/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8565349]

"Athene" the world of warcraft celebrity claims to have killed philosophy, what do you say /lit/?

https://youtu.be/_bHdDPOfi1c

[Anonymous No.8565368]

>>8565349
In a self aware meta referential comment I will point out that him claiming armchair philosophers behave in such a way to appear smart, he is doing the same thing with his armchair psychoanalysis

[Anonymous No.8565422]

>>8565349
I'm pretty sure that all of his viewer's don't even take him seriously. Not really worth commenting on.

[Anonymous No.8565448]

>>8565349
It's almost as if he hasn't ever read a single page of philosophy. A short essay like "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" would shatter his position.

[Anonymous No.8565453]

>i'm an atheist and if you believe in absolute truth then you are literally unevolved

[Anonymous No.8565458]

Has this guy never heard of Nihilism?

[Anonymous No.8565459]

>>8565349

I don't know where to even start. It's a video of someone who clearly hasn't read a lot of philosophy or is simply very cavalier about their presumptions.

1. Human Progress and Time

The whole notion of 'human progress' is incredibly loaded. You have to understand what human progress is before you can claim that the scientific method has led to 'human progress'. There is an unexplained assumption that technological growth is good. Why is that?

2. Absolute Truth

All the fucking cool kids are against the notion of absolute truth right now. Saying that 'philosophy is the search for absolute truth' is just total wank and shows that he has no understanding of the field.

3.Skepticism and Fallibilism (We can not be sure)

HUR DUR THIS HAS BEEN A CENTRAL SCHOOL IN PHILOSOPHY FOR ITS ENTIRE EXISTENCE YOU FUCKING KEK.

4. What even is science?

He just says 'muh empiricism' and leaves it at that ignoring any of the really obvious criticisms of empiricism.

5. Probabilistic argument
HOW ARE YOU WORKING OUT THE PROBABILITIES?

The entire argument is 'science' has given us some shit I think is pretty rad so we such just ignore all these smug pseudointellectual cunts. This really is just a claim that one mode of experience, 'science', is more important that philosophy. This is not philosophy in a nutshell. It's part of the edgy 'I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE' brigade jizzing in euphoria.

[Anonymous No.8565493]

He literally described modern empirical pragmatists, which is a very baseless branch of (non)-epistemology.

[Anonymous No.8565513]

Join his collective to "change the world".

1. Athene realtalk topics

2. (minimum 20y)
3.
4. – knowing what you want
5. – being responsible
6. – motives to do good
7. –mindset
8. – right action
9. – health and lifestyle
10. - vegetarianism
11. - validation seeking mentality
12. - financial independency
13. - emotionally attachments / fixations
14. - believes
15. - traumas
16. - ego
17. - relationship
18. - priorities
19. – taking initiative
20. - realtalk
21. - social anxiety
22. - friends and family
23. - intelligence
24. - future
25. - plans
26. – age
27. - location
28. - skype
[e-mail]

[Anonymous No.8565521]

he's literally a le epic troll

[Anonymous No.8565534]

>>8565459
He is right though, all knowledge of the world comes from empirical investigation. Truth depends on your formal setup, logic and mathematics are formal truths, but do not say anything meaningful about the "world".
Philosophy is pointless in the age of science.

[Anonymous No.8565535]

23 million USD

[Anonymous No.8565539]

What ever happened to that qt in his videos?

[Anonymous No.8565541]

>>8565534
>all knowledge of the world comes from empirical investigation
And how do you know that?

[Anonymous No.8565547]

>>8565541
That is a meaningless question.

[Anonymous No.8565550]

>>8565534
>He is right though, all knowledge of the world comes from empirical investigation

In what sense are you using the knowledge?

>mathematics are formal truths

Requires unjustified assumptions that formal logic is true.


You need to go full critical rationalism with science. Empiricism is obviously absurd. It justifies itself with 'evidence' but doesn't have any justification for any other ideas. The empiricist mindset has set back scientific progress significantly. Most notably in physics where empirical investigation has less hold in attempting to provide good explanations. All of what you say is gibberish without a sound philosophical backdrop.

[Anonymous No.8565555]

>>8565458
He's Belgian.

[Anonymous No.8565570]

>Athene

[Anonymous No.8565573]

>>8565547
>muh action
Stemlords pls leave

[Anonymous No.8565574]

>>8565534
>ethics is pointless in the age of nuclear weapons

[Anonymous No.8565580]

>>8565555
What does being a waffle have to do with the Nile river?

[Anonymous No.8565581]

>>8565550
Justified true belief

Formal logic does not have a truth value you brainlet.
You philosophy guys need to accept that science has finished off philosophy. All knowledge rests on science or formal logic/mathematics.
I feel sorry for you lot, I have a qt lit gf (see my op), am working on a physics Phd and make a fair bit of money on the side, while you miserable sods can't even accept the obvious truth of scientism.

[Anonymous No.8565582]

>>8565547
>>8565534
Come back when you're older, bud.

[Anonymous No.8565594]

>>8565582
I hope that last statement is sarcastic.

[Anonymous No.8565597]

>>8565581
>Justified true belief

You can't justify anything famalam. Check the Münchhausen trilemma.


>you miserable sods can't even accept the obvious truth of scientism.

I'm not even sure what this means, but I'm not anti-science. I'm anti-empiricism. You ought to read Popper.

[Anonymous No.8565611]

>>8565349
What the fuck is his voice

[Anonymous No.8565615]

>>8565581
You've never actually read any philosophy have you?

[Anonymous No.8565621]

>>8565615
He's probably read Jackson. You never need to study anything ever again after you read Jackson.

[Anonymous No.8565624]

>>8565597
>Muh trilemma.
I have read popper, but I am afraid the logical positivist were more in the right. Some things are justified by convention or tautology, but the question of the foundations of science is a meaningless one. There is no framework in which to derive knowledge about our framework which we call science. You are simply speaking gibberish when you insist that science requires something else to be founded upon.

[Anonymous No.8565637]

>>8565624
It's called "God"

[Anonymous No.8565654]

>>8565624

>You are simply speaking gibberish when you insist that science requires something else to be founded upon.

I'm not a foundationalist. The fact that I put forward Popper should have made you aware of that if you really had read him.

The thing is, you're supporting postfoundationalism but you've gave up past the point. You don't have any postfoundationalist mechanism for knowledge creation. You haven't investigated what science 'is' or what the scientific method ought to be/how it can be improved. Your earlier claim was a really quite ugly understanding of science as empiricism. This cannot be the case because science requires rational theories and has a backdrop of rational assumptions that cannot be justified through empiricism.

>Some things are justified by convention or tautology

Care to justify that? What makes these claims free from justification other than your intuition that they are true.

[Anonymous No.8565671]

>>8565654
Of course science is not pure empiricism, most paradigm shifting scientific advances are theoretical, relying upon mathematical exploration.
You should read some quine or carnal if you want to understand what I mean by truth by convention, this is of course referring to formal axioms and theoretical definitions.
I think you philosophy types lack an understanding of formal truth, no doubt because you have not done much mathematics, never encountering model theory for instance. Read Tarski on truth in formal languages.

[Anonymous No.8565674]

>>8565624
So if science doesn't need a framework to be founded upon, why does anything else?

[Anonymous No.8565689]

>>8565674
I didn't say it didn't require a foundation or framework, I said any questions about these foundations are meaningless.

[Anonymous No.8565691]

>>8565581

>I haev a hot gf and will maek big moneys with my stem degree :^)

the youtube comment section to a tai lopez video seems to be a more appropriate environment to you, sorry that you missklicked on /lit/ bud

kill yourself my man

[Anonymous No.8565706]

>>8565691
You first but make me some fries first and wrap them in your liberal arts degree.

[Anonymous No.8565711]

>>8565671
>karl ove
her facial expression conveys disgust and/or being held at gunpoint

[Anonymous No.8565715]

>>8565711
I dont understand you autists who can't into STEM.
That is an expression of contemplation, probably mixed with satisfaction from the night before.
How are you going to write about women when you are never around them friend?

[Anonymous No.8565716]

>best paladin in the world
>has a hot boyfriend names furious
>lives with a concubine
>pwns noobs every day
>doesnt afraid of anything

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLYrFR9RT_U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUSVUYFUF_M

[Anonymous No.8565719]

>>8565706
>>8565671
>>8565624
>>8565534

fuck, you're embarrassing. this is literally

>HEY MOM, LOOK MOM
>I'M OWNING THEM! COME HERE, WATCH!

I feel sorry for you dude.. Who actually brags about his pityful life on 4chan of all places?

[Anonymous No.8565722]

>>8565706

Why is her expression in every single pic: "What the FUCK am I doing here?"

[Anonymous No.8565727]

>>8565671
>Read X and Y rather than actually answering my question

You've massively changed your view from the first post. You either need to seriously improve on presenting your arguments or you're just making this up as you go along in an attempt to troll and do the whole 'STEM IS THE BEST, PHILOSOPHY IS FOR LOSERS' routine that comes about on /lit/ a lot. Your position as you put it now, is not entirely different to my own. Your position that 'knowledge is justified true belief' and your earlier position that 'empiricism provides knowledge about the world' clearly don't stack. Nor does the idea that 'knowledge is justified true belief' stack now you've gone postfoundationalist.

Moving onto to conventionalism, you need to justify why certain principles should be based in foundation in convention. I also think it's very odd that you would bring up Quine when he made so many obvious criticisms of conventionalism, outside of the problems of justification, and basically #rektd the whole thing.

You haven't actually meaningfully addressed a single thing I've said and you've consistently changed your position. You've just engaged in a strange kind of posturing. I find it incredibly hard to have a genuine discussion with you and so I think I will finish it here.

[Anonymous No.8565730]

>>8565715
implying firsthand experience is required for literary authority, how are you going to write?

anyway, i don't write about pussy, i slay it

[Anonymous No.8565744]

>>8565582

Whoever made that was too stupid to differentiate an argument for atheism from an argument for not involving a god in science.

Fuck, that pisses me off.

[Anonymous No.8565746]

>>8565730
>>8565715

>implying you can write about space travel without ever having traveled to space
>implying you can write a serial killer character without knowing one irl
>implying you can write about important historical events without travelling back in time

oh wait, you can? makes you think, doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.8565750]

I remember watching one of his streams where he got really mad about philosophers and academics because they're the people who are best equipped to solve the world's problems but instead lock themselves away in ivory towers and spend all their time debating abstractions. I think he a point to an extent, but obviously this video is totally dumb because philosophy does still have a role to play in society.

>>8565611
I think he's belgian

>>8565716
I haven't seen this is years. I miss when YouTube was like this.
>EXORCISM. I'm killing his pet! BOOM! PET! BOOM! HAHA! BOOM!

[Anonymous No.8565752]

>>8565727
We don't start with the foundations and build up, we start from results and build back until we find a firm foundation.
We start by observing things and from this we formulate theories. Knowledge is justified true belief but that depends on the framework you are working in, we create the framework around our experience. Many elements of classical empiricism are wrong, but there is a lot right too. Empiricism is the only way to gain meaningful knowledge.

>>8565722
Nope.

[Anonymous No.8565775]

>>8565750

>when Furious starts banging his no doubt 25 years old cathode ray tube screen

they deserved to get famous. brilliant comedy tbhfam.

[Anonymous No.8565778]

>>8565752
how much of your self-worth is placed on this low tier skank dude, you can't be 4realz :^)

[Anonymous No.8565780]

>>8565746
Difference is most men have never experienced those things, really makes you think doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.8565789]

>>8565778
Very little. Stay envious lit.

[Anonymous No.8565794]

>>8565752
>meaningful knowledge
is a value judgement based on what?
how did you empirically determine what is meaningful knowledge?

[Anonymous No.8565802]

>>8565789
i beg to differ, she is featured in all your posts on a forum for virgins

[Anonymous No.8565808]

>>8565794
Meaningful knowledge is gained empirically and can be falsified.
I am not sure what you mean by value judgement.

[Anonymous No.8565811]

>>8565808
You define that because you assume that others would think the same. Classical sign of autism

[Anonymous No.8565815]

>>8565802
Not all my posts. She is the best girl I have ever met, sorry if I am proud of that fact. I also enjoy watching you lit fags get envious.
You don't make money, get girls, or have access to objective knowledge what are the liberal arts for?

[Anonymous No.8565816]

>>8565808
>Empiricism is the only way to gain meaningful knowledge
>Meaningful knowledge is gained empirically

This is circular reasoning.

[Anonymous No.8565820]

>>8565808
look a little deeper at your definition of meaningful knowledge you'll see that is it circular logic.
psst, how can something meaningful and falsifiable?

[Anonymous No.8565823]

>>8565816
No it is a definition.

[Anonymous No.8565829]

>>8565815

>tfw have gf
>tfw after five shitty relationships I am finally happy
>tfw never once felt the need to brag to /lit/ about it ('til now ofc)

you're just a fag. accept it. you're a dumb cunt. I'm sure you're getting all wet down there "haha look how i am entertaining those folks".

no. you just look like a fool. i'm glad you're happy with her. hope you treat her right. just stop posting about it as if it was some kind of achievement. that's just pitiful and embarrassing. many people on /lit/, /mu/, /fa/.. the less autistic boards have partners. only you feel the need to brag about it. it's nothing special.

[Anonymous No.8565835]

>>8565815
if you are this much of a sperge to not follow any of the arguments that beat you the fuck out, your relationship won't last

[Anonymous No.8565836]

>>8565823
It's a definition which is tautological. If empiricism is the only way to gain meaningful knowledge then the statement that "Empiricism is the only way to gain meaningful knowledge" is therefore not meaningful since it was not reached empirically. It is reasoned from the mind, it was not induced from experience.

[Anonymous No.8565840]

>>8565823
what that thing about not using the word in the definition?
oh yeah, then it is not a definition.

[Anonymous No.8565844]

>>8565815
the *only girl you've ever met. no envy here, perhaps your faggy feelings distort your visual perception, she is fucking beat, not best

commercial value>all
again, i slay pussy niqquh
>objective knowledge
niqquh

[Anonymous No.8565851]

>>8565815
Too bad she doesn't know she's dating a degenerate who posts pictures of her all over the internet for strangers to save and masturbate to.

[Anonymous No.8565855]

>>8565844
Your post stinks of envy, I am sure you slay pussy in your imagination but reality is a different story.
>>8565836
Yes that statement is not a meaningful one. There is no fallacy.

[Anonymous No.8565858]

>>8565855
but you just admitted your own notion of reality was meaningless.

[Anonymous No.8565860]

Sup bitch ass niggas.
just a reminder that science is a Leap of faith

[Anonymous No.8565862]

>>8565855
again, not envy, just triggered by your faggotry. in reality, im doing you a favor by inducing a bit of heterosexuality

[Anonymous No.8565863]

>>8565858
No I didn't, that statement is not about reality, it is about terms in our framework.

[Anonymous No.8565872]

>>8565863
How is it not a statement about reality? It's about knowledge and how it can be obtained. If you know something about the world, then surely it is also real. The statement:
>Empiricism is the only way to gain meaningful knowledge
is meaningless knowledge by your definition. How can knowledge be without meaning? If it does not mean anything then how can it be known? If it cannot be known then how is it true, which is what you are claiming it is, even though you do not consider it to be a meaningful claim.

>terms in our framework.
lol

[Anonymous No.8565873]

>>8565860
No it doesn't.
>>8565862
Stay triggered.

[Anonymous No.8565878]

>>8565860

>He doesn't understand that science theories are taken based on statistical probability of accuracy
>He doesn't know that David Hume already defeated absolutism in science
>He commits the fallacy of equivocation with the word "faith"

[Anonymous No.8565884]

>>8565872
Meaningless knowledge is purely formal, analytic, a priori it is not about the world. You are confused, knowledge about our framework, i.e definitions and analytic truths are not statements about the world or reality.
We experience some things through our senses, you cannot doubt these experiences, from that ẃe build up empirical knowledge.

[Anonymous No.8565892]

>>8565873
don't stay faggot

[Anonymous No.8565894]

>>8565884
>you cannot doubt these
'no'

[Anonymous No.8565899]

>>8565855

>Your post stinks of envy, I am sure you slay pussy in your imagination but reality is a different story.

>3dpd on 4chan
>russian roulette: baby edition

Get out.

[Anonymous No.8565907]

>>8565894
You cannot doubt that you are experiencing that data, say you are listening to Mozart, you cannot doubt that you are experiencing certain sound. Our sense data is what it is.

[Anonymous No.8565909]

>>8565873
>>8565878
> i don't know what the fuck i am talking about

[Anonymous No.8565910]

>>8565907
I know that I am experiencing it, but how do I know for certain it exists?

[Anonymous No.8565916]

>>8565910
"It" is defined as a bundle of sense data, say defining an electron by certain measurements you can observe. If you find a new piece of data you may update or alter your definition.

[Anonymous No.8565917]

>>8565909

>"F-Fuck you guys, y-you don't know a-anything!"

[Anonymous No.8565919]

>>8565907
I am certainly experiencing stimuli in the form of the lovely melody of schubert's unfinished symphony, but I cannot claim with certainty that I am not in reality listening to Mozart. Sensory illusions exist.

[Anonymous No.8565921]

>>8565899
Does your 2d waifu cuddle and read with you as you fall asleep?

[Anonymous No.8565926]

>>8565921
Your 3d one most certainly doesnt

[Anonymous No.8565929]

>>8565921
>read with you
kys

[Anonymous No.8565931]

>>8565919
Yes you can, provided you know the difference.

[Anonymous No.8565933]

>>8565931
You really don't know what I'm getting at

[Anonymous No.8565936]

>>8565921

Actually I read to her instead

[Anonymous No.8565942]

>>8565884
>>8565916
Are you a logical positivist, then?

[Anonymous No.8565943]

>>8565926
Stay in denial friend.
>>8565933
That is probably because you are terrible at articulating your points, or you dont understand mine. Anyway Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.8565946]

>>8565943
It's actually because you're a retard with no knowledge of anything you're talking about, yet you believe you can make insights

[Anonymous No.8565949]

>>8565943
>#goals

[Anonymous No.8565951]

>>8565946
Say you see a stick bending in water, you can't deny that sense data, however after collecting more sense data and deducing general optical principles you can conclude that the earlier sense data was not of a bent stick.

[Anonymous No.8565957]

>>8565951
Im not saying the perception of the phenomena doesn't exist you retard. I'm saying that nothing about the phenomena can be proven, just about the perception of the phenomena

[Anonymous No.8565959]

>>8565943

>actually taking a picture of your girlfriends face when she receives your presents

I really pity you. Nice #instagram relationship you got there, buddy. Hope you got a decent amount of likes.

#relationship goals amirite

[Anonymous No.8565964]

>>8565949
?
>>8565957
But we define things as bundles of sense data, our logical principles are taken for granted so we can certainly prove things about terms in our theoretical framework (say electrons, mass and so on).
We will always be making observations and attempting to falsify our theories, but that doesn't mean we don't know knowledge about the world.

[Anonymous No.8565972]

>>8565964
>we define things
Yes, key word being we. If these things exist independently of us, then they have essential properties and definitions independent of us as well. Our perceptions are necessarily colored by our physical bodies and therefore do not match up perfectly with the actual definitions. We can therefore only know about how we perceive things, not how they are.

[Anonymous No.8565978]

>>8565959
These kind of bitter comments by litfags are exactly why I do it.
>>8565972
>muh things in themselves
Go home Kant this point has been destroyed by many thinkers over the last century.

[Anonymous No.8565983]

>>8565978
>things don't exist
Ok

[Anonymous No.8565986]

>>8565873
>OK "bae" here is the love haiku that I wrote for you
>gotta take a picture try not to feel self-conscious or unnatural
>dozens possibly hundreds of narcissists will blink and scroll past this
>*smiles for picture*
>*smiles bigger for 2nd pic because that is how it goes*
>I love you let's fuck and wish we were watching porn

[Anonymous No.8565993]

>>8565983
>Things have hidden characteristics that we can never know
You wouldn't imagine these shadowy "things" if you hadn't experienced certain sense data. It is meaningless to speak of things in and of themselves.
>>8565986
It wasn't a haiku.

[Anonymous No.8565999]

>>8565993
>it's worthless to speak of things in and of themselves
That's literally my point you tard

[Anonymous No.8566002]

>>8565999
Then what is your problem?

[Anonymous No.8566003]

>>8566002
That you claimed empiricism showed objective truths about the nature of things

[Anonymous No.8566007]

>>8566003
There is no nature of things beyond the realm of empiricism.

[Anonymous No.8566013]

>>8566007
You went full tard there

[Anonymous No.8566018]

>>8566013
How so?

[Anonymous No.8566021]

>>8566018
How not?

[Anonymous No.8566041]

>>8565873
>>8565752
>>8565671
>logical positivist

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Do you really not know Badiou already proved the Communist Idea was true via Set Theory???

Like do you not know philosophy has already colonized mathematics in addition to ethics and history?

Bro if you're not in the Humanities today and you don't speak fluent French you're gonna end up in a FEMA gulag by 2017 my nigga

[Anonymous No.8566054]

>>8566041
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.8566073]

>>8566041

>set theory

Does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves contain itself?

>philosophy colonized mathematics in addition to ethics and history

What the fuck is this even supposed to mean? The epistemic foundation to all of those subjects IS philosophy.

>Humanities today
>Fluent French
>OR "FEMA gulag by 2017"

If you say so.

[Anonymous No.8566079]

>>8566054
>spoonfeed me intro to philosophy basics

Lmao did you not go to a college that required philosophy courses???

Did you get your degree online???

Badically, Badiou applies the apparatus of set theory to model both the "ontological" structure of existing and knowable entities and situations, and structurally transformative "events," theorizing along the way the procedures of "fidelity" that draw out the situational consequences of an event, the nature of "subjects" defined by their pursuit of these procedures, and the generic "truths" to which these procedures are, on Badiou's account, definitively related.

Am I going too fast for you? Did you never read this in a Neil DeGrasse Tyson tweet??

[Anonymous No.8566098]

>>8566079

Different Anon here. Completely Phil undergrad.

1) Set theory is flawed on account of Russell's Paradox
2) You can't expect people to understand any of this without defining your terms
3) If the idea is inseparable from the philosopher, as continentals claim (ergo "on Badiou's account), then why is it epistemologically meaningful or even relevant to anyone else?

>Did you never read this in a Neil DeGrasse Tyson tweet??

I know I haven't, because NDGT tends to tweet about things that aren't full of word diarrhea and meaningless/unjustifiable claims.

[Anonymous No.8566101]

>>8566098

>completely

fug. obvious meant completed. oh well.

[Anonymous No.8566106]

>>8566098
>Set theory is flawed on account of Russell's Paradox
Hello, 1920? maybe 1910? called, they want their shitty understanding back.

[Anonymous No.8566116]

>>8565689
God moves in mysterious ways, huh.

[Anonymous No.8566124]

>>8566098
LMFAO.

And there it is. The classic, I don't understand what you wrote so the problem must be with an accredited successful philosopher, not me.

Face it, chumpo, you're just not cut out for thinking abstractly. You don't have the patience, let alone the intellectual discipline. It's not so bad. The world needs its construction workers. You'll fit in fine.

Just curious, though, which words didn't you understand specifically? Or was it something with the grammatically correct syntax that proved too arduous for you?

>set theory is flawed because of Russell's Paradox

Wew lad. Badiou literally bases his philosophy on the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. You've never heard of that? Like ever lmao???

[Anonymous No.8566140]

>>8566124

>Mathematics loses relevancy over time

>>8566124

>The classic, I don't understand what you wrote so the problem must be with an accredited successful philosopher, not me.

The neuropathic instrumentation analysis conducted simultaneously with fully functional amio-semiotic entangled subspecies of finite quantized sets, granted understanding of infinite translocation of polarized synthetic knowledge fields exists is equivalent to true, that therefore formal instrumental quantized neurotical semi-amoiotic finalized synthetic systems of quasi-semi-spatial experiences exists is equivalent to true.

So, did you understand what I said now, pleb? You probably think I am just bullshitting, but Harambe himself -a very famous and well respected philosopher with a PhD from Harvard- made this claim. You are probably just too stupid to understand it.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean that it isn't completely 100% true though... right?

P.S. There is literally no way that this statement can be simplified for understanding.

[Anonymous No.8566147]

>>8566124
I should hate this kind of posting but it's pretty dang funny

[Anonymous No.8566148]

This was not a good video. He makes the mistake that philosophy fans love to see people make, the "progress" claim.

I'm the Munchhausen trilemma poster and I basically figured out the whole thing. Setting the axioms and criteria for what constitutes philosophical progress is subjective. This easily leads to the fact that philosophers merely flail about in the infinitely large space of possible philosophical claims.

What separates the perceived worthiness of philosophies? Social posturing, mainly. Would it have made a difference if Plato had argued for democracy over a techncracy? No, people praise the Republic for social posturing reasons, because it's an old book and people before them praised it.

Are rigour and critical thinking only teachable with a philosophy degree (or even a degree in general)? No, these are attributes that anyone can act with.

Is the trolley problem (for example) any use other than a mental masturbation launching pad? No. Why is the trolley problem frequently mentioned and not others problems? The whims of fashion within academia.

Why do philosophers claim a monopoly over the ability to figure out the best moral systems but not the ability to figure out the best dance systems? Because of the whims of academia (clearly the latter is deemed a frivolous topic).

Everyone who talks about set theory / axioms of mathematics is missing the point. The only reason they're taken importantly is because people care, not because we can prove that the axioms of mathematics are better / more worthy of study than the axioms of Basketball without making other claims (e.g., setting the criteria for what is worthwhile to study). Similarly with science as a whole.

Of course I will receive no worthwhile replies.

[Anonymous No.8566155]

>>8566140
I thought your argument wasn't that YOU don't understand it, just that others don't understand it.

Didn't realize you just didn't know what "fidelity" was in that context.

[Anonymous No.8566160]

>>8566148
of course you wont

[Anonymous No.8566163]

>>8566041
>>8566079
>>8566124

Solid shitposting, my dude.

[Anonymous No.8566176]

>>8566155

If a statement cannot be understood by someone, then it become a meaningless statement to them.

By all means enjoy your word diarrhea. Just don't expect me to agree with a statement that is not clear and coherent. If I really wanted to, I could continue writing bullshit with undefined words and lack of clarity, but I won't because I want to be able to communicate ideas with others and not be on my own little island masturbating into my dictionary.

>>8566163

Yeah, even I have to admit that it was pretty good shitposting. Normally I don't give many responses in /lit/ debates.

[Anonymous No.8566188]

>>8566140
>he doesn't know I minored in pattern recognition of cardiovascular reflexes at McGill

How fucking embarrassing. Not only do I understand exactly what you copy-pasted off JSTOR, I've cited it myself many times over the course of my academic career. I'm quite fond of this passage, in fact.

Anyway, it shouldn't surprise me at this point that you totally missed the (very simple, very accessible) content of my post. If, for example, you posted a Japanese anthropologist's opinion on the economic factors behind the rise of Zen Buddhism in medieval Japan in the original Japanese, my first impulse would not be "This is wrong because I don't understand it." Instead, I would recognize my own intellectual shortcomings.

This is the fundamental difference between you and I. When I provided you with a very basic, intro-tier outline of Badiou's thought, you lashed out because the ideas were too big for you and questioned Badiou's relevance rather than your own.

This is why you will never amount to anything, why you only speak one language, and why you lose arguments on an anonymous image board.

[Anonymous No.8566195]

>>8566188

Fuck, I finally understand now.

I concede, I was wrong all along. Thanks for opening my eyes. I have already gone to Amazon and picked up Badiou's major works, along with the works of Foucault.

I have also decided to learn at least 6 languages, and am now going to start working on Arabic, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, and French.

Thanks anon, you have truly changed my life.

[Anonymous No.8566225]

>>8566188
Badiou's understanding of set theory and mathematics is laughable. Philosophers should stick to what they are good at, nonsensical ranting. (Some analytics are ok)

[Anonymous No.8566232]

>>8566225
>hypothesis sans evidence

Nice baseless claim bro. Did you forget about the scientific method LMAO

I thought that was the one true way to knowledge what happened to it where did it go

Did you forget about it?

Did you make a mistake?????

Are you out of your league ? ? ? ? ? ?

[Anonymous No.8566239]

>>8566232
>the scientific method
You realise there is no set formal method which scientists use to arrive at the truth, unless you mean general empirical investigation.
How many predictions about nature has your continental trash produced?

[Anonymous No.8566249]

>>8565534
>all knowledge of the world comes from empirical investigation
Congrats mang, you just regurgitated the views of dozens of philosophers throughout history, if not hundreds.

Its almost as of making claims about the nature of knowledge are inherently philosophical.

[Anonymous No.8566257]

>>8566249
Yet so many here find it hard to grasp.

[Anonymous No.8566261]

>>8565459
This guy gets it. And he said it rather well I might add.

[Anonymous No.8566263]

>>8566261

Whatever, 'this guy'.

[Anonymous No.8566371]

I just read this entire thread and now I want to cry

[Anonymous No.8566383]

>>8566371
trolled epically

[Anonymous No.8566388]

Badiou is a leftist cuck

[Anonymous No.8566396]

>>8566176
>If I really wanted to, I could continue writing bullshit with undefined words and lack of clarity,

or you could ask for clarification broheim.

[Anonymous No.8566409]

>>8566188
But how is Badiou relevant in anyway to any of this anon?

[Anonymous No.8566412]

>>8566225
What does he even try to do with his book?

[Anonymous No.8566417]

>>8566412
It doesn't matter, it is nonsense, it is written diarrhoea.

[Anonymous No.8566429]

>>8566417
But how do I know it's diarrhea without knowing what the purpose of his writings are?

[Anonymous No.8566433]

>>8566195
If you just sat down and read some Badiou you could come join us at the smart kid table anon

[Anonymous No.8566434]

A reminder that you cannot know or speak of a single Mathematical thing without the use of Symbol.

[Anonymous No.8566442]

>>8566434
Yout may not be able to communicate an idea without symbols but you can understand certain concepts without the use of them

[Anonymous No.8566574]

>gamers
>youtubers
>gaming youtubers

Is this where we are as a board?

[Anonymous No.8566583]

LMAO

the absolute truth has been know since forever

[Anonymous No.8566587]

>>8566442
>concepts

[Anonymous No.8566615]

>>8566583
Literally

[Anonymous No.8566625]

>>8566615
literally and figuratively ;))

[Anonymous No.8566643]

Is there a name for this concept of "mankind first used religion, then ditched it for philosophy and then ditched it for science. This trend will continue and it is the path that we should follow" or "mankind used to be conservative and has been slowly becoming more progressive, this is the path we should follow" or on the contrary "mankind has slowly become more evil since the Fall, we need to reconnect to our uncorrupted state"

[Anonymous No.8566693]

>>8566643
It's called "wrong".

[Anonymous No.8566859]

>>8565547
>That is a meaningless question.
And how do you know that?

[Anonymous No.8566880]

>>8565580
you tell me

[Anonymous No.8567035]

>>8565547
>my epistemology is solely empirical
>now let me tell you what has meaning and what does not

[Anonymous No.8567104]

>>8566880
>What do you mean by [argument]?
>"hehe, you tell me!!!"
Fucking genius.