[ 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: 19 KB, 400x300, 1397688279714.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4844203 No.4844203 [Reply] [Original]

Serious question: Don't you guys realize that the logical conclusion of philosophy is that you really can't know anything and that nothing can definitively be said about anything? God damnit, philosophy is like a process or an activity but not a process that yields truths or facts... it just opens your mind but doesn't leave you with any real conclusions about anything. Even "I think therefore I am" is debatable when you think about it.

>> No.4844209

Prove it.

>> No.4844216

>>4844203
And what's so bad about it?

>> No.4844231

>>4844203
>Even "I think therefore I am" is debatable when you think about it.

I'd say 'I think' belongs to a category of things it's not possible to actually doubt. Even a Boltzmann brain thinks, doesn't it?

>> No.4844232

>>4844216
I just think it seems a little dissapointing and pointless to read so much philosophy especially when you realize the ultimate conclusion is that it's all pointless and nothing can be said about anything. of course i'm taking a hardass approach like what socrates did when he chose to die for his idealism rather than live and raise his sons

>> No.4844233
File: 32 KB, 319x360, 1234040696196.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4844233

>>4844203
I see it, and I think that leaves the future open for us to live our lives in the best way.
But most people are still quite a bit confused and devoted to traditions

>> No.4844235

>>4844203
Shit anon, you're right! Thank god for your unprecedented perspicacity.

>> No.4844237

>>4844231
the concept of a self or an "I" is debatable/imaginary... are "you" the same "you" that existed a few years ago when you were composed of completely different atoms? some say yes, some say no. even the concept of "self" is imaginary. philosophy always takes the form of reasoning using language and the real world does not conform to our language well... language is useful for simple communication not for hardcore analysis of the universe which we ultimately can't understand at all, if you look at it at a fundamental level

>> No.4844245

>>4844237
another example: are you you after a car accident when you lose all your memory and are half-vegetable?

>> No.4844250

>>4844237
>are "you" the same "you" that existed a few years ago when you were composed of completely different atoms?

Persistence of identity is a separate issue from identity. Even if 'my' existence consists solely of the scant few seconds I'm in this particular state of mind, 'I' still exist during that time.

>even the concept of "self" is imaginary.

All concepts are imaginary.

>> No.4844253

>>4844232
Debatable truths is better than none. The desire for truth is inherent to anyone.

>> No.4844261

OR you just take the route of phenomenology and focus on the experiential aspect of existence, and use this angle to speak about affectivity, familiarity, isolation, camraderie, uncanniness and home.

>> No.4844266

>>4844250
>'I' still exist during that time.

nice try, but that's just your opinion, don't you see? in my opinion, you're wrong. you can't prove that your statements is correct and I can't prove that my opinion is correct, partially because the limitations of language, partially because you can't really know anything for certain. you could claim that you can, but really "i think therefore i am" is just an opinion. don't you see? it's all opinion

>> No.4844267

>>4844261
As it sidelines the whole bottleneck of "how knowledge is aquired" to go with "this is a thought about how this creates in itself".

>> No.4844270

>>4844266
>but that's just your opinion

No. All the rest follows from your misapprehension on this point.

>> No.4844273

>>4844266
Doesn't opinion neccessitate a consciousness?

Even a 'false' consciousness is still a consciousness in the way that it believes itself to exist.

>> No.4844293

>>4844270
u mad?

>> No.4844298
File: 23 KB, 325x500, mythofsisyhpus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4844298

that's cool

>> No.4844318
File: 1.09 MB, 900x720, Guide For The Perplexed.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4844318

>>4844293

Nah, just right. You should learn to spot the difference. Over the course of your life, you're going to spend a lot of time arguing with people who are right, I can tell.

>> No.4844367

It is debatable that P does not imply that I do not know that P.

>> No.4844438

>>4844318
>Nah

butthurt confirmed

sorry your ego is damaged by my intelligence

>> No.4844458

>>4844203
"I think therefore I am" is incorrect because it assumes you (your ego), the observer of what you do, is the prime mover in deciding what you do. It's clear that this is patent falsehood. No one seriously thinks it is the case.

The most important thing to disabuse yourself of is the view of an absolute truth, not that we can't gain any knowledge at all

>> No.4844459

>>4844209
>prove it
>prove something that has been disproved

>> No.4844463

>>4844231
There only is "I am", because you (the ego) is only an observer. You do not control your thoughts.

>> No.4844465

>>4844232
Socrates lived by the razor that life should be lived virtuously, which is a stupid fuckin idea

>> No.4844469

>>4844253
Not me anymore. After tackling Nietzsche, I've made the choice to live irrationally. So now I flirt with women and I'm trying to have a kid so I can work on my emotions: also I want to feel powerful

>> No.4844470

You only think that because we are in a post-modern epoch. That's literally the axiomatic assumption of our whole age.

>> No.4844472

You haven't gone down the whole deep enough.

If indeed nothing can be said about anything then why is that, and what should we do about it? How does it change how we can relate to each other, when we have no idea even about "others"?

These are the real questions. Being caught up in epistemological skepticism is for undergrads.

>> No.4844473

>>4844318
>TFW acategorical

So am I mustard race?

>> No.4844491

This is why philosophy was superseded by science. While philosophers are boasting about their own ignorance, scientists are exploring nature and producing useful results.

>> No.4844497
File: 16 KB, 282x179, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4844497

>>4844203
>conclusion of philosophy is that you really can't know anything and that nothing can definitively be said about anything?

so woudln't that conclusion be some sort of knowledge?
and woudlnt that disprove what you just said?
and therfeore also something could be said about something?
disproving your own claim?

>I am sad and disappointed that I am the first to point out the big fucking whole in your claim!


well...comes with the territory of an IQ over 145....

>> No.4844503

>>4844203
That is philosophy if you haven't thought about anything since Descartes, there are many other thinkers and perspectives. Descartes point relates only to the notion of "self" but if you ask Heidegger or Hegel they tell you, although from very different lines of reasoning, that there was never anything interesting gained from contemplating "self" anyway. While you can try and reduce everything to a question of radical subjectivity, the truth is that even though i can only consciously know that i think, my thoughts themselves are clearly guided from some place that i do not control. What many seem to forget in ridding themselves of responsibility and social bonds when referring to Descartes, is that Descartes himself claimed that your thoughts were precisely not subjective, the only reason that his ideas survived his time, is that in order to not get in trouble with the christian community he claimed that while you can only truly know that you think, god is the agency from where this thinking is derived. So even the most radical idea of subjectivity couldn't originally stand without an external agency although imaginary. Most philosophy today does not work with such radical ideas of subjectivity but rather that the human agency is always caught in dialectic where it is never possible to be either truly subjective or truly objective.

TL;DR - Yo shit is oversimplified and basically wrong.

>> No.4844504

>>4844497
In other words: How can u know that u cannot know nuthin?

Wow, we've truly reached the cutting edge frontier of deepest philosophical insight!

>> No.4844508

>>4844497
Read Nietzsche. You have hit on something but can't make sense of it: our reasoning, not matter how hard we try to make it, is contradictory. Yes, even the idea that there is no truth is truth, but that doesn't propose there is truth, it proposes that reasoning itself is broken. Don't get stuck in the improper false antitheses of truth seekers.

The problem exists in mathematics too, with sets like the set that contains all set that don't contain itself, which contradicts, or in semantics with the Barry paradox

The point is never meant to be defeatest, it's to disabuse you of conviction toward a single view. We will never find the "truth", what we will do is make models and remake them, forever until we go existinct. The problem is your internal desire for finality or for solutions, not with philosophy

>> No.4844513

>>4844504
No, we know fairly well that we can't know anything, and have to accept that contradiction and irrationality and live in it.

I don't know why you're shitposting

>> No.4844535

>>4844508
>Russell's paradox
That's why we have the ZF axiomatization of set theory. No contradiction there.

>> No.4844536 [DELETED] 

yeah I think a philosophy is largely a purely intellectual art form. you can justify anything in any way you want if you're clever enough about it. it's the way that people arrange they're justifications for ideas that seem impressive. but I wonder. we all got this idea from don Quixote, right? chivalry was all things in the intellectual realm like phi, religion etc etc is potentially what chivalry was to don Quixote. it's potentially not but the point is how do we ever know for certain? we don't but at the same time there is a world with some degree of coherency otherwise we wouldn't bother communicating with each other so we acknowledge that and go about our business trying to get things done when we can.

>> No.4844553

>>4844535
>ZFC

Topkek

http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2013/12/does-zfc-get-rid-of-russells-paradox-2656868.html

>> No.4844557

>>4844513
AGAIN: isn't that knowing something?

>> No.4844564

>>4844557
Yes you fucking retard. It's a contradiction and I know it. You're being too rational. The point is that no system escapes contradiction. Nietzsches is the closest because it only asserts one, really

>> No.4844568

>>4844231
Define this "I' you mention.

>> No.4844572

>>4844203
Yes, the sophists already knew this and Socrates (considered a sophist by plenty at the time) knew it as well. Then Plato came and fucked everything up for a few millennia.

>> No.4844596

>>4844572
I really wonder if Socrates was really looking for "virtue" or if he simply wanted to prove that there is no Truth

>> No.4844605

>>4844553
>getting your views on logic from a site with stories like:
>http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2014/04/miley-cyrus-shows-the-4-horsemen-and-the-end-of-the-age-is-coming-illuminati-freemason-symbolism-2460806.html

fucking dumb. read a book. or
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/

or prove a contradiction from the ZFC axioms. Otherwise stfu.

>> No.4844615

>>4844605
Maybe reading only part of a discrete math textbook is just stupid!

>> No.4844618

>>4844605
ZFC doesn't apply to real-world systems so it says nothing. You can always create internally consistent systems

>> No.4844629

>>4844615
>>4844618
(Pretty much) all of mathematics can be proven in set theory (maybe not some stuff in category theory). Set theory is consistent. So (pretty much) all of mathematics is consistent. So mathematics doesn't have a problem because of Russell's paradox, which is the claim I was arguing against.

>> No.4844635

>>4844618
and if you don't think the mathematics that can be derived from set theory applies to real world systems you're a moron.

>> No.4844637

>>4844232
If you're gonna complain about the lack of conclusions in philosophy, you should not study it. You must first accept the lack of conclusions, embrace uncertainty and simply enjoy the varied outlooks and possibilities until you're ready to make the leap of faith and live the rest of your life believing in what's most comfortable for your consciousness but still possess the knowledge about other views.

>> No.4844641

>>4844596
It's best not to trust Plato's account at all. It would be like basing your views on Ceasar on Shakespeare.

>> No.4844647

>>4844629
Except that's incorrect, so I don't know what you want me to say

>> No.4844650

>>4844637
>leap of faith

I'm an atheist. I'm too intelligent for faith.

>> No.4844651

>>4844635
If you think that a system with inherent inconsistencies explains the world then you're an idiot

>> No.4844654

Yes, we concluded that logic was shit a while ago.

>> No.4844655

>>4844232
Life has no point, therefore it is meaningless if you debate this or not on 4chan

>> No.4844664

>>4844655
>calls himself a philosopher
>doesn't even know the meaning of life

0/10

>> No.4844669

>>4844650
You still value Truth, yet you've realized Truth is deprived. You'll come around soon.

(it doesn't mean religion btw)

>> No.4844674

>>4844203
Yup, all thought is circling around the truth of non-truth that we're already aware of. We keep doing it because that's what humans do, and it continues to be this way.

>> No.4844675

>>4844651
ZFC doesn't have inconsistencies.
>>4844647
Give me a reason to think it's incorrect besides your saying so.

>> No.4844701

>>4844675
ZFC doesn't have inconsistencies because it only applies to discrete math. Discrete math cannot be used to describe open systems like reality, only closed ones like computers and engines.

In other words, you've proved absolutely nothing relative to the point. ZFC does not substitute classic set theory

>> No.4844705

>>4844675
Do you know the difference between continuous and discrete systems?

>> No.4844718

>>4844701
>>4844705
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.

>> No.4844731

>>4844701
⇒it only applies to discrete math
Bullshit.

>>4844718
⇒Real numbers are continuous.
Continuity is a property of maps, not of sets.

>> No.4844734

>>4844718
But all discrete systems in themselves are an abstraction of reality. A computer is a discrete system but even it's operation is stochastic because you can't predict memory errors. Fundamentally all mathematics that are consistent fail to predict reality entirely, the only have degrees of predictability. And all of these maths fundamentally fail

>> No.4844737

>>4844731
Your second statement proves my point, genius. Discrete systems don't explain reality.

>> No.4844750

>>4844731
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_(set_theory)

>> No.4844761

>>4844750
"The continuum" is not the same as saying a set is "continuous". Get your terminology straight, you pseudo-intellectual high schooler.

>> No.4844771

>>4844761
Ok, a continuous function is one from the reals to the reals. Does that make your autism feel better?

Still refutes the dumbass claim that set theory doesn't apply to continuous reality.

>> No.4844784

>>4844771
Set theory applies, it's just contradictory. Lol

>> No.4844789

>>4844737
You don't even know what "discrete" means.

>>4844771
⇒a continuous function is one from the reals to the reals.
Nope. How hard did you fail your middle school topology class?

>> No.4844791

>Don't you guys realize that the logical conclusion of philosophy is that you really can't know anything and that nothing can definitively be said about anything?

That's quite the definitive statement.

>> No.4844792

>>4844789
Says you?

You've waved your hand and say set theory isn't contradictory. This is the outlandish claim that needs proving

>> No.4844795

>>4844791
Nice straw man

>> No.4844803

>>4844792
I didn't say shit about set theory. I'm sorry to hear that your brain is too underdeveloped to distinguish between two different posters in a conversation. Unsurprisingly this deficit of yours appears to correlate with your inability to comprehend basic math on middle school level. Would you like to participate in a psychological study on intellectual disabilities?

>> No.4844809

>>4844803
Good job staying on point, now go back to /sci/ and get shit on for being the idiot you are

>> No.4844813

>>4844809
Why /sci/? Do you need help with your homework?

>> No.4844824

>>4844784
wtf are you talking about?
>>4844789
Even better, continuous functions are a proper subset of the functions from reals to reals. still, the same point holds.

>> No.4844827

>>4844824
⇒continuous functions are a proper subset of the functions from reals to reals

The definition of continuity has nothing to do with the reals.

>> No.4844834

>>4844318
4/10 to whoever has that much of a life

>> No.4844838

>>4844318
What a retarded picture. I am familiar with all the major dogmas in philosophy and I dismiss all of them. The more I learned about philosophy, the more I realized how useless it is.

>> No.4844839

>>4844838
I'm familiar with all the major themes in your post and so I can deduce that you are worthless

>> No.4844860

>>4844438
Reading the back and forth, you definitely seem retarded.

>> No.4846927

>>4844318
that bottom one on green/red is the worst sort of argument.

>> No.4846963

>Don't you guys realize that the logical conclusion of philosophy is that you really can't know anything and that nothing can definitively be said about anything?

The same can be said about statistics - any measurement you take has a margin of error, any sample you take from a population may mirror not the way the actual population looks like.
It's very hard to make absolute statements once you learned a lot about stats.

The upside of statistics, as opposed to philosophy, is that people pay you very good money to do it.

>> No.4846974

Nothing matters, and people have spent their lives searching for meaning, producimg works thst influenced our whole culture and thought.
Not everyone is a nihilist either, you're acting as if current positions on philosophy is what you should accept. Try theism, there's your meaning.

>> No.4846993

>>4844203
>He doesnt know rationality is a Philosophical concept

>> No.4847003

>>4844270
explain anon

>> No.4847021

>reasons philosophically to make the definitive philosophical conclusion that philosophy can't be used to make definitive statements

TOP KEK!

>> No.4847053

>>4844463
>only an observer

I don't think the word 'only' is doing any work there.

>You do not control your thoughts.

To suppose that (which I'm fine with) is to suppose that I 'do not control' my fingers as they type these words. No problem. But no-one would say that because of this non-control I am not, in fact, typing (well I guess a mereological nihilist or whatever, but for different reasons than you seem to be aiming at).

What your position seems to entail is some notion that pre-baked in to the concept of 'thinking' is 'controls the thoughts being thought' and so, if we don't control the thoughts, we're not thinking. But I'd say that if we stipulate hard determinism, we shouldn't say that 'thinking' doesn't exist, but rather that it does exist and we've long been mistaken about its nature. Imagine yourself transported back in time thousands of years to a culture which believes the moon is the 'Eye of God'. If you felt minded to educate them, you wouldn't tell them that the moon *doesn't exist*. You'd tell them that it does exist but they're mistaken about its nature.

>>4844568

A stream of subjective experience.

>> No.4847268

>>4847021
>being so stupid as to not recognize the difference