Who's right in this picture?

File: 75 KB, 480x608, DeiTu3EW4AAKbfV.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 12:05:30 2018 No.11733503 [Reply] [Original]

Who's right in this picture?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 12:07:37 2018 No.11733507 >>11733503 Whoever perishes

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 12:07:49 2018 No.11733508 >>11733503 Both are correct.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 12:10:05 2018 No.11733515 He can't be seen in the picture because he's not taking part

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 12:11:52 2018 No.11733523

>>11733503
Donald is merely describing how many abstract things can be explained by science, while Mickey is going beyond that, going the Nitzschean way of being superior to the situation and to fight regardless of the meaninglessness of life. No one is necessarily right nor wrong, both are just worldviews, but I'd choose Mickey over Donald every day of the week.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 12:17:38 2018 No.11733545 >>11733503 mickey but there is also a flaw in his argument that im too lazy to go through

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 12:38:04 2018 No.11733612 >>11733545 Please, spoonfeed the brainlet here.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 13:11:54 2018 No.11733721 >>11733545 >there is a flaw in his argument lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 14:34:57 2018 No.11734068 File: 425 KB, 667x998, 1535777401848.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11733545 I trust mikey because he looks happy and confident

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 14:38:27 2018 No.11734089 >>11733503 why do brainlets think this image is deep?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 14:40:21 2018 No.11734102 File: 3 KB, 125x103, 1535683284424s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11733503 The right one is Mickey Mouse; the left one Donald Duck

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 14:44:37 2018 No.11734126 Donald is referring to the brain Mickey is referring to the mind within the brain Both are valid

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 14:51:37 2018 No.11734153

>>11733503
Mickey ultimately, as he doesn't really say shit. If he is weary of making god out of himself and/or reason, but still employs the scientific method with rigour and caution he's a top lad. If he takes the route of continental fuckery and slam-philosophy to bolster his current esoteric nupolitics, because we 'can't prove nuffin', then he belongs on /lit/.

So depends. At least Donald is taking a stnce and is willing to be held responsible. Mickey might have the right attitude, but I don't trust the weasel.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 14:58:53 2018 No.11734173 File: 142 KB, 480x608, DeiTu3EW4AAKbfV.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] wittgenstein, as always

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 15:00:07 2018 No.11734177 File: 489 KB, 1920x1280, 1920.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 15:16:43 2018 No.11734229 >>11733523 Based and articulate

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 19:02:53 2018 No.11735170 >>11733503 Cool, Mickey, cool, but if it is so, and you reject assumption that what we see, hear and sense is real, then what do you propose as alternative? What is it that won't lead us to collective unending madness?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 19:10:45 2018 No.11735190 >>11735170 There's no Provable answer. That's the point.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 19:11:42 2018 No.11735193 File: 416 KB, 996x549, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11734177

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 19:12:08 2018 No.11735194 File: 3.58 MB, 630x354, this_is_you.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11734102

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 19:15:24 2018 No.11735211 >>11734177 Trump is bigger than Hillary so I support him

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 19:25:34 2018 No.11735265 >>11733503 Existentialism beats nihilism ten times out of ten

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 19:27:29 2018 No.11735271 >>11733503 Donald is wrong because he doesn't understand how life works Mickey is wrong because nominalism is wrong. Really these two veiws go hand in hand.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 19:28:33 2018 No.11735275 >>11733523 >Both are just world veiws That have little bearing on reality

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 19:34:34 2018 No.11735304 >>11733503 Neither means a single thing, it's meaningless non-sequiturs.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 19:35:38 2018 No.11735311 File: 39 KB, 800x445, 1534635139787.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11735304

Convalescent Tue Sep 4 19:36:57 2018 No.11735320
File: 2.30 MB, 2000x1333, comfy15.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11733545
Mickey says knowledge is based on the unprovable (as if to discredit it) yet makes a positive claim that passes as knowledge (i.e., X is not a trustworthy evaluator of X, where in this case X = chemicals).

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 20:11:59 2018 No.11735499 >>11734177 read this in their voices for maximum keks

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 20:47:06 2018 No.11735648 >>11734173 Donald is the first Wittgenstein and Mickey is the second Wittgenstein right?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 20:53:41 2018 No.11735679 >>11733503 it doesn't matter, because we'll never know the answer beyond our own meaningless attempts at comprehension

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 21:29:56 2018 No.11735817 File: 90 KB, 960x951, confederates_in_nam.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11733503 Mickey.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 21:43:39 2018 No.11735875 >>11735679 shut up hume

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 22:25:23 2018 No.11736089 >>11735320 If you were a senior in High School this would impress me, but I want you to work a little harder on this one

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 22:41:14 2018 No.11736153

>>11733503

>Everything we know and love is reducible to the absurd acts of chemicals

the word "absurd" is doing some work here that actually undermines the point. the word choice is meant to subtly impart value judgment, while the statement as a whole is meant to undermine value judgments in general.

>there is therefore no intrinsic value in this material universe

These 2 statements are essentially the same thing, the word "therefore" is inappropriate here because the 2 statements don't justify each other, they both reflect the same idea.

>hypocrite that you are, for you trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you they are chemicals

This is a valid criticism of Donald's statement. Donald sought to undermine value judgments by claiming things of value reduce to chemical and physical phenomena, but the same is true of all beliefs and knowledge, including Donald's claim itself.

>All knowledge is ultimately based on that which we cannot prove.

I think this is a true statement but its beside the point in this case. Donald's criticism of value judgments is not that value judgments aren't provable, it's that they have no justification in the physical world, which is a different issue.

>Will you fight? Or will you perish like a dog?

This is just good Nietzsche type stuff. Again good criticism of Donald's statement. It really doesn't matter whether love and other value concepts like fairness or justice are reducible, value judgments are a part of the human experience.

Mickey wins

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 04:25:35 2018 No.11737194 Mickey.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 09:06:06 2018 No.11738117 Donald makes no sense. I'm part of the material universe and I believe things have intrinsic value. Therefore there is intrinsic value in the material universe.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 09:07:44 2018 No.11738125 >>11733503 Could be both (or neither) given that Donald is making a metaphysical claim and Mickey an epistemological one

Anonymous Wed Sep 5 10:34:44 2018 No.11738553

>>11733503
If one examines Mickey's paradigm of discourse, one is faced with a choice: either reject social realism or conclude that the purpose of the ego is social comment. But Donald's image implies that expression is a product of the collective unconscious.

Goofy uses the term ‘the cultural paradigm of discourse’ to denote not, in fact, deappropriation, but postdeappropriation.

“all knowledge is ultimately based on that which we cannot prove,” says Mouse; however, according to
Scuglia[1] , it is not so much knowledge that is part of the stasis of truth, but rather the collapse of reason. However, the premise of social realism states that unreason is meaningless, but only if Donald's image is valid. If the cultural paradigm of discourse holds, we have to choose between social realism within the clubhouse, or dialectic substructuralist theory.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 10:51:15 2018 No.11738623 They are both a part of a journey. Donald wants someone to btfo him and mickey provided him that. Mickey's statements also has its flaws and someone along the way will btfo him next if he kept asking but he seems satisfied enough by his expression

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 11:11:45 2018 No.11738700 >>11735271 >Mickey is wrong because nominalism is wrong. Please go further regarding how it is wrong, thanks

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 16:51:48 2018 No.11740078 Bumperino

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 16:53:47 2018 No.11740094 File: 18 KB, 220x306, 220px-35._Portrait_of_Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11733503 Anti-realism is based. Based Wittgenstein and Georges Sorel

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 17:06:53 2018 No.11740161 >>11733503 all niggers must fucking hang

Anonymous Wed Sep 5 17:24:23 2018 No.11740240

>>11733503
>Will you fight ?
Fight for what ? how ?
>Or will you perish like a dog ?
Do dogs perish in a less valuable way than others ? (poor Pluto) What is the difference in perishing like a glorious hero or a dog ? Doesn't really change anything for you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 17:25:28 2018 No.11740251 >>11740094 literally the most based and redpilled thing i've seen on this board and im not even joking

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 17:40:14 2018 No.11740328 >>11740094 >>11740161 >>11740240 the holy trinity, one after the other as chain, perfectly balanced.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 17:55:46 2018 No.11740407 >>11733503 The question they are seeking answers to is formulated in error.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 01:38:24 2018 No.11742204 >>11733503 the arguments you get into after you smoke too much weed.

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 01:52:36 2018 No.11742240
File: 34 KB, 400x400, _uij0y01_400x400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11742204
Whenever I smoke weed I either become extremely introverted or angry. Doesn't matter what strain. The last time I took shrooms I thought about murdering someone and found out I really liked the idea

I think I might have some problems but I'm not sure what do. Help me /lit/. I'm not edgy posting

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 03:16:04 2018 No.11742426 It's a matter of perspective >>11733503 Mickey is right >>11734177 Donald is right

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 03:29:34 2018 No.11742450 >>11733503 the 200+ IQ writer

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 08:16:59 2018 No.11743048 File: 28 KB, 500x403, 902.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11740094 >Anti-realism

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 08:27:51 2018 No.11743077 >>11738553 lol wtf dude

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 08:32:06 2018 No.11743089 >>11742426 lmao

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 08:40:47 2018 No.11743116 >>11736089 Cringe

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 08:46:29 2018 No.11743131 >>11735193 This. /lit/ needs to grow up.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 08:47:13 2018 No.11743134 >>11742240 it's called the devil's lettuce for a reason. satan comes into your mind when you're in that impaired state of mind. most stoners have far too little brain activity to remember or realize their wicked thoughts.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 10:00:36 2018 No.11743368 >>11735320 that is a valid point that undermines Mickey. However, Donald is also undermining his point by assuming that chemicals act absurdly. Both are making assumption they have no way to prove.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 10:12:28 2018 No.11743412 Isn't Donald advocating the same as Ben Stiller ?

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 10:16:57 2018 No.11743432

>>11743412
Stiller would say that it is precisely because everything is reducible to chemicals, that there is objective value to things. He would probably say that 'intrinsic' is an incomprehensible qualifier in this case.

Mickey is right to warn against the traps of making gods out of ourselves and/or our reason, but ultimately ends up using it as a justification for his lack of rigour. Too lazy to do science and update it, so variant of 'we can't no nuffin' are more accessible. Whether it's nihilism, faith, or whatever dogmas he chooses to justify.

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 10:23:37 2018 No.11743465

>>11742240
Every time you would normally do drugs, read Infinite Jest instead. By the time you finish, you will be either cured of your addiction or have eliminated your own map for keeps, but so whichever ends up happening will be a net good for society.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 10:27:41 2018 No.11743474 >>11733503 They’re equally cringe

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 13:50:50 2018 No.11744237
File: 160 KB, 711x399, 1523984778565.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11743432
ding ding ding

Mickey assumes that you need universals to care; that one can't accept the knowledge of the universe available to us and still embrace our biases because they're in our nature.

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 14:05:12 2018 No.11744302

>>11742240
That's a bad place to be anon, stop partaking and make sure you're well hydrated and getting plenty of sleep.

If you one or any combination of: insomnia (especially 2 or more nights in a row) / hear voices in your head / start seeing frequent and odd connections between things / racing thoughts / homocidal or suicidal thoughts... Then you should seek medical attention. Don't be ashamed to seek help anon, it could prevent utter disaster.

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 15:53:13 2018 No.11744741

>>11733503
>NO SOLUTION
its just wank, micky is essentially calling donald a lil bitch for being the first to voice both of their distress, what happens after this is that they both go back to worrying but donald feels berated and mickey feels a momentary false sense of accomplishment, they both die early deaths

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 18:43:41 2018 No.11745442 >>11738117 >belief statement as justification for an objective truth statement I believe that this is actually not an argument

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 18:46:58 2018 No.11745451 Lay down and die or fight. Hard choice famalam.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 00:53:43 2018 No.11746854 File: 705 KB, 836x943, 1496558414308.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Josuke is correct.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 00:58:53 2018 No.11746868 >>11735320 It just sounds like a classic paradox desu

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 01:04:00 2018 No.11746877
File: 102 KB, 960x720, Gods of the Copybook Headings.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11733503
Mickey rolled that nihilist like dough, the worth we place on things is of course in our minds, whether or not something is valuable or meaningful is up to you. Even if the unproveable assertion that there is nothing of intrinsic value in the universe is true, it by definition does not matter. And if the patterns in the physical nature of the universe create concepts, then they surely must create meaning.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 01:31:32 2018 No.11746932

>>11733503
I read this as Donald making a claim for Nihilism derived from a materialistic worldview.
Mickey simply refutes this as circular reasoning. >We will use the chemicals in our brains to interpret scientific inquiry to tell us the chemicals are chemicals
The chemicals in your brain are therefore a proof unto themselves. And because the chemicals in your brain are the materialistic gateway to knowledge, all knowledge has no rational foundation for proof.
Mickey is right.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 01:33:22 2018 No.11746938 >>11742240 You need to unironically immerse yourself in activities that you hate. Something that requires significant commitment. Once you get into it, the reasons will be obvious.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 02:25:42 2018 No.11747055 Goofy, who's over banging Minnie at Mickey's house.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 02:28:17 2018 No.11747067

The mouse's point is no different than saying "you might be in a dream right now" or "an evil demon could be confounding your reasoning". Those are true, but having 0% confidence in your reasoning is a trivial solution. There may be other self-consistent views of your own reasoning that give greater than 0% and less than 100% confidence, views that take into account your own doubt about your own reasoning, including your meta-doubt about your meta-reasoning, and so on recursively, but with diminishing adjustments.

Also chemicals aren't inherently untrustworthy. In fact, everything goes back to the laws of physics, which are regular and predictable.

As for the duck, intrinsic value is not required to act. An extrinsic value that consists of your own preferences is sufficient.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 07:11:26 2018 No.11747595

>>11746877
The patterns in the physical nature of the universe do create meaning, via your neurological sentimentality. Linguistic meaning is based on knowledge via facts. Values are based on needs + facts -- you value something because it accomplishes something you want.
It is sort of important, since if we want to derive optimal collective values it helps to understand how they arise (at least intellectuals/elites should understand, lemmings will just conform as per usual).

>>11747067
Well stated.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 07:15:09 2018 No.11747602 >>11733503 Donald's argument is wrong, but Donald is by far a better character than Mickey who is, even in this instance, only right because the author decided to give him a free win yet again.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 07:17:51 2018 No.11747609

>>11747595
>The patterns in the physical nature of the universe do create meaning, via your neurological sentimentality.
There's no line drawn from patterns to experience. The lines are drawn in the different direction. The patterns themselves are as artificial as pixels on your screen. There are no books in your computer, no forests, no mountains. It's all in your experience.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 07:31:32 2018 No.11747629 >>11747609 Krishnamurti spotted

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 07:35:25 2018 No.11747635 >>11747629 I'm just a half-assed solipsist wannabe who understands one simple concept.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 07:43:30 2018 No.11747648

>>11747609
You can't know that. What is the subject of your experience? It can't be experience itself. So what is the self? If you have an impression of it, what makes that impression more trustworthy than any other? If you don't sense the self, then you can't be certain experience isn't produced by the world. You don't know which direction the lines are drawn in, so you might as well go with the model that offers some predictive power. If experience has no source, then there no dualism and we can deal with the apparent.

Also, the existence of distinct configurations (patterns) in our experience implies the existence of patterns in the source. Without distinctness, there could be no experience.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 07:45:26 2018 No.11747652 >>11747067 >>11747595 >there are still stemfags on /lit/ Hello fellow rational skeptics!

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 07:46:09 2018 No.11747653 get in here boys some of them are on the verge of a breakthru >>>/sci/9984186

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 07:51:10 2018 No.11747663 >>11747653 >he unironically browses both /lit/ and /sci/ NPCs need not apply for this board, cya bud

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 07:55:04 2018 No.11747668

>>11747648
>You can't know that.
It's the only thing I can know for certain.
>What is the subject of your experience?
Is there such a thing?
>It can't be experience itself.
Yes it can.
>So what is the self?
Am I supposed to know that? I'm not a collage of simple pictures.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 09:47:29 2018 No.11748007 File: 27 KB, 428x353, bliss.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11747668 Wow, great pure reasoning there. Why even bother?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:40:25 2018 No.11748510 File: 18 KB, 472x565, 1514052957828.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11735275 >t. picrel who only reads science fiction and has never seen a philosophy book in his life

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:55:56 2018 No.11748571 >>11742426 Huh. A funny joke on 4chan that has nothing to do with irony or memes

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 15:07:45 2018 No.11749388
File: 54 KB, 640x480, fuck_you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11733503

Mickey is wrong.

Donald is right.

Donald has a set of beliefs which decide what is real and it's not real. Donald follows those beliefs and reachs the conclusion that nothing has inherent value.

Meanwhile the rat retard has a set of beliefs which makes him contradict himself as he claims the reasoning of "proving x" is ultimately the first priority as he didn't prove such method, then proceeds to change the topic like a subhuman coward to a "pragmatic" one.

Donald is right.

Shit rat is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 16:00:58 2018 No.11749622 >>11735320 Yep and indeed in the end that's why you just have to smash through it, to BE, to experience reality

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 16:08:54 2018 No.11749648 >>11747663 but they're even easier to cajole than the anons here

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 16:31:11 2018 No.11749753 >>11735265 Existentialism is nihilism wearing a silly hat.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 16:35:01 2018 No.11749771 >>11735211 Anon for some reason this really tickled my funny bone. Thank you.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 16:37:24 2018 No.11749778

>>11742240
"I have a bad reaction to [Unnecessary Circumstance] whenever I engage in [Unnecessary Circumstance]. What's wrong with me?"

This is like complaining that you typically have a bad reaction to being hit by a car. Not imparting a value judgment on weed or psychedelics, but if you get nothing positive out of it, why do it? You don't need to do drugs, dude. Avoid situations and activities that do not positively contribute to your person.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 16:55:07 2018 No.11749850

>>11748007
Cogito ergo sum. Everything else comes after.
I did exist before I even knew of determinism, Newtonian physics, Atomic scale... Those things are the patterns I have learned. World is what it has always been.
I do not become these things I learn. No model, no science, no research has found a single mind. Yet you claim that the mind is *exactly* what we have already found. This does not compute.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 19:31:32 2018 No.11750419 Wittgenstein wouldn't argue for Mickey. He would say they are both stupid.

Anonymous Sat Sep 8 00:21:20 2018 No.11751641

>>11749850
No I haven't... I haven't even claimed the 'mind' (which you haven't defined) even exists (cogito ergo sum is often criticized because it presupposes the 'I' and 'thinking', which are not certainties). You are aware of existence before anything else, it is the only 'brute fact' and does not require any kind of reasoning -- only experience of it. But that is all you can strictly be certain of (outside of self-contained logical statements which do not attempt to describe the real)... You can not know that your mind is actually 'creating' the world or that there is any real dualism in play. So what to do? Well given certainty is off the table (problem of induction), wouldn't you favour empricism -- which demonstrates predictive power?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 8 00:37:37 2018 No.11751703 >All knowledge is based upon that which we cannot prove Every anon who sides with Mickey Mouse needs a rough slap in the face by a man with large hands.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 8 00:39:36 2018 No.11751710 >>11751703 prove they need that

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 8 00:48:40 2018 No.11751748 >>11751710 where do u live bithc

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 8 01:01:14 2018 No.11751797 >>11735193 Based and redpilled

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature