/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14573789
>Imagine being so desperate you feel the need to posit shared meaning is impossible just to get out of it. Using the tool one declares invalid for exactly that purpose. I'm genuinely amazed.


here is the flavor of what I am suggesting, from a really fun book from a guy who taught me epistemology a long while ago.

It's not positing that meaning is impossible, it is more subtle than that. It is more like there may be an endless ramification of meaning, that your attempt to play "Hierarch" (Priest) and impose a univocal meaning is formally indefensible for reasons to do w/ the nature of formal language---and this is presuming your theory could be formalized and proved as a formal function of the corpus of Stirner's work which is, IMO, very unlikely.

>>14562581
>Your truth statements depend on inherently unknowable factors

It could be even more formalizable than that, knowledge may ramify forever, and there is no foundation, much like an open universe.

>>14560610
>All of these so called paradoxes boil down to the stupid and false assumption that any gibberish sentence should have meaning.

It could just be that, or that it is merely a pedagogical exercise. Picrel, Bill Boos was a good teacher!