[ 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: 80 KB, 619x357, Willy-Wonka1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843118 No.4843118 [Reply] [Original]

Why should we value truth?

Why can't I walk around and just pretend like everything is magical and beautiful? Why shouldn't I use my imagination to imbue everything with intrinsic value and wonder? I know how to do it.

"if you want to view paradise, simply look around and view it" - Willy Wonka

>> No.4843124

Why is the default world your brain renders more true than the one you willfully render?

Both are phantasms.

>> No.4843286

Go read BNW, you little shit.

>> No.4843287

>>4843118
Hey, if you know how to do it, then more power to it.

The rest of us don't.

Thanks for reminding me of that song though, I love it.

>> No.4843312

>>4843287

it's very pleasant and ominous

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2pt2-F2j2g

>> No.4843316
File: 141 KB, 369x341, 1385203766821.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843316

>>4843286

I have.
What about it though?

>> No.4843319

>>4843118
You *can* create your own reality. Why not do it?

>> No.4843320

itt: solipsists

as a great christian once said, a casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows us that faith proves nothing

>> No.4843330

>>4843319
>You *can* create your own reality. Why not do it?

Imagination is creation.

>> No.4843335

>>4843320
>proves nothing

yet every philosopher knows you can't prove anything.

>> No.4843380

>>4843319
because you can create a reality without living it. why limit yourself to one when you can both live a real life and fantasize about another, or better yet, write about it?

>> No.4843382

because it is true.

>> No.4843423

>>4843335
>muh don't know nuthin
reality proves itself. it is that which breaks through all our preconceived beliefs and imaginations.

>> No.4843428

>>4843335
I think therefore I am.

>> No.4843435
File: 54 KB, 389x389, 1398674743562.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843435

>>4843423
>reality proves itself.

drivel

>> No.4843451

>>4843435
life escapes all attempts to control and manipulate. no matter how much you attempt to control your life, life, uh... finds a way...

>> No.4843471

>>4843451

the problem is that ideas and beliefs about reality can't be proven.

you also can't experience reality without preconceived notions filtering it.

true reality as it really is also defies all attempts to understand it .

>> No.4843830
File: 150 KB, 500x223, tumblr_mu7prpB7bi1sgqqqno1_500.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843830

>>4843471

Isn't your world, essentially, a huge leap of faith?

>> No.4843848

>Why should we value truth?

What do you think happens when we don't? You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality

>> No.4843907

>>4843423
Well spoken.

>> No.4844202

There is only one truth

>The mass who posses power, corrupt power.

Feminist usually claim that their whole thing is about "power strucutres"

Yeah exactly. They want to replace the power structure. Replacing the power structure will do nothing for society aside from inverse the current situation.

What will womens argument be when they have power? That they deserve it because men had it for so long? They're going to side step some of their most vital principals. I guarantee it .

>> No.4844282

>>4843471

They can be proven, within a a framework you allow them to be.

>> No.4844283

>>4843118
There is no Truth; convictions are more dangerous foes to truth than lies.

>> No.4844287

>>4843319
Because then you become a despicable untermensch

>> No.4844290

Nigga u gota b keepin it real nahmsayin'?

>> No.4844291

>>4843320
>not accepting the truth of your solipsism

>> No.4844303

>>4844283

"There is no truth" is a statement of truth itself.

>> No.4844305

>>4844202
Women can't have power except through men, so tautologically you are wrong

>> No.4844307

>>4844282
All frameworks where proofs are possible also hold inherently impossible ideas.

>> No.4844316

>>4844307

Not really. If I say "prove to me there are seals on Pluto", and someone takes me there and shows me them, I've allowed it to be proven. If I was to then say "that's not proof, if mirrors aren't real then how can our eyes be real!" then I'm just setting up a framework and saying nothing can be proven within that framework, which is a useless principle. You're doing it right now, you've created a framework where nothing can be proven, and then saying all other frameworks are the same.

>> No.4844319

>>4844303
Congratulations, it's logically consistent with an irrational world that we cannot grasp. All truth is true only in symbols, "Truth" with a capital T is the idea that these ideas adequately explain this world. They do not. Read Nietzsche.

>> No.4844324

>>4844316
>being this wrong

Look into Nietzsche and Godel. There is no proof for logic being adequate because any system capable of simple arithmetic, including logic, is inherently self-contradicting. Do your research.

>> No.4844337

>>4844319

Its not logically consistent, its a self defeating concept that is at odds with a rational, consistent universe.

>>4844324

There is proof for logic being adequate, if you allow to be. If you just set up ridiculous standards and say "nuffin can be known or proven", then you haven't achieved anything, much less have even attempted to prove something cannot be proven.

>> No.4844338

>>4844305
That is only because men have laid the foundation. Women are quickly laying their own with the help of modern logistics, media, and commerce.

Societies progress is often its own demise.

>> No.4844389

>>4844337
There is no way of knowing if there is a rational, consistent universe because our only methods of understanding the universe cannot produce such knowledge. You are literally sub-undergrad if you genuinely think this way.

>> No.4844392

>>4844337
You're missing the point. We can make models for the world, and we can make 'truth' - but only in symbols, we will never actually obtain complete ideas about reality

>> No.4844395

The film Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was far better written than the book Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

>> No.4844406

completeness is not very relevant. what is relevant is that our understanding of the world is always presented at the realist's face value. this means that reality is not a metaphysical construct but a logical one, and in order for it to serve that function it has to be vigorously realist.

>> No.4844410

>>4844316
>If I say "prove to me there are seals on Pluto", and someone takes me there and shows me them


Then your "framework" or criteria for proof is basically naive realism "hurr it appears that way, therefore it is true!"

No philosopher takes that criteria seriously, only plumbers and carpenters do.

>> No.4844419

>>4844324
Did Godel prove that (i.e. that no recursively enumerable axiomatizable system that is consistent has all truths about arithmetic as theorems)?
Yes.
Therefore some things can be proven.

>> No.4844423

>>4844406
oh wow check out onionpleb

>> No.4844426

>>4844395
You only think that you're trolling.

>> No.4844435

>>4844406
analytic phil is functionally worthless and the sooner you accept this the sooner you'll stop being a vague retard with nothing of value to contribute

>> No.4844451

>>4844419

>If something can be proven, things can be proven.

Suppose I have some system of logic where my only logical axiom is:

X != X.

My only rule of inference is:

If X, then Y
X
~Y

In such a system, the following premises:

(1) If X == Y, then X != Y.
(2) X == Y
(3) ~(X != Y)

This has been proven. I have provided the logical (or non-logical) axioms, as well as the rules of inference.

Is this meaningful? Well, it has been "proven" in the manner of which you speak. But the manner in which you speak of it is clearly trivial in the sense that there is an unintuitive quality of the axioms and their derivations.

The point is: I can <i> prove </i> anything given certain assumptions, and incompleteness is no different: it's a metalogical theorem which works off of certain assumptions, particularly the diagonal lemma.

tl;dr: there is a semantic issue with your presentation of what it means to be a "proof".

>> No.4844460

>>4844419
>>4844451

It might be proven mathematically, but not epistemically.

Math/logic proofs are just agreed on by consensus anyway, there is no way to actually verify any of them.

>> No.4844468

>>4844460

If you read my post, this is what I'm suggesting.

>> No.4844544

>>4843118

True beliefs allow us to track the world. As there is no other way to go about our business but in the world, it's prudent that we know what's going on.

Here's an example:
I am in a hurry to get where I am going and am already late. I have to cross a busy street. I could believe that the street is in fact not busy at all; rather, I choose to believe that it is full of magical and beautiful fairy dust that will transport me instantly to my destination. I walk out into the street, get struck by a car, and die. This is not at all what I wanted. Clearly the true belief would have served me better.

A related point:
In the above case, not only is the true belief superior, it seems to be somewhat irresistible. Maybe some people could, but I'm not sure that I could force my to sincerely believe the false belief rather than the true one. Our minds track the world whether we want them to or not and very often the beliefs we form are somewhat involuntary; particularly those involving immediate perception.

This isn't to say that truth is always better than falsehood. In some cases it might be better for use to believe something false. Perhaps I'm a few stories up in a building that's on fire. I am also spiritual and believe that I will live to 100 because that's what my psychic told me. My belief in the paranormal prevents me from giving over to despair when I would have and I escape the building without suffering any lasting harm. Had I not been a believer I would have given up hope and died in the fire. These false beliefs saved my life. In this case I think we can say that the belief that "everything is magical and beautiful" was better for me than the alternative.

Whether truth is better than falsehood is something you can only decide on a case by case basis.

>> No.4844580

>>4844324
>>4844451 (assuming the same person, or at least responding in response to my objection to first post)

Okay, let me get this straight. I shouldn't believe that there are proofs for anything (or proofs for 'logic being adequate', whatever that means), because of something Godel proved. I assumed you meant the incompleteness theorems. I respond that Godel proved this. And your response is that anything can be proven given certain assumptions, and so Godel's result shouldn't be taken to be established as true? What? (i) If any claim can be proven (as you suggest), and there is some claim (which is obvious), then something can be proven, which is the view I hold. (ii) You were the one appealing to the incompleteness results in the first place. If they aren't true (or established as true), why should I believe what you were using them to argue for?

Finally, showing that something can be proven (i.e., deduced from axioms with rules of inference) in some arbitrary logic is not very interesting (I take it you agree), since we can reject the truth of the axioms, or reject that the rules of inference preserve truth. But some things are true. And some rules of inference preserve truth. So if we have a logic consisting of those (perhaps not all of them, but some of them and no others), then proving something with them (or with them and true premises that aren't axioms of the system) can be very important: it shows that thing proven is true. I take it that Godel's proofs of the incompleteness theorems (or, say, his completeness theorem for FO logic, or all sorts of other theorems of mathematics) are of this interesting sort of proof. If you don't think so, tell me which premise Godel was using is false, or which rule of inference invalid.

>> No.4844603

>>4844389

There is a way though. Everywhere we look we see consistency. I know what you're trying to say, that the Universe could have appeared two minutes and we never know it, but fundamentally, that's a stupid way of thinking and it has no practical use. I agree that there is no 100% bonified way of knowing, but reject that notion on the grounds it doesn't have any practical or aesthetic use. Its junk. In order to participate in careful thought, you must accept the fact you must assume certain things and adopt certain frameworks, and then hold these to be the truth. Otherwise, you're basically a jellyfish, floating around in the boring and useless sea of relativism.

>>4844392

See above. I am know what you're saying, but "truth" is what you allow to be true. If I say "A rock is falling!" and someone dodges it, then that is allowed to be true under the framework we're working within. Its like painting over a white background in green on in paint and then calling the screen white. Well, yeah, it is fundamentally, but the green is the useful information, the white is background noise.

>>4844410

Well, I'd assume they were aliens first, I heavily believe in convergent evolution and don't think much mega fauna on other planets will look that different from Earth.

>> No.4844625

>>4844580
You've missed the point, brother, the point is that proof is not consistent with absolute truth, because any system that attempts to correlate to reality can disprove itself. You're stuck in the idea that proofs are necessary. Your whole methodology doesn't produce truth.

>> No.4844632

>>4844603
Yes, we are floating around on a sea of relativism. Become self aware of your own reaction to this knowledge, don't just deny it because it challenges you on a visceral level.

>> No.4844639

>>4844603
"A rock is falling!" Is simply symbols that attempt to correlate with reality. They fail to correlate with reality. This is the problem.

>> No.4844656

>>4844632

I've known this since I was like, 11. Its baby-philosophy that's completely useless. You can have truth if create a framework that accommodates it. You can also have truth in objectivity i.e "initiating violence is a violation of the non-aggression principle". That is true in all times, all places and universes possible, since the non-aggression principle is an abstract concept independent of time and space.

>>4844639

They don't fail to correlate with reality. If a rock is falling, a rock is falling, independent of whether I observe it or not.

>> No.4844666

>>4844625
I don't think proofs (in systems with rules of inference that preserve truth and with true axioms) are necessary for truth. There are tons of things (not just Godel sentences) that are true but unprovable. But I do think that it's sufficient for truth, and that there are plenty of truths that can be so proven, such as Godel's incompleteness theorems (as well as all sorts of other more mundane truths). And neither you nor anyone else here has made any decent argument that this isn't the case. The incompleteness theorems don't show that 'any system that attempts to correlate itself with reality' is inconsistent, just that any system that is complete (i.e., that can prove all the truths stateable in the system) is inconsistent. But I'm happy with systems that can't prove all truths, just as long as they can prove some interesting ones without also proving contradictions (or falsehoods more generally).

>> No.4844678

>>4844656
>You can have truth if create a framework that accommodates it.

This isn't the problem you stupid fucking person. Logically consistent, completely internal systems are possible, but they have no utility. At all, besides in epistemological terms. When you "create a system", that system either can't explain the physical, or it contradicts. You never produce absolute truth. Ever. You can't set theory your way into truth

You don't understand the difference between "a rock is falling" and actual physical phenomenon. "A rock is falling" is loaded with ambiguity. What does "a rock is falling" tell you about reality, or what will happen? If the rock falls, it hits the ground and stops moving. None of these ideas actually explain what you've seen, they're abstractions and they fail. They fail to expand into any meaningful understanding of anything

>> No.4844683

>>4844678
>mathematics has no utility
dumb

>> No.4844687

>>4844666
Gödel's incompleteness theorem isn't "true" though, Jesus fucking Christ. It's a proof made WITHIN A LOGICAL FRAMEWORK that proves ONLY THE FRAMEWORK IT IS IN is false. This so happens to EXTEND TO ALL MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE, an it is not just an UNSOLVED problem, it is an UNSOLVABLE problem of ALL systems capable of BASIC ARITHMETIC.

>> No.4844696

>>4844683
That's not what I said you fucking troglodyte. There are incredibly basic logical systems that are consistent, but they aren't capable of arithmetic. Arithmetic is useful in creating models, the problem is that math and these models don't fucking explain reality, they are broken abstractions of reality that will never lead us to what is "true"

>> No.4844697

>>4844687
No, it's true. If you have a refutation of it, please provide it, or send it to a mathematics or logic journal, you will be famous. It's a proof made in a 'logical framework' that has only truth preserving inferences and allows only true premises. Just because not every truth can be proven doesn't mean not any truth can be proven. This is basic reasoning. Come on.

>> No.4844700

>>4844696
Just because a system isn't complete doesn't mean it's not consistent. There can be extremely powerful yet consistent systems. Like set theory.

>> No.4844708

>>4844697
Oh god, just because we can't adequately explain reality doesn't mean we drop the fucking pencils and give up, don't be so goddamn dramatic.

>> No.4844714

>>4844700
Set theory doesn't explain reality. At all. It fails. It's wrong. It doesn't work. Get it through your head!

Set theory only works over DISCRETE SYSTEMS. Do you understand what the fuck I'm saying? Do you know what discrete mathematics is? It fails to do anything for CONTINUOUS SYSTEMS, of which REALITY IS.

>> No.4844724

>>4844697

Watch me disprove Godel's incompleteness theorem:

I refute and deny all of your unintuitive axioms!

Therefore, it is based on false premises.

QED.

Eat shit, cunt.

>> No.4844729

>>4844714
I will say what I said in the other thread:
Read a real analysis book. Real numbers can be constructed from sets. Real numbers are continuous.

And anyway, discrete math describes all sorts of stuff in reality (namely all the discrete things). E.g., I have two books on my table. If you put another book on the table. There will be three books on the table. And there are 6 ways of ordering them.


And I'll add:
What is wrong about set theory? It doesn't claim to be about everything, just sets. What does it get wrong? Please show me one falsehood you have proved from set theory.

>>4844708
I agree. I don't recommend that we drop our pencils and give up. Indeed, I'm advocating a parallel point. Just because we can't prove some things, doesn't mean we can't prove anything.

>> No.4844732

>>4844678

>Logically consistent, completely internal systems are possible, but they have no utility.

Obviously they do have utility, because mathematics, science, and even the non-aggression principle are exactly that.

> "create a system", that system either can't explain the physical"

Systems don't have to explain jack shit to have utility. The non-aggression principle doesn't explain anything, it still has utility.

>You never produce absolute truth.

I just fucking did. "Initiating violence is a violation of the non-aggression principle". That is as true as you can possibly get. Its true in any space in any time.

>You can't set theory your way into truth

Yes I can. You're fucking doing it right now.

>They fail to expand into any meaningful understanding of anything

If a rock falls independent of whether I observe it or not, its still true. The rock fell. Now lets put you and me in the picture. If I tell you a rock is falling, obviously that has utility because you fucking move, or at least react by turning white.

>> No.4844736

>>4844724
Please be more specific about the axiom you have in mind, and how it is disproved.

Of course, crazy people can deny whatever they want. Doesn't bother me (or disprove mathematical theorems).

>> No.4844739

>>4844732
>Systems don't have to explain jack shit to have utility

The predictability of a system is what makes it utilitous, you cromagnon

>> No.4844741

>>4844736
Provide me with an axiom, any axiom.

The most essential logical axiom in maths logic:

X = X

I disagree, this isn't true.

Prove me wrong.

Do it, try.

You can't. I assert X is not equal to X.

I am right you are wrong. Maths should be founded on this premise.

>> No.4844742

>>4844729
Or maybe you should reread yours and stop misinterpreting it

>> No.4844744
File: 68 KB, 386x220, image.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4844744

>>4844724
Fucking saved.

>> No.4844746

>>4844736

>disprove axioms

ahahahaha - second-right pseudo-scientist

>> No.4844747
File: 648 KB, 825x707, 1395932087678.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4844747

>>4843118


>thinking the true and beautifule are ultimately distincte or mutually exclusive

modernity everyone.

>> No.4844749

>>4844746
>second-right

>> No.4844752

>>4844739

The non-aggression principle and science don't have predictability. You can't "predict" the non-aggression principle, and you can't predict everyone will follow it. It still has utility because if everyone agreed with it, the world would function accordingly, same with science.

>> No.4844759

>>4844749
i will concede this was an error, but would like to make it a neologism for "wrong". you're "second-right" or not right at all.

>> No.4844760

I mean, fuck, trying to produce a mathematics that explains everything is like trying to build a hammer that never breaks. It just doesn't fucking happen

>> No.4844765

>>4843118
Because if you want power that comes with the ability to understand the world around you then truth is going to play a fairly important role. If you are happy to go about and not really understand how the world around you works but just take everything as it comes then feel free man

>> No.4844769

>>4844752
This is close to the dumbest statement in this thread. By what moral concept is non-aggression a pure good that we ought to pursue? Do you even Hume?

Now you're going to preach to me about some absolute moral concept, ah ah ah

>> No.4844781

>>4844769

I'm not dumb, you're just too retarded to comprehend the most simplistic of concepts.

"Initiating violence is a violation of the non-aggression principle". This is true in all times, all places, every single fucking universe you can think of.

>> No.4844787

>>4844781
What the literal fuck are you talking about? Can you not recognize the presumptuous nature of your argument?

Have you ever taken a glance at morality theories?

>> No.4844798

>>4844787

Can't you read? "Initiation of violence is a violation of the non-aggression principle".

Even if aggression was the most moral thing ever, and we all aspired to be the most violent people ever. In fact, lets imagine God himself came down and the non-aggression principle is morally wrong. "Initiating violence is a violation of the non-aggression principle" would still hold true, because the non-aggression principle itself is defined as morally right, independent of what even the most omnipotent God or relativist says.

>> No.4844806
File: 37 KB, 321x447, retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4844806

>>4844798
Go away.

>> No.4844808

>>4844798
You are literally too stupid for philosophy

>> No.4844811

>>4844806
>>4844808

Ever heard of the Dunning-kruger effect? That's you.

>> No.4844814

>>4844811
Good job staying on point. Now go back to /sci/ and get shit on for being the idiot you are

>> No.4844816
File: 226 KB, 321x346, 1354295650969.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4844816

>>4844811
"That applies to you" would make more sense. Don't you worry about our IQs, honey.

>> No.4844829

>>4844814

>/sci/
>implying I would ever hang around with a bunch of Krauss-tier autists

>>4844816

No, you are literally the dunning-kruger effect. You are the personification of it. Lets face it, you couldn't argue back so you pretended to be a hip, detached patrician, but we all know you couldn't muster an argument against my intellectual weight.

>> No.4844846

>>4844829
>dunning-kruger effect
>my intellectual weight

>> No.4844849

The non-aggression principle is the most laughable piece of political philosophy there is.

>> No.4844853

>If you want to view paradise, simply look around and view it!
Sounds like conservatism

>> No.4844856

>>4844846

>implying its the dunning kruger effect when you know you're an intellectual giant

>>4844849

>political philosophy
>a universal principle

>> No.4844857

>>4844829
Lol >muh ZFC means math is perfect

Call me when each of the sciences reconcile and a set theory with one basic set of axioms exists, with no paradoxes, that can explain everything. Until then you haven't proved anything

>> No.4844861

>>4844752


>contingent categorical imperatives

http://therightstuff.biz/2012/12/01/you-down-with-nap/

>> No.4844869
File: 4 KB, 200x200, Commutative_diagram_for_morphism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4844869

>>4844857

category theory was here, set theory is a busta.

>> No.4844871

>>4844849
It basically amounts to "We don't need god or government!" -- "god" and "government" meaning very close to the same thing, born into this world solipsistically as we are -- and though that might seem well and good to some to begin with (hey, we could just indoctrinate it as we do the 10 Commandments!) it completely falls apart as you get nearer and nearer to capitalism's base, which then infects all the rest of it too. People will only buy into order if the order guarantees their survival. God and government, regarding it all very pessimistically (though intelligently), are essential as regards maintaining any sort of real order.

>> No.4844878

>>4844857

I don't deny scientists are laughably wrong about many things. But truth does exist.

>>4844861

That is literally just a block of text written by a retarded child. The NAP does not equal "no rulez".

>> No.4844883

>>4844871
It's either that or we bring about communism and be done with the madness. Anarchists are children railing against god. It's all bias, feely bullshit far worse than anything you might level against the idealist. It's so rare anyone actually thinks, but cries.

>> No.4844887

>>4844878
We can't know if truth exists because we can't look at it and will never have it. It's like you're saying god exists because there are so many religious people

>> No.4844889

>>4844878


its funny, i bet you actually think this is a refutation in your own mind.

>> No.4844894

>>4844849
>>4844871
>>4844883

This is the NAP and society in a nutshell.

>> No.4844902

>>4844894
And then you have the Christian conservatives at the opposite end of the spectrum, they representing basically the biggest pussies in society, afraid to cry lest they get a slap.

>> No.4844906

>making farts
>2012
Go ahead, blame your "human nature"

>> No.4844907

>>4844887

Woah, I never said truth exists. Truth is about as existent as a corporation, it doesn't exist. But things can be true. There is "truth", if you create a framework in which it can exist.

>>4844889

It is a refutation. If he fundamentally doesn't understand the NAP and demonstrates this, I'm going to bother listening to him. Non-aggression principle does not mean no rules. You're about as free to do you want as you are right now.

>> No.4844919

>>4844907
>4844907


your infantile objection of 'no rulez' (never mind the near instant reply) informs me you havent actually read it.

>> No.4844928

>>4844887
Is it true that we can't know that truth exists?

>> No.4844940

>>4844849
>>4844871
>>4844883
>>4844894
>>4844902
Bump. Humanity is a joke. You've more than likely never talked sense in your life, but cried and cried and cried.

>> No.4844941

>>4844928
>I can find a contradiction in your system with my system that contradicts
>therefore, I have proven my point

Gr8 b8 m8

>> No.4844944

>>4844940
That's not very nice

>> No.4844947

>>4844919

Its not an "infantile objection" if someone fundamentally doesn't understand what it is. Also, you're not as smart as you think you are either, if anarcho-capitalism is so absurd you should be able to refute it yourself.

>> No.4844949

>>4844941
>systems with contradictions can't exist!
Humans can both love AND hate, those are contradictory emotions. The universe itself has particles that can exist in more than one place at a time, and that's kinda contradictory in my imo.
Marxism is SHIT!

>> No.4844951

>>4844944
Truth hurts. Still a rapist?

>> No.4844953

>>4844947


by all means, read the article then.

>> No.4844955

>>4844951
u wot

>> No.4844966

>>4844955
Well you recognise me anyway. I'm a nice guy, a bit of harshness is just necessary to snap people out of their caustic retardedness.

>> No.4844976

>>4844966
YOU'RE caustic

>> No.4844993

>>4844976
>>4844966

both of your mothers are caustic, Ahahahaha - ahahahaha (ahahahaha (ahahahaha...)...)

>> No.4844995

>>4844976
Wrong.

>> No.4844996

>>4844953

I did read the article. Its ironic trash.

>> No.4844997

>>4844993
Proof?

>> No.4845006

>>4844993
Unfunny and retarded. You fail at life, mate.

>> No.4845010

>>4845006
gb2 doodieheadsville, jerkface

>> No.4845012
File: 4 KB, 119x103, 1395509607275.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4845012

>>4844996


now youre just being willfully obtuse.

if you want to make claims of logically consistent and universally applicable axioms, you better make sure they are indeed logically consistent and universally applicable (which, as we can see, is not actually the case here).

>> No.4845019

>>4845010
Stop posting.

>> No.4845027

>>4845019
You first

>> No.4845031

>>4845027
But I make intelligent contribution...

>> No.4845032

>>4845012

They are universally applicable and logically consistent though. By all means, prove they aren't.

>> No.4845040

>>4845031
No you don't

>> No.4845050

>>4844324
>is inherently self-contradicting
Godel never proved logic was self contradicting. He proved essentially that no collection of arithmetical statements is complete. But that doesn't mean it's self contradicting, only that there's always something new to learn. It's debatable whether this applies to formal logic.

>> No.4845051

>>4845040
You're a spastic, mate.

>> No.4845054
File: 38 KB, 637x476, 1398722248615.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4845054

>>4845032


>As you would expect when delving into the bizarre and macabre nether realm of anarchist ideology, the various sects cannot agree on exactly what constitutes aggression. In fact they are directly odds with each other on precisely this question. The libertarian/capitalist types define aggression as the initiation of force or threats against people or property. The pinko/commie types define aggression as systems of structured hierarchy (private property being one such system) and the denial of basic human needs. The idea being that individuals only ever submit themselves to hierarchy out of fear of the denial of these needs. Not only are these two definitions in direct contradiction, but both are supposed to lay the foundation of universal objective morality for all humans. Given this irreconcilable schism over what are basically religious doctrines we would expect these two groups of social malcontents to be perpetually engaged with each other in some sort of dramatic, Manichean struggle for the survival of humanity. If the correct interpretation of the NAP is really as fundamental to the future of human society as is claimed, then neither side can compromise. Ever. Victory must be total.

>How is the “right” to property that the libertarian axiom depends on established? Since we are basing an absolute moral rule for all human behavior around this concept, it had better be airtight. It has to be axiomatic in itself, or else you cannot derive an absolute moral truth from it. Another issue is that force is often justified, even with in the libertarian paradigm. So how do we know at any time whether this or that use of force is justified? It all depends on property claims, and if there is a conflict, who has the right to step in and settle it? And how did they justly acquire this right under the rule?

>For libertarians taxes are defined as a violation of individual property rights. But the state regards them as a just collection of payments due, and they reserve the right to take them by force if they are not offered voluntarily. In another context libertarians would agree that force is justified in the case of a breach of contract. So then what constitutes a valid contract must also be defined, and must also be axiomatic. The whole thing soon spirals into a problem that libertarians theoretically want to avoid, that is too many goddamn rules. But even worse, each rule must be a universal axiom or else it violates the very rule it is trying to prove valid. So it falls into a self-detonating, turtles all the way down problem. The libertarian has a lot of homework to do here if he is going to resolve these thorny issues rather than just paper them over.

>> No.4845059

>>4845051
No I'm not

>> No.4845061
File: 20 KB, 250x256, 1394668669914.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4845061

>>4845054


>For the pinko/commie type anarchist the issue is hierarchy. What is a hierarchy? People telling each other what to do? Someone giving someone else money in exchange for the performance of some tasks? And why is this sort of hierarchy to be opposed? People submit to this sort of hierarchy all the time by choice. People report to an employer because they want to get paid. It is worth it to them to do this. In fact, if prevented from doing this, people will actively seek out another opportunity to do it again. It’s true that they do so because they want to make a living, so they do not have absolute free choice. But no one does. Unless the pinko wants to claim (he does) that not getting your needs met by society is an act of aggression. But where is the actual aggression here? It is the real laws of nature that are actually to blame. So in this case the actual laws of nature are in conflict with the conceptual “natural” law that everyone deserves to get free stuff from everyone else.

>How could hierarchy in human relationships ever be prevented without resorting to a hierarchical anti-hierarchy police agency of some sort? It’s the same issue as above. The rule violates itself. And what is need? Where is the line between needs and wants? What material goods make the cut? Is everyone in the universe that does not put food on my plate now committing an act of aggression against me? Don’t answer that.

>Rather than setting you free, dedication to the NAP as the endpoint of your ideology traps you in a prison of words and arcane concepts that don’t relate in any meaningful way to actual human relationships. It is incredibly intellectually limiting. And it is boring as hell. If you have ever dealt with NAP disciples you have no doubt noticed that they have not only dedicated themselves to this arbitrary religious concept, they have signed away their ability to have any subjective opinions or preferences whatsoever outside the rule. “As long as it is voluntary” is the familiar incantation. If you display a preference against any behavior that does not violate your “rights” as defined by the NAP, you will likely be chastised for it. So it appears that to many anarchists there is at least one non-NAP violating behavior worthy of criticism, and that is criticism of non-NAP violating behavior! AAArrrgghhhhh………

>> No.4845091

>>4845054
>>4845061
Why does this article assume the NAP needs to be universal and axiomatic?

Not the guy you're arguing with (you're both turds) btw, just curious.

>> No.4845096

>>4845054

First of all, commie/pinko types are fundamentally wrong. The non-aggression principle does not extend to feels, it never has done and never will. If you "feel" threatened by a hierarchy, which is an abstract concept, by all means, go off and live in a forest or sleep on the streets. If someone is pointing a gun at you, that is a physical threat, and it is legit to defend yourself. I have a feeling the author is lying, because I never come across a commie who agrees with the non-aggression principle.

The right to property is established by courts. Force is only justified in self defense. Also, you only follow the laws by which you agree to, but you acknowledge if you do not comply with certain laws, you will be ostracized from society, via companies cutting off your water and denying you healthcare.

Libertarians would agree force is necessary in violation of contracts, ancaps do not not and many libertarians such as the tea-baggers and paleo-conservatives don't adhere to the NAP. This is why I said he fundamentally doesn't understand the NAP. You cannot justify force, unless it is self defense from physical aggression. You cannot force someone to go to jail. You cannot force someone to get off your property. You can exercise your right to deny them non-optional positive obligations, such as property, coverage for future conflicts and health care.

>> No.4845102

>>4845091


because thats how categorical imperatives (an essential example of deontological ethics) are supposed to work, and from whence they presumably derive their legitimacy (the question of course then arises, if a principle is indeed natural and universal, it does not require us to enforce it, as it is always and already the case).

>> No.4845105

>>4845059
>>4845040
>>4845051
>>4845031
>>4845019
>>4845010
>>4845010
>>4844997
>>4845006
>>4844997
>>4844996
>>4844995
>>4844993
>>4844976
>>4844966

Prove it, nigga. Protip: you can't. Your assertions hold no weight you cum-slurping ass-eaters.

>> No.4845109

>>4845102
Why does libertarianism or the NAP have to be justified by the categorical imperative?

I could easily see utilitarian arguments for it for instance.

>> No.4845114

>>4845105
>cum-slurping ass-eaters
That's groce

>> No.4845116

>>4845105
>>4845114

Prove it

>> No.4845133

>>4845116
I. Niggers

II. Niggers

III. Niggers

Conclusion: Niggers.

For proof of I, II, and III, see Niggers immediately.

>> No.4845137

>>4845133
proofs don't count if you don't say 'QED', lrn2academia

>> No.4845143

>>4845137
>QED
funny way to spell GEB

>> No.4845150
File: 168 KB, 600x500, 1395582160867.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4845150

>>4845096


the author is a former marxist, and is referring to chomskiyan style anarchists (http://www.infoshop.org/AnAnarchistFAQ)), and of course marxism itself is fundamentally anarchistic.

>The right to property is established by courts

who died and made the judge king?

>Libertarians would agree force is necessary in violation of contracts, ancaps do not not and many libertarians such as the tea-baggers and paleo-conservatives don't adhere to the NAP.

i would say noone actually adheres to the 'NAP' (however defined), because ideology is mans servant, not master. anything he can conceive of, naturally, cannot fully contain him (or else he would not be able to conceive of it). to paraphrase hegel, if the theory does not fit the goal, so much the worse for theory.

>You cannot force someone to go to jail. You cannot force someone to get off your property.

its cute how you actually think forbearing these options wholesale would be good for society.

i know what the actual argument is (if everyone acted in such and such a way things would probably [emphasis on probability] be better in such and such ways). but the thing is, when we say this, we are no longer actually discussing categorical imperatives, and their utilization is rather a rhetorical tactic.

>> No.4845165

>>4845150

Anarcho-Communism is not Anarcho-Capitalism.

>who died and made the judge king

The DRO's.

>i would say noone actually adheres to the 'NAP'

I adhere to the NAP. I do not spank or yell at children, and I never initiate force. This is what I mean when I say it has utility, the NAP is arguably one of the only principles around today that has utility. The goal of anarcho-capitalism is to profess the NAP, the NAP itself is a principle and does not have a goal.

Its not a case of "if everyone acted in x way", its a case of "initiating force is always wrong, unless in self defense". That's literally the be all and end all.

>> No.4845171

>>4845165
defensive force creates cold wars, you're just a little passive-aggressive bitch

>> No.4845177

>>4845171
I bet the cold war cost less people their lives than World War 2.

>> No.4845190

>>4845171

>defense force creates

DRO's aren't a defense force, they're a dispute resolution organization. If you get into a dispute, they'll negotiate with other DRO's and individuals to protect your contracts. For example, if someone mugged me, they will negoatiate with the DRO of the mugger to get him to give me back my stuff and pay a fine. If he doesn't, his DRO will penalize him by either raising the price of his member ship of abandoning him altogether, which means he can't get a job or access to healthcare.

>> No.4845200

>>4845165


and anarcho-capitalism is not actually anarchistic if they are being honest (which is why its atleast somewhat better).

>The DRO's.

who died and made them king?

>the NAP is arguably one of the only principles around today that has utility

this is the problem with this kind of thinking in a nutshell. the autistic desire for a simple ideological magic bullet ultimately results in attempts to try and cleave actual realities of natural law to fit with their conception of 'natural law', to our collective regret. attempts to elevate some contingent concept to the status of 'ultimate object' is one reason why conscious attempts to get rid of 'god' as an ideal object often result in dangerous ideology.

>"initiating force is always wrong, unless in self defense"

except you do not have a universally consistent definition of force, or aggression (and to do so would make such words cease to have any descriptive utility in any contingent context).

the 'utilitarian' argument for the adoption of rules like NAP is really an argument for virtue ethics, and you'ed save alot more time and mental trauma by recognizing this.

>> No.4845282

>>4845200

It is anarchistic. There is no state.

>who died and made them king?

You. You can choose not to have a DRO, but since they solve any dispute you get into with other individuals, and most individuals won't do business with you if you don't a DRO, it would be stupid not to have one.

The NAP is not a natural law, its not any kind of law. Its a principle.

The definition of force is open to interpretation by laymen (although almost all ancaps agree it is the destruction property, which includes the self, since each individual is his own property), but the laymen usually aren't being logically consistent. Its an argument for ethics, yes. It comes under under ethics, as well as principles.

When humans are approaching situations they do not know what to do in, its principles they rely on, just we rely on the North Star to guide us through a misty ocean. When Humans colonize Mars and are far from government influence, it will be principles we turn to. When you leave the house to interact with the chaos of everyday society, its principles you rely on. Principles serve a highly utilitarian purpose, probably even more utilitarian than hard science.

>> No.4845404

>>4845282


>You.

so youre actually a democrat then.

DROs can also 'choose' not to have competition, whos gona stop them?

>since each individual is his own property

if you dont believe people have a right to indentured servitude (or be the same), you dont believe in capitalism.

>When humans are approaching situations they do not know what to do in, its principles they rely on

this is exactly backwards, ideologies are by definition 'what we know to do when'. the NAP is only adaptive within a contingent context, a specific operating envelope, it requires certain presuppositions to exist. going beyond the pale, coming up with what to do without the naive calculation of some received system, takes virtue, qualities that are scalable, exponential, and anti-fragile.

>p.s. the NAP is most certainly a rule, i cant believe youre even trying to make that sort of argument

>> No.4845405

ITT:
>Exactly why we can't have nice things like truth

>> No.4845406

Evolution.
Causation and superstition (two faces of the same coin) evolved because "truths" help with survival.
Good luck reproducing and spreading your delusional genes once you've dreamed that the car speeding at you is in fact a cushy marshmallow.

>> No.4845511

>>4845404

>democrat

I disagree with democracy, in fact, I would prefer a monarchy if we're talking about warlords.

DRO's cannot "choose" not to have competition, I don't really know what you'e getting at. Other DRO's and people who provide them with loans and investment will stop them.

>if you dont believe people have a right to indentured servitude (or be the same), you dont believe in capitalism.

Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. There is nothing about self-appropriation that contradicts that. When you are born, you appropriate yourself. You privately own your own means of production, i.e your labor.

The NAP is universally applicable, and does not require much forethought. You can apply it any situation.

No, its not a rule, its a principle you choose to follow.

>> No.4845518

>>4845511


>I don't really know what you'e getting at

i think you know what im implying.

>Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production.

including other people

>The NAP is universally applicable
>The definition of force is open to interpretation by laymen

one of these things is not like the other.

>> No.4845628

>>4845518

If you#re implying DRO's will use violence to snuff out competition, then you're wrong. Violence and I suppose what you can call war really are expensive activities that very rarely yield any long-term benefit or riches. Its easier to negotiate and actually do your job.In fact the only examples (even included the British empire, which was a net drain to Britain) where violence profits are when a group raids but does not attempt to actually take over anything, they just take the resources and go home. But even that's non-viable long term, since you don't leave anything behind, as the Huns learned. Also, if a DRO wanted to fight another DRO, most customers, investors and groups that help contracts with the DRO would likely cut them off.

>including other people

No, if you agree to perform labor for someone, you've already agreed voluntarily the amount you will receive and the amount the emplouer will recipient. If you're implying slavery, (a) slavery is inherently inferior to paid workers, they just don't work with the same efficiency, which is why George Washington opposed it, and (b) you can't sell yourself into slavery, since its inconsistent with the NAP.

The NAP is universally applicable, force is open to interpretation (although as I said, virtually nill actual ancaps disagree on the NAP, its usually outsiders trying to be contrarian). One of these things is not like the other, and that's force and the NAP. The NAP is that initiating force is wrong, where force can change definition, but the NAP cannot. The definition is agreed upon however.

>> No.4845653

>>4845628


>If you#re implying DRO's will use violence to snuff out competition

history is filled with 'DROs' attempting to snuff out competition with violence, so id say im not.

and indeed war can be expensive, but war can also be carried out by many means (various an-cap definitions of 'force' are really just special pleading between different forms of coercion, more rhetoric obscuring the fact that we are really discussing consequentialism).

>slavery is inherently inferior to paid workers

not necessarily (see lifetime employment schemes of many japanese businesses)

>you can't sell yourself into slavery, since its inconsistent with the NAP.

then you dont actually believe in capitalism.

>> No.4845692

>>4845653

History is filled with states attempting to snuff out competition, which is caused a way of thinking where people held abstract ideas such as religions or nations to be things worth fighting for. Before around 6000BC, there is very little evidence of humans getting into conflicts, most groups left each other alone. If you're suggesting that people will get into conflict when they believe certain ideas to be true and infrastructure isn't in place to stop them, then I agree and that's what anarcho-capitalism is about stopping. Any system suffers much more from the same flaws, and I'd argue states are even more susceptible to de-stabilization and conflict.

Also, force only appliesto situations where you physically destroying property. Consequences will and are intended to happen in anarcho-capitalism, but these are exercised by denying cooperation, not using force.

It is inherently inferior, and its well known that corporate Japan is incredibly inefficient. Most of the employees don't even do anything.

Capitalism does not have anything to do with slavery. In fact, I'd argue slavery is not capitalism, as it requires the centralization of labor.

>> No.4845725

>>4843118

'I'll take it as a definition that Reality is nothing other than Power.'

-Plato

There is no 'subject' or 'object', only Power which is the Form of the Real. Truth is only a species of the Real. Therefore truth is nothing other than e capacity to cause effects and negate the reception of effects from other causes participating in reality.

This is why the perfect human must be a master of rhetoric.

>> No.4845733

>>4845692


>but these are exercised by denying cooperation

like i said, special pleading. youre ruling out a-priori that 'physical' coercion can never achieve desired ends, i say this is not the case.

>It is inherently inferior, and its well known that corporate Japan is incredibly inefficient.

efficient for what? it does a very good job of providing a place and purpose for people who might not otherwise be able, without the deleterious effects of unqualified welfare.

>Capitalism does not have anything to do with slavery. In fact, I'd argue slavery is not capitalism, as it requires the centralization of labor.

youre trying to tell people what they can or cant sell, seems pretty anti-capitalist.

also, a systematically consistent line between 'public' and 'private' also does not obtain. a business too is a sort of fiefdom, with its lords, knights, and vassals. we know what public, private, or business, refer to in a specific context, but when you emancipate these words from these contexts, when you try to turn them into some sort of rigorous logical necessity, when you put the cart before the horse, youre going to run into problems (as noted in previous posts).

tl;dr stop trying attempting to 'calculate' morality with post-hoc rationalizations.

>> No.4845734

>>4845692
The private ownership of capital has everything to do with slavery, in fact slavery (the ownership of another's labor as capital) is a perfectly natural state of affairs that cannot be prevented inasmuch as the world is finite as St. Augustine noted in his magnum opus. Slavery never ceases to exist, it only becomes more endurable. Such is original sin (finite resources).

>> No.4845779
File: 65 KB, 640x426, 1382576461520.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4845779

>>4843118
>intrinsic
Listen, if you imbue it with value and wonder, that value and wonder is, by definition, extrinsic. And that's the reason why people think you should value truth.

>> No.4845828

>>4845779

I would imbue it with value either way, the result is the same.

Intrinsic vs extrinsic is just a word game.

>> No.4845848

>>4845828
That's a nonsensical response, and extrinsic vs. intrinsic is the crux of the issue you raised. Why value truth? Because truth reflects the intrinsic. Your perception and any influence your mind might have on the object is extrinsic, by definition and does not approach the objects actual essence. Why value truth? Because truth defines the thing as it is, and your perception defines only the thing as you make it.

And if you don't want to play word games, friend, don't present your argument using words.

>> No.4845891

>>4845848
Intrinsic doesn't mean anything.

Truth is malleable

>> No.4845902

>>4844857
paradoxes are not that bad. they are why i have job

>> No.4845905

>>4843124

The next time you get pneumonia, don't take any medication. The default world is a phantasm, so you're much better off simply willfully rendering a world in which you don't have pneumonia. I'm sure you'll be fine.

Non-snark answer: If you don't want to place yourself in grievous bodily harm, you will learn to value the truth. In areas of your life where there is little harm in inventing a false reality (ie, convincing yourself that people find your internet posts insightful,) you'd might as well just revel in your imagined world. But that shouldn't diminish the value you place in truth.

>> No.4845908

>people seriously arguing over whether truth is intrinsic or extrinsic

Math was here.

You are all a bunch of buffoons. Well, half of you anyway.

>> No.4845916

>>4845905
>never heard of the placebo effect

>> No.4845984

>>4845891
True only in the context of broader discourse. In the context of the conversation we are having, these words have precise meanings and we should work together to determine what those are.