[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 133 KB, 625x361, Screenshot_2020-08-10 A quote by Roger Scruton.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16093840 No.16093840 [Reply] [Original]

holy shit... roger scruton is a retard

>> No.16093876

yeah that's pretty bad. relativism might be false but its not a paradox. laughable.

>> No.16093901

>>16093840
Pyrrho, ascribed the liar paradox 'If I am lying then I am lying; I am lying, therefore I am lying', BTFO this nigger 2000 years ago.

>> No.16093902

>>16093876
>>16093840
he's right

>> No.16094019

>>16093840
ban kike phoneposters

>> No.16094029

>>16093876
>>16093840
explain why he's wrong

>> No.16094259

>>16094029
because a paradoxical truth claim is like "everything is a lie but this is true" or vis-versa. stating that there truth claims can not be determined is obviously not the same thing. He's a brainlet because he things people are saying "the only true thing is that nothing is true!" when of course, they aren't saying that, they are saying, simply "truth claims are ultimately not verifiable by humans." It is not in itself a claim of truth it is a conditional statement attesting to the inadequacy of humans to make ultimate claims regarding truth, because of something like limits to our ability to reason and know enough to rise to the level of confidence of Truth. You can think that's BS, and truth can be known, but it's not a paradox.

>> No.16094267

>>16094259
>It is not in itself a claim of truth it is a conditional statement attesting to the inadequacy of humans to make ultimate claims regarding truth,
massive cope

>> No.16094330

What's really at issue here is one's attitude toward truth. Believing that universal (or, for lack of a better word, analytic) truth is unattainable is more like a way of being toward the world, than a logical proposition. What the OP quote is saying is, everyone should share my worldview, even (especially) those who don't. Since, in my view, those who don't share my attitude to truth really do share my attitude, and they're dumb for doing so.

>> No.16094348

>>16094259
Enroll in an introductory logic class, dumbfuck.

>> No.16094361

>>16093840
>>16093876
He's right.

>> No.16094368

>>16094259
>"truth claims are ultimately not verifiable by humans." It is not in itself a claim of truth it is a conditional statement attesting to the inadequacy of humans to make ultimate claims regarding truth
This is 100% a truth claim lmao, about either the status of truth claims, or the adequacy of our faculty regarding them. In both cases, it's w truth claim, and as such, self-defeating

>> No.16094383

>>16094259
>simply "truth claims are ultimately not verifiable by humans." It is not in itself a claim of truth it is a conditional statement attesting to the inadequacy of humans to make ultimate claims regarding truth
Imagine being such a butthurt pilpul faggot that you had to make this thread and show how stupid you are

>> No.16094397

>>16094259
This nigga needs to read Hegel. Seriously, this shit is embarassing

>> No.16094413

>>16093840
He doesn't seem willing (or able) to come to terms with perspectivism, that two views can both be true without there being some paradox. He basically has an a priori assumption that there is one ground reality. But how does he think he knows it? Only through his own senses and mind...

>> No.16094436

It's basically true, although awkward.
Perhaps this is a greater source of domination than that which merely recuperates: the dragging down of the opposition into inescapable banality. Asymmetrical ethics, the corruption of the good of our era.

>> No.16094444

>>16094413
>that two views can both be true without there being some paradox
That's the definition of a paradox, you moron.

>> No.16094467

>>16094444
Nothing inherently paradoxical in the idea of having multiple overlapping yet different views of something.

>> No.16094489

>>16094467
It is paradoxical if they are contradictory.

>> No.16094497

>>16093840
>is
dude he's dead

>> No.16094498

He never said this. This was Mark Fisher

>> No.16094504

>>16094397
What did Hegel say? saying "just read him" doesn't really help

>> No.16094525

>>16094489
On the basis of unspoken metaphysical assumptions about a singularly determined objective outer reality, yes. But the view he's attempting to critique does not make that arbitrary assumption.

>> No.16094537

>>16094525
>arbitrary assumption.
It's only supported by...everything we have ever experienced and all our basic rules of logic.

>> No.16094540

>>16094525
I would say it is paradoxical in all cases (or at least, all the relevant cases I can think of).

>> No.16094543

>>16094498
All searches show scruton. Are you okay accfag?

>> No.16094553

You people have worms in your brains

>> No.16094570

>>16094525
"There is no truth" is a universally applied conviction of someone claiming to know a truth. It's immediately self-destructing, and in what way is it not arbitrary? There's nothing at all to support the idea of nothing being true, but there are endless consequences for ignoring the laws we operate under.

>> No.16094572

>>16094504
In thatbpost he says:
>"truth claims are ultimately not verifiable by humans." It is not in itself a claim of truth it is a conditional statement attesting to the inadequacy of humans to make ultimate claims regarding truth, because of something like limits to our ability to reason and know enough to rise to the level of confidence of Truth.
apart from the fact that that is obviously a truth claim, with Hegel he would realize that to make the second statement (in which he negates our ability of reaching truth) he has to refer to a configuration of consciousness which is, in fact, capable of attaining that particular truth. Hell, from this tidbit he could climb the whole ladder and get to Absolute Knowing

>> No.16094578

Is /lit so logically illiterate that they don't understand the difference between verifiability and validity. This thread is an embarrassment. All you first year philosophy majors don't stand a chance.

>> No.16094585

>>16093840
lmfao

>> No.16094605

>>16093840
he's correct but their conceptions are a lot more nuanced than normie's "there's no objective truth", which is obviously a blatant contradiction.
what's more telling though is the use of "modernist" when discussing postmodern philosophies.

>> No.16094608

>>16094578
What does this have to do wirh OP's post?

>> No.16094610

>>16094578
>tfw to intelligent to not contradict myself

>> No.16094617

>>16094608
Most philosophers who talk about truth like this are claiming that no truths are verifiable. This is an epistemic claim not a logical claim. Syaing there are only perspectives is a claim about how limited humans are in their ability to verify whether their beliefs are true on an extra logical basis. It has nothing to do with maintaining that x and not x are both equally true. It has to do with whether either is verifiable or not.

>> No.16094625

>>16094617
>are claiming that no truths are verifiable.
that's still a truth claim lel

>> No.16094630

>>16094625
And it's not verifiable

>> No.16094631

>>16094630
is it verifiable that it's not verifiable

>> No.16094634

>>16094631
probably not

>> No.16094650

>>16094617
How could you justify this that epistemic claim? You certainly cannot do it a priori: wether we are capable of attaining truth or not, it will depends on our faculties and constitution, and as such, it cannot be a necessary claim.
But that epistemic claim bars us from using empirical truths to solve this question, so we cannot go for the a posteriori justification either.

This leaves with no other reasonable options. Should we accept that claim at face value because we trust you?

>> No.16094664

>>16094650
Why would you base your epistemology on a priori and a posteriori justifications? You could just as easily frame your epistemology in terms of a belief web or ranking functions. I also to ascribe myself to this position. I just think the critique in the post misrepresents the claim. I think at the very least tautologies are verifiable truths.

>> No.16094665

>>16094664
>I also don't ascribe myself to this position.

Fuck my phone

>> No.16094675

>>16094664
>You could just as easily frame your epistemology in terms of a belief web or ranking functions
I dont know what you mean by this

>> No.16094684

>>16094525
What planet do you live on?

>> No.16094689

>>16094675
Look into Quine's Web of Belief. Also there are theories that look at how strongly beliefs are held as a function of contradicting evidence. I.e. you rank your belief according to how much evidence to the contrary it would take for you to change your mind.

>> No.16094699

>>16094689
To read about these look up the formal representations of belief on the Stanford encyclopedia

>> No.16094715

>>16094617
>Most philosophers who talk about truth like this
Real philosophers don't talk about truth like that. Truth is a topic in the philosophy of language. Knowledge is obviously a topic in epistemology. Philosophers who address issues of verification (or falsification) are exploring the nature of knowledge, not truth.

>> No.16094743

>>16094715
Do you reject the Thomistic notion of truth as the adequation of cognition with its object to be the opinion of a fake philosopher. This certainly extends beyond the use of language.

As a side note I agree that the term truth shouldn't be used to describe the nature of knowledge but in the history of philosophy it has been. To then misrepresent what a philosopher says based on a formal definition of truth that philosopher is not employing is at the least cheap.

>> No.16094754

>>16094689
To a first approximation, to be true is to belong to the theory that best coheres with all available empirical evidence and the canons of theoretical virtue (simplicity, etc).

>> No.16094764

>>16094743
Truth is a semantic concept like reference: that is, it is a relation holding between a representation and elements of the environment.

>> No.16094784

>>16094764
Obviously truth is the semantic value of a valuation function of a proposition. But not all possible propositions have robust semantic theories. Take counterfactuals for example.

>> No.16094797

>>16094754
This is one definition of truth. I think Nietzsche is using a definition that roughly approximates the Thomistic definition. But that is not the same as how the word truth is used in logic or phil of language. If OP is going to critique a philosopher he ought to use the philosopher's terms consistently.

>> No.16094915

Something i never understood about relativism is that almost everybody uses it as an argument, yet practically nobody lives in accordance with it as a principle of their own philosophy - have people who claimed there are no objective truths/no objective beauty/no objective morals ever acted upon these claims even when it's to the detriment of their own views? It is my experience that people who make such claims almost never act as if there truly are no objective morals/aesthetics/truths - they just use the argument whenever it is convenient.

>> No.16094942

>>16093840
doesn't nietsche very clearly says that there is no truth, only interpretation - that is, there is only your personal truth. His own truth is the existence of this personal truth, which cannot be verified but by each person on their own looking inside.

>> No.16094951

>>16094915
I live according to that - there is no objective truth/values/morals etc etc... so I just do what my personal compass is telling me and fuck everything else.

>> No.16094961

>>16093840
>a writer who says there are no truths or that all truth is merely relative is asking you not to believe him

ok all truth is relative except the fact that all truth is relative

>> No.16094968

>>16094951
That's not true, though.

>> No.16094978

>>16094968
So what? If there is no truth and nothing to live by, why not just sit in your bed all day in a coma or randomly flail about? You're obviously getting out of bed to shit because your personal compass is telling you that not shitting is bad. So dispense with all other formalities and do what your personal compass is telling you in all things.

>> No.16094995

>>16093840
>nothing is true, except this statement, which means something is true and refutes itself
>Scruton realises this
>"oh no, he's a retard!" - OP, between sucking shafts

>> No.16095005

>>16094978
>You're obviously getting out of bed
Obviously? That's not true.

>> No.16095012

>>16094915
>>16094951
Relativism is not about subjective things like beauty and morals, brainlets. It's about truths like whether there is a beer in your refrigerator. Saying the contents of a refrigerator at a given time are purely a matter of your "personal compass" is retarded.

>> No.16095014
File: 1.73 MB, 454x344, 1596209659187.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16095014

>>16094348
Tfw Analytical Philosophy, bye anon.

>> No.16095021

>>16095014
>>>/x/

>> No.16095035

>>16093840
Real conservatives are sceptics and nominalists. (Cicero, Hobbes, Hume, etc.) Fake conservatives are positivists and realists (Scruton).

>> No.16095045

>>16095021
>>>/lgbt/

>> No.16095098

>>16094978
Sitting in your bed is not "doing nothing". You are still doing something: staying in your bed. You're also implying that a normative statement is tue, namely that if relativism is correct we ought to stay in our beds.

>> No.16095260

>>16094968
Why not?

>> No.16095265

>>16095098
No, im saying that by your day to day activity you have chosen to do something. You have already chosen to act in some way viewing some things you do as right and some not. thinking that you dont already act by your own compass is simply lying to yourself.

>> No.16095280

>>16095265
Truth has nothing to do with action, dumbass.

>> No.16095593

>>16095265
This would be true regardless of what I do, wether it is helping other people, seeking success, or staying in bed. The point is that relativism prescribes no specific line of conduct, and as such every course of action is compatible with it.

>> No.16095598
File: 73 KB, 1200x800, Roger Scruton.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16095598

>>16093840
It was an in introductory work, he didn't mind putting things into an essential attitude to explain things to a teen.

Get over it. Pretty based to me.

>> No.16095599

>>16095593
"Conduct" has nothing to do with truth. Stay on topic.

>> No.16095786
File: 402 KB, 420x610, 1591895570023.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16095786

>>16094537
>we
>experienced

>> No.16095789

more like roger scrotum am i right boys

>> No.16095815

>>16094259
>they are saying, simply "truth claims are ultimately not verifiable by humans."
And what sort of epistemic standing would one need to have to make this statement meaningful? HMMMMMMMM

>> No.16095879

>>16095599
I was following your premise, namely that following a line of conduct implies a belief in truths incompatible with relstivism. My point was the even if this was the case (and I don't think it is), this would just mesn that every line of conduct would be perfectly compatible with relativism.

>> No.16096488

>>16094570
>"There is no truth" is a universally applied conviction of someone claiming to know a truth.

Denying the existence of 'truth' is not iself a 'truth'.

>> No.16096523

>>16093902
>>16094029
"There are no facts, only interpretations" is posited as an interpretation, not a fact. How is that a paradox? And how is Scruton not justifying the statement by "not believing in him" on account of the statement? He's literally just adopting Nietzsche's interpretation by doing that.

>> No.16096553

>>16094259
it is absolutely the same thing, if you say that its true that it cant be determined then you just contradicted yourself. if you say "truth claims are ultimately not verifiable by humans." you have to admit that you can't verify that is true and therefore you can't say that.

>> No.16096554

>>16096488
It is. "X is not true" is a truth. If it is not true, then X is true, and this last statement becomes a truth

>> No.16096627

>>16093840

ITT everybody can tell this is wrong instinctively but doesn't understand why.
The reason why is because what is true and what is untrue is never dictated by human's and certainly not by what one reasons or says it's simply an impossibility.
In fact what is true is already in that state of trueness long before the most basic thought or perception of it can even enter a human mind.
In reality the entire concept of the "paradox" is a complete fantasy there is only true and untrue a paradox is merely a human saying that they expected a truth to be untrue by way of what has now been revealed to be a completely faulty thought pattern thus ultimately serving to only further display how completely inept human's actually are at understanding what is true.

>> No.16096650

More like Roger SCROTUM amiritefellaz?

>> No.16096660
File: 31 KB, 850x400, dostoyevsky.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16096660

>>16093840
it's because everyone wanted to be God at the same time; and thus fashioned themselves petty gods with their own subjective truths at the expense of the grander absolute Truth.

Man wanted to fight his Old Man for keys to the car; so the Old Man let him drive and watched him crash so that the son learned his lesson on why he is the Old Man.
In the end, God fixes up the car and the demigod children get pa-pa-power wheels till they learn responsibility of godhood and the verisilimitudinal direction of truth along the spectrum.

Some truths are more truer than others. Ergo God.