/lit/ - Literature

Because there's nothing to solve.

>>15328107
>Because there's nothing to solve.

>>15328109
>"were" instead of "where"
>"is" instead of "are"
This just proves right-wingers are literally retarded.

You use the regressive argument but only go to an indefinite point instead of infinitely. You don't need infinite proof.

>>15328158
If you get to a point where you can’t find any more proof, then obviously the last proof you did is unproven. Which makes it practically the same as the axiomatic argument.

>>15328067
Why should you argue if you can just beat the other person?

>>15328174
Because that’s mean

Faith in God is the ultimate foundation for all knowledge

>>15328480
This

>>15328480
Faith or god himself?

>>15328480
so you choose the axiomatic horn

>>15328067
Axiomatic argument seems like the most honest. Circular argumentation is too much like christian """""theology""""".

>>15328935
>Axiomatic argument seems like the most honest.
Why not take everything as an axiom if you’re willing to take one thing as one?

>>15329011
It's possible to have contradictory axioms. So, having multiple, non-contradictory axioms which can be combined together to produce different and more complex ideas is clearer and allows for more depth.

>>15329036
How do you know if axioms are contradictory? If you can find a justification for two axioms being contradictory, the trilemma would apply to it as well. Furthermore, you’d be taking the law of noncontradiction, which would be circular.

>>15329110
>you’d be taking the law of noncontradiction
you’d be taking the law of noncontradiction as an axiom*

>>15329110
I can see why this is such a problem. I'm not read or trained in philosophy so I have no idea how to answer that.

>>15328067
Empiricism, of course.

You start with rare empirical certainties, like observing that existence/experience is a thing; that is not an axiom, it's an apodictic truth. From there, you construct your provisional knowledge with the emprical observations that don't meet the standard of apodciticy (which is almost all of it). You could view non-apodictic empiricism as axiomatic in a sense, but there two important distinctions: 1) it isn't accepted arbitrarily, but because predictive accuracy has pragmatic value to us 2) It's provisional, meaning acceptance is contingent upon lack of evidence/better theories to the contrary.

The problem only remains if you're unwilling to accept that the majority of knowledge is -technically- uncertain and that this will never change. Realistically though, that tiny slice of technical uncertainty doesn't preclude having useful standards and some incomplete degree of knowledge.

>>15328480
cringe

>>15328480
That's just axiomatic.

>>15329214
It seems like the conclusion to your line of thinking would be solipsism. Although, people can genuinely doubt their own perception, I’m not sure why you think they can’t. Especially when hallucinations and such exist.

This meme has more depth to it than meets the eye. Look beyond the edgyness

>>15328279
proofs?

>>15329411
My feelies tell me so

All human knowledge is ultimately based on a set of axioms and functions that are more-or-less programmed into our brains from birth and which together could be said to represent the human capacity of knowing things.

Time for a real dilemma.

>>15329438
>All human knowledge is ultimately based on a set of axioms and functions that are more-or-less programmed into our brains from birth
I’m not so sure that’s true though

>>15329385
>people can genuinely doubt their own perception
People can doubt their own existence too. Take the simulation hypothesis for example.

>>15329444
Every wrong step counting as a kill (every wrong input) vs every missed step counting as a kill would affect my technique. I would probably pick two of the arrows (left and right) and try to hit them ignoring the top and bottom. THat way I can do as much as I can correctly.

If however wrong inputs don't kill (just misses) I would spam as much as possible. Maybe get on my knees and use my hands to slap the arrows if they can register that way.

These trolley problems are nonsensical because they never specify the ethnicity of the people tied up

>>15329482
>Take the simulation hypothesis for example
I swear to God, the simulation hypothesis is the worst thing that ever happened to philosophy. Hint: believing the simulation hypothesis in no way means that you doubt your own existence.

>>15329692
>believing the simulation hypothesis in no way means that you doubt your own existence
How so?

>>15328067
What is the problem with axioms?

>>15328067
radical skepticism will lead you nowhere

>>15329715
You're not doubting that there is a conscious being with whom you identify that exists. All you're doing is quibbling over the details of that existence.

>>15329826
They’re unproven.

>>15329873
>All you're doing is quibbling over the details of that existence.
Untrue. What makes you think that?

>>15329534
How many steps are there, I need to know what song it is, to see if it's worth the effort.

>>15329385
Doesn't seem that way to me at all. I'd say the observation that we're not omniscient rules out solipsism quite definitively. I don't think people can't doubt their perception... Where did I say that? The salient point is that empiricism is ultimately our -only- conduit to knowledge.

>>15329482
Don't be retarded. You being created by some programmer or algorithm wouldn't make you 'unreal' or 'non-existent'. You experience, therefore you know with absolute certainty that you exist... It's apodictically true.

>>15329586
Excellent point, old chap.

>>15329920
You seem to be missing the point of the trilemma. Every statement you've made in this post can be requested proof. And then again with any response you give. There’s no escape.

>>15328067
I might be a brainlet, but to me it looks utterly unsolvable.

>>15329891
because you exist, you're just arguing that you exist in a simulation. You can exist as a program in a simulation.

>>15328067
It was already solved thousands of years ago, all truth is ultimately grounded on faith in an absolute that coheres and grounds all other truth. That absolute is God.

>>15328107
/thread

>>15328140
I hope you're trolling.

>>15328067
Obviously you choose your axioms. Read Kant's Morals- you can probably read axioms as similar to maxims- and grow up.
>>15330005
this ultimately.

>>15329011
God is the only axiom you need for establishing further truths

>>15329214
>that is not an axiom, it's an apodictic truth
Those are two words for the same thing.

>>15329110
>Furthermore, you’d be taking the law of noncontradiction, which would be circular.
What's wrong with using that as an axiomatic starting point along with the other laws of classical thought?

>>15328500
I would say Faith, as it is the prerequisite
>>15328869
>>15329382
I'm not sure. Does faith count as an axion? I don't see it as a point of logic and I readily confess and accept that it is at odds with reason

>>15329214
I think Berkeley and Hume well demonstrated that empiricism leads to some real funny conclusions

>>15329438
>programmed into our brains from birth
You can only conclude this by accepting a priori axioms which precede knowledge of the brain. Its not a very good step.

>>15328067
>Why can’t /lit/ solve this?
/lit/ can’t solve it because it’s irrefutable. You can apply the problem itself to any solution found for it. Any appeal to intuition made alongside a criticism of it is self-damning, because you’d be abandoning rationality to defend rationality. Even if you were to give up justificationism in favor of critical rationalism, you couldn’t have beliefs. Why? Because you can’t use the lack of criticism for something to justify your own personal belief in it, as you’ve abandoned justification. The only valid solutions to the trilemma are to:
1. Accustom yourself to faith.
or
2. Abandon knowledge.
All else fails.

>>15328480
This is irrefutable btw

>>15330411
Would it be fair to say that Descartes Cogito Ergo Sum provides an intuitively self evident axiom?

>>15328067
There is no truth. There is only the appearance of consistency upon repeated observation of a given happening, or, rather (since a happening only seems happen once) consistency between several similar happenings.

When you throw an egg, it usually breaks. Therefore, you can predict that any egg you throw in the future will break. No mathematically-precise knowledge of physics is needed for this. Such knowledge simply increases predictive power. But knowledge of physics hinges upon axiomatic physical laws. What if the physical laws were to change? Well, they haven't in the past 13 billion years, as far as we can tell. But if they were to, what would that mean. More importantly. What causes our universe to have the precise set of physical laws that it does? Why does it have any physical laws at all. If nothing existed, then there would be no physical laws. But something exists, and it does. Is there an equal-and-opposite universe whose physical laws balance and compliment our own? It would seem to make sense. The question for why there is something rather than nothing seems to be answered when we consider that everything which exists is the void expressing itself in terms of what it is not. The void abides. The void is eternal. Nothingness lasts. Somethingness decays back into nothingness. The void is real. The matter is fake. Matter is maya. The void is Brahman. Perceived truth is only a temporary consistency of outcomes, and that consistency of outcomes is so very temporary against the face of eternity. The real truth is that there is no truth, and that nothing lasts forever. The void lasts forever. Simple. Succinct. Balanced.

People dismiss this simple truth because they need to be parented by a loving demiurge to be happy. That's fine. Makes no difference on the face of the deep.

>>15330423
>Any appeal to intuition made alongside a criticism of it is self-damning, because you’d be abandoning rationality to defend rationality.

>>15330459
Hume retroactively refuted this post
>>15330462
Is intuition necessarily irrational and odds with rationality?

>>15330477
If you consider proof to be a necessity with rationality, yes.

>>15330459
>When you throw an egg, it usually breaks. Therefore, you can predict that any egg you throw in the future will break.

What if I throw it in space?

>>15330498
It'll hit something and probably break, it'll just take a while longer.

>>15330542
What if it goes into orbit?

>>15330575
All orbits decay eventually.

>>15329856
it will lead you to ataraxia

>>15329963
No, actually the non-omniscience observation qualifies as apodictically true. I have already addressed the big scary trilemma >>15329214
You're the one who went off on tangents that didn't follow from my argument (which suggests ignorance or petulance on your part).

>>15330271
They aren't. An axiom is accepted without proof (it's assumed), an apodictic truth proves itself by its very nature (there are no alternative possibilities). Please stop spreading your philosophical illiteracy.

>>15330382
Possibly, but it's mostly provisional so we aren't necessarily stuck with funny conclusions. Without it though, we wouldn't have any conclusions. Hume wasn't condemning empiricism, he was staking the borders of its technical limitations... I wish people would understand that. The problem of induction is a caution sign, not a stop sign.

>>15330459
>the real truth is
>there is no truth
huh?
>the void is real
>nothing lasts forever
>the void lasts forever
What? So the 'void' isn't a thing? Why doesn't existence itself last forever? Does the notion of an alternative state to existence even make sense? Did you take a massive bong rip halfway through your post?

>>15328480
>>15330005
That is a deflection, not an answer. I want you to solve the PROBLEM, not pull stuff out of your ass. Why would god be the foundation of faith? What makes god worth trusting? Just calling something "the origin" doesn't make it true ad doesn't mean that it doesn't require an origin of its own.

hey, I can accept that 0.999... equals 1, so regressive argument seem sensible to me

>>15330691
>the non-omniscience observation qualifies as apodictically true
Prove it.

>>15329400

>>15330123
>everything being unprovable needs no solving

>>15330691
>Hume wasn't condemning empiricism, he was staking the borders of its technical limitations... I wish people would understand that. The problem of induction is a caution sign, not a stop sign.
Thats fair. I certainly dont see Hume's positing as attempting to refute empiricsm. It does certainly raise some important metaphysical questions and I think it also directs us away from reason, since Hume seems to place such a major emphasis on imagination.
I'm not too familiar with how Hume responded to Berkeley, but assuming Berkeley hasnt yet been refuted I think the idea that esse est percipi would itself have many implications which most I dont think most empiricists would be ready to accept.

>>15330727
when you think about it, it would be horrible if you could actually prove anything. You would be paralyzed by fear that any new thought you had might be incorrect, and never risk trusting anything but that which is already established.
What has not yet been established? The future. Therefore certainty in anything would destroy our ability to deal with the future.
Its because things can never be known with certainty that people are able to act with certainty.

>>15328067
first two "resolutions" are obviously unacceptable, and the third has been the established framework for deductive reasoning for millennia.

>>15330692
By submitting to faith I have already ascended the need to answer your questions. From what I can gather, existence is unreasonable, but here we are anyway. With that in mind, i'm happy to discard appeals to human reason for the ultimate answer.

>>15330752
>You would be paralyzed by fear that any new thought you had might be incorrect
This is good. It means everyone has to think about what they believe and think and dig deep to find the truth. Cope

>>15328140
Is this some limp dick false flag?

>>15330755
>argumentum ad populum

>>15330765
This would be bad because you can not think too deeply about every single action. It would result in people just shutting down unable to act at all.

Because every action we do is based on unproven assumptions we are able to handle this. But give people even a single provable idea and they will hide in it forever.

>>15330708
Ok, have you ever been surprised? Why aren't you experiencing every moment of your life simultaneously (including the future), in perfect clarity? Why are getting into debates when you know everything? Why do you place the burden of proof on me when you know everything? Are you aware of how your thoughts arise?

If you don't know everything, then it necessarily follows that existence contains more than your experience.

>>15330800
>This would be bad because you can not think too deeply about every single action.
Why?

>>15330867
Why would my knowledge of everything preclude all of those things?

>>15330876
There is not time. Before people could breathe they would have to confirm the existence of the entire universe. If you saw a fire spreading you would need to be certain your perfect understanding of physics before you could attempt to put it out, you would also have to first question your perception to even trust that what you saw was really happening.

Its the ability to act on assumption that lets us act at all, remove this ability, which providing the possibility of proof would cause, and we would be unable to function.

Once proof, fully known beyond all levels of doubt both conscious and subconscious was able to exist, all else would become an equivalent degree of unknown, the difference between a highly likely unknown and a very unlikely unknown would simply appear equivalently suspect when compared to the absolute knowable certainty.

It is because we are forced in all things to work with uncertainty we have the ability to make judgements on degrees of uncertainty.

>>15330742
Berkeley runs into the lack of omniscience problem there... Kant deals with this pretty well; our representations must have a source outside of our experience or else our perception wouldn't be limited and we'd experience reality objectively (everything at once). Also, since our experience is conditioned by space/time, whatever does that conditioning must precede our experience.

>>15330937
I still havent made it to Kant yet, sadly. I get excited when I notice an increased understanding of conversations related to Kant. Thanks for the insight.

>>15330752
Whoa... Deep brah

>>15330972
>he thinks immortals are less afraid of death

>>15330763
>By submitting to faith I have already ascended the need to answer your questions
Now, you've just brainwashed yourself into pretending to be retarded.

>>15330901
Are you serious? Do you not understand what omniscience entails?

>>15330997
>Are you serious?
Yes.
>Do you not understand what omniscience entails?
It doesn’t have to entail anything. You have the burden of proof to show that it does.

>>15330930
>Before people could breathe they would have to confirm the existence of the entire universe
Why?

>>15331024
Because the new standard of certainty would make all things that do not posses it terrifying unknowns.
The reason we are able to act on unproven but highly likely models and ideas is because we are used to acting on uncertainties. The only reason we make a distinction between odds is because we have to. The only reason that a 90% chance of success sounds good to you when compared to a 30% chance of success is because the 100% is unobtainable. Both would appear to be dangerous gambles if you were used to some things being certain.

Humans would, upon becoming accustomed to the existence of certainty, demand certainty in all things. Every single step of existing would need to become proven to you, and the number of distinct steps in each action we take for granted can be broken down into a very high, if not arguably infinite, amount of steps.
Our minds would brick. We would become nonfunctional.

>>15331019
Ok well, pretty clear you're arguing in bad faith. I won't be entertaining you any further.

>>15328067
Axiomatic, but it's actually the regressive argument.

>>15331069
>Ok well, pretty clear you're arguing in bad faith.
I’m demonstrating the trilemma, genius.

>>15331067
Interesting theory. But what if determinism was proven... Then why would we second guess our thoughts or sweat over an illusory notion of 'free will'? On the other hand, if determinism was proven false, then we'd know that uncertainty is a feature of reality (which still doesn't support free will) and we wouldn't expect it to an absolute degree.

If we did brick, would we all brick? Don't you think some people would be different in some way(s) that allowed them to adapt?

>>15331089
You're only demonstrating your ignorance of apodicticity, brainlet.

>>15331142
>You're only demonstrating your ignorance of apodicticity
Prove it.

because the only time people ask for proof of a proof is when they run out of arguments
its literal poltard cope

>>15329891
theres literally no way you can doubt your existence
you can doubt the form you exist as, but you in some way exist

>>15331197
>theres literally no way you can doubt your existence
Again, untrue.

>>15330721
lol

>>15331207
explain to me how you can type this and think and doubt your existence

>>15331218
How could I explain that?

>>15331239
because you cant, by existing you can't doubt your existence

>>15331244
Explain to me how you can type this and think and not doubt your existence.

>>15331253
because in order to think, i have to exist in some form

>>15331263
Why?

>>15330406
>You can only conclude this by accepting a priori axioms which precede knowledge of the brain.
So?
>Its not a very good step.
Step to what?

>>15331267
cognitive thought requires existence, whether it be a line of code or whatever you cant have cognitive thought without some form of existence

>>15331293
>cognitive thought requires existence
Prove it.

>>15331218
All that the cogito demonstrates is that there is a thought. The "I" or ego is just an idea among other thoughts. There is thought but there is no "I" evident in Descartes argument.

>>15331318
ok but the thought itself requires some form of existence
>>15331315
because you can't have thought without existence, at the bare minimum your existence would be you, staring at 4chan at 12:18 AM in a dark room typing

>>15331355
I dont deny existence. Although some schools of thought would point towards the transience of thought absent the "I" to argue that the passing nature points to a lack of permamence and therefore a fundamental nonexistence. If all passes into nothing, then all comes from nothing, and nknbeing is the the essence.of everything.

>>15331355
>in order to think, i have to exist because cognitive thought requires existence because you can't have thought without existence
How many times are you going to restate the exact same thing?

>>15330796
it isn't

>>15331446
it is

>>15331387
how does thinking not imply existence? what is existence to you?

>>15331459
>how does thinking not imply existence?
How does it?
>what is existence to you?
I don’t know.

>>15331459
I believe anons point is that cogito ergo sum is not a logical syllogism but an intuitive assumption

>>15331471
bruh every philosphical thing in existence is an "intuitive assumption"
>>15331465
nigga tf u mean i dont know

>>15331524
>nigga tf u mean i dont know
That’s a pretty common phrase anon

>>15331121
>But what if determinism was proven... Then why would we second guess our thoughts or sweat over an illusory notion of 'free will'? On the other hand, if determinism was proven false, then we'd know that uncertainty is a feature of reality (which still doesn't support free will) and we wouldn't expect it to an absolute degree.

Yes. If determinism was either proven true or false we would not have to concern ourselves about this. People just wouldn't worry about things anymore.

>>15330459
But some things have to be true. For example, There either is a god or there isn't one. Thus one of the two statements: There is a god or There isn't a god has to be true.

>>15331318
What Descartes was really getting at is 'sentio ergo sum'. It is experience itself that demonstrates the 'I'.

>>15331796
>There either is a god or there isn't one.
Not everybody agrees on the law of excluded middle.

Common sense realism. I accept the axioms because they're obvious to me.

>>15328480
Proofs?

>>15330763
>Just don't think about it bro

>>15331465
Wouldn't the ability to observe yourself mean you have to exist? If you did not exist we couldn't observe ourselves or each other. Or if we didnt exist, it wouldn't matter to us since its unobservable to us.

>>15332748
>Wouldn't the ability to observe yourself mean you have to exist?
Not necessarily.
>If you did not exist we couldn't observe ourselves or each other. Or if we didnt exist, it wouldn't matter to us since its unobservable to us.
Why?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

I think this is a pretty resonable approach for an unsolvable problem.

>>15333182
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

>>15333190
"Over time, as successive modifications build on top of each other, theories consistently improve and greater predictive accuracy is achieved"

>>15333301
>"Over time, as successive modifications build on top of each other, theories consistently improve and greater predictive accuracy is achieved"
The problem of induction literally refutes that exact statement.

>>15333311
Why?

Every philosophical claim built on theory instead of practice is a falsehood.
Prove me wrong. (through practice)

>>15333365
1. Generalization that all studies on all different subjects get closer to the truth with modification.
and
2. The assumption that they will continue to do this.

>>15333399
But still, as long as the predictive power of our theories increase over time, it doesn't matter.
And if the predictive power of the same theories magically decrease because the universe changes in some way, we still can come up with new theories.
New theories with less predictive power are rejected.

If this isn't a good approach than what is truth and what do we need it for?

>>15333557
>as long as the predictive power of our theories increase over time, it doesn't matter
But you don't know that that's happening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

>>15333557
Not him, but this approach has concluded in the rejection of free will and potentially even of sentience, if Denett is to be believed, and all of your statements presuppose that both are actually real. "We still can come up" makes absolutely no sense with no free will, "we" makes no sense without sentience, under the frame of science there is no "we", only elementary particles bouncing around.

So you are already deciding certain things that have no scientific grounding are real, rejecting the scientific approach to truth.

>>15333568
1. We never encounter a black swan
>proceed as usual
2. We encounter a black swan
>we update our theories

>>15333687
What's the point if your theories will never be correct?

>>15333704
.55≠.99

>>15333750
What makes you think your theories will ever be probable in the first place?

>>15333704
Because you can't arrive at a 'correct' theory. And low predicitable accuracy is better than no predictions at all.

>>15333853
See: (>>15333757)

>>15333596
Okay, but what difference does it make for us humans? We still act (or think we do) as if we have a free will.

>>15333757
You don't. You just start somewhere and improve upon it. And measured by our sientific progress it seems to work reasonable well.

But maybe I missunderstood your question.

>>15333929
Why does the pragmatism of the method justify it? Also, our technology is only impressive from a relative point of view. An alien race, for example, may view our technology as comically archaic.

>>15333948
Look, the pragmatism isn't the only justification. Sience Theory is a big field and way too complex to be discussed on a nothern-german tile stove image board.
Besides I am by no means an expert on this field.

But I still think the scientific method is a reasonable aproach to the problem in the OP and way better than all the aimless philosophical circel-jerking.

>>15334113
>Look, the pragmatism isn't the only justification.
So far, it is. What other justifications are there?

>>15328480
Now this is the only answer.

>>15334121
As I sad, I am no expert. But if you are realy interested and don't just want to be proven right, you can find many works on that topic.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/687433?seq=1

>>15334226
The problem is, any justification you can find for science falls to the trilemma. Any justification you give can be requested for further justification.

>>15334250
How does pragmatism (which doesn't require 100% certainty like 'proof' does) fall to the trilemma? Is it possible to not be concerned with pragmatism?

>>15328935
Imagine getting filtered by Christian theology

>>15334449
Because you have to show that pragmatism is a valid justification, as well as showing that something would actually be pragmatic.

>>15333863
The difference it makes is that we plainly cannot look to science/empiricism as the sole source of truth.

>>15330459
>all swans are white

>>15334471
Why? Do you need "valid justification" to drink when you feel thirsty? Do you need 100% certainty that the glass of water will quench your thirst, or is 99% more than enough?

>>15334528
I hope you realize that by appealing to intuition, you're abandoning rationality to defend rationality. No, I do not need to justify drinking when I feel thirsty. I'm fine with that being irrational. But if you hope to be rational, you need to justify things.

>>15334543
Rationality is just a tool. It isn't the source of our impulses, it is a layer of thought we apply to help us enact those impulses after the fact of them happening. We wouldn't reason about anything if we didn't -feel- some way about it first. Rationality serves pragmatism — it couldn't be otherwise.

Your 'choose perfect rationality or abandon rationality altogether' spiel is a canard. You're really reaching.

>>15334612
>Rationality is just a tool. It isn't the source of our impulses, it is a layer of thought we apply to help us enact those impulses after the fact of them happening. We wouldn't reason about anything if we didn't -feel- some way about it first. Rationality serves pragmatism — it couldn't be otherwise.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with our current argument, but ok.
>Your 'choose perfect rationality or abandon rationality altogether' spiel is a canard. You're really reaching.
Prove it.

>>15334612
>Your 'choose perfect rationality or abandon rationality altogether' spiel is a canard. You're really reaching.
If it's okay to take things by faith, why not take everything by faith?

>>15334633
You prove it. You're the one suggesting rationality is an all-or-nothing proposition. Show me in what way this is the case and we can get into the weeds on it.

>>15334640
What do you mean by 'okay'?

>>15334685
>You prove it. You're the one suggesting rationality is an all-or-nothing proposition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

>>15329455
Oh right you were that kid who began learning by empirical and epistemological research from birth.

>>15334685
>What do you mean by 'okay'?
Do you seriously not know what that word means?

>>15334726
The ability to to be taught things isn't an axiom, it's a quality of the human brain

>>15332734
This but unironically

>>15334714
How does this apply to rationality itself?

>>15334729
It's vague. 'Okay' by what standard?

>>15334872
>How does this apply to rationality itself?
Why would rationality be exempt from the laws of rationality? That would make rationality irrational.

>>15334872
>'Okay' by what standard?
Yours.

>>15334882
Because 'rationality' isn't a set of rules, it's a loose description of a mode of thinking. Rationality can be employed to define contradictory logical sets. Indeed, there are rational objections to the law of the excluded middle on the very page you linked me to.

>>15334888
I have two standards, apodicticity and pragmatism. Neither require 'faith', so I still don't see your point.

>>15335001
>it's a loose description of a mode of thinking
Then how do you tell if something is rational, if you can't define rationality?

>>15335001
>I have two standards, apodicticity and pragmatism.
Prove that apodicticity and pragmatism are reliable, and tell me how you could prove that something is apodictic or pragmatic.

>>15335063
You can generally define rationality as reasoned thought as opposed to impulsive thought (of course it's a spectrum, not a binary switch).

>>15335079
Apodictic truths prove themselves by exclusion of any other possibility (it's absolute certainty, reliability isn't an issue). The example of the certainty of your own existence has been given previously; if you want to claim that this isn't apodictically true, then it's up to you to dismantle that self-evident proof (all you have to do is point to any alternative possibility — it's doesn't have to be true, just possible).

Pragmatism doesn't require reliability. If I'm thirsty, I drink the water. If that doesn't work, I drink another glass. If drinking doesn't slake my thirst, I look for other solutions. It's a reciprocal way of approaching problems, not an axiomatic one.

Apodictic truths are proved by the lack of possible alternatives. Pragmatism doesn't require proof/certainty, and that we all act in pragmatic fashion is apodictically true (you're incapable of taking an action which doesn't satisfy your impulses in some way — no matter how transient).

>>15335244
>reasoned thought
Define reasoned thought.

>>15335258
Thought which is more rigidly structured in accordance with the consistent relations we observe in our experience.

>>15335244
>Apodictic truths prove themselves by exclusion of any other possibility (it's absolute certainty, reliability isn't an issue)
Prove it.
>then it's up to you to dismantle that self-evident proof
No, you made the claim, you have the burden of proof. I don't have to justify my doubt towards your beliefs. It's completely possible for me to be undecided, or neutral on the subject.
>you're incapable of taking an action which doesn't satisfy your impulses in some way
Prove it.

inb4 "not arguing in good faith"
The whole point of the trilemma is that any proposition can be questioned for proof. I'm demonstrating that.

>>15328480
t. Jordan B. Peterson
but you're right

>>15335293
That's still vague.

>>15328067
Kant proved that, for experience, there's always a cause for any effect, leading to infinite regress. But for the thing-in-itself anything could happen.

>>15335296
Sure, any idiot can simply ask for proof ad nauseam, but if you can't demonstrate that it is sensible to do so, you haven't demonstrated anything. Can't you see that?

It's not at all possible for you to be undecided on whether or not you exist. It's not possible to ignore the impulses that initiate and condition your thought. Your very experience -is the proof-. If you won't acknowledge this, then you're simply being dishonest.

>>15335349
Great, now prove every single sentence you just said.

>>15328067
I choose Circular. It's the best we can do. If we can create and stack as many complementary circular arguments together as we can we end up with a near complete working knowledge of the universe and humainty that may or may not be accurate but at least it can be close to complete and bear some reflection of the experienceable universe. I.e. Buddhism, transcendentalism, ect. We will go extinct long before we can travel far enough in the universe to learn the exact mathematical truth of anything with absolute precise certainty. It's better we constrict a cosmological reasoning that serves the better ENT of all and reasonably reflects our nature of understanding even if it can only be supported by circular arguments. Everything, of every scale from subatomic to intergalactic is all part of the same universe. If you can't learn enough about it by what we experience in one birth and death cycle on earth than there is no point to any of it. A rain drop, and ocean, a sky, cosmos. I don't knock western science at all. I admire it immensely for it's ability to improve human condition practically. But I doubt seriously it's ability to deliver us any of the other human needs beyond the physical.

>>15335305
So is your objection.

>>15335320
He also argued for apodictic truths, to which the trilemma doesn't apply. He didn't rule out the possibility of an uncaused first cause either, so infinite regress isn't a foregone conclusion of his philosophy.

>>15335390
Also, Sorry for my spelling errors. I am a mid functioning dislexical autist.

>>15335403
>So is your objection.
You're failing to give a criteria for rationality.

>>15335375
I don't have to, you're experiencing the proof. If you want to keep lying about that, fine... It just reveals to everyone how intellectually dishonest you are.

>>15335411
How? Are there no consistent relations in your experience? How could you communicate if this was the case?

>>15335449
You know what? I take it as an apodictic truth that you're wrong. Oh, I need to prove that that's apodictic? Wrong. I don't have to. You're experiencing the fact that you're wrong. If you want to keep lying about that, fine... It just reveals to everyone how intellectually dishonest you are.

>>15335467
>Are there no consistent relations in your experience?
There may be, but I have any way of judging if they truly relate or are actually consistent.
>How could you communicate if this was the case?
How is that relevant?

>>15335503
>but I have any way
but I don't have any way*

>>15335492
Who is "I"? You don't exist, remember?

>>15335536
>Who is "I"?
I don't know.

>>15335536
>>15335544
>You don't exist, remember?
Also, I never said that. I said that may or may not exist, not that I absolutely don't.

>>15330459
A universal truth: each cat is a cat
Your assertions are demonstrably false

>>15335589
One can reject the law of identity.

>>15335503
If you couldn't process relations and/or consistency, you would be able to communicate your thoughts via syntax (language). You refute yourself just by participating in this discussion.

Certain permanence of a relation is not required, since you can simply adapt to changes in your experience (with the exception of the space/time that necessarily conditions your experience).

>>15335620
>If you couldn't process relations and/or consistency, you would be able to communicate your thoughts via syntax (language)
Prove it.
>You refute yourself just by participating in this discussion.
No, you do.

>>15335544
Of course you do. 'You' are your experience. To deny yourself, you must deny experience, and to deny is to experience.

>>15335552
To say anything or have any thought on the topic whatsoever is to exist. Your objections are self-detonating.

>>15335663
>To deny yourself, you must deny experience
Prove it.
>and to deny is to experience
Prove it.

>>15335678
To ask for proof is to exist.

I rest my case, I don't think anyone could doubt your brainletism and dishonesty now.

>>15335728
>To ask for proof is to exist.
God, you're like a fucking broken record. You've said this dozens of times and have never provided even the tiniest bit of substantiation.
Why can't you just admit you're wrong?

>>15335728
you must completely lack all self-awareness to not realize how much of a non-argument calling something self-evident is

>>15335778
Prove it.

>>15336120
no, it's self-evident that you're wrong
sorry.

>>15328067
>>15329400
>>15329444
>>15330721
more!

>>15335752
How could I admit anything without necessarily existing (and so being right)?

>>15336228
>restates himself again
Amazing. Literal broken record.

>>15335678
>>15335628
>>15335375
>>15335296
>>15335079
>restates himself again
>Amazing. Literal broken record.

>>15336288
I'm requesting proof in response to you saying the same thing over and over.

>>15336261
Answer the question.

>>15336298
No.

>>15336296
And I'm proving it to you over and over. Which you duck, over and over.

>>15336336
>I'm proving it to you over and over.
Calling me dishonest is not proof.

>>15329011
>Take everything as an axiom
This actually solves the problem. If you take everything as a positive value as opposed to negtion and assertion, the argument is removed of duality and becomes a conversation, which is a collective progression of and to universal truth. This Munchausen thing is, ironically, itself axiomatic but is completely unaware of its own axioms and so assumes itself.

>>15328480
what a fucking shitty argument, "god" i have no problem with people believing in god, abrahamic or not, dont fucking care, but the way you just used that believe is utter shit

>>15329886
...Because proof presupposes the axioms' truth.

>>15336841
What?

>>15335608
>One can reject the law of identity.
Rejecting *the* law of identity, presupposes that there's a specific thing you may reject (the law), thus you invoke the law of identity in the process. Being and thought are one and the same, and the law of identity, which we use to create and relate concepts as self-identical, is a necessary precondition for thought. You're free to not believe in it, but you can't not invoke it.

>>15336958
>Rejecting *the* law of identity, presupposes that there's a specific thing you may reject (the law)
Prove it.
>thus you invoke the law of identity in the process
One can reject the law of noncontradiction too.

>>15328480
I interpret this as "faith that the world exists"

Can't rationality be based on faith for your predictions and experiences?
Even then isn't it possible to use basic barebone logic ( if A is A, it isn't B ) to build upon empiric knowledge?
Sure you need faith in your experiences but if it applies then it's proven in a pratical way, and if something makes that proof invalid you can simply change your theory of understanding.
And why faith in God instead of faith in your conclusions and experiences?
Would all of this be unnecessary if physics found the baseline principles and origin of the universe?

>>15337379
A being A does not preclude A from being B. Thats really bad logic

>>15330459
>There is no truth.
t. never studied math or geometry

>>15337379
You don't need faith in your experience — your experience necessarily is. You don't need faith about the particulars of experience either either... You can adapt to your experience and do what seems to work for as long as it does so.

>>15329444
kek

>>15328067
I subscribe to Darwinian Truth.
Basically, any belief that can be believed for eternity is effectively true. Any belief that cannot be believed for infinity ceases to exist and thus cannot be true because existence proceeds truth.

>>15338352
Sounds like you joined Taleb Twitter and took the Lindypill, anon. Say hi to Paul Skallas for me and tell him to unblock me

>>15331471
It isn't an assumption, it's an apodictic truth. There are no other possibilities.

>>15338669
It's an apodictic truth that you're wrong.

>>15338701
Ok, what is the necessary condition of my wrongness?

>>15338669
I like Nietzsche's critique of this argument--that thought isn't even a thing one does, but a thing that happens to oneself. "It occurred to me." One doesn't even think, thought happens.

>>15338739
Your incorrectness.

>>15338669
Why does thought require existence?

>>15338756
No, that's just redundantly substituting a synonym for 'wrongness'. The condition would be something necessarily true and inextricable from what I'm wrong about.

For instance, the condition for the apodictic truth of your own existence, is your experience (a condition you can't deny without invoking it, and which existence necessarily follows from).

>>15328067
D: I don't prove my beliefs and just hold them because they sound smart.

>>15338824
>No, that's just redundantly substituting a synonym for 'wrongness'.
No, it isn't.

>>15338821
Any(thing) requires existence, it is the first condition for all things. To speak about anything is to invoke existence. If you're talking about your own existence specifically, see >>15331807

>>15338848
>Any(thing) requires existence, it is the first condition for all things.
How do you know that?

>>15338862
I know because I experience, and I couldn't experience if my experience didn't exist.

>>15338946
>I couldn't experience if my experience didn't exist.
Why?

>>15333071
>Not necessarily
How? In what way would one be non-existing but self-observing?
Also the simulation hypothesis is retarded as one's self being simulated still means it exists in some form.

>>15339082
In what way wouldn't one be non-existing but self-observing?

>>15339105
>Not necessarily
onus probandi

recognized experience as observation or thought suggests the existence of something that the observation sprouts from or is recognized by

>>15339186
>onus probandi
I said "not necessarily", I didn't say you were wrong.

>>15336150

>>15339215
what would be the exeption then?

>>15338958
Because there's no other possibility.

>>15339278
He won't answer that question, because he's full of shit. See:
>>15336228
>>15336298
>>15336303

>>15328140
Almost got me

>>15330253
why is godel so popular with pseuds

>>15328480
correct

>>15339535
>Because there's no other possibility.
How many times do I have to tell you to prove that?
>He won't answer that question, because he's full of shit.
I'm not giving you an answer because I don't *NECESSARILY* believe there is another possibility. I'm completely neutral on the subject, undecided.

>>15339278
>what would be the exeption then?
I don't know, and I don't have any reason to search for it. The burden of proof doesn't lie with me unless I were to have an opinion on the subject, which I don't.

>>15340350
How many times do I have to tell you that your experience is the proof?

You do have an opinion, because you keep rejecting/ignoring that your experience qualifies as proof. If you were to hypothetically have no opinion on the matter, then just think of it as a thought experiment... Knowing whether or not you can imagine other possibilities (clearly we can't) helps us all to investigate the claim of apodictic truth.

>>15340738
>your experience is the proof
Do you have any evidence for that?

>>15328067
everything I believe in is true because I say it is. everything is true to ourselves and thats it. we can deduce to a point of agreed truths merely because others believe in it and there is no contradicting 'more popular' truth. we are social creatures, we believe because authority or the people say so. simple as. everything is 'probable truths' according to occam's razor. when someone says something is false, it's a rejection of the authority or the people based on personal observation and one's ego.
now post more funny trolley pictures.

>>15329214
>just start by assuming this isn't all a dream and believing what others call true to be de facto true
next

/lit/ can't refute this

>>15329444

>>15342459

>>15342221
Hello stupid hypocrite.

1) Dream or not, your existence is still an apodictic truth.

2) Within that experience, you don't have to blindly trust others or even your own past. You can simply do what works and adapt accordingly. Of course, it's a good idea to avoid actions that are widely considered suicidal... But if you think you're in a dream, feel free to wake yourself.

>>15340350
retard

Lol @ all the anons in this thread who haven't read Hume or Kant or know anything about formal logic

There's nothing to solve. Formal logic is nothing more than a calculus that can be applied to arguments, and the existence of axiomatic truths is necessary in order for formal logic to be useful.

Axiomatic truths can either be things that we take as true on a common sense basis ("the sky is blue"), or can be an assumed premise ("let us assume for the sake of this argument that the sky is purple"), but formal logic can't establish truth beyond the scope of the argument.

>>15328480 is actually correct in a sense, insofar as establishing truths in a broader context requires some kind of foundational axiom for all possible truth. Pretty sure there's a term for this that is escaping me at the moment. However, there's a degree of active involvement with the production of truth when talking about either God or secular forms of truth; we have to create foundational myths for how the world is that we take on faith as being true, and in a sense we will into being true because it's essentially impossible to establish truth otherwise.

>>15343267
>Pretty sure there's a term for this

Christ Consciousness.

>>15328067
I'm writing a story about this.

>>15342459
No you can't. Life can always exist and people will always choose to reproduce even if you don't. Furthermore, animals, plants, and other living beings will also exist so you have to be an antinatalist for all life, an impossible position unless you try to eradicate all life, also an impossible position. If AN and efilists are too impotent to even gather in public and protest, how can they be expected to painlessly end life (for to do so painfully would violate their base utilitarian axioms, and all efforts are doomed to be incomplete either way)?

>>15328067
The axiomatic approach is the most practical.

▲
▲▲

>>15345029
▲
▲▲

>>15345029
does alt+ 255 not work anymore?

>>15345044
yeah

>>15345029
▲
▲ ▲

>>15344299
I hope its worth reading

>>15344689
>Life can always exist and people will always choose to reproduce even if you don't.
lol at the anti-natalist being the npc. There are close to eight billion people on this planet and like four anti-natalists. Plus they don't expect reproduction to cease, people will go on automatically due to their programming.

>>15342969
>he sidestepped the Scientism problem
imagine

>>15346230
The problem with anti-natalists is that their philosophical postulates, even if granted, don't lend support to their prescription not to breed. If universal non-existance is better than existence, then rather than railing against breeding, anti-natalists should advocate the development of technology that can extinguish all life in the universe forever. Such a project seems rather unfeasable to put it mildly, but if it is to have any chance of coming to fruition, then it seems that we will need a very large number of very smart people to breed for a very long time.

>>15329214
Autist who argued with you for hours here (the one who kept asking for proof), I admit that you're right. You're just not very good at explaining things. Here's a better explanation that I found:
https://books.google.com/books?id=bcCnDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA57
Could you elaborate on that whole "provisional knowledge" thing, though? I'd like to know what you mean by that.

>>15328480
Yes, but not the Christian god.

>>15328480
Based

>>15328480
>faith is knowledge
god i hate christards so much

>>15348976
Please don't equate all of us with "tradcath" LARPers like him

>>15348593
I mean that all non-apodictic knowledge can simply be viewed as temporary and theoretically subject to revision. We don't actually require proof for it (which is good, because proof of non-apodictic claims is indeed technically impossible), just constant evaluation of evidence.
It's an argument for pragmatism.

Some people I've encountered take the position that something can only be considered 'knowledge' if it is entirely certain, but I've never seen a compelling argument to this effect. It seems to me that 'knowledge' is just a formalized awareness (conceptualization?), which can be certain (apodictic) or not.

>>15328869
Wait, what's wrong with the axiomatic horn exactly?

>>15331207
Your very ability to doubt presupposes a doubter, ergo your existence is axiomatic.

>>15349971
>ergo your existence is axiomatic
Apodictic, anon. It doesn't need to be assumed, it proves itself.

>>15347860
>anti-natalists should