[ 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: 26 KB, 364x333, 1359346323172.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5588718 No.5588718 [Reply] [Original]

Daily reminder that there is literally no good argument for sure knowledge of the external world

>> No.5588729
File: 495 KB, 500x367, twiggysmile.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5588729

>>5588718
Here is one hand,
And here is another.
There are at least two external objects in the world.
Therefore an external world exists.

>> No.5588737

>>5588729
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

>> No.5588738

>>5588729
If anyone changes hand to another body part or makes fun of me based on this post I swear to God you will regret it.

>> No.5588739

>>5588729
Shouldn't you be reading Kierkegaard?

>> No.5588744

>>5588737
Wikipedia? I just spit my chocolate milk out all over my computer screen.

>> No.5588749
File: 132 KB, 320x320, get mad.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5588749

>>5588744
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

>> No.5588751

>>5588744
That better be fucking Nesquik you're drinking.

>> No.5588752

>>5588718
SO DEEP

also there is no good argument for thinking that OP exists.

>> No.5588764

>>5588718

There is no good argument to prove that OP isn't a NEET

>> No.5588765

>>5588729
How Can Our Hands Be Real If Your Vagina Isn't Real?

>> No.5588768
File: 498 KB, 1600x1523, you tried.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5588768

>>5588752
>>5588764

>> No.5589040

>>5588729
An external world exists, but I don't believe that one does.

>> No.5589121

Moore pls

>> No.5589167

>>5588718
Wow man, if you had posted this like 400 years ago i'd be like super impressed.

>> No.5589169

>>5589121
le reading comprehension face

>> No.5589179 [DELETED] 

OP is proud and prejudice against niggers

>> No.5589288

>>5588729
Fuck off Moore. That argument is flawed because it is question begging. Nobody is ever going to accept the premise "Here is a hand", unless he has already accepted the conclusion "There exists an external world".

>> No.5589315

What other world could there be?

>> No.5589454

>>5589315
See>>5588737

>> No.5589478

>>5589454
That reminds me of something I thought about a while back.

Imagine you have a machine that puts somebody in a simulation. The machine randomly creates the simulation, but has a probability manipulator that keeps the simulation from ever producing anything that would make the person realize they're in a simulation.

How much would the simulation differ from reality? Would it break down slowly over time, the person letting the subtle inconsistencies accumulate? With situations where something would be perfectly realistic, but the person considers it unrealistic anyway, how frequent and impactful would those situations be?

>> No.5589488

>>5589478
>would be perfectly realistic, but the person considers it unrealistic anyway

ur talkin bollocks m8

>> No.5589501

>>5589288
>he hasn't read Lycan's 'Moore against the new sceptics'

>> No.5589504

>>5589488
I'm talking about cases where something that could realistically happen would cause the subject to react in a "this can't be real" way, thus preventing it.

>> No.5589506

>>5588737
I am loling imagining somebody linking that to Moore

>> No.5589514

>>5588737
The brain in a vat could only exist with an external world housing it.

>> No.5589536

>>5588737

>Brain in a vat is unfalsifiable
>All empirical evidence you've gathered since being born supports a reality you're a part of
>Whereas no evidence for brain in a vat can by definition ever exist
>Brain in a vat is recursive: Even if incontrovertible evidence was found to somehow prove you were removed from a brain vat, you may just be in another brainvat. The knowledge is useless anyways.

The rational position is to treat reality as real until you die or you're out of the machine, whichever comes first.

>> No.5589552
File: 190 KB, 292x367, hegel[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5589552

>> No.5589610

>>5589514
Yes, but the brain is fooled as to what the external world is

>> No.5589621

>>5589610
But this thread is about the existence of an external world, which the brain in a vat doesn't disprove

>> No.5589632

>>5589621
I agree. I don't think many skeptics are solipsistic for this reason

>> No.5589691

Post presupposes there is fundamentally a dichotomy between the 'internal' and 'external. Thus, this presupposition is indebted to and aims at an agenda with certain philosophical tenets in mind, e.g. Kantian phenomena/noumena, modern epistemology over ontology, etc. Why is it that the mind is endowed with the capacity to determine whether the world exists or not? When did the mind gain such a privileged position, unless you are indebted to a particular way of doing philosophy, ding ding ding, modern epistemology. You privilege the mind, gtfo m8. Get with the times.

>> No.5590141

>>5588718
Don't you existentialists ever get bored with your own foppish inanery? Proceeding on the assumption that the external world does exist is far more pleasant than beginning all analysis with, "Is this real? Dunno lol. /quit"

>> No.5590146

>>5590141
So in other words, you've got no argument

>> No.5590151

>>5590146
>Proceeding on the assumption that the external world does exist is far more pleasant than beginning all analysis with, "Is this real? Dunno lol. /quit"
Is an argument.

>> No.5590153

>>5588718

>of the external world

External in relation to what exactly?

>> No.5590156
File: 387 KB, 598x369, 555 come on now.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5590156

>>5590151
(1) It is more pleasant to think that the sun is a gumdrop
(2) Therefore the sun is a gumdrop

>> No.5590174

>>5590156
>I fail at logic AND comprehension
"The sun is a gumdrop" is, I assume (creating another impossible conundrum for existentialists), an analogy for "the external world exists."

But I didn't say that. I said your your obsession with proof of the external world is boring, foppish and inane.

>> No.5590210

>>5589632
can a brain in a vat exist without space and time?

>> No.5590222

>>5590210

Of course.

>> No.5590495

>>5590174
>foppish
look up the definition of this word please.

>> No.5590524

i took a skepticism class in college, my professor actually had done some of his own original work on this stuff

his whole thing was there's really no need even for the brain in a vat hypothesis, it is enough to simply say "what if everything you know is wrong?", and of course you could never check, because you, being wrong about everything, would not be able to judge whether a confirmation is genuine, your ideas about confirmation could be wrong, and so on

the point being, you can't know nuffin, and that's that, life goes on. when entering the realm of epistemology, we have to stop talking about "truth" strictly defined, and start talking about agreeable working assumptions

>> No.5590535

>>5588738
What if you only have one hand?

Also, what is the argument against it not being a hand? I've seen it before from some logic scumbag.

>> No.5590550

>>5588718
>implying Cartesian philosophy is the default position for all epistemology

>> No.5590609

What the fuck does it even mean to "proceed on the assumption that the external world does exist." I mean seriously, what is the fundamentally meaning of such a claim in regard to our experience and how that is "incorporated" into our experience. Do I sit back and cognitively represent the idea that the world exists? It seems to be the case that the lived-world is already endowed with a sense whereby this sort of cognitive representationalism isn't needed. In other words, that we as human beings are ontological constituted in such a way as to just *not* have to sit back and cognitively think, "today I assume the world exists." Again, like I said, there is a particular agenda in mind when posing the question, "does the world exist", it poses that question within light of certain presuppositions. The question is so dull and banal to me in the sense that is completely abstracted, completely ungrounded in any sense of philosophical immanence, and wholly indebted to a particular interpretation regarding how to go about doing metaphysics and epistemology.

The way that I take it is that we should always be critical in a metaphilosophical way about the stakes involved. Why are we interested in such a question? What do we hope to accomplish? If these questions can't be answered, then what the fuck is the point in answering the question? Philosophy isn't just about conceptualizing certain answers, but about re-orientating ourselves to ask appropriate questions.

>> No.5590662

>>5590609
You don't remember being born, and you wont have time to remember dying. Most people don't even remember the bulk of their childhood. Do I know reality exists? No. Does it matter? No. Why?Whether or not it exists, you're still here. You just have to deal with it and accept experience with a skeptical eye.


>Why are we interested in such a question? What do we hope to accomplish?

. The question is important because it leads to "Why is there something instead of nothing?" There is something, but you can't prove it.

>> No.5590672

>>5590662
Let me re-iterate given that you stated something similiar I addressed, what does it mean to live life with a "skeptical eye." What the fuck does that even mean? What does it mean to have these sorts of bodily reactions as I type on the keyboard, skeptically? Besides being indebted to a skeptical epistemology? What does it mean to embody skepticism? To live skepticism?

>> No.5590740

>>5590672
>What does it mean to have these sorts of bodily reactions as I type on the keyboard, skeptically?

That you may not be having them. You know, since you can't prove the external world exists.

Look, I think you probably get the concept,so I don't know if you think you are doing some kind of socratic bullshit or wut m8.

It isn't a problem to be solved. It is a question to carry through.

>Philosophy isn't just about conceptualizing certain answers, but about re-orientating ourselves to ask appropriate questions.

Good luck finding order without it.

>> No.5590760

>>5590740
Lol. Ok, maybe I have to spell it out. What is the difference between a skeptic that engages in a activity versus a non-skeptic that engages in the same activity? Is there a stake gained? Is there some sort of fundamental insight? You keep insisting on an 'external' aspect, but I have yet to see any argument putting forth that there *necessarily* is an external to our world! What I mean by that it is on you as an onus to demonstrate that there in fact is a dichotomy between the external and internal. Maybe not so much prove the exteriority of the external but at least logically demonstrate the necessity of a dichotomy. I have yet to see a sound reply in regard to that, besides the sweeping presupposition of its validity.

>> No.5590768

>>5590760
Again, you think you are showing me something, but you aren't.

>Is there a stake gained? Is there some sort of fundamental insight?

Yes. Simply skipping over the question means you don't experience the actual depth, and avoid the process of reorientation that involves.

Ahem.
>Philosophy isn't just about conceptualizing certain answers, but about re-orientating ourselves to ask appropriate questions.

>> No.5590771

>>5590768
>trying THIS hard

>> No.5590779

>>5590768
Pretty insightful reply, I literally gained nothing from the claim "experience the actual depth, and avoid the process of reorientation that involves." If anything, Cartesian epistemological skepticism leads to nonsensical abstractions from lived experience and lead us away from concrete relations. There is literally no point in engaging further, given that this isn't even a discussion. You know, because this conversation is prone to doubt and that doubt gives me "depthful insight."

>> No.5590821

>>5590779
Please enlighten me then. Why do you think perfectly capable Philosophers create pointless dichotomies? If you would, explain the mind-body problem for me.

>> No.5590822

>>5590821
There is none, he's just defending his ego

>> No.5590823

That's just because the external world exists only as an idea. Does the universe know that there's a point where your body stops and everything else begins?

>> No.5590843

>>5590822
lul, good one.

It just seems strange that people don't recognize dichotomy as demonstration. They want to be smarter than Descartes, so they try and discount the problem, instead of working through it and realizing what he is really blabbering on about. It is like he wanted to teach or something, so he refutes himself.

>> No.5590849

>>5590821
I am not going to go to through the minute details of the mind-body problem but I would recommend reading up on material that critiques the cognitive representationalist model of epistemology. For example, Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations and Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception to start with.

Also, I never said these dichotomies are pointless. I said they serve particular agendas. Descartes had certain presuppositions with regard to how he conceptualized res cognita and res extensa, or thinking things and extended things. The same can be said with regard to Kantian noumena/phenomena. These are deliberate attempts in effort to answer some question. My claim is that some of these presuppositions are dubious at best and need clarification. Furthermore, they assume certain ways in which the mind functions, e.g. cognitive representationalism. The notion that my mind represents reality in some way and that the phenomena I am presented with is re-formulated by my mind.

Just because I am critical and disagree to a certain extent with an idea doesn't necessarily mean I can't appreciate Descartes or Kant. I am much more interested in certain questions Descartes raises rather than other ones. I am more interested in Kant's concept of inter-subjective time versus his assertion that there *is* a noumenal realm that grounds all these perceptual representations.

>>5590822
Right... because I am trying to show off my ego on 4chan. Kappa. Top Kek.

>> No.5590857

>>5590843
I am super confused, these vague ass pro-nouns are killing me, what the fuck was being referred to here.

>> No.5590924

>>5588718
I guess I'd reply that the existence of an external world which you are a part of, which follows certain rules and which you can reliably observe and a perfect illusion of the same thing are functionally identical from a personal standpoint so it's not really worth caring that you can never disprove you're not a brain in a vat. No one actually worries about it though because no actually believes it because it's obviously ridiculous.

>> No.5590938

>>5588737
> what if the real isn't real, but theres like, another real thats faking the real 420 blaze it
really now ?

>> No.5590940

>>5589552
Hegel thought that our sense perceptions were accurate/gave us information about external world, which we understand as correct due to our ability to reconcile with spirit which is the external.