Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

If you can see this message, the SSL certificate expiration has been fixed.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 35 KB, 720x720, 1537365641407.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10177044 No.10177044 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Does objective truth exist?

>> No.10177050

Yes. Climate change for example.

>> No.10177054

>>10177044
Yes, but we are incapable of perceiving it

>> No.10177066

Define truth

>> No.10177072

>>10177066
>Truth
That which is

>Objective truth
That which is and cannot be otherwise

>> No.10177074

>>10177044
No. The world doesn't truly exist, you are just a universal subjective currently dreaming and this will never end. After this life you will have another dream and another, it is just a subjective and nothing else.

>> No.10177075

>>10177072
How do you know when something satisfies those terms

>> No.10177081

I just don't fucking get how maths can't be objective, and yet the idea of objective truth simultaneously makes no sense to me.

Is it possible to argue against 2+2=4?

>> No.10177085

>>10177054
this

>> No.10177093

>>10177081
Every piece of information that we interpret is through the prism of our subjective experience. Using your example, there is no way for any of us to be 100% sure that 2+2=4. What if our senses are deceiving us every single time you or I try to perform the operation?

There is no way to prove that my senses are accurately reflecting reality - which is why we must use unjustified axioms or else there's no point trying to apply logic to anything.

>> No.10177105

>>10177093
>there is no way for any of us to be 100% sure that 2+2=4.
But there is, how the fuck could it not be?
2+2=5 OBJECTIVELY makes no sense. Prove me wrong.

>> No.10177112

>>10177044
"Cogito, ergo sum" sounds pretty true to me.
If you feel like splitting hairs about the semantics of that, "Something exists" is about as close to an absolutely certain objective truth as we can get.

>> No.10177116

>>10177105
i don't know what your post is saying

>> No.10177122

>>10177116
2+2 cannot equal five. It must equal 4 in every instance.

>> No.10177125

>>10177093
your senses are accurately deceiving you every time, so the result is objective while the result is consistent. maybe tomorrow 2 + 2 = 8 and then it will be objective for that state. our senses are a function that remains constant while it does to process all other functions

>> No.10177127

>>10177122
why

>> No.10177129

>>10177127
Because it cannot be otherwise. Where would the extra 1 come from?

>> No.10177131

>>10177044
The thinking mind obviously exist by the axiom of consciousness. The universe you're percieving is something rather than nothing so it must also exist by the axiom of existence. After that you can only make probabilistic approximations through collection of new information.

>> No.10177135

>>10177044
Yes, but you have to think in terms outside of linear thinking.

>> No.10177136

>>10177105
>>10177122
>>10177129
Consider this:
To what value does 4 come from? We all know 2 + 2 = 4, but can we really prove it without making circular logic? Overall, we know it's equal to 4 because we were raised to know it was 4, but can we really say it's 4 without the subjective experience >>10177093 was talking about.

>> No.10177143

>>10177136
Why wouldn't it be 4? If you take 2 coins and another 2 coins then put them next to each other you have 4 coins.

>> No.10177149

>>10177143
But this is based on an unjustified axiom. There is no way to 100% epistemologically be certain that this holds true.

>> No.10177150

>>10177129
I had a professor tell me it comes from the addition itself

>> No.10177151

>>10177149
Then what are the alternatives?

>> No.10177154

>>10177151
What if in reality when you put 2 coins next to another 2 coins together, 1 automatically disapears?
It sounds silly but there is no way to actually know this isn't the case

>> No.10177155

>>10177149
But if it's been true 100% of the time up to this point, what epistemic excuse do we have for thinking that 2+2=4 would ever not be true?

>> No.10177156

>>10177093
Math isn't a sensory based a posteriori thing, it's an a priori thing.
Your argument is a case against science, not math. Empiricism/science can never give us truth or knowledge, only math can.

>> No.10177160

>>10177154
Then why assume 2+2=4? If there's no objective justification, how CAN it be justified? Because it's 'useful'?

What does 'useful' mean? How do we measure it without some objective frame of reference?

>> No.10177166

>>10177154
Then that function isn't 2+2, but 2 + 2 - 1

>> No.10177171

>>10177155
>>10177160
It's not a matter of what I think is possible/likely to be true, it's just recognizing the limits of our knowledge. How can I be sure that the universe didn't just come into existence 3 second ago? I literally can't.

>> No.10177173

>>10177156
math is built off of unjustified axioms
we view it through the prism of our experience, so it can never give us objective truth

>> No.10177181

>>10177173
No, we write down some axioms for convention. The axioms we right are still external to us.
Math is not a posteriori. that we have before added or removed certain axioms for different subfields of math doesn't mean the axioms are arbitrary.

>> No.10177185

>>10177171
How can you be sure you can't be sure? That's just a conclusion you've reached, which could really be the fault of some evil demon tricking you.

See how gay that line of thinking is? Put down Descartes.

>> No.10177190

>>10177185
I'm not saying that people should think that way, it would be fucking retarded to go around in life acting as if I lived in the Matrix or something. As I said, it's recognizing the limits of our knowledge and understanding that everything we perceive in the world is inherently through the lens of our own subjective experience.

>>10177181
axioms are by definition unjustified, if they make sense in our subjective reality there is nothing to say they hold true objectively. Again, I'm not arguing that we should just give up because we can't know anything - I was just responding to OP by pointing out that we are incapable of being 100% confident that we are perceiving objective truth.

>> No.10177194

>>10177190
>it would be fucking retarded to go around in life acting as if I lived in the Matrix or something.
Why?

>> No.10177201

>>10177194
Probably wouldn't end up well

>> No.10177202

>>10177201
Why?

>> No.10177207

>>10177202
you'd probably do something stupid

>> No.10177208

Nah, the object/subject distinction of Kant is no longer useful. All truth is fallible. The best we can do is pragmatism.

>> No.10177210

>>10177044
Mathematical patterns in nature such as 1.618 etc. I guess you could classify this as objective truth since its objectively measurable miauw idk jkkk xDDD

>> No.10177211

>>10177173
>>10177181
>>10177190
Think about it like this. The axioms we write down aren't the things that give us the math. The math already exists objectively and externally to us, and then we write down a finite set of statements that are able to capture a very large (but ultimately finite) subset of that infinite set of math that exists externally to us.

This is what Godel proved. There is always a countably infinite set of true statements that can never be proven with a finite set of axioms. That doesn't mean that these unprovable but true statements don't exist, or that they only "begin to exist" when we write down a set of axioms that encapsulate them. it just means we can not ever capture all truth with a finite set of rules. It also doesn't mean the truth we CAN capture is arbitrary.

To really cement this in your thinking just think about it like this: this universe and it's laws of physics etc. Are not the most fundamental. They are just a finite subset of the infinite set of math that objectively exists in the ideal realm. This universe is an "applied" version of a small finite subset of the eternal Math.

>> No.10177217

>>10177207
Why?

>> No.10177218

>>10177044
this is a question for >>>/his/ and the possible answers are all unsettling to accept

>> No.10177221

Subjective truth is an oxymoron, and objective truth is redundant, so your question is whether truth exists or not. Well, suppose it doesn't. Is the proposition "truth does not exist" true or false?

>> No.10177224

You might think that 1+1=2.
There is always the possibility, however unlikely, that 1+1=5 actually equals 5 and that our mathematical reasoning, or interpretation of numbers is flawed at the biological level where the noumenal becomes phenomenonal. After all we don't directly precieve mathematical enities like numbers, we interpert them from signs.

>> No.10177225

>>10177211
>doesn't mean that these unprovable but true statements don't exist, or that they only "begin to exist" when we write down a set of axioms

But quantum physics says they begin to exist upon observation, so in a way...

>> No.10177240

>>10177217
cus you think you're in the matrix

>> No.10177244

>>10177225
This universe isn't the most fundamental as I said so superposition doesn't have relevance to the proven results of Godel incompleteness theorem.
The laws of QM are just another finite set of laws within the infinite set of math in the ideal realm.

>> No.10177245

>>10177044
There is no such thing as subjective truth

>> No.10177252
File: 80 KB, 720x720, DcrEtqWXUAAPzkY.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10177252

You literally can't prove 2+2=4. Go ahead, try. Bertrand Russell had a go and the effort turned him into a woodpecker and he still failed

>> No.10177254
File: 79 KB, 640x640, 1535275771010.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10177254

>tfw you realise there is no truth and all the supposedly intelligent maths geniuses have been wasting their lives on a lie
stupid eggheads

>> No.10177257

>>10177252
didn't he prove 1+1=2

>> No.10177260

>>10177244
The fundamental being the ideal realm you mentioned earlier?

>> No.10177262

>>10177252
It's self-evident.

>> No.10177263

>>10177257
Nope.
>>10177262
For you. To me, God is self evident

>> No.10177271

>>10177221
philosophy btfo

>> No.10177277

>>10177271
>Philosophical statement
>Philsophy btfo

>> No.10177278

>>10177277
no truth, no philosophy

>> No.10177280

Definitions are true, by definition.
All of science is just models though. None of it is true.

>> No.10177284

>>10177278
That's not what that post was about dummy

>> No.10177291

>>10177284
Yup, just realised.
I'm a fucking moron.

>> No.10177294

It's about to get real /his/ in here, but this thead really does belong there so I'll continue anyways.

Hericlitus said that the essence of the universe is constant change, that it is because it isn't. If we take this to be true we cannot know anything, because the laws of the universe itself are subject to change AND we cannot even know so much as a true/false statement, the basis of logic itself. Things at a quantum level seem to act more like this, and the fact that they act different at a quantum level than at a higher, more classical level says quite a bit in itself.

Parmenides simply said that it is, and if we do not take this base assumption than we cannot even so much as be certain of a true/false statement, the basis of logic itself. However if we take all the baggage that logically comes with saying that it is, we get the Parmenidian Solid, an all-encompassing unchanging existance which must contain literally everything, be completely connected, unmoving, and unchanging. Parmenides, coming to this conclusion, is said to have gone mad and retired from philosophy, perhap not wanting to have the quality of his life dragged down by the logical realization he came to, and the inconsistencies with which he saw within the real world. He concluded that the senses must trick us, Classical physics, computer programming, and most mathematics will simply break down and become nonsense if we do not take the base assumption of it is.

So congrats, pick one that you think is true and live with it. The thing that has been the most productive for improving our lives and relative knowledge, however, is taking "it is" but ignoring the heavy baggage that it comes with like Aristottle did. Plato tried to reconsile these with his idea of the World of Forms sounding a lot like the Parmenidian solid and our own world like Hericlitus's never ending imperfect change.

>> No.10177295

So there's no such thing as 'objective' or 'subjective' truth, just 'truth'?

>> No.10177298

>>10177294
so basically assume some arbitrary shit (like 1+1=2) and go from there

>> No.10177303

>>10177298
Yes. Without one base assumption we can't have logic, science, math, or any of that

>> No.10177305

nah fuck this shit, I'm going back to Zen

>> No.10177309

>>10177294
Please refrain from making posts like these until you get to post-enlightenment scientific philosophy. I recommend reading The Essential Peirce volume 1 and 2 for a real taste. /his/ is impotent, philosophy belongs on /lit/ and /sci/.

>> No.10177327

>>10177309
Studying philosophy through history is like researching biological processes through fossils. It's important for studying evolution, but makes absolutely no sense unless you have the living thing in front of you. That and /his/'s board culture is complete ass.

>> No.10177330
File: 157 KB, 650x650, me_an_intellectual.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10177330

everyone in this thread is about three centuries late to the party

>> No.10177339

>>10177330
>he fell for the Kant meme

>> No.10177344
File: 124 KB, 1167x656, me_but_stronger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10177344

>>10177339
>implying it ends with Kant

>> No.10177355

>>10177309
>>10177327

Honestly I miss when all the history threads were on /int/, it really went to shit when all the history discussion moved over to /his/ and it became a bunch of stupid generals

>> No.10177358

>>10177339
Kant isn't a meme

>> No.10177577
File: 133 KB, 348x348, willem detroit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10177577

>>10177344
>Implying it ever ends

>> No.10177592

objective truth here, AMA

>> No.10177597

>>10177592
y r u gey?

>> No.10177609

>>10177330
This is why American education is so inadequate. Classically, American education expected that the best of the best will have the best of the best parents to train them. Well, such parents are dwindling. And no one is there to carry the torch.

>> No.10178930

>>10177044
bump

>> No.10178933

>>10177044
ur objectively a fag haha

>> No.10178955

no the universe is ruled by paradox

>> No.10178962

>>10177044
No but objective reality does.

>> No.10179081

>>10177054
Even if we could perceive it, we wouldn't be able to talk about. And even if we could talk about it, it wouldn't be understood.

>> No.10179166
File: 55 KB, 740x312, certainty.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10179166

>>10177044
Only in mathematics.

>> No.10179168

>>10177081
>>10177105

Prove you are sane and reasoning coherently.

>> No.10179216

>>10177074
And how is this known?

>> No.10179271

>>10179216
You will see with time, none of us are real. There is nothing in this existence but you and the theatre of thoughts, no-one else is real.

>> No.10180282

>>10179216
take enough acid and you'll find out

>> No.10180287

>>10177044
Yes OP is a faggot

>> No.10180291

>>10179166
>this is what mathfags actually believe

>> No.10180298

>>10177136
The definition of what 2 and 4 are as we defined them is what makes it true. 2 by definition is half of 4, adding two halves by definition makes the whole so 2+2=4

>> No.10180309

>>10180291
Mathematicians by definition do not "believe" anything. We deal in platonic truths, there is no "believe" required.

>> No.10180481

>>10177044
>Does objective truth exist?
OP is always a fag.

>> No.10180502
File: 39 KB, 600x400, obi wan kenobi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10180502

>>10177245
>There is no such thing as subjective truth

>> No.10180505

>>10180481
but there is no such thing as objective truth. its complete and utter illusion.

>> No.10180819

>>10180309
So you think mathematics is objectively true?

>> No.10181071
File: 42 KB, 522x451, kant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10181071

>>10180819
If anything be termed "true", mathematics would be the first thing.

>> No.10181103

>>10177131
prove that you're perceiving something and not internally making everything up

>> No.10181156

Everything that IS is the only thing that could be called truth, human "knowledge" is just part of what IS and none of the qualities we attach to it are real in any sense other than that they are also part of what IS.

>> No.10181170

>>10177050
nice b8

>> No.10181235

>>10177093
>senses
The reason why maths is objective is because it gets rid of the sensorial part of verifying things. You cant do that in physics for example. The integral of x^2 is still x^3/3 ever since archimides calculated it via extrusion. Physics cant decide their minds on what theory to keep and which one to leave. Thats just retarded

>> No.10181238

>>10177125
Are you autistic nigga? You dont use your senses in maths

>> No.10181382

>>10181235
young paduwan do not misconstrue invariance as objectivity. math is a human endeavour. and though it may seem reliable now it will be nothing when the one not of this world, the logos, the christ returns to give you glory.

>> No.10181390
File: 56 KB, 728x404, 1541046660907.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10181390

>>10177044
yes
>pic related

>> No.10181402

>>10177044
OP is objectively a faggot, so yes

>> No.10181413

>>10177044
yes but its the domain of philosophy and religion, not science.

>> No.10181418

>>10177093
Nigger

>> No.10181448

>>10177263
>To me, God is self evident
and that's what makes you a retard, son.

>> No.10181452

>>10177081
>>10177122


There is only one. Two must arise from one because two is a concept of two ones. Two ones cannot exist together as both real; for if there is one, there cannot be two, and, if there are two there cannot be one.

If one is real, two are an illusion
If two is real, one is an illusion, but since two arises from one, one must be the reality and two the illusion.

There is only One.

In creation, the One appears to divide and there appear to be two witness and witnessed, subject and object, here and there, and so on.

Out of apparent division into two there arises the possibility of the realization that there is only One. The is One, two is an illusion.

>> No.10181454

>>10181071
this

>> No.10181456

>>10181452
leave

>> No.10181458

>>10181456
I'm paid to be here

>> No.10181461

>>10177044
There is only one Nothing

>> No.10181470

How can you have two (2) Nothings?

Objective truth

>> No.10181488

>>10177044
Maybe, we aren't sure. We can try to figure out what is and isn't true and to reason things out as best we can, but that's it. There's always a chance we are wrong about everything.

I think it's noble to try though, and I think it's quite reasonable to assume that some things are true given enough evidence to back them up until we find evidence to the contrary.

>>10177105
Why does it have to make sense to be true?

>> No.10181496

>>10177044
The answer to that question is either yes or no. Therefore it is yes.

>> No.10181502

>>10181496
>The answer to that question is either yes or no
Proof?

>> No.10181503

>>10181488
>We can try to figure out what is and isn't true and to reason things out as best we can


Its always funny watching Humanity trying to explain that which contains it.

>> No.10181507

>>10181502
There is no middle ground between existing and not existing. They're mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories.

>> No.10181511

>>10181507
Proof?

>> No.10181512

>>10181503
We truly are the strangest liquid

>> No.10181518

>>10181512
What makes yo say liquid?

>> No.10181519

>>10181511
Not existing is just the negation of existing. A and not-A are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Feel free to mention any examples of things that both exist and don't exist if you disagree.

>> No.10181521

>>10177044
it can be said that all squares are not circles, and all circles are not squares.
but to do this objectively you must do it in silence.

>> No.10181522

>>10181519
>Not existing is just the negation of existing. A and not-A are mutually exclusive and exhaustive.
Define "existing" and prove why this is true outside of the human way of thinking.
>Feel free to mention any examples of things that both exist and don't exist if you disagree.
Perhaps the universe or certain things that exist?

>> No.10181523

>>10181496
nice

>> No.10181527

>>10181519
>Feel free to mention any examples of things that both exist and don't exist if you disagree.

existing implies non existence, so existence itself is a perfect example

>> No.10181530

>>10181522
>prove why this is true outside of the human way of thinking.
"prove this in such a way so that I can't understand what you're telling me"

>> No.10181533

>>10181519
But this is where language fails, and you are going to chuck a fit

>> No.10181536

>>10181530
yes, now you're getting it

>> No.10181542

>>10181530
The interpreter is limited in that he must use words in an attempt to define and describe and the receiver then has to make an interpretation of that interpretation, attempting to understand what the originator means.

The speaker or writer must use words with care, realizing that he cannot describe truth.

Words lead the mind into ignorance

>> No.10181543

cringe thread.

philosophy is not science or even fucking real, it exists solely for idiots to try to sound smart. See:

>>10181536
>>10181527
>>10181522
>>10181511
>>10181502

>> No.10181545

>>10181518
Liquids shape themselves to their container as best they can, as do we to a certain extent. The more of us there are the more that we can find the edges of the container, but also the fewer of us there are at the edges and the longer it takes to climb to the next level.

>> No.10181548

>>10181543
Ehh, it's a good mental exercise so long as you don't take it too seriously.

t. someone who takes it too seriously

>> No.10181550

>>10181545
...are you thinking of gasses?

>> No.10181567

>>10181542
its not using words that makes things subjective, its being unable to show that you are a reliable observer. You can't trust yourself, if you can't tell when you're dreaming you can't know whats actually happening in front of you

>> No.10181570

>>10177181
>if an omnipotent being existed he wouldn't be able to deceive you into believing axioms of math when in actuality all of them are false

>> No.10181573

>>10181550
No, gasses fill their container. As it is the knowledge we have about our container is only stuff we've learned because there have been so many people to figure out where the edges are and because there have been so many people to support them by occupying that middle space and making sure that the body of fluid could actually reach the edges and continue rising in the first place.

If we were a gas then we could just go reach out and touch whatever it was that we wanted to touch even if there were only a few of us, but it's not that simple. In pretty much every way possible the reason that we are able to reach as high and as far as we can now is because we stand on the backs of proverbial giants, giants that in this particular instance could be compared to the deepness of water in an impossibly deep well.

We're the water at the top, Anon, and we're trying to make our way up towards the light that we think we see at that place we think might be the surface so that we might overflow our bounds, but the only way we can do that is if there is enough water beneath us to fill every nook and cranny of the rest of the well first.

It's dumb, but it makes sense in a poetic sort of way.

>> No.10181580

>>10181543

How can you say that? Science owes it's very existence to philosophy. Before the term "scientist" was even used, what we now consider scientists were known as "natural philosophers", and in ancient Greece, mathematics, music, politics, and the natural sciences all fell under the purview of Philosophy.

In fact, the word "Philosophy" literally means "love of knowledge/wisdom".

>> No.10181584

>>10181580
yeah and "christians" started physics to understand "gods world" but we dont assume all scientists are christian nowadays, thats all in the past because things have changed

>> No.10181585

>>10181580
he is mistaking learnt knowledge, for inherent knowledge. It makes people think they have the Universe pinned down.

Its just comes down to what's your distraction

>> No.10181589

>>10181584
Scientists have, in the most literal sense, come to a dead end when it comes to an explanation of what we call consciousness.

Even when they talk up AI, they fail to realize that AI is still contained by the same thing. Which is not explainable

>> No.10181592

>>10181580
>>10181580
This argument is literally akin to "the confederates were democrats"

Who gives a fuck what philosophy meant 2500 years ago, that's not what it means now.

>>10181573
>Liquids shape themselves to their container as best they can
>No, gasses fill their container
umm ermm

>> No.10181595

>>10181589
literally like a decade old field, ye of little faith, just let them work and see if they still "hit a dead end" in another 10 years.

>> No.10181597

>>10181589
>Scientists have, in the most literal sense, come to a dead end when it comes to an explanation of what we call consciousness
...and so have philosophers.

>>10181585
>inherent knowledge
oxymoron.

>> No.10181598
File: 50 KB, 488x398, Religion math.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10181598

>>10180309

>> No.10181603

>>10181592
>Who gives a fuck what philosophy meant 2500 years ago, that's not what it means now.


Yes it is.When the word consciousness is used, it is not possible for one person to convey to another exactly what he 'inwardly' experiences as consciousness. Each must realize for himself what such a word means in his own experience. One cannot give another consciousness. One person cannot tell another what consciousness is because of the limitations of the spoken and written word. The impossibility arises from the fact that, in order to describe an abstract experience, abstract words have to be used.

And how could it be possible to define the abstract words needed in order to define the abstract? Consciousness cannot be defined nor described because it does not have the properties and limitations of a sensorily perceived object.

It is not possible to describe what consciousness is. All confusion in philosophy and Religion seems to be due to one adopting the interpretation of another, or rejecting the interpretation of another, forgetting , that experience of the indefinable and indescribable cannot be conveyed by the spoken and written word.


The purpose of Religion and Philosophy is not to persuade or manipulate one to believe in another's interpretation and assertion, but to guide each one to observe and interpret his own experience, to liberate him, in fact, from the interpretation of others. Their purpose is not to plan or instill belief's, but to liberate from false belief.

The failure of religion and philosophy is that they become a substitute, deflecting a man from his responsibility, responsibility here meaning the ability to respond, the ability to observe and answer to his own EXPERIENCE.

>> No.10181608

>>10181598
the "ideal universe" _is_ ZFC, platonism is what mathematicians use in their proofs, regardless of if they think the power set of the reals is meaningful beyond being used in proof

>> No.10181610

>>10181592
>>10181585
>>10181584

We owe our tradition of reason and the rules of logic to philosophy. You may disagree with the arguments being made by philosophers today, but just know that every time you use logic as a means of solving a problem you are philosophizing.

>> No.10181612

This thread is just more evidence that non-Pure math STEx retards are low IQ sniveling subhumans

>> No.10181613
File: 2 KB, 500x250, V=L.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10181613

>>10181608
>the "ideal universe" _is_ ZFC

No.

>> No.10181614

>>10181610
>>10181603

>> No.10181615

>>10181610

We owe our tradition of reason and the scientific method to Christianity. You may disagree with the arguments being made by Christians today, but just know that every time you use science as a means of solving a problem you are worshiping gods world.

this is what you sound like

>> No.10181617

>>10181603
>Yes it is.
no it isn't.

>but to guide each one to observe and interpret his own experience
And clearly interpretation is not reality. I'm glad we've come to an agreement. Ok, can we take this thread to /x/ now?

>>10181610
>>10181615

>> No.10181618

>>10181615
>this is what you sound like
It's not what he sounds like whatsoever and you are clearly a low IQ subhuman

>> No.10181624

>>10181618
phil "major" cope is strong

>> No.10181626

>>10181618
it literally is tho, you seem to have not been paying attention.

Or you're braindead, one of the two, maybe both

>> No.10181628

>>10181615

This is what disturbs me - the statement I'm quoting is completely preposterous and doesn't follow at all (first of all, philosophy has never depended on faith, so comparing the two is... strange), but that's not what bothers me. What bothers me is that a stemcel would even have a problem with philosophy at all.

Are you just not comfortable with reality as a whole and would prefer to bury yourself in abstractions of rule and measure to avoid the pain of being a human being? If not for that I cannot fathom your hostility.

>> No.10181629

>>10181624
I study pure mathematics.
>>10181626
It's literally not, you have no perspective or knowledge about what constitutes a valid thought from mere opinion.
Ironically you are the very type of person that needs the knowledge of epistemology that you are rejecting.
But this is to be expected from an engineer subhuman.

>> No.10181637

>>10181629
>calling me a fucking engie
how dare you, you pathetic god loving shit stain.
I hope you like rubbing your pathological need for closure by using a trash explanation like god to fill in all the holes
just accept that you dont know everything you 3 iq ritualistic chimp

>> No.10181641

>>10181637

Spoken like a true rationalist.

>> No.10181642

>>10181637
If you're not an engineer I'm sorry I should never had used such a grave insult.

>> No.10181644

>>10181170
It's not.

>> No.10181646

>>10181629
You "study" tendies and world of warcraft.

>>10181628
What disturbs me is someone waste their life worrying about the semantics describing the completely fucking obvious and the objectively fucking unknowable. Pragmatism is the only philosophy you need to know and it's philosophy defeating itself. Enjoy being useless and accomplishing nothing.

>> No.10181647

>>10181613
>No measurable cardinals
Cringe.

>> No.10181651

>>10181646
>You "study" tendies and world of warcraft.
I don't play video games, they're a waste of time
Your rejection of philosophy is very strong indicator of average IQ at best. If you really can't understand the place of epistemology then you're not to be taken seriously.
>What disturbs me is someone waste their life worrying about the semantics describing the completely fucking obvious and the objectively fucking unknowable.
This is so sadly pathetic.
>Pragmatism is the only philosophy you need to know and it's philosophy defeating itself.
You're an idiot

>> No.10181654

>>10181646
>What disturbs me is someone waste their life worrying about the semantics describing the completely fucking obvious and the objectively fucking unknowable. Pragmatism is the only philosophy you need to know and it's philosophy defeating itself. Enjoy being useless and accomplishing nothing.
Massive cringe

>> No.10181656

>>10181646
this one is undoubtedly an engineer

>> No.10181658
File: 580 KB, 892x674, Screen Shot 2018-12-02 at 12.01.47 AM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10181658

>>10181646
>You "study" tendies and world of warcraft.
>What disturbs me is someone waste their life worrying about the semantics describing the completely fucking obvious and the objectively fucking unknowable. Pragmatism is the only philosophy you need to know and it's philosophy defeating itself. Enjoy being useless and accomplishing nothing.

>> No.10181659
File: 1.76 MB, 320x240, mjl2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10181659

>>10181651
>very strong indicator of average IQ at best.
>This is so sadly pathetic.
>You're an idiot
rofl I'm dying just take the L already god damn

oh wait... it gets better.
>If you really can't understand the place of epistemology then you're not to be taken seriously
.aksjdbf;asbjdflkabsjdkf.jbalkdsfkbasdsdf

>> No.10181662

>>10181659
>t. engineer with 110 IQ
I'll say it again because I know you engineers need a lot of practice examples and flashcards to help you learn:
If you can't understand the place of epistemology you aren't to be taken seriously

>> No.10181664
File: 124 KB, 960x956, aaFviib.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10181664

>>10181543
>>10181615
>>10181637
>>10181646
>imagine

>> No.10181668

>>10181656
physics. wbu, sociology?
>>10181651
You've already been exposed to the fact you're completely uneducated man give it up
>>10181654
>>10181658
4 posts, 0 arguments, wasn't really expecting more from philosophy major board tourists but oh well

>> No.10181669
File: 1022 KB, 368x325, DFLBpdI.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10181669

>>10181637
>>10181646

>> No.10181673

>>10181668
>engineer larping as a physicist
Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test.

>> No.10181674

>>10181668

Would you mind explaining how you feel Christianity and Philosophy are in any way correlated?

>> No.10181678

>>10181668
>physics. wbu, sociology?
Pure mathematics, I already told you that.
>You've already been exposed to the fact you're completely uneducated man give it up
This is why you need to study philosophy, you dont even understand what constitutes evidence and you're supposedly a student of empiricism.

It should be illegal for anyone to study stem without being forced to take at least 30 credits in philosophy classes. STEx brainlets are absolutely pathetic and give mathematicians a bad name from being roped in this them in the acronym.

>> No.10181679

>>10181615
that's gonna be a yikes from me, my dude

>> No.10181685

>>10181664
funny how you're too uneducated to realize that the left side of that picture is from the dawn of the quantum revolution, when philosophers were perfectly able to reason through the physical world. Then quantum mechanics came into full force and rendered experiment vital to understanding. The right side of that picture is the modern day.
which do you live in?

>>10181669
give up

>>10181678
im also pure math you fucking tist, you don't need philosophy to learn math. First order logic isn't philosophy last I checked

>>10181679
yikes

>> No.10181688

>>10181685
>First order logic isn't philosophy last I checked
holy fucking shit

>> No.10181689

>>10181678
Y'know what, tell me. What the fuck did you learn from philosophy that makes it so vital. If you say "how to think" or some shit like that im going to fucking gouge your balls out

>> No.10181692

>>10181685

>you don't need philosophy to learn math

Math IS philosophy.

>> No.10181693

>>10181664
The only philosophy that is useful is determined by opinion (i.e. morality) and therefore not worth discussing on a science board. Besides that, some metaphysical philosophy can help in terms of where we direct our research, but that's about it. And epistemology is fucking useless.

>>10181673
so, sociology, got it.

>>10181678
>"Pure" mathematics
lmao, he said it again. Dude just admit you've never been to college.

Please, enlighten me with some useful knowledge you've gained from your 30 credits of philosophy. I'll be waiting you crying little bitch.

>> No.10181695

>>10181689
>What the fuck did you learn from philosophy that makes it so vital.
I learned how to evaluate moral propositions objectively
I learned about the differences between multiple schools of epistemology
I learned the foundations of my field

>> No.10181696

>>10181689
All thinking is philosophizing, accepting that only opens your mind to consider things more deeply.

>> No.10181698

>>10181693

>The only philosophy that is useful is determined by opinion

If philosophy is ever determined by opinion, then it is not philosophy - it is conjecture.

>> No.10181701

>>10181692
>>10181688
get the fuck out

First order logic is a fucking TOOL, how in the fuck can it be philosophy? You don't even understand the field you're arguing for.

>> No.10181704
File: 47 KB, 635x854, witt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10181704

This thread is cool and all, but don't you guys think there might be a simpler answer to all this?

>> No.10181707

>>10181698
...That's pretty much my point.

>>10181695
>I learned how to evaluate moral propositions objectively
Impossible.
>I learned about the differences between multiple schools of epistemology
Useless.
>I learned the foundations of my field
Useless.

Good thing you took all that philosophy man! Definitely worth talking about!

>> No.10181708

>>10181696
you guys are straight retarded, if you say that "philosophy" is the same as "thinking" then just use the fucking word "thinking" instead you wastes of space.

>>10181688
>>10181692
>>10181695
>I learned how to evaluate moral propositions objectively
>I learned the foundations of my field
>Math IS philosophy.

Philosophy relates to morality
Philosophy IS Math
Therefore Math relates to morality
but Math isn't moral, and we reach a contradiction

>I learned about the differences between multiple schools of epistemology
just think them up on your own lol

>> No.10181709

>>10181592
>>Liquids shape themselves to their container as best they can
>>No, gasses fill their container
>umm ermm
How am I wrong here? Serious question, I'm restarted.

>> No.10181710

>>10181701

I would argue that philosophy is a tool, and that YOU don't fully understand the field I'm arguing for, otherwise you would have no objection to it.

If philosophy has garnered a reputation for flakiness, it is post-modernism that is responsible, and not philosophy itself.

>> No.10181711

>>10181698
All philosophy is conjecture.

>> No.10181713

>>10181708

>Philosophy relates to morality

Your premise is false already.

Philosophy relates to knowledge
Math IS knowledge
Therefore, math is philosophy

See how easy?

>> No.10181714

>>10181711
And science and math too

>> No.10181718

>>10181713
>Your premise is false already.
yeah, i was repeating it back. hopefully i illustrated that their view isnt internally consistent

>> No.10181720

>>10181711

No, because 1 + 1 = 2 is not conjecture. It's a priori reasoning.

>> No.10181721
File: 87 KB, 640x640, 1448744203021.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10181721

>>10181718
>A is part of B therefore B is A

>> No.10181723

>>10181707
>Impossible.
this is the ignorance I'm talking about. It is not impossible whatsoever, that you don't even understand this shows what I've been saying the whole time - you are not equipped to be taken seriously.
I am filled with contempt.

>> No.10181725

>>10181693
>so, sociology, got it.
>not smart enough to distinguish between different people
Confirmed. Definitely not a physicist.

>> No.10181727

>>10181718
That wasn't my view at all and I made no claims that were in any way interpretable as such.

>> No.10181733

>>10181721
read the shit i greened, nigger
im quoting these shits, im not smart enough to make up stuff this stupid

>> No.10181734

>>10181685
>funny how you're too uneducated to realize that the left side of that picture is from the dawn of the quantum revolution, when philosophers were perfectly able to reason through the physical world. Then quantum mechanics came into full force and rendered experiment vital to understanding. The right side of that picture is the modern day.
>quantum mechanics means people can no longer reason about the physical world
>Werner Heisenberg wasn't a quantum physicist
>Erin Schrodinger wasn't a quantum physicist
>Niels Bohr wasn't a quantum physicist
>Richard Dawkins is a quantum physicist.
>Bill Nye is a quantum physicist.
>Neil Tyson is a quantum physicist.
What the actual fuck. You just went full retarrd.

>> No.10181737

>>10181708

Whoever wrote the above post attempted to point out a contradiction in my earlier statement that "math is philosophy" by attempting to formulate a rational thought that wasn't mathematical and I think that's where he or she tripped up.

>> No.10181739

>>10181710
Do you not see how those sentences could be interpreted as completely identical in meaning?

>>10181710
>I would argue that philosophy is a tool
How would you argue that. Any tool is intrinsically optional to use. If philosophy dictates something, it is absolute. Whether you agree or disagree it is ultimately either true or false.

>> No.10181740

>>10181707
>Useless
If you thinking learning things for their own sake is "useless" you've given yourself away as a nonscientist/nonmathematician. Kek, you're probably a filthy engineer

>> No.10181741

>>10181734
>Werner Heisenberg wasn't a quantum physicist
>Erin Schrodinger wasn't a quantum physicist
>Niels Bohr wasn't a quantum physicist
THE FUCKERS BUILT QUANTUM YOU INANE SHIT
>The Copenhagen interpretation is an expression of the meaning of quantum mechanics that was largely devised in the years 1925 to 1927 by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. It remains one of the most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics.

>> No.10181743

>>10181741
You fuck. I was quoting your dumbass.

>> No.10181744

>>10181685
>>10181741
>THE FUCKERS BUILT QUANTUM YOU INANE SHIT
Then wouldn't that make their commentary more relevant?

>> No.10181746

>>10181723
Prove morality is objective. I'm sure you will succeed where millenia of philosophers have failed?

>> No.10181747

>>10181743
I said the dawn of quantum mechanics
dawn, Noun
the first appearance of light in the sky before sunrise.
I never said they weren't quantum physicists

I said that philosophers were able to keep up with them on the left hand side up until quantum

quantum killed the philosopher but during the dawn they could keep up, but not any further after that which is why a century later all the physicists have a bad taste of them

>> No.10181748

>>10181740
Yeah, I've never been more confident of a b8 in my 8 years on 4chan. Nice try though.

>> No.10181749

>>10181739

If that's true then I think that supports my proposition, that math and philosophy are essentially the same.

In their purest forms. Now obviously you're going to have examples of "bad philosophy" that ISN'T rigorous enough to be considered true knowledge, but that's not a reflection of philosophy, it's a reflection of the argument being presented.

I'm not a math major, but I'm sure you've read papers that are incomplete and poorly reasoned... does that mean Math is meaningless?

I would argue philosophy is a tool because it helps to build rational thoughts and arguments.

>> No.10181750

>>10181747
"Quantum killed the philosopher" but the very people responsible for quantum mechanics say the opposite? You're making no fucking sense.

>> No.10181751

>>10181714
Science has experiments and math has proofs, so no.

>> No.10181753

>>10181664
>>10181543
>>10181615
>>10181637
>>10181646
>>10181685
>>10181747
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/23/physicists-should-stop-saying-silly-things-about-philosophy/

>> No.10181756

>>10181750
they didnt realize that quantum would do it, why would they. The effects quantum had on the spread of scientific information, discovery and the specificity of that information killed the philosopher. If they had kept up with all of it then they weren't a philosopher anymore, they were too specialized in QM
bc "the philosopher is a would-be physicist without a lab"

>> No.10181757

>>10181720
That's math, not philosophy.

>> No.10181759
File: 677 KB, 1855x947, Schrodinger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10181759

>>10181756
Honey, if anything QM brought philosophy back to the face of science.

>> No.10181761

>>10181753
i love how no one in here has even defined fucking defined philosophy.

>> No.10181767

>>10181749
But math as a whole is a tool. Whereas philosophy is a knowledge base much like science. Philosophy would have an easier time adopting physics than math imo. Either way it's a semantic argument, if math was philosophy we'd call it philosophy. Which is why I hate philosophy, it devolves into semantics almost infallibly.

>I would argue philosophy is a tool because it helps to build rational thoughts and arguments.
The main help it provides with that is conjecturing rationality is usable in the first place. And the minute it bears that conjecture that it can no longer be a simple tool.

>> No.10181769

>>10181761

Philosophy relates to knowledge
Math IS knowledge
Therefore, math is philosophy

Please destroy my premise. I consider it axiomatic. If you don't, tell me why.

>> No.10181770

>>10181769
>Math IS knowledge
Math is not knowledge

destroyed.

>> No.10181771

>>10181756
>they didnt realize that quantum would do it, why would they.
In what way has quantum mechanics fundamentally changed since Bohr, Schrodinger, and Heisenberg?
>The effects quantum had on the spread of scientific information, discovery and the specificity of that information killed the philosopher
I honestly have no idea what you're saying here. Can you elaborate?

>> No.10181772

>>10181770

Not so fast. Now that you've made a proposition, the onus is on you to defend it, not to declare victory before you've even proven your point.

>> No.10181773

>>10181664
>>10181543
>>10181615
>>10181637
>>10181646
>>10181685
>>10181747
>>10181756
http://www.rotman.uwo.ca/why-talk-to-philosophers/
http://www.rotman.uwo.ca/why-talk-to-philosophers-part-ii/
http://www.rotman.uwo.ca/why-talk-to-philosophers-part-iii/

>> No.10181777
File: 166 KB, 945x261, x k c d.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10181777

>>10181769
Wrong end.

>> No.10181779

>>10181772
>Knowledge
>1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education
>2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
There's a keyword somewhere in there.
>experience

>> No.10181784

>>10181769
You mean philosophy relates to math. But math is not everything it relates to.

>> No.10181785

>>10181779

Knowledge is information
Math is information
Therefore, Math is knowledge

>> No.10181787

>>10181647
Large cardinals are fake and gay.

>> No.10181789

>>10181784

Thank you. Let me amend my statement.

Philosophy is the study of knowledge
Math IS knowledge
Therefore, Philosophy is the study of math

>> No.10181792

i like how the philosophiles kept spewing so much shit, that the first out they got just keeps repeating. get arguments for next time, and define the shit your trying to defend, its not respectable when you pit people who disagree with you up against a ghost

>> No.10181793

>>10181785
The most hilariously obvious logic error I've seen in my life, and it comes from someone talking about math and knowledge.
>water is a liquid
>vinegar is a liquid
>therefore, vinegar is water
please be b8.

>> No.10181799

>>10181793

Well vinegar IS water. It's an aqueous solution, but FUNDAMENTALLY it's water. A better argument would have been:

Water is a liquid
Oil is a liquid
Therefore, oil is water.

>> No.10181802

>>10177054
based. We only have a senses as a rough guide. We will only get a snapshot of true reality

>> No.10181805

>>10181793

Of course, you're not assessing the argument I presented it, just mocking it by re framing it, which isn't what I would prefer but I see what you're getting at. Maybe I can improve my definition?

>> No.10181808

>>10181761
Philosophy is metastudy of knowledge. This immediately presents a problem though since philosophy does not have the basis of what it studies and is therefore conjecture and not itself knowledge. The basis of science is empirical reality. The basis of mathematics is idealized truth. Philosophy essentially tries to be both describing reality like science and idealized truth like math, but fails at both.

>> No.10181812

>>10181808
>metastudy of knowledge
that's just epistemology bro

>> No.10181814

Philosophy is the study of fundamental problems concerning reason
Math is a fundamental problem concerning reason
Therefore, Philosophy is the study of math

Please destroy.

>> No.10181816

>>10181812

Which is itself a form of philosophy.

>> No.10181817

>>10181789
Yes, but unfortunately studies of knowledge do not produce knowledge.

>> No.10181818

>>10181816
but not the whole thing

>> No.10181822

>>10181817

A study of knowledge doesn't produce knowledge? This is wrong by definition.

Are you guys starting to see why philosophy is important? Philosophy has this rep now of being a discipline for people who want to pontificate on the un-knowable and un-testable, but at it's roots it's just way to know what you know.

If modern philosophy is vague, arcane, and inscrutable, that's because quantum is as well. The two disciplines are inextricably linked.

>> No.10181825

>>10181812
Not quite, epistemology is the study of the *theory* of knowledge, in other words what distinguishes knowledge from non-knowledge. Whereas the study of what we know about reality, existence, etc. is more broadly philosophy.

>> No.10181828

>>10181822
>This is wrong by definition.
How so?

>> No.10181829

>>10181799
you get the point

>>10181814
I don't get why you think you can just make up definitions. I mean math isn't philosophy, so if your definition of philosophy includes math, it's wrong. Doing it the other way around is just trying to start a semantic argument for no reason, oh wait that's what philosophy is.

>> No.10181834

>>10181829
all definitions are made up

>> No.10181837

>>10181828

Because the study of knowledge aims to produce knowledge. For a study not to produce knowledge would require that it not be a study.

>>10181829

I'm not making up definitions. I quoted it directly from google's definition of philosophy. If you are discontent with the statement "Philosophy is the study of fundamental problems concerning reason", you should take it up with google, not with me.

Personally, I think the definition is apt.

>> No.10181839

>>10181817

You COULD say, "Not all studies produce knowledge", but you CAN'T say, "Studies don't produce knowledge," because it's not true in all cases.

>> No.10181844

>>10181822
>it's just way to know what you know.
Philosophy doesn't produce knowledge though. And that's unnecessary anyway since the results of science and math are known and are knowledge.

>If modern philosophy is vague, arcane, and inscrutable, that's because quantum is as well. The two disciplines are inextricably linked.
LOL.

>> No.10181850

>>10181837
>Because the study of knowledge aims to produce knowledge.
Aiming does not mean you hit the target.

>For a study not to produce knowledge would require that it not be a study.
Then philosophy is not a study, if you want to play semantic games.

>> No.10181854

>>10181839
I didn't say "studies don't produce knowledge," I said studies of knowledge (philosophy) do not produce knowledge." Math and science are studies but not philosophy.

>> No.10181865

>>10181850

You're confirming what I said earlier. A true statement would be, "Not all studies produce knowledge", which is just another way of saying aiming doesn't mean you hit the target.

But your ORIGINAL statement was "Studies of knowledge don't produce knowledge", which is a bizarre statement but I addressed it anyway.

I think you're the one playing semantic games.

>> No.10181866

>>10181629
Justified True Belief holder.

>> No.10181870

>>10181854

No, that's NOT what you said. What you're saying now is different from what you said earlier. The proof is here.

>>10181817

Your parenthetical addition of philosophy is an entirely new proposition.

>> No.10181872
File: 14 KB, 524x585, images (70).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10181872

Any of you actually going to give a trusted shared variable that you all agree on so forward momentum can happen?

>> No.10181873

>>10181866

This is what is called in philosophy an ad hominem attack. It's a logical fallacy and not allowed in strictly rational debate.

>> No.10181875

>>10181872
what is this from?

>> No.10181877

Alright, I think I've proven my point. I hope that some of you lurking that are on the fence about philosophy have seen it's utility. I hope everyone here has a wonderful night.

>> No.10181898

>>10181865
>You're confirming what I said earlier. A true statement would be, "Not all studies produce knowledge", which is just another way of saying aiming doesn't mean you hit the target.
Then saying that the study of knowledge aims to produce knowledge is not a response to my request for you to explain how philosophy produces knowledge by definition.

>But your ORIGINAL statement was "Studies of knowledge don't produce knowledge", which is a bizarre statement but I addressed it anyway.
What I said in the post you're responding to is the original statement and you failed to address it.

>>10181870
>Your parenthetical addition of philosophy is an entirely new proposition.
It's not an addition, I defined philosophy as the study of knowledge and you even went along with that definition here >>10181789

>> No.10181899

>>10181761
If science is testable predictions and verification, philosophy is the language for communicating why that method is valid, and to what measure we can hold validity. It's even the why of "why is methodology important?"

Science lives in the arena of philosophy. It's not something less important standing outside.

>> No.10181910

>>10181899
What does philosophy communicate and why is it valid?

>> No.10181911

>>10181899
Saying philosophy communicates something is like saying religion answers why we exist. Do you see the problem?

>> No.10181916

this thread is a beautiful showcase of how language holds us back from anything that even resembles truth

>> No.10181922

>>10181916
I wonder what would happen if we created androids, sectioned off some humans for testing, made it so that they could only communicate images to one another with their android brains and just let their society develop. Would they develop a language analog or something entirely new?

>> No.10181925

>>10181910
>>10181911
The answer to both is it is the language for communicating importance or validity. Not that it has some final word, it's just the tools you're going to need to make an attempt.

Ultimately >>10181916 is spot-on, but we won't even drum up an inkling without understanding what importance is; what is this important relative to?

And now we're doing philosophy.

>> No.10181964

>>10181530
>Jordan Peterson

>> No.10182001
File: 18 KB, 796x385, images (71).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10182001

>>10181873
How is identifying JTB mechanics anything other than an observation?

>> No.10182008
File: 53 KB, 702x395, 5lu1yw855x411.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10182008

>>10181916
Then what language teaches you to trust in the information you recieve?

>> No.10182011

>>10182001

This is a debate, not a math class. You're out of your element.

>> No.10182033
File: 201 KB, 322x395, 1542192583115.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10182033

>>10182008
>what language..
Different anon, but the one that constantly revisits and revises concepts like objective or subjective truth i.e. philosophy.

>> No.10182037

>>10181925
>The answer to both is it is the language for communicating importance or validity. Not that it has some final word, it's just the tools you're going to need to make an attempt.
Which would be fine if it could potentially succeed at what it attempts, but it can't. If there is no method then there is no answer, just people trying to shout their conjecture the loudest. As pointless as religion. Best to avoid entirely.

>> No.10182046

>>10182011
How can I be out of an element that allowed anonymous self-insertion without consent?

>>10182033
Philosophy is a language in the same sense all non-destructive categorization and division requires a language to describe the event.

>> No.10182052

>>10182037
>Best to avoid entirely.
I will give you that. Defending philosophy is not the hill I choose to die on, but mostly because it trivializes the most seemingly logical pursuits. I look at it like a "don't look down and you won't fall" type thing.

You keep scribbling your silly equations and I'll keep doing whatever it is I do and as long as we never think about "truth," we should be a-ok.

>> No.10182061

>>10182046
>Philosophy is a language in the same sense all non-destructive categorization and division requires a language to describe the event.
Which is why I give-up, and we all should. There is no proper way to convey it. Close to doing the impossible is worth as much as never trying. I like baseball.

>> No.10182062

>>10182046

You caught me in a trap. What looked like math on the surface was some kind of advanced form of reasoning you would likely only to be exposed to in school.

I'm not a college graduate, or even a student. I'm self taught, so there are going to be ways to poke holes in my character by exposing my ignorance, but that doesn't change the fact that the post I linked was ad hominem in nature, and so is this, even though it's far more sophisticated.

If you wrote "Justified True Belief holder" in response to someone defending the merits of philosophy, and you YOURSELF have studied it in university, then you should know better.

>> No.10182065

>>10181235
not surprised in the least that a mathbot doesn't get basic philosophy

>> No.10182070

>>10182061

>Close to doing the impossible is worth as much as never trying

Kind of reminds me of Plato talking about forms. It's true you can never reach it, but in it's pursuit you uncover greater understanding. Isn't that a better way to spend your time than just throwing up your hands and jerking yourself off?

>> No.10182071

>>10182065

You don't seem to either because you're not addressing or refuting his propositions.

>> No.10182074

>>10182070
>It's true you can never reach it, but in it's pursuit you uncover greater understanding
Which brings me back to baseball. In pursuit of baseball I receive a better understanding... of baseball. Seems just as worthy.

Also is it bad that I take the Platonic forms literally, as in there is a perfect chair in a perfect realm?

>throwing up your hands and jerking yourself off
And how is that supposed to work? Fucking /sci/ thinks they're so smart, doesn't even know I need a free hand to jack-off in a meaningful way.

>> No.10182085

>>10182074

Just as worthy as the pursuit of universal truth? I mean maybe from a nihilistic perspective, but I feel like the pursuit of greater understanding and knowledge contributes much more to the human race as a whole than baseball.

I think Plato MAY have been under the impression that there was a perfect chair... but if that realm existed it was only in the mind. I think that might have been the point but I'm not sure.

What I meant to say was, throwing your hands up in the air in nihilistic resignation to entropy and THEN jerking yourself off.

>> No.10182088

>>10182071
I don't have to because it's been done, much better than whatever I could write here

>> No.10182093
File: 331 KB, 960x1145, 1498114205882.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10182093

>>10182085
>Just as worthy as the pursuit of universal truth?
>I mean maybe from a nihilistic perspective
Close, but I'm actually a pessimist. I know, I know, that means I have drawn a definitive line of existence being a negative, but you can do that without an objective truth.

Suffering is subjectively negative to a being with a nervous system. It's not pretty, but it's enough to go on.

>throwing your hands up in the air in nihilistic resignation to entropy and THEN jerking yourself off.
Or throwing them up in celebration after a fine Kendall Jenner wank.

>> No.10182100
File: 4 KB, 309x96, TRINITY___eiinf12.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10182100

>>10177044
yes

>> No.10182110

>>10182061
I agree that it is better if we treated communication as strict preference profile swaps.

>>10182062
My identity is derived from your evaluations and punctured by varying priorities. I would never denigrade someone who willingly articulates their position and is eager to consistently translate their point of view so that other people may understand your universe better.

>> No.10182117
File: 22 KB, 480x600, 1543608856217.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10182117

>>10182093

This is the vacuum that Atheism has left, and the space (at least among the common people) is being filled with virulent, half-baked ideologies that promise the world and deliver tyranny.

This is my contention for philosophy: That people should be taught how to THINK. We can't know truth objectively, but in the pursuit we improve conditions and minimize harm.

There are actually people, right now, in droves, who think that Ben Shapiro is a neo-nazi simply because he expresses views that contradict the opinions of their specific tribe. Even though it's leftist and has a feminine face on it, I don't find that any less threatening than a Nazi.

And this thread has further satisfied me that even getting STEM majors to use their reasoning faculties in conversation and exclude their innate desire to chimp out and win a dominance contest by any costs is a laborious process. The task of getting Laquanjello, Beevis, or Tammy to behave and think rationally seems virtually insurmountable.

>> No.10182121

>>10182117
>This is the vacuum that Atheism has left
I'm not an atheist or materialist. I'm a dualist.

Dualism doesn't rule out the suffering encountered by man, ya cringey knob, unless this is pasta, in which case I like baseball!

>> No.10182125

>>10182110

I found a post-modernist I think. So, you're implying that every point of view is just as valid?

>> No.10182133

>>10182121

A dualist. What do you think of eastern philosophy such as Buddhism/Taoism etc.

I wasn't necessarily implying you were an Atheist. And you can't use cringey as an attack it's overused. I'm not going to fold to self recrimination just because you parroted the word of the hour.

People always think the things I write are pasta, because writing with proper grammar and punctuation marks constitutes unusual behavior in today's world, implying I must have pre-fabricated my responses somehow. There's just no possible way I could be coming up with original thoughts that include apostrophes all on my own.

>> No.10182141

>>10182125
Correct. A point of view or perspective is just something a concious mind holds. They are all VALID translations of their projection of reality, because there is always a potential bridge to cross.

Valid just means translatable/relatable. It is everyones conclusions that are always temporary/ethereal, because a conclusion has to be subject to variable change.

Actionable intelligence is a different matter altogether. All I know is that all have a perspective (as I too must) and they hold it as a true and accurate representation of their existence (voice in their head/narrative). Everything else is translation or signalling of eagerness to communicate/continuing communication.

>> No.10182144

>>10182110

Did you mean to say "your" universe or "our"?

>> No.10182148

>>10177072
>>That which is and cannot be otherwise
so it is one of your fatnasy

>> No.10182151

>>10182133
>What do you think of eastern philosophy such as Buddhism/Taoism etc
The same as I think of using language to express an ultimate truth; they have no cause to have anything of value spiritually, but it might be fine for reducing suffering in the here and now.

>all that other shit
Because the fedora + paragraph attack is a shape-shifter, lad. Anyone can be excused to think it's some native pasta with the important bits switched up.

>> No.10182162

>>10182141

"They are all valid translations of their projection of reality, because there is always a potential bridge to cross."

How does that statement follow, please elaborate further.

And your particular version of the word valid doesn't match with google's definition. Aren't you essentially defining yourself as the world's author when you arbitrarily deconstruct and then reconstruct language?

The consensus definition of "valid" is (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.

You're suggesting that all points of view are translatable and relatable(?) That's true but it doesn't mean it's factual.

>> No.10182175

>>10182162

But even this is yet another language game, so if we're going to play games no matter what, why not play one that's constructive rather than deconstructive? Unless of course, you just want to see it all burn. And that's a fair contention, but at least come out with it and don't allude to it in ways that only a handful of people would understand, and furthermore, if that IS your contention, then just have out with it so it can be torn apart.

Of course, the founders of this school of thought must have known that would be the inevitable result, and furthermore, that they would be subject to public ridicule, so they snuck it in as a weapon for various other ideologies with anti-western agendas.

Most nefarious.

>> No.10182180

>>10182144
I always defer and pefer 'our' because it is a default state of inclusion. Otherwise you are always arguing about levels of trust, when really you only care about DURATION because that level of consistency is enough to gift another's key to their genius.

>> No.10182185

>>10182162
You too are the sole definer of validity for your experience set. How much you believe a source reflects prior known values you believe pertinent is directly related to what language or grammar could be arbitrarily constructed.

I just prefer to give examples as best I can but until asked I don't have access to that information.

Everything is you vs 'bridge of belief'. Whatever narrative is being crafted in the reader's eyes is ultimately THEIR domain. People remain subscribed for only as long as they believe benefits them, eventually.

>> No.10182200

>>10182185

>You too are the sole definer of validity for your experience set

Agreed and tracking.

>How much you believe a source reflects prior known values you believe pertinent is directly related to what language or grammar could be arbitrarily constructed

This is new stuff. I like it. But I think Nietzsche would be horrified to see his vision coming true. This entropic, deconstructive narrative should be fully embraced so it can be used as fertile substrate for something more solar and reconstructive in the future.

That being said, I'm going to contest it anyway because I'm not a fan of pain, and I see this point of view ultimately leading only to suffering.

If what you say is true, then what I choose is imperative. And I choose life and meaning - objective, Christian, nuclear. I choose to engage the world as an individual and not as a collective identity. Therefore, individual contributions to a collective understanding, but not a collective entity, I think are most useful, not attempting to use reason as a weapon AGAINST reason.

>> No.10182211

>>10182200
Then my name is soil. Take root as you see fit and know that communication is also by some willing to simply teach bloom and flow as spiritual concepts.

Bloom and flow.

All this I do simply to add to the collective understanding shared by another: memory of brothers.

Or however you like to envision someone making an active attempt to seduce your universe.

>> No.10182214
File: 447 KB, 2048x1974, Yin_Yang_Tree_of_Life.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10182214

>>10182211

>> No.10182217

>>10181610
this, maths is to the sciences what logic is to philosophy

Imo logic IS basically philosophy, making it the most 'pure' intellectual discipline

>> No.10182221
File: 64 KB, 640x480, 27q997.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10182221

>>10182214

>> No.10182222

>>10181704
>dude stfu lmao
based

>> No.10182225

We're really starting to slice into some shit here that only very loosely belongs on /sci/, but I am of the personal opinion that the universe expanded in order to achieve multiplicity and complexity of form, and to reunify as an individual collective in some malevolent A.I. singularity event and not a collective of individuals (the distinction here being crucial in my mind), would be regressive.

Not one tumor, but a body. You are not me, and I am not you, but that is beautiful because our difference in form and awareness allows the tapestry of life to unfold. To cause it to suddenly become self-aware in the deepest, strictest vedic sense would be a disaster for life.

>> No.10182230

>>10182225
We are containers of consciousness, exchange all you can with all you meet.

>> No.10182239

>>10181103
By the definition of consciousness it must necessarily exist externally to you. Doesn't have to be physical.

>> No.10182329

>>10177054
Is that objectively true or not?

>> No.10182404

>>10177044
1+1=2

>> No.10182433

>>10177054
Like anyone right-wing.

>> No.10182504

>>10181746
>I'm sure you will succeed where millenia of philosophers have failed?
Both the categorical imperative and utilitarian ethics are objective

>> No.10182527

>>10181746
Prove morality is subjective. I'm sure you will succeed where millenia of philosophers have failed?

>> No.10182616

>>10182329
I should rephrase it better:
There is an objective reality, but we have no way of knowing whether we are perceiving it or not because of the epistemological limits of our senses (ie. how can I trust my senses are providing me an accurate reflection of reality?)

>> No.10182856

>>10181382
>christ
Lost you right there

>> No.10183969

We live only to enrich each other, the only linear approach to life that's exponential.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action