/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6235501]

I can't ever tell if I'm right about anything, even the most basic logical concepts.

There's no way to definitively demonstrate that anything is actually true, all that has to be done is that the sensation of understanding is triggered. It happens in dreams all the time that complete nonsense makes perfect sense, what makes the waking life any different?

[Anonymous No.6235506]

>>6235501
Do you even Descartes?

[Anonymous No.6235760]

>>6235506
Do you even David Hume - Bundle theory?

>>6235501
The way I personally see it is that we can't prove the existence of anything, nor our own thoughts, destiny or ourselves. The only thing we can ever be sure about is that we are experiencing it. So in the end life is just one big ride full of experience and if we do have any choice we should try to steer ourselves towards the best experience for us.

[Anonymous No.6235774]

>>6235760
>So in the end life is just one big ride full of experience and if we do have any choice we should try to steer ourselves towards the best experience for us.
+1
but on the other hand, the doctrine becomes very dull once you know that all your sensual experiences and therefore your life are through a basic nervous system

[Anonymous No.6235789]

>>6235501
There's actually a movie about that.

[Anonymous No.6235790]

>>6235774
Well, I don't let it bother me too much.
I mean this is the kind of knowledge that can be fun to drop on someone and stump them, but in day-to-day life everything is still the same.
Don't bother worrying over the secrets of the universe that may or may not exist, because you can't every ultimately prove them. Just sit back, enjoy the ride, and live life like you would have normally, if not a bit more excitingly.

[Anonymous No.6235804]

>>6235774
>>6235790
The great thing about realizing that nothing matters is that it doesn't matter that nothing matters.

[Anonymous No.6235808]

>>6235804
This is why I'm a drug addict.

[Anonymous No.6235815]

>>6235804
Quote yourself on that someday Anon. That's a good one.

[Anonymous No.6235817]

>>6235808

[Anonymous No.6235852]

>>6235804
And this is the paradox of philosophical inquiry, yes?

You spend all this time pondering the universe and your place in it, and eventually, inevitably, you reach this conclusion. Which means that all your thinking was, essentially, for nothing. You're back where you started... You philosophized your way to the realization that philosophy doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.6235867]

>>6235852

[Anonymous No.6235929]

>>6235760
I have been taking the stance of the scepticism lately.

I think that not seeking experiences is quite interesting, instead of going full hedonism in practice. In general, ppl are not at ease with and remain prejudiced towards a dull life and seek adventures from this unhappiness which has for consequence that to go in the opposite direction is not really documented. We do not really know what happens in this situation besides falling into a depressive state. Perhaps there exists another manner to experience idleness.

Another point, more practical : the US even applies some kind of lack senses on their foreign prisoners to drive them crazy, such as wearing some special gloves iirc and the humanists-hippies claim that this is torture.

[Anonymous No.6236047]

>>6235852
nah man, now that realization has changed you. that's what philosophy is really all about.

[Anonymous No.6236068]

>>6235852
You examined your life, that was the point.

[Anonymous No.6236367]

>>6235501
The basic reply to this is that your position cannot be coherently stated. If you can't believe that any of your insights are true, what makes you think this particular insight is true? If you can't state your position without contradicting yourself, you probably need to go back to the drawing board, maybe read some Thomas Nagel.

As for people posting about Descartes, let's remind ourselves that Descartes' Cogito begs the whole question.

[Anonymous No.6236439]

Read Aristotle & St. Thomas Aquinas, i.e. the rigorous philosophers who make the best attempts at explaining shit.

[Anonymous No.6236479]

>>6235760
>The way I personally see it is that we can't prove the existence of anything, nor our own thoughts, destiny or ourselves. The only thing we can ever be sure about is that we are experiencing it. So in the end life is just one big ride full of experience and if we do have any choice we should try to steer ourselves towards the best experience for us.

You are a sophist. You do not attempt a definition of experience but I gather that by it you mean something along the lines of "sense data". But if experience or sense data (assuming I am correct about your definition) is all that exists, then there is no objective standard by which to judge what "the best experience for us" is. "The best experience for us" can only be another bundle of sense data, according to you, so really there is no reason to say why the complete destruction of humanity is any better to or worse than its existence. Your metaphysics makes ethics impossible. According to your metaphysics a rapist is just as innocent as the person he is raping - in fact, there is no such thing as innocence according to your metaphysics except as something that someone might "experience", but then there is no way of saying, according to your metaphysics, how the experience of innocence is any better than the experience of guilt.

[Anonymous No.6236495]

>>6235760
Also, it's ironic that you invoke David Hume's bundle theory and then begin your next line with "The way I personally see . . . " Well, if you subscribe to the bundle theory then you personally see fuck all because you are just an amorphous "something" in a cloud of sense data.

Your philosophy is reprehensible on every level. Metaphysically, epistemologically, ethically, and aesthetically. This idea that nothing really exists and it's all just occurring in our minds is the philosophy of wizards who believe that reality is just a smoke for them to manipulate with their magic; criminals who believe that there is no objective reality or law for them to conform their actions to; eastern monks who can walk past a starving man and not feel the least bit of mercy or sympathy because "lol you don't really exist, your pain is an illusion". It's the philosophy of tyrants who think that the world is something that they can mould according to their own whims.

[Anonymous No.6236506]

>>6236495
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't so.

[Anonymous No.6236510]

>>6236495
Furthermore, you are a hypocrite. Plato dispensed with your sophistry thousands of years ago when a guy called Protagoras was spreading it around. If you go around saying that all there is is experience then you refute your own argument, because if it's true that all there is is experience then there is no reason for us to listen to you rather than to a tadpole, because a tadpole is just as much capable of "experience" as you are. Your propositions carry no more weight than the farting of a donkey, because your propositions and the donkey's farts are both just "experiences".

If truth doesn't exist and all there is is sense experience then the statement "truth doesn't exist and all there is is sense experience"cannot be true, it's just a sense experience. In other words, a self-contradictory argument.

>>6236506
It's philosophically absurd. It has nothing to do with personal preference.

It can't be so. He undermines the very notion of objective being / existence, so by his own admission his philosophy doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.6236526]

>>6236510
>It's philosophically absurd. It has nothing to do with personal preference.

Then why bother with "that's what criminals and tyrants believe"?

[Anonymous No.6236528]

>>6235804
People that say that nothing matters should be executed by the State because they can't be trusted in anything that they do. Certainly, they ought to at least be sterilized and kept away from children.

[Anonymous No.6236531]

>>6236526
What does that have to do with my personal preference? I just related his metaphysical propositions to ethics.

[Anonymous No.6236548]

>>6236531
I don't see why you'd bother. The accuracy of his metaphysical propsitions are not dependent on their relation to ethics.

[Anonymous No.6236559]

>>6236548
No, but it shows that if you believe that murder is wrong, or any other ethical proposition like it, that his metaphysics must be false. To accept his metaphysics is to embrace moral anarchy.

[Anonymous No.6236567]

>>6236528
To say that nothing matters is worse than to rape someone. At least if you rape someone you are not necessarily saying that their dignity does not matter; you are only saying that your pleasure matters more than their dignity. Whereas if you say that nothing matters you are literally saying that the victim's dignity does not matter and that everyone in the world is free-game for rape.

[Anonymous No.6236610]

>>6236567
see >>6236584

[Anonymous No.6236630]

>>6236567
Let's not go that far. Being free-game for rape is a lot better than actually being raped, regardless the circumstances.

[Anonymous No.6236658]

>>6236495
>This idea that nothing really exists and it's all just occurring in our minds is the philosophy of wizards who believe that reality is just a smoke for them to manipulate with their magic; criminals who believe that there is no objective reality or law for them to conform their actions to; eastern monks who can walk past a starving man and not feel the least bit of mercy or sympathy because "lol you don't really exist, your pain is an illusion"
But the people you address are aware of these examples and they don't care. Tyrant is mere ad hominem to the people you respond to.

[Anonymous No.6236714]

is it time to commit suicide? holy shit the existential crisis is real itt.

[Anonymous No.6236728]

>>6236567
But nothing matters anon.

[Anonymous No.6236741]

>>6236510

>If truth doesn't exist and all there is is sense experience then the statement "truth doesn't exist and all there is is sense experience"cannot be true, it's just a sense experience. In other words, a self-contradictory argument.

But anon, those things are things made from pure reason, that's why you find them logical but they don't exist in the real world as such.

[Anonymous No.6236747]

>>6235852

But pondering the universe deeply is an experience in itself. Maybe experiences don't "matter," but you can either have them or not. And now you've had this one.

[Anonymous No.6236758]

>>6236741

(samefag)

Hume idea is basically you get ideas from experience, you create ideas as causality and such from pure experience, from impressions and so on.

The problem is when you start mixing those ideas from pure reason, without experience from the world but from your mind, there you get fucked up because you start seeking causality in all things where you couldn't have experienced such a thing, like the cause of "everything" (god), the cause of my experience, the cause of a lot of things that are just mixing the idea of causality (which was created by your experiences and isn't made of pure reason as you think), and other ideas that you also made.

Basically, you can't make axioms from pure reason (anyway Kant said that you could but it still something that you can't be certain, since Kant system is made from pure reason alone)

[Anonymous No.6236766]

>>6236758

Basically, we understand Logic as something that must be in nature as such, like nature is ridded by logic, but our logic is made from our experiences and it's the way we understand the world when we mix ideas, we can't apply that logic to the world and expect it will be everytime the truth if in logic it's sound.

That's why universals and semantics suck ass

[Anonymous No.6236820]

Start by qualifying Intelligences.

[Anonymous No.6236828]

Maybe look into Aristotle On Interpretation of Logic... And consider the Soul-revealing Truths.

This graphic may not be in Aristotelian verbiage.

[Anonymous No.6236908]

Aristotle sez:

[Anonymous No.6237691]

>>6236908
How do definitive categories like those survive translation?

[Anonymous No.6238341]

>>6235760
>I was the guy who posted this.
>Got up to >>6235817 before I went offline.
>Come back next day.
>All this (thankfully not shit) posting discussing my idea.

Did I accidentally a philosophy, lit?

[Anonymous No.6238346]

>>6238341

shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.6238359]

>>6238346
Oh, ok.
Sorry.
Faggot.

[Anonymous No.6239570]

bump

[Anonymous No.6239594]

>>6236479
>Your metaphysics makes ethics impossible.
but you talk about ethics only because you find it convenient and people talk about it
why do you bring ethics in the discussion ? why does it matter that the rapist is not guilty ?

It is like somebody coming up to with such and such ill-defined concepts and wishes and fantasies and he tries to impose them on you while they remain irrelevant to your life so far. If you must hear all the deliriums from every single individual that you encounter in your existence, you will only become alienated.

[Anonymous No.6239601]

>>6235501
the sweetness in life remains in participation rather than abstraction

[Anonymous No.6239725]

>>6239601
for you