/lit/ - Literature

>frogposting
>philosophy
kill yourself

>>16797935
>being on 4chan
>hating Pepe
kill yourself

if I were you I'd post it for criticism and go on with my life

>>16797924
Did you start with the Greeks?

>>16798161
this is what I do on here every day and when there is no criticism I assume it is because of my mental superiority, which is a completely false assumption but feels good, you know?

>>16798166
Yep

>>16798161
But like, where do the big philosophers publish their stuff? Even Uni seems like a waste of time for philosophy now days

publish an article in a peer-reviewed journal and go live in the mountains

>>16798190
here is fine for a start. if you have a manuscript I suppose you contact a publisher. they know how to create a buzz, or are supposed to, anyway

This is it for anyone wondering

>>16798746
I like it. I am in no position to say how groundbreaking it is. makes me wish I knew more about logic (if such a thing is possible, as it were).

>>16798746
Nice

>>16798176
I can see you're an optimist.
I simply assume my propositions to be so preposterous that everyone assume them to be a crude but humorous attempt at generating attention.

>>16798813
Thanks man, really appreciate it

I could probably write a dialogue on it, like Plato, as I'm sure more people would be into it if it was a book, too bad I wasted my time in lockdown rather than writing

>>16798834
see >>16798874 as well

>>16797924
Write a book. Don't post it or people will steal it if it is good enough.
That said, welcome feedback prior to publishing or you might just embarrass yourself over some silly mistake you overlooked

>>16799070
I'm not bothered if people see it before I write a book on it, I've got proof that I made but thank you for the advice

>>16797924
>>16798746
you'd benefit from going through a good undergrad program
most shit is published in journals
>>16798874
sounds like you'd rather go literary than academic, well remember that Plato also ran the Academy. For your ambitions maybe a guy like Kierkegaard would be a better role model.

>>16798746
P1 assumes a meaning of "most fundamental," "pursuit," and "true knowledge."
P1 assumes those are the questions and that they are categorically different.
P2 how does a negative answer to a question make it impossible to ask the question?
P5 - re omniscient being. Have you considered that your framing of the questions was dogmatic so this simplistic reduction was inevitable? If you really think about what you think about when you think about the terms in the original questions, are they really the same as what you're grasping at in this point?

>>16799212
>P1 assumes those are the questions and that they are categorically different.
not OP here: would you phrase it differently? and do you disagree that they are categorically different? I realize that your opinions are not proofs, I just want to know since you seem to be versed in these matters and such

>>16798176
It's bc people on here are just as pretentious as you and can't be fucked to read half a page of some other guy's brain vomit if it doesn't specifically cater to their worldview (in which case it's based) or it rails against it (in which case its cringe).

>>16799309
Trick is to tripfag occasionally and bait people into responding to the most contentious parts of your philosophy, at which point you turn it around and engage with intellectual honesty. It's all about the bait-and-switch.

>>16799321
As for your thesis, it's a commonly known problem (see Munchhausen trilemma, or "turtles all the way down"). I stumbled over it a while back but it's not insurmountable. You just have to move past the pre-existent ways of doing philosophy.

>>16799309
sounds about right

>>16799212
>P1 assumes a meaning of "most fundamental," "pursuit," and "true knowledge."
I understand your concern, I would say though that the proof of these questions being the most fundamental is that you have to ignore P1, work through the rest, and then once you realize the outcome is that these sort of questions make knowledge unknowable, it is obvious that these are fundamental questions, like building a house these questions are the foundation and if they cannot be answered nothing can be
>P1 assumes those are the questions and that they are categorically different.
Not 100% sure what you're talking about here but I think the first statement I make above actually tells us that they are connected
>P2 how does a negative answer to a question make it impossible to ask the question?
Let us say that we found out we couldn't know anything, this would create two outcomes
1. If we dont know anything, we can't answer any of the other questions as we can't know anything so every answer would just be unknowable
2. The question itself wouldn't work as if we can't know anything, how did I know about that conclusion? Yet, if this means that I can know things, it also means I know that I can't know, making an endless loop. I've bought up two problems here really, not only what it says on the paper but also the fact that if any of them were negative, the only way it could work is if logic was negative too (as without logic we could stop this loop) but if logic was negative, it would create its own loop (I can elaborate on the sperate questions and how they effect each other more if you wanted me too)
>P5 - re omniscient being. Have you considered that your framing of the questions was dogmatic so this simplistic reduction was inevitable? If you really think about what you think about when you think about the terms in the original questions, are they really the same as what you're grasping at in this point?
Not 100% sure what you're talking about again (I made this about a year ago) but I think my response to P1 answers your question, maybe these questions aren't for sure fundamental but they're fundamental enough to achieve the outcome

Thanks for the advice!

>>16799265
>I just want to know since you seem to be versed in these matters and such
kek
i just stated an assumption
but since you asked, I basically agree with >>16799332
>You just have to move past the pre-existent ways of doing philosophy.

>when pseuds try to audodidact their way into Philosophy
Never gonna make it desu senpai, did you think this was some kind of profound, novel theory or something

>>16797924
>>16797935
Frogposting is ultimate philosopher and done by ultimate thinkers. Kill yourself for dissing it.

>>16799332
>pre-existent ways of doing philosophy
I get what you mean, I just think philosophy is about the truth, but like, the ultimate truth
As I've had to say to my gf when I showed her this, no philosopher did some really abstract metaphysics or epistemology and started living out there life as if they're not real - as, well, you know, you'd die...
I just think a philosophers job is to find truth, even if its irrelevant to normal peoples lives (which in my view is like 99% of philosophy, how many people could carry out their ethical philosophy without being imprisoned??)
I dont think people shouldn't look past truth dilemmas and stop doing what they love, which could be political philosophy for example, but as a study we need to appreciate the fact that we're about truth truth, not scientist truth (educated guesses based on observation) and not belittle those that are still interested in that sort of stuff.

>sidetone
Seriously Wittgenstein? you're going to say that all metaphysics is pointless? I'd really like to see how you changed my granddad's views on language and changed his life...

>>16799400
>*sidenote

>>16799341
>>16798746
You presuppose logic's existence by the very creation of this argument, therefore refuting itself.

>>16799400
>>16799425
Also, you sound like you don't really know what you're talking about.

>>16798746

1. Except for the fundamental question of metaphysics, which I agree is fundamental, the other questions are trivial or nonsensical. "Does logic exist?" is subsumed by the question of metaphysics, and no logician is concerned with the 'existence' of logic. Words have meaning, and yes, you can know things, unless you are working under the most austere constraints of philosophy, e.g. the trilemmas as mentioned above.

2. This is a contradiction. If a questions answer is 'negative' the answer to the question is 'no.' - the question is not "impossible to answer."

3. 4. 5. I'm having a very difficult time following your logic here. An infinite regress need not lead to an omniscient being in the same way the sum 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... need not imply an omniscient being.

6. Is not "all knowledge is unknowable" knowledge?

7. See 6.

>>16799425
If logic exists then I make this argument to say that it is unknowable, if it is unknowable then this theory's outcome (if its right or wrong) is unknowable as if logic didn't exist then it would be wrong, but if it did then it would be right, but if logic exists then its right making it wrong? Any outcome just leads to a loop of unknowability, and as I've said in P7, then everything is TRULY unknowable

>>16799437
Um, okay?

>>16799400
Check'd
>I get what you mean, I just think philosophy is about the truth, but like, the ultimate truth
Why do you think that is? I think writing about this might be more interesting and elucidating than writing on 'truth' directly.

>>16798746
>There are philosophical questions that allow us to attain knowledge
>We must answer them even though each answer will require another question
>Therefore we cannot answer the questions due to the nature of this cycle of questions derived from the original question
Seems like you're making some presuppositions and lots of reaches to get to this conclusion in this hypothetical mental gymnastics.

>>16799454
1. Just want to say I am working under the most restrictive philosophical requirements (no assumptions), its pretty much the point of the theory. I think that answers your other questions as I think my theory in P2 tells you why you can't just say that "words have meaning"
2. see >>16799341 where I discuss P2
3 This theory doesn't aim to prove the existence of an omniscient being, its just a different way to show you how you could possibly know the answers (You'd have to be born already knowing all the answers to know any of them)
6. I think this is covered in P7, that knowledge is unknowable according to the theory, yet the knowledge of the knowledge being unknowable is unknowable, making an endless loop

Generally the best way to look at this is I am going through the most restrictive philosophy possible

>>16798746>>16798813

lol, muh existence muh meaning

atheist judeo christian intellectuals are the worst. When will you think something original and not some vomit from the last 2000 years?

>>16799460
>If logic exists then I make this argument to say that it is unknowable
>but if it did then it would be right, but if logic exists then its right making it wrong?
Know-ability =/= known
Your argument supposes that, if logic is knowable, it is already known by humans and the logic you use is correct and proper.
>>16799463
>seriously Wittgenstein? You're going to say that all metaphysics is pointless?...
Wittgenstein spent his life making up for his early statements about metaphysics.
>how many people could carry out their ethical philosophy without being imprisoned??
A vast majority of them. Even in the cases of 'immoral' ethical systems, though, it would be proper to go through with them regardless (per the definition of ethics). Prison is a non-factor, except, perhaps, to consequentialists.
>as a study we need to appreciate the fact that we're about truth truth, not scientist truth (educated guesses based on observation) and not belittle those that are still interested in that sort of stuff.
Philosophical truth precedes scientific truth. Also, philosophy isn't about "truth truth," that's just one aspect of philosophy. I don't see why you're trying to insinuate that political philosophy is somehow a sort of lesser field of study.
These are the reasons I said you sound like you don't know what you're talking about; you seem like you haven't actually rigorously studied philosophy either in college or on your own.

>>16799480
Because if we aren't trying to find ultimate truth, aren't we all just scientists? I mean, if we strip away modern science with all of its abstract theories (that is just metaphysics for kids) science is about seeing something, thinking why it happened and then testing that theory. Of course, the answer (such as friction can cause fire) is good for everyday life, but for us "your brain might be in a jar" we could easily argue that every time you rub two pieces of wood, the man who's running the simulation sets the wood on fire, tricking us into thinking it was the natural wood that made it. If we strip away our desire for this type of truth, aren't we just scientists? Finding proximations of truth based on "mental testing"

I mean, this change can be easily summed up
1. Philosophers got tired of being too abstract for normal people and wanted to "connect with the youth", a reason why you'll hear a simple thought experiment like the trolly problem being repeated 1000 times more then Zeno's paradox of motion
2. It started getting boring for people who liked that sort of stuff because the second they mentioned their theories on beauty someone would run in with "all I know is that I know nothing"

The exact same experience can be seen with scientists but the other way round, them wanting to seem so #deep with their "time is relative" (I still remember watching a Stephen hawks movie with my gf and for the next hour she told me how amazing he was, until I finally asked her, do you know what he theorized? Thats when she suddenly had no idea what he did except for him being #deep)

All I want is a time where philosophy doesn't follow trends and people like me, and people who like the trolly problem, can live in harmony without the one side that now dominates screaming
>YEAH BUT LIKE WHO CARES THAT THERE IS NOTHING BRO

>>16799505
I don't understand what practical application this has, though. We can find objective, unalterable truths just by observing laws or numbers. Also, I believe that you're trying to avoid Wittgenstein's mistake by refuting the idea that you can't have knowledge by pre-supposing you do have knowledge of this unknowability of knowledge, which in turn brings me to my original point of practical application as this seems like pointless sophistry.

>>16799498
But I'm right, aren't I?

>mental gymnastics
You're literally in a philosophy thread, isn't mental gymnastics what we do?

>>16799508
see >>16799600

>>16799636
I'm not a logician, so I can't say you're right or not, that's just the way it looks like to me, as a layman. But, I believe there's a possibility of you imposing this limitation of a cycle of unanswerable questions on yourself when it's unnecessary, we can find answers to questions even if we have to follow a series of questions to get to it, I believe that's called the Socratic method.

>>16799522
If logic is knowable then it should be able to be known, I'm not claiming to know the answer but the point is that the question is impossible to ask in the first place

>A vast majority of them. Even in the cases of 'immoral' ethical systems, though, it would be proper to go through with them regardless (per the definition of ethics). Prison is a non-factor, except, perhaps, to consequentialists.
No, I'm sorry but this is just wrong, even philosophers who make different ethical compasses don't carry them out as then they'd be stopped from their writing of philosophy
also for your last point see >>16799600

>>16799600
Sorry, let me specify: I'm not personally interested in what you think, I'm saying that "Why is philosophy about truth, and what role does it play?" should be the topic of any thesis you write, because I think reflecting on it would prove more fruitful than what you're doing currently. It's clear to me you wanna talk about it seeing as you misunderstood what I said to the end of replying with your theory, so it stands to reason that's the real thing you're interested in, not discussing the nature of truth for itself as you did in the first instance. Why don't you write an essay on this, if you aren't already?

>>16799631
see >>16799600
I think that covers everything

>>16798746
What is the argument against knowledge? Suppose we grant premises 1-3. These are of the form "Knowledge of X requires knowledge of Y", or "X is known implies Y is known." Premise 4 is supposed to show circularity, "X implies Y implies Z implies W implies X". Suppose we grant this also.

Why should we conclude that all knowledge is therefore impossible? Other conclusions are deductively valid--for example, "We have knowledge of X, therefore we also have knowledge of W, Y, and Z."

>>16799688
see >>16799600
I think this is what my answer would'd be, sorry that I'm directing everyone to that reply its just that sums up a lot of what I think

>>16799714
Thats a good idea actually, thank you very much for your help, I'm sure I'll get started soon

Once I'm finished, then what do I do? (Sorry about all these questions, made this a year ago and then just gave up on writing anything because I didn't know how to flesh the theory out over a book/essay)

>>16799505

No what you are going through is the most un-restricted philosophy possible.

You want philosophy without making any assumptions at all. But this is like saying you want to build a house using no materials at all. It is a nonsensical endeavour.

> that knowledge is unknowable according to the theory, yet the knowledge of the knowledge being unknowable is unknowable, making an endless loop

this is nonsense. read what you have written and observe how it is completely illogical.

You do not listen to criticism. Any criticism to you is incorrect and your original formulation is always correct. You are not being intellectually honest and therefore any discussion with you is pointless. This is not philosophy it is fanaticism.

>>16799743
I think X is known implies Y CAN be known
I dont claim to know any of the answers, but this is about if it can be known, not the answer and thats why I dont say that the outcome is everything is negative, the outcome is that everything is unknowable

>>16799792
sorry if you've already read this but I sum up my thoughts here >>16799600
At this point, we're not arguing about if I'm right or wrong, we're arguing what philosophy even is, something I can't force anyone with reason to agree with

>>16799779
>Once I'm finished, then what do I do?
Fuck if I know, post it somewhere? Wordpress/blogger if you want your name attached to it, Write.as if you wanna stay anon and away from the public eye. Post it here if you want to. World's your oyster, bucko.

>>16799799
> I dont say that the outcome is everything is negative, the outcome is that everything is unknowable

Your epistemological question is "Can I know anything?". Your conclusion "everything is unknowable" is a negative answer to that question.

But regardless, you haven't answered my question: On what grounds do you assert that everything is unknowable? Your premises only stipulate that one must know the answer to one question to know the answer to another. One could, therefore, know the answer to all of them, and it would be consistent with your premises.

>>16799817
Do you not believe that time is relative? Under the definition of time given by Einstein?

>>16799824
Thanks for the advice, I'm glad you enjoyed the conversation

>>16799835
No, I'd think "no" is a negative answer to "Can I know anything" as knowing that you can't know anything is well, knowing

How would you know the answers to all of them without being omniscient? You got to start somewhere, but unfortunately that starts leads you to a dead end

>>16799871
nope

>>16797924>>16798746

who told you to care about meaning and existence? why do you even care about this in the first place?

>>16800031
Because its about truth, its about culture, its why we live in the first place
Firstly, I just like to know truth, by knowing truth I can live a good life and not just do what other people tell me, which could lead to me being sad because thats not how life was meant to be lived
Secondly, even though your average Joe won't read philosophy, having deep philosophy changes the culture and the times, look at Ancient Athens, why did they produce so much more thought then we did? Its because at the core of their society was the freedom to say what you like and intellectualism, now did the average athenian know all about Pythagoras's theories? Of course not! Yet, he still doesn't shun him for making them, believing that people should be able to say what they like

>>16800031
our biology

>>16798746
>Writes a syllogism using logic and words, claiming knowledge that nothing exists
This is self-contradictory sophistry

>>16800219
see >>16799460
This should answer your question

>>16800017
>No, I'd think "no" is a negative answer to "Can I know anything" as knowing that you can't know anything is well, knowing

You are confused. One can make identical statements with different words. "Everything is unknowable" is identical to "Nothing is knowable". Asserting either one is identical to answering "Can I know anything" with "no". If your position is "There may be knowable things, but we don't know them" then it is different from "Everything is unknowable".

>How would you know the answers to all of them without being omniscient?

I could very easily know that knowledge is possible without knowing all particular facts. For example, perhaps I know for certain that my experiences exist. I could be wrong about any number of other things, even if I knew this particular fact. Perhaps I could reach the metaphysical conclusion that knowledge is possible, something exists, logic exists (whatever this means, I don't think you've thought it through), and words have meaning, and still not know, for example, what the weather outside is like. In fact, I don't see any reason at all to suppose omniscience is necessary to answer these particular four facts.

To be honest, your claims strike me as the kind of sweeping generalizations young people make when they think about a subject for the first time without any rigor. This is evident in the strength of your assertions compared to the amount of explication you provide. For example, why exactly does the existence of knowledge depend upon whether words have meaning? Perhaps someone has a competing theory that "real knowledge" comes in the form of sensory impressions, and that language does not properly encode or represent it. Your analysis doesn't even touch on the subjects it makes extremely strong claims about.

>>16797924
Get a PHD from a reputable university department.

>>16800285
No, I'm pretty sure that knowing that you dont know is knowledge...

>perhaps I know
This is where you go wrong, the idea is that you start from nothing, if there are some things that "I just know" then the point of epistemology is just pointless because I can somehow know things without reasoning

How exactly would you know that persons theory? They'd have to either tell you or you'd have to read it, which requires language. Furthermore, how would this person even formulate their ideas? They'd have to use language in their head to reach this conclusion

See >>16799817

this thread has shown me (not OP) that I am missing out on a fair amount of good stuff by not studying philosophy. It was right not to but damn

It seems like you have a very reductive concept of truth desu. I'd read pragmatists like CS Pierce and folks like Thomas Reid if I were you.

>>16800017
>How would you know the answers to all of them without being omniscient? You got to start somewhere, but unfortunately that starts leads you to a dead end
I like what you're going for here but I am whatever a hacks hack is

>>16799999
Witnessed

>>16800676
You should still study it privately anyway anon, what type of philosophy do you like?

>>16798746

> Does logic exist
> Does the thing that warrant the possibility of me writing this, you reading it, and it conveying my thoughts, exist.
> Because if it doesn't, I can't even have thought these things, since meaning isn't fixed and no fundamental principle exist.
> Even less have written them. In fact the entire institution of human language must be a complete delusion from the start, and no one has ever said anything to anyone, or thought anything.

I mean, you get points for the effort, and for developing your argument further than most autists would, without writing a 1000 page essay that mentions the Demiurge 345 times. You have grasped hesitantly at something that is discussed in better terms in most Phi of Language or Intro to epistemology classes.
But it is still shit.

>>16798190
They publish either in the press associated with some university (Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge... etc) or one of the academic oriented publishers (Brill, Routledge, Bloomsbury...).

>>16798746
I don’t understand your refutation to ‘common counter arguments’.

I would say that the problem with what you are presenting is that the four questions you’ve given are not the most basic questions possible, and when you go a level deeper it undermines the questions you are asking.

For instance, ‘do words have meaning?’; to answer this we first have to ask a question like ‘what is meaning?’ And if you can come up with an answer to that question it should be obvious whether or not the concept appropriately applies to words.

The way you’ve laid this out your logic question falls strictly within the scope of your metaphysics question. If the MQ is ‘no’ then the LQ is necessarily no.

Again we also have the problem of there being a more basic question; what is logic? and What does it mean ‘to exist’? Likewise with your EQ, what is knowledge, is the more basic question.

Philosophers very much have produced answer to the questions ‘what is logic’, ‘what does it mean to exist’, ‘what is knowledge’ and ‘what is meaning’, and that seems to cut against your enumerated points.

Imo this suffers from the same problem that most amateur philosophizing suffers from, a lack of basic familiarity with what has already been written on these topics.

>>16800017

Logic doesn't "exist", it is something we figured out was fundamentally necessary to the construction of language and was already internal to it. A logic doesn't need to conform to the rules of the world as long as it is consistent.
Words have meaning, yes. That is pretty self-evident. How the meaning becomes fixed, or how can we communicate private thoughts effectively through such an indirect method, those are more interesting questions.
Things exists, yes. But existence is a fuzzy term in everyday speech. Do things existing is really a requirement to know them? I know how to determine my center of gravity, however I also know that it is a fictional entity that could never really be isolated locally in the world.
And yes, you can know something with absolute certainty, the Cogito. Everything else comes with a dose of uncertainty.

>>16797968
Pepe is an innovation. You can use this argument with regards to anime but not with regards to the frog.

>>16801330
see >>16799600
and also see >>16799460

>>16801376
see >>16799341 P1

>>16801472
see >>16799505 P1

>>16801730

Ok, but did you understand what was written in those posts? In any posts?
If you did, that implies that the Law of Identity was at least observed in the language used.

>>16797924
You spread it out towards a logic and math and have a new interpretation of those. You can either make ai, a programming language, natural language, go into science. There's a lot you can do.

>>16801755
See >>16799600 again
also see >>16799400

>>16798746
So a monism informs a quadrilism? What is this trying to say?

>>16801475
wrong

>>16801737
I understand better now that you are trying to set up a problem where each question is mutually dependent on the others and thus none can be answered ‘first’.

That said I think some of the objections other people have offered are valid.

-Do words have meaning? Yes, because if they didn’t then the question itself would be incomprehensible. The question about the nature of that meaning is separate.

None of these need to rely on any other question to be self-refuting. The question of whether or not knowledge is possible is instantly self refuting. If you say ‘knowledge is impossible’ you are claiming knowledge about the property of a concept, but your claim is that such a claim is impossible. It’s literally the ‘this sentence is false’ paradox.

As far as I understand your argument you would then say that my argument relies on the premise of assuming an answer to the question of whether ‘words have meaning’, and I would tell you that I am indeed because that’s much is self evident. If it wasn’t true you wouldn’t be able to even make a philosophical proposition in the first place.

The answers to the other two questions can be dealt with entirely separately.

>>16803032
>-Do words have meaning? Yes, because if they didn’t then the question itself would be incomprehensible. The question about the nature of that meaning is separate.
I think this just adds to the paradoxical nature of this theory, there are so many loops that its just impossible to count them all, but the best way I could explain this is, if we have a temporary solution that leads to a permeant solution that contradicts the temporary, is the the permeant one right? This, from who I've talked to here, seems to be more on a debate on what philosophy even is and if these outcomes are valid or just silly, me being the former
I'd say the negative of "can I know anything" is just simply no, as that implies that you can't know that you can't know, which creates a paradox
The main point of the paradox is that you can't be sure if you can or you can't, making it simply unknowable

Yeah man, your point is totally valid but thats what makes the theory, the fact that its all a big paradox which makes thing, by definition, unknowable

>>16803083
Traditionally in philosophy when you come to a paradox it means that there is a problem with your thinking. Either it’s a problem with your premises or a problem with how you’ve reasoned from them.

Arguably that Kant’s big insight. Zeno’s paradox doesn’t tell us that a fast runner can never reach a turtle with a head start, it tells us that we are reasoning about the situation wrongly. In other words it shows us that we haven’t done a good enough job capturing the reality of the world within the realm of thought.