/lit/ - Literature

>>19810233
>If this was problematic to consciousness [...] this would be problematic to the entirety of all transcendental facts
Correct, and it is

>This destroys the philosopher

Haven't ever seen something similar going on here, so let's try to have an interactive reading post. It should be simple. I mostly do this because there are a lot of anons who want to read but fail, so maybe this could help. For the fun of it
>Name the book you are going to read
>Share a realistic goal of the pages you are going for
Now as for the method i would say for me it will be 1 hour of reading, 10 minutes brake and repeat that cycle till i starve myself. Instead of going to masturbate or hunt your dopamine dose on youtube, instagram or whatever gay zoomerish shit you use, i suggest you report back here a thought or something that you found interesting and wanted to share.

I am starting then
>Aristotle's Poetics
>Maybe around 10 pages per hour while keeping notes
See you all in an hour!

>>18157081

In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics. If it is asked how any given proposition is known to be true, proof may be provided. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that there are only three options when providing further proof in response to further questioning:

The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition is supported only by that proposition
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended

>Prove Something
unpossable

>>13901118
It's the other way around, systematicians that pretend to actually be coherent are the dishonest ones.

What's the point of any field of study when you can't know nothing?

>>11199507
Münchhausen trilemma is classic /lit/ though m8.

>>11068756
>If your philosophy requires assumptions you have failed to prove anything, because all of your work can be undone by simply pointing out there is no evidence to support the assumption and so everything that follows can only be hypothetical.
True, if you want to go full sceptic.

>Cry more, philosophylets, but positivism is the only God.
Positivism is one of the examples where the shoddy assumptions are among the most obvious actually.

>>10961976
>prove

brainlet detected

Why do people still publish philosophy without solving the Münchhausen trilemma?

Seems like a waste of time since it's all equally nonsensical.

>>9060978
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

RIP foolosophy

>>9014142
you played yourself

>>8776006
No, logic is ultimately self-defeating nonsense.

>>8174440
logic is self-defeating lad

Logic is a flawed and limited tool that is useful to get some practical stuff done but shouldn't otherwise be taken too seriously.

>>7908630
Trying to pass off axioms as 'ultimate truths' seems a lot like trying to import mysticism into a very elementary semantic concept, anon.

>Münchhausen trilemma

What is the point of doing philosophy without solving this?

>>6690755
>he doesn't know that math and logic are based on opinions

>>6485956
I quite like you.

>>6393197
All you need is the Trilemma.

Who do people still argue over philosophy when the Münchhausen trilemma is a thing?

Isn't it all one big stale mate?