, which, although it would be nice if it was the case, isn't really true. like, i didn't have a wank this morning for any intellectual reason.

[Anonymous No.4436139]

>>4436075
i had a wank this morning

[Anonymous No.4436161]

>>4434218
>evidence for God's existence - aka hat God is a finite being

I don't get this part. Evidence of God's existence is somehow related to God being finite? Elaborate or correct me.

[Anonymous No.4436172]

>>4434232
how is existence not a predicate? sincere question

[Anonymous No.4436178]

>>4436139

[Anonymous No.4436190]

>>4436139

A dilemma is a problem with two possible solutions, neither of which is particularly appealing – think of the idioms, ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ or ‘stuck between a rock and a hard place’. The two possible solutions are called the problem’s two ‘horns’, the idea being that you would rather not be impaled by either one. Kierkegaard’s dilemma is this:

Either (a) you had a wank this morning or (b) you did not have a wank this morning
(b) If you did not have a wank this morning, then it is impossible to prove that you did have a wank this morning

(a) If you did have a wank this morning, then it is foolish to want to demonstrate it, since I have already presupposed that you had a wank this morning

So, the dilemma starts with a problem in the form of a disjunction (either… or… ). The next step is to take up each horn of the dilemma separately, and see what happens. So we assume (b) you did not have a wank this morning. But if we assume this is true, then how can we prove that you did not have a wank this morning? Then we assume (a) you did have a wank this morning But if you wanking this morning is my starting point, then why bother trying to prove it? Of course I could prove it:

Premise 1: you had a wank this morning.
Conclusion: you had a wank this morning.

But such a proof, at least according to Kierkegaard, seems pointless.

[Anonymous No.4436199]

>>4436190
*looks at Kim*
Daddy wanna fuck!!! Daddy wanna fuck!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.4436203]

>>4436190

[Anonymous No.4436213]

>>4434156
Ummm this isn't hard to understand at all

[Anonymous No.4436215]

>>4434218
I disagree. Whole point of Christianity is that God became a finite being between 1 and 33 AD. The debate then becomes about the trustworthiness of ancient texts or the odds of resurrection accounts being based on hallucinations.

God as God cannot be known by the human mind, that is why He became man. That is Christianity's great innovation.

[Anonymous No.4436218]

>>4436075
So I was with you until the part where you claimed that it's not your concern whether what people believe is wrong or right. I would contend that constantly reassessing your own opinions and forcing others' to reassess their own--through dialogue and debate--has far more positive utilitarian impact than letting people believe in whatever ideology fits them.

An inherent part of ideology is wanting to enforce that ideology on other people. This is a function of democracy, but more so it is a function of the intrinsic definition of ideology. If you believe something--truly believe it--then you will not be able to rest until everyone else believes it too. There's nothing wrong with this, that's just the way it is. Let's take gay marriage. Anyone who truly believes gay marriage should be legalized will not be able to rest until it is made so. A natural part of being human is the desire to right injustice. Likewise, if you are a devout Christian, you will never be satisfied until you have done everything in your power to convert everybody else. Because if you _know_ something is right or just, why should you settle with injustice?

So this is the inherent drive of missionaries, philosophers, politicians and activists. The desire to shape the world to conform with their own ideologies, their own idea of what is just. The only way to diffuse this desire is to change their beliefs. Now, this could be done through rational debate or through some kind of emotional impact. But the fact of the matter is that your own ideologies cannot exist contentedly in isolation, and if you're not actively shaping the world into what you perceive as just, then someone else is shaping it into their idea of just, and you are therefore betraying your own ideological sensibilities.

Beliefs in and of themselves are not beneficial or harmful. It is the conversion of beliefs into actions that does benefit or harm. So I don't think I could ever agree with your 'live and let live' mindset since to me everybody's beliefs necessitates some form of responsibility in shaping the world around you.

I'm not entirely sure if that made sense, or if that directly refuted your posts. Oh yeah, and if you want to work on communicating thoughts, I'd critique you by saying that you should explicitly state the conclusion of each point before you go into the reasoning behind it, rather than making the reader slog through your support for your argument, when we aren't even sure what your main argument is.

[Anonymous No.4436220]

>>4436218
>Anyone who truly believes gay marriage should be legalized will not be able to rest until it is made so
This is false

[Anonymous No.4436234]

I need help I am losing my sanity. I've come to conclusion I can't really tell if I am dead, dreaming, or alive, or if any of this is real.

I've also come to conclusion that only way to be truly free is to be dead and to see if I am alive, real, notdead notdreaming I need to kill myself.

just help pls

i need to check into mental house before I do something stupid.

[Anonymous No.4436235]

>>4436220
How so? Please expand on your point instead of just posting a mindless refutation.

I think truly believing that something is just is directly paired with a desire to make this thing a reality. If you say the legalization of gay marriage is just, yet are perfectly okay with it being illegal, then you obviously do not have conviction in your own words--it is an empty belief.

I'm not saying everyone who believes in gay marriage ought to quit their job and start campaigning for gay rights until they have succeeded, I'm saying anyone who actually believes in gay marriage will not be mentally at ease until it is legal.

[Anonymous No.4436238]

>>4436234
r u srs m8

[Anonymous No.4436243]

>>4436238
hh-h-help im serious as serious man can be

[Anonymous No.4436247]

>>4436235
> I'm saying anyone who actually believes in gay marriage will not be mentally at ease until it is legal.
I feel consuming weed should be legalized, yet I feel mentally at ease with it not being legal. I could say something similar about gay marriage. Though, I come from a country where it is legal.

My existence falsifies your statement.

[Anonymous No.4436246]

>>4436234
You're saying to verify that you are NOT dead you need to kill yourself? l2Logic pleb

[Anonymous No.4436254]

>>4436246
Damned if you do, damned if you don't AMIRIGHT

[Anonymous No.4436255]

>>4436243
:|

[Anonymous No.4436256]

>>4436246
because how can i know it before i am dead?

[Anonymous No.4436259]

>>4436246
shut the fuck up
im schizo btw

[Anonymous No.4436261]

>>4436259
call your doctor

[Anonymous No.4436265]

well this thread took an interesting turn

[Anonymous No.4436266]

>>4436261
no health insurance
im in a library in chicago

[Anonymous No.4436271]

>>4436265
>ask for help
>get no responses, jsut ridiculing

i think im fuckin gloisng it

[Anonymous No.4436273]

>>4436218

i don't disagree with all you just said, and neither does what i posted above. it might not have been clear, but all you mentioned is alluded to

here:

> this is as opposed to things beyond the mathematical-sense say, what an ideology inacts people to do or the sense of communal solidarity it invokes

and here:

>because i think these motives...still provide more value to people's lives than the take away


as for:

>Oh yeah, and if you want to work on communicating thoughts, I'd critique you by saying that you should explicitly state the conclusion of each point before you go into the reasoning behind it, rather than making the reader slog through your support for your argument, when we aren't even sure what your main argument is.

thanks for that. being an aspie, i find it difficult to discern what i have and have not conveyed properly; explicit feed-back being the only way i can detect it.

[Anonymous No.4436274]

>>4436266
>no health insurance.
I don't know what this means.

[Anonymous No.4436277]

>>4436271
if it helps i feel the same

im >>4436266
something like empathy but im not that arrogant.

i never saw things move until today. im the guy who posted in the sports journalism thread earlier today

[Anonymous No.4436286]

>>4436277
Walk into a hospital, saying what you are saying.
Doctors are obligated to help.
Hippocratic oath.

[Anonymous No.4436289]

>>4436271
wake up
wake up
wake up

[Anonymous No.4437249]

>>4436286
hey i just wanted to reply and say, thank you. i'm hopeful i'll be getting some good help now. i'll read some of the k-man tonight in this thread's honor.

[Anonymous No.4437281]

>>4436172
Existence does not confirm/affirm anything about the subject. A predicate we consider states a property about a subject.
Only things that exist can have properties, by stating that "God exist" you presuppose his existence(because exists=property) and that is self-contradictory because stating existence/non-existence is the statement of existence itself.
Get it?

[Anonymous No.4437289]

D-Did Kierkegaard get into Heaven?

[Anonymous No.4437292]

>>4437289
no but he got into your moms panties

[Anonymous No.4437294]

>>4437289
if the hunchback knight of faith himself didn't, then shit, i dunno. i hope fulton sheen did, at least.

[Anonymous No.4437303]

>>4436213
That's why "agnostic atheism" is the only way for him

[Anonymous No.4437306]

>>4437289
I think it's just him, the J-Man, Aug Dog and Tommy Aq.

[Anonymous No.4437316]

Does the Agony in the Garden mean that Jesus wasn't a knight of faith?

[Anonymous No.4438434]

>>4437316
Noone is good enough to be a knight of faith

We're all going to hell

[Anonymous No.4438447]

>>4434138
>(a) If God does exist, then it is foolish to want to demonstrate it, since I have already presupposed God’s existence.

I find this to be a shit argument. Presupposes a thing's existence has no relation to whether or not it exists in the first place. Of course, the point he is making with this is from the stance of one of faith, in which case it would truly be foolish to want to prove it.

The point of this dilemma, as I read it, is that it's fruitless to go looking for a proof of God. The problem is that not everyone presupposes the existence of God.

[Anonymous No.4438450]

>>4438434
Not like heaven has any interesting people in it anyway.