The Death of Science, Philosophy and Truth

[Anonymous No.16808813]

Hey /lit/, I wrote a philosophical essay called "The Death of Science, Philosophy and Truth" which includes "Jarvis's Method Problem"
You can view the PDF here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16CtaqajxuN42hX53UrQb8PbkpFYqgLJ4/view?usp=sharing
Or listen to the audiobook alternatively: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zLvY9Td-5U

I posted Jarvis's Method Problem here yesterday, and I hope this will change some of my opponents minds on the theory

[Anonymous No.16808830]

>>16808813
>Let us start at the start, eh?
Completely sophomoric, thanks for letting me know early on that you have nothing worth saying

[Anonymous No.16808855]

>>16808830
>HOW DARE YOU USE LANGUAGE THAT DOESN'T MEAN I HAVE TO GET A DICTIONARY OUT JUST TO READ IT

I'd love to see your Hegel type essay's...

[Anonymous No.16808953]

>>16808855
>general amateurish wide-sweeping grandiosity
>dumb, superflous, "sup reader" first sentence
Nah, suppose I could let that slide. There might be something of value in there still.
>soijack posting
Now I'm sure that you and everything you have to say is worthless.

[Anonymous No.16808960]

>>16808813
im gona giv it a listen at some point

[Anonymous No.16808979]

>>16808960
Good man, tell me what you think after!

[Anonymous No.16808989]

>>16808953
>on 4chan
>can't handle soijack posting
Oooooh, is the frog scary for you too? (still haven't seen you're Hegel type essay...)

[Anonymous No.16809009]

>>16808813
no offense dude but you should read some more philosophy by well-respected philosophers, especially the contemporary literature on your topic. Your method is like a cheap chinese version of Descartes.

[Anonymous No.16809033]

>>16809009
Can I have a reason why, please

[Anonymous No.16809034]

>>16808989
These memes are tired, man. We need to move on to something else.

[Anonymous No.16809042]

>>16808813
>Let us start by the start, eh?

[Anonymous No.16809048]

>>16808989
I can handle retard detectors very well, please continue using them.

[Anonymous No.16809059]

>>16809042
see >>16808855

[Anonymous No.16809075]

>>16809048
>retard detectors
>can't read an essay that beings with "Let us start at the start, eh?"
>still no Hegel essay
We can do this all day man, you obviously have time to get past the terrible pain of reading, or are you just going to go
>haha well you're wrong

[Anonymous No.16809079]

>>16809059
>he doesn't even understand why this sentence is hilariously dumb

[Anonymous No.16809088]

>>16809075
I'm off to read something of value, try to cope with your inadequacy brainlet.

[Anonymous No.16809093]

>>16809079
see >>16809075

[Anonymous No.16809099]

>>16809088
I guarantee you'll be back again

[Anonymous No.16809120]

>pause
> Think.
>pause
He thinks he’s an iconoclast AWWWWWW lol

[Anonymous No.16809128]

>>16808813
I haven't been concerned w it until I understand how those 4 are in an equivalent relationship w each other and how a monism is deductively implied off that.

[Anonymous No.16809130]

>>16808813
>>16808855
>>16808989
Ok so after flippantly dismissing this I decided to read some more so I could tell you to eat shit. First of all learn how and when to use apostrophes. "Mysticism’s" is completely wrong, and even using its plural form is questionable in this instance. Overall your writing is clunky, straddling a tone of familiarity and high-mindedness that is like a bad impression of a bad translation of Nietzsche, and sometimes you border on incoherent. Seriously dude, you write like you've never spoken English in your life. "Are you of familiarity of the dog?" What the fuck is that? You say there's disarray in academia, but your writing completely lacks discipline. Edit your shit if you want anyone to take you seriously, motherfucker. I was going to read the whole thing but I can't force myself to read this garbage.

[Anonymous No.16809146]

>>16809128
They've got equivalent relationship with each other because they're all dependent on each other, the result of one effects the other, that is how they are equal

To know the answer to one you have to know the answer to all, as you have to answer all questions at the same time, making the answers to them unknowable

[Anonymous No.16809149]

it’s like a character from GTA wrote this

[Anonymous No.16809160]

>>16809130
Hey, don't forget there's two of us faggot, I'm not humoring him.

[Anonymous No.16809165]

>>16809130
>Are you of familiarity of the dog?
Well, are you, anon? Stop dodging the question!

[Anonymous No.16809174]

>>16809146
How is metaphysics eq to philosophy of language? Phol takes ontological axioms. Those are asymmetric relationships.

[Anonymous No.16809175]

>>16809130
you missed one >>16809099
I'm flattered that after going to "read something of value" you decided to read my work!
Anyway's, you've got an amazing ability - the ability to still understand someones work, even with grammatical errors! Oh you are a little clever clogs!
Anyway, I'd love to see your Hegel essay, I've been eagerly awaiting it!

[Anonymous No.16809177]

>>16808813
Just out of curiosity, how old are you and what do you do?

[Anonymous No.16809179]

That’s pretty funny OP

[Anonymous No.16809182]

>>16809149
see >>16808855

[Anonymous No.16809190]

>>16809160
see >>16809160
Sorry man, most replies are probably just going to be what I've already written, your buddy beat you to the top reply

[Anonymous No.16809196]

It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever I’m sorry for your mom
Dumb op

[Anonymous No.16809211]

>>16808813
Honestly I think you should read more essays; the writing isn't great and shrouds whatever points you are trying to make. There are many grammatical mistakes and the style is outdated and amateurish.
If this the first philosophical essay you've written, then you could certainly have done worse. I would take the thread replies to heart and try to seriously criticize your own writing more. Here's a short list of books that I think would benefit you:
The Elements of Style (improve your presentation)
The Only Grammar Book You'll Ever Need (understand grammar at a professional writer's level)

[Anonymous No.16809218]

>>16809175
I'm not the guy who went to read something of value lol. I haven't written a "Hegel essay" you annoying retard, and I do not need to have written anything to recognize that this is bad. You can't think, you can't write. Fucking accept it already and practice your craft before you waste your time formatting a bunch of trash as an e-book.

>Anyway's
Wait a sec, am I being trolled?

[Anonymous No.16809219]

>>16809165
I am indeed! I hope you are too, if you were not, I'd find it very concerning...

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16809224]

>>16808813
wow he really did it. audio book was a great move desu, britbong accents give anything said about 50% more credibility

[Anonymous No.16809227]

>>16809174
They're all related in the sense that their outcomes effect each other

[Anonymous No.16809231]

>>16809190
No problem friend, just think how dumb average /lit/ poster is and let it sink in that they all collectively laughed at your idiocy. Then take whatever constructive criticism there is in this thread and do nothing with it, because you're hilariously convinced of your "brilliance" despite all the evidence.

[Anonymous No.16809236]

>>16809177
Not going to lie, that's a pretty strange question anon...

[Anonymous No.16809240]

>>16808813
Lmao that’s hilarious
Get a life dude

[Anonymous No.16809246]

>>16809179
You didn't even read it? Aww man... was it the "Let us start at the start, eh?" bit?
Seems to scare a lot of people off, who would've thought of it!

[Anonymous No.16809248]

That was really bad ngl

[Anonymous No.16809251]

>>16809196
I'd like to know why it doesn't make sense, if you wouldn't mind

[Anonymous No.16809253]

>>16809033
Well, reading lots of philosophy and seriously thinking about what you read is how to become a good philosopher; no one thinks of things in a vacuum, and even plato was responding to the preceding two centuries of greek philosophy. There's a reason most serious philosophy is published by Phds, you really need to work at understanding other peoples' thought for a decade to come up with good ideas yourself.

You're the guy who said all questions needed to be answered with another question and concluded there was a higher being right? I'm assuming you are from the frogposting and I won't bother with your audiobook, but your skepticism and conclusion about a higher being reminded me of Descartes.

[Anonymous No.16809258]

>>16809211
Thanks for the advice man!

[Anonymous No.16809268]

>>16809218
Oh c'mon pal, don't lie to us who you are, I don't mind your criticisms, and its okay if you haven't written anything, what kind of philosophy do you like?

[Anonymous No.16809273]

>>16809246
Having a "le funny relatable intro" shows insecurity in your own writing. It's basically saying "I'm going to start off my big think paper with a joke so you know that whatever I say after shouldn't be taken seriously"

[Anonymous No.16809284]

>>16808813
>i cant convince my parents
tell me this is a joke lmao
and u can just quit now your philosophy is trite and your prose is trying and pretentious without any skill or intellect. Its bad its real bad my guy
Ive written schizo posts better than this trash

[Anonymous No.16809295]

>>16809224
I'm glad it was worth the rate, and I hope it cleared up any issues you had with it lat night (if you did, can't tell who you are)

Oh and of course, the britbong accent really does bring some truth to what I'm saying, thank you!

[Anonymous No.16809307]

>>16809231
I'm glad we're now pals!
What do you like about /lit/?

[Anonymous No.16809312]

>>16809240
>get a life
>is on 4chan
We're all on the same boat anon, we're all on the same boat...

[Anonymous No.16809324]

>>16809248
Can you tell me why, if you don't mind me asking?

[Anonymous No.16809327]

>Let's start at the start

[Anonymous No.16809333]

>>16809268
Not lying, I'm not that other guy. I like Nietzsche, Adorno, some of what Sartre has to say. I'm skeptical of anyone who says they like or actively enjoy the ancient philosophers or autistic obscuritans like Hegel. To me, that's the stuff you read because it's foundational, not because anybody actually likes it.

[Anonymous No.16809345]

>>16809253
Another anon from my last thread, hello!
I can't remember saying it proved a higher being, more a hypothetical higher power would be the only one would could be able to have answers for these questions
As for your main statement, all I can say is that I disagree (something the essay should've covered) but its been great talking to you

[Anonymous No.16809356]

>>16809273
see >>16808855

[Anonymous No.16809364]

>>16809284
see >>16809324

[Anonymous No.16809366]

>>16809227
That doesn't make them an eqr. Even still it doesn't discern why they are an eqr besides just asserting "they affect each other" means they are. Correlations are affected by each other but that doesn't make them in an eqr. Causation affects another, it doesn't make them in an eqr

[Anonymous No.16809373]

>>16809327
see >>16808855

[Anonymous No.16809376]

>>16809364
He did tell you why

[Anonymous No.16809382]

>>16808813
Damn dude are you gonna kill philosophy and science yourself?
You could be the next Nietche

[Anonymous No.16809383]

>>16808855
>essay's
lmfao

[Anonymous No.16809385]

>>16809333
Thats an interesting view, why do you think no one actually likes the Ancients?

[Anonymous No.16809391]

>>16809324
Nigger

[Anonymous No.16809393]

>>16809366
Well thats just another way to phrase it, it still ends up with the same result

[Anonymous No.16809398]

>>16809373
I'm not going to seriously read something called "The Death of Science, Philosophy and Truth". Sorry OP

[Anonymous No.16809401]

>>16809376
Ah he just said it wasn't intellectual which I can't really argue against as its just subjective

[Anonymous No.16809416]

>>16809382
Your boy's on it

>although I did more hope that I would divorce them, killing them sounds way cooler

[Anonymous No.16809421]

>>16809383
see >>16808855

[Anonymous No.16809429]

>>16809391
Aww shit man, you got me

[Anonymous No.16809439]

>>16809398
First the opening now the title!
Really not having a good day...

[Anonymous No.16809443]

>>16808813
This is /lit, so I hope you weren’t expecting most of the comments to be about the actual ideas discussed in your essay. You knew what you were getting when you came here. Your writing style sucks, even if it’s more tolerable in listening form, but that’s what most of these comments will be about anyway. Your idea that a new renaissance of philosophy is predicated on epistemology, metaphysics, logic, and the philosophy of language is interesting, if my frantic speed reading has me understanding it right. Seems like you would have to lean on either of the three other categories to argue the validity of the fourth, leading to a kind of spiral whereas the epistemology is bolstered by logic and logic is justified by metaphysics. So you’d just end up lost in circular reasoning without ever proving the validity of anything. You can only argue for the validity of epistemology by resorting to arguments based on logic and so on.

[Anonymous No.16809491]

>>16809443
Man, I'm really glad you enjoyed it! Your kind of on the right lines, its more about divorcing philosophy and science, which I guess does include focusing on those four branches of philosophy so you're basically right.
You're right on the money my guy, well done

>this is /lit/
I know it is but I find /his/ to be formal /pol/ where everything leads back to racism at some point, which has nothing to do with my theory, but maybe I'll post it there soon, thanks for the advice!

[Anonymous No.16809536]

>>16809356
Your ideas are only as good as how you present it. If you consistently lose people on the first sentence then maybe you should rethink that first sentence, you don't need to be a philosopher to comprehend that, although clearly you are not.

[Anonymous No.16809539]

>>16809421
See deez nutz you bitch

[Anonymous No.16809556]

>>16809536
I just think people are lazy and if they can't even read a 24 paged essay then I think its them who should be concerned about their philosopher status
also see >>16809324

[Anonymous No.16809563]

>>16809539
see >>16809429

[Anonymous No.16809565]

>>16809491
You're audience should not be "right on the money" as that means you expect them to have one reaction and every other reaction is wrong. You weren't looking for criticism, you we're looking for people to just accept what you say and agree with you with little conflict. That's a bad mentality that will lead you to continuous mediocrity in both your writing and your ideas.

[Anonymous No.16809590]

>>16809556
Ok, so imagine a homeless guy hands you an essay he wrote titled "God, Man, and the Scientific Method" and says that he's revolutionized philosophy. But it's written in sharpie on a bunch of irregularly-sized pieces of cardboard, and there are multiple spelling and grammar errors on every page, and there are occasionally sentences that make little or no sense — not because they're complicated, simply because the syntax is so fucked up. His ideas are fine but nothing revolutionary, and his pomposity coupled with the amateurish execution of his essay makes him seem like a clown without any self-awareness. You are that homeless guy.

[OP No.16809596]

>>16808813
Your writing is all over the place dude. The first page is hard to follow and borders on being incoherent. I'm going to keep reading because I hate myself and don't value my time, but if you're starting your essay this way, I have to ask myself two things:
1) Is he an idiot who doesn't know how to express himself?
2) Is he an idiot who doesn't know have a coherent argument?
3) Is he a sophist who is attempt to obfuscate his ideas?

Additionally,
"Perhaps it was wise for men of different tastes to the Roman Empire to change the views of the commoners through religion, a God who would lock up the bad in a place of despair and anguish is quite the motivator of moral good."
is an extremely flawed premise. Christianity wasn't particularly revolutionary, which is why it spread so quickly. It is a mixture of different Hellenic philosophies, with Stoicism being the most prominent (See the begin of John's gospel, where God is literally called the Λογοσ), grafted onto Jewish folklore. The revolutionary thing about Christianity was the denial of the Roman emperors' divinity.

[Anonymous No.16809599]

>>16809556
They owe you nothing, dumbass. Every writer has to acknowledge that nobody owes you a read. You get read by pulling readers in, and you did the opposite. It doesn't matter how good your philosophy is if you are shit at presenting them. Nobody will be your "philosophical" equal if nobody gives a shit about you or your ideas, and if this essay is all you have to show, then I am a better philosopher by default because I wrote some pretentious thing in High School, because at least my English teacher read it, which is more then you can say.

[Anonymous No.16809607]

>>16809565
some guy called me a nigger >>16809391 and I don't particularly know how to counter that one with my theory...
When I said you were "right on the money" I meant that you actually read it and understood the theory, which is very rare from what I can see...

[Anonymous No.16809624]

>>16809393
An asymmetric relationship is entierly different from an eqr.
It's like saying f(x) = 2x is the same as x = 2 (so y is 4 in the asymmetric relationship through the image of the function f while x is 2).
There's nothing it can apply to

[OP No.16809628]

>>16809596
Also, your writing style is extremely tedious to read, especially your syntax. You phrase things oddly. It reads like someone who has read complex, well-structured prose and wants to imitate it, without understanding the basics of composing complex, well-structured prose.

[Anonymous No.16809636]

>>16809590
>>16809590
>His ideas are fine but nothing revolutionary
If this is meant to be a representation of my ideas, I'd still like to know why its not revolutionary
Also see >>16809175
(the bit about the grammatical errors is for you, ignore everything else)

[Anonymous No.16809642]

>>16809556
>if they can't even read a 24 paged essay
No sane person will do this unless you give them a reason to. There are more philosophical papers around than we could read in a lifetime, and most of them contradict each other. If you don't toss readers something that looks promising, no one will read it. That's the harsh truth.

[OP No.16809643]

>>16809596
>>16809628
Sorry to nitpick like a woman btw.

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16809649]

>>16809556
>I just think people are lazy and if they can't even read a 24 paged essay
I warned you, OP.
I warned you, and now I've come to tell you that I told you so.

[Anonymous No.16809659]

>>16809596
I get you man, but I guess you could say this is my "unique philosopher writing style" like how Plato wrote in dialogue
(Unfortunately less impressive)
As for the rest, the theory and what I say after the intro is only loosely connected to the intro, as the intro was more of foreshadowing what the conclusion to my paper was, more then it was a a comment on Christianity

[Anonymous No.16809662]

>>16809443
Pretty much this is what I was saying but more formally here >>16809624
It is messed up at the core and has no applications. It has to be formalized at least a bit. You can't make a philosophy entierly on your intuitions. It needs to be universally applicable

[Anonymous No.16809674]

>>16809659
You're full of shit

[Anonymous No.16809675]

>>16809649
Then contradict my point. I haven't read anything and saw issues just w his infographic regarding the relationships >>16809624

[Anonymous No.16809677]

>>16809599
I guess so, but if you're going to spend this time to call me a dumbass, you could just read the paper thats under 4000 words

[Anonymous No.16809690]

>>16809677
I haven't read it and I do try to look past grammar errors but until there's an answer to the contradiction in order it's not going to mean anything

[Anonymous No.16809697]

>>16809624
Are you one of those analytical "philosophers" that I talked about...
Anyway man, just tell me if whatever you're talking about reaches a different conclusion because then that needs addressing

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16809699]

>>16809675
If you think my pic related doesn't apply to you then I see no reason to refute you on anything.

[Anonymous No.16809703]

>>16809628
Its all good man, I dont mind the criticism

[OP No.16809706]

>>16808813
Just finished chapter 1. Skimmed it actually; I don't need a refresher on Platonic forms. If you are going to use the idea of Platonic forms as a premise in your argument, you open yourself up to counterarguments to the idea of Platonic forms, which isn't a bad thing. I'm just warning you that there are not a few people who would reject this premise and so not consider your argument sound.

[Anonymous No.16809708]

>>16809642
I guess, I was hoping that people knew how to skip to the theory at the end though if they found it that bad

[Anonymous No.16809712]

>>16809649
>tripniggering
>this epic comment i made is so good im gonna screenshotand use it later
kill yourself
tie the noose and kick the stool you pathetic excuse of Homo sapiens

[Anonymous No.16809721]

Your style is not engaging OP.

[Anonymous No.16809728]

>>16809649
Oh anon, how happy it makes me to know I have a friend against all of this hate!

[Anonymous No.16809730]

>>16809624
Let me rewrite this math in your framework so you have the beginnings of a math interpretation, hell existentialism has a math interpretation in intuitionist logic.
f(x) = 2x | f(x) = x
This would be like making 2x = x making x = 0
Let's try another
f(x) = 3x + 1 | f(x) = x
3x + 1 = x, 2x + 1 = 0, x = -1/2

So you make these equivalent to each other but now you can't work in 2 dimensions. So calculus, trig, algebra etc aren't even possible in your system by denying an eqr of eqr and asymr

[Anonymous No.16809732]

>>16809662
You do understand that I was arguing that none of these can be answered, right?

[Anonymous No.16809743]

>>16809674
see >>16809033

[Anonymous No.16809744]

>>16808813
OP, I started writing about a year ago. When I started, my writing was pretentious, albeit creative. Self-indulgently, I'll add that I've been complimented on my writing ability quite frequently as of late. You might experience something similar— so long as you keep writing and reading and writing and reading. You'll improve.

[Anonymous No.16809746]

>>16809697
Sure >>16809730

>>16809699
I'm engaging w it fruitfully. Ppl engage w crap they disagree w all the time. That's how things work. Your picrel is garbage

[Anonymous No.16809754]

>>16809732
>here's my philosophy guys
>nothing can be solved
Into the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.16809757]

>>16809690
What contradiction?

[Anonymous No.16809758]

I will not bother to read the content. That said, I hated your first sentence and you need an editor to fix grammar and language mistakes.

[Anonymous No.16809768]

>>16809757
I answered it here >>16809730
I mean you already said the basis of your philosophy is that everything contradicts so may I take your philosophy as contradicting as well?

[Anonymous No.16809767]

>>16809706
Make sure you're read all of it, I dont actually know why I'm writing this because you would've probably already read it but me explaining platonic forms is to show what philosophers used to strive for, truth, but dont anymore

[Anonymous No.16809774]

>>16809758
>I will not bother to read the content
lit in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.16809777]

>>16809721
I've heard it man, just skip to the back of the essay with the theory

[Anonymous No.16809779]

>>16809774
Yes nobody reads anything here. Get

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16809783]

>>16809712
Hook, line, sinker, fishing rod, fisherman and boat.

>>16809746
Good on you. Intellectual honesty is good.

[Anonymous No.16809788]

>>16809777
No your theory is crap.
>these things contradict because they're equivalent
How does that make any sense?
>therefore God
What? I'm a Christian, I wrote my own cosmological argument.

[Anonymous No.16809789]

>>16809730
I dont really know where you're going with all of this method but I am trying to prove nothing can be known

[Anonymous No.16809792]

>>16809744
see >>16809728
seem's I've got two now!

[Anonymous No.16809794]

>>16809783
He's arbitrarily asserting these 4 are equivalent then saying they are not and because they are not God exists, or something exists.

Cats are dogs
But dogs are not cats
Therefore God.

Literally how

[Anonymous No.16809802]

>>16809754
If you read the essay you would know why you should care, I'll see you another day, scientist

[Anonymous No.16809803]

>>16809789
Yes asserting eqr are actually contradicting without resolving the contradiction is absurd.

>nothing can be known
How did you grace us w this knowledge o divine one?

[Anonymous No.16809816]

>>16809758
God damn Grammarly told me everything was perfect

[Anonymous No.16809820]

>>16809802
I'm a metaphysician. You are not.
You can't assert four things are equal then try to prove they contradict. They're not an eqr then. You've already fucked up at the first step.
Yes putting those 4 in an eqr makes them contradictory. How that follows nothing exists nobody knows (apparently you're saying nobody can know).
It's garbage and that you're not fruitfully engaging w me is informative.

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16809837]

>>16809794
You're probably better off directing your arguments toward the guy you're trying to convince.

[Anonymous No.16809839]

>>16809768
Yes

[Anonymous No.16809842]

>>16808813
I honestly can't understand a single point you are trying to make.

[Anonymous No.16809845]

Has anyone ever thought about how gold implies aliens?
Well it doesn't imply aliens, bet you didn't know (here's my proof).
Therefore nobody can know whether aliens can exist. Bet you didn't see that coming.

[Anonymous No.16809851]

>>16809774
How does one know of such truth?

[Anonymous No.16809859]

>>16809837
You came in here accusing everyone of being disingenuous. You can at least engage in the subject-matter or you're doing precisely what you're accusing others of.

>>16809839
So this is a troll?

[Anonymous No.16809862]

>>16809820
Get im boss

[Anonymous No.16809881]

>>16809788
I tell you, please explain to me the metaphysics of the universe while I also believing that you cannot know anything
>the only possibility of answers coming from an omniscient being
I thought /lit/ was good with words, my theory has nothing to do with God, the world possibility suggests that answers could only come from a hypothetical God, but that doesn't mean that this God exists

[OP No.16809891]

>>16808813
>>16809842
same. I gave it a try. This is genuine pseudo-intellectual drivel.

"What I had just described in Chapter 1 is what we would
now call Rationalism, belief that truth can only be found
from within, not with a measuring cylinder and
stopwatch. I hear you detest, but Jarvis, you are not
familiar with friction’s ability to create fire? Do you deny
what has brought your species so far?

Oliver Jarvis

8
Of course I do not, we simply have a different definition
of truth.
Truth, in a scientific sense, is an approximation. Let us
say that you do rub those pieces of wood together and
make a fire, how do you know that the friction made the
fire? There were no other factors, were there not?"

Into the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.16809896]

>>16809794
see >>16809881

[Anonymous No.16809906]

>>16809881
I'm just not sure one, how you know nobody can know anything and two, how this relates at all to anything. Have we not developed the internet in your head?
Do you mean we can't know anything completely but only in partial bits? Everyone knows that w epistemic uncertainty.
I'm really not sure where to start but saying something is equivalent then proving it's not means it was never equivalent to begin with so your argument can't even start on those grounds.

[Anonymous No.16809912]

>>16809803
The fact is, you can't answer one without answering the other, I don't know where you've got these ideas of "contradictions" from
>How did you grace us w this knowledge o divine one?
I don't know, have you heard of Zeno's paradox of motion?

[Anonymous No.16809916]

>>16809896
Maybe you have slow internet or something but you just posted that while mine was posted awhile ago and I've written after that.

[Anonymous No.16809929]

>>16809820
What are you doing talking about maths? Did you miss interpret the diagram? It's just lines representing connections between the questions...

[Anonymous No.16809934]

>>16808813
Dude, i'm gonna type as sober as possible, that honestly looks fucking pathetic and disgusting. and I'm being one hundred percent serious. you're a fuking joke dude, and im dead fuking serious. gert areal family that cooks good food, drinks beer and wine and winecoolers and has a good fuking time, and has a milliondollar house on the beach, im seriously.. dont eever potst your fuking poverty essay on this board ever the fuk again bro, and by bro i mean never my bro, fuking phaggot.

[Anonymous No.16809939]

>>16809912
What does zeno's paradox have to do w you knowing that we dk besides paradox?

Yes they are connected but asymmetrically, not equivalently.

I'm done I fruitfully engaged. If you can't see any merit to others points then I advise you just keep reading.
I would start w Theatetus by Plato in regards to knowing that you can't know anything

[Anonymous No.16809940]

>>16809842
see >>16809777

[Anonymous No.16809948]

>>16809845
see >>16809881

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16809954]

>>16809859
>You came in here accusing everyone of being disingenuous.
I never intended to make an accusation, and "people on here" is a fairly vague descriptor to begin with. I was reminding OP that he ought to have expected getting dishonest responses, which I warned him of in his earlier thread. Furthermore I didn't claim not to be pretentious. I'm not engaging with OPs material, because true to the form of a /lit/izen I cannot be fucked reading another guy's brain vomit unless it specifically caters to my worldview (in which case it's based), or it rails agains it (in which case it's cringe).

[Anonymous No.16809960]

>>16809859
no?

[Anonymous No.16809974]

>>16809891
Dude, you missed out the best part, how could you cut everyone short like that?

[Anonymous No.16809985]

>>16809906
I've got no clue what you're going on about with the equivalent stuff but I recommend you read the whole of the essay, it will answer your questions

[Anonymous No.16810001]

>>16809934
see >>16809324

[Anonymous No.16810004]

i think most posters in this thread forgot that when trying to convince someone of their arguement or when trying to have a reasonable conversations, that you shouldnt be a complete jerk and aggressivly insult and demean the opponent. this shit reminds me of the quote "contrary to popular belief people love being told they're wrong" because it seems like most of you asshats genuinly believe that

[Anonymous No.16810009]

>>16809939
see >>16809985

[Anonymous No.16810021]

>>16810004
see >>16809728
We got another!

[Anonymous No.16810031]

>>16810004
Shut up idiot

[Anonymous No.16810098]

That’s a very niggerful writing by a huge niggerish fool
Good job nigger, never write again

[Anonymous No.16810136]

Not as much effort or as funny as Horia. Overall a disappointment. Sadly the overlap between the character traits of "willingness to share" and "inability to introspect or consider criticism" is demonstrated strongly by OP.

[Anonymous No.16810148]

>>16809974
Ah yes,
"So, now what does this have to do with Aristotle?
As a student of Plato, he had much to live up to. One
thing he could not get around his head though is these
peculiar forms; how does one have knowledge born
with them? (What we’d call innate knowledge). Instead,
he asked, what if everything was as it seems, none of
this confusing innate knowledge.
Well I’ll tell you; I do not know how Aristotle planned to
make the car without knowing what a car was.
He believed, that as many of us foolishly do, that we
learn the differences between things through school and
education. Ignoring the fact that there was a time before
school, this leads me to ask Aristotle if he was taught
about every animal and every breed of that animal and a
definition for every animal and what makes them a
breed not a different animal and... Actually, he would
also have to do this for every object! Imagine that, what
a lucky education Aristotle got!
Enough of my sarcasm, it is clear as day that Aristotle is
wrong. Yet, bad news spreads faster than good news
and soon, he is the talk of the town."

[Anonymous No.16810192]

This writing is quite niggerish, as my contemporary >>16810098 makes abundantly clear. I would like to state that your attitude, which borders on that of a nigger, can be determined clearly and solely through text as that of a spic or mestizo of some sort. You are quite an angry little fellow, Juan. I suggest you enter into your third year of English before attempting to write something of substance again. The writing mirrors that of a Brazilian attempting to replicate Portugese or an American attempting to write English. It is a poor Chinese-manafactured writing, one that has no soul or value. Please do attempt to write in a less spic-ish way, eh? Let's end right at the end.

[Anonymous No.16810252]

>>16809327
>Let's start at the start, eh?
FTFY

[Anonymous No.16810264]

>>16808813
>Being the bold fellow I am though, I will start this Renaissance with a theory that I invented, and hopefully the last thing we hear from philosophy, isn’t how it died.
Why do pretentiousfags do this?

[Anonymous No.16810273]

>>16808813
Didn't really understand the last chapter and what is the use of it but I liked the rest OP.
I agree with your ideas about why the Greeks were the greatest. They asked the right kinds of questions. The questions that would make life better for all. I agree with you in that we need to recapture this spirit if we are to "Make America Great Again"
Keep up the good work.

[Anonymous No.16810289]

>>16809728
If you only take advice from people wording it kindly you won't make it far in life

[Anonymous No.16810355]

>>16810004
>I would even allow myself to rank philosophers according to the quality of their laughing—up to those who are capable of GOLDEN laughter

[Anonymous No.16810363]

>>16810289
Also you should never ask the asshole of the internet for advice, you might end up with a skewed perspective.

[Anonymous No.16810394]

>>16810004
I can refute some one AND call them a grass eating dunderhead. It's an act of mercy so the retard can go "Ah, more add homonine."

[Anonymous No.16810496]

>>16809934
the most based post here in these last 24 hours

[Anonymous No.16811121]

>>16809728
I would have been a whole lot nicer had you not been a pompous cunt when people tried helping you at the start. You deflected criticism and when they do that you have to break their delusions

[Anonymous No.16811415]

>>16808813
Does the title mean "The death of science, [the death of] philosophy[,] and [the death of] truth" or does it mean "The death of science, [and] philosophy and truth?"

srs question

[Anonymous No.16811495]

>>16809934
how can OP ever recover?

[Anonymous No.16811533]

>>16808813
great job. i look forward to the next one

[Anonymous No.16811627]

>>16808813
Olvier buddy I'm going to be honest with you man, I hope you're not older than 18 and writing like this. God forbid you're in university and writing this for a grade. Is this philosophy or just for fun? Because if it's meant to be philosophy you need to find a more serious voice. You sound flippant and pretentious throughout this essay, and there a lot of errors in punctuation. Also, I can read to page 9 without finding a concrete thesis. That's an issue.

[Anonymous No.16811674]

>>16809401
>he thinks intellect is subjective
yes in a highly academic and overly ‘correct’ way of answering the question, but no in the sense of ‘everyone can understand if you have anything worth saying very early on and its all latent in the text’
The idea is that if you cant even string along a english sentence that compells the reader to finish it, ie a sentence with good momentum and fluency, you are so dumb that nothing philosophical could be of any validity

[Anonymous No.16811690]

>>16809491
U need to read a lot more
Newton considered himself a natural philosopher
Science triumphed over philosophg during the enlightenment, this is all common knowledge
Just because u just discovered it and wrote a poorly written schizo post, made a shitty youtube audiobook, and then finally shitted up this board with your shit, doesnt mean it has any intrinsic value
Also stop picking the one guy that likes it and recognize the sea of people that recognized it as utter dogshit
Listen buddy i did the same thing as you years ago, u gotta grow up sometime, we’re helping u

[Anonymous No.16812061]

>>16808813
So cringe, can't read this. (made the first 2 pages)

[Anonymous No.16812133]

>>16808813
Okay, I’ll say something nice first. I basically agree that the English speaking world would benefit from taking continental thought a bit more seriously. I also think that pointing out that the division between Plato and Aristotle prefigured the division between empiricism and rationalism, and that that division has something to do with the analytical/continental divide.

Your approach is interesting because it actually does bare a resemblance to a common method in continental philosophy, doing a ‘genealogy’ of a concept. Nietzsche and Foucault in particular were famous for this. Your essay looks like an attempt to do a genealogy on the idea of ‘truth’, in an effort to restore it to a more correct meaning it used to have but has since been lost.

That said, I think your project would benefit from really trying to flesh out all the details. Your account isn’t particularly historically accurate, nor is it really that rhetorically compelling.

As a lot of people have pointed out, your writing style needs work. Just cutting out all the little sarcastic lines, jokes etc and it would instantly be better.

The biggest gap in your historical account is that it just kind of skips over Kant, and post Kantian Idealism in general. Kant entirely changes the landscape of the empiricism vs rationalism debate by crushing both in the forms that existed in his day. I can’t overstate how important Kant is to the history of philosophy, and any history that skips him is making a huge mistake.

Also I want to specifically dispute your description of Wittgenstein’s reason for rejecting metaphysics. His rejection comes from his philosophy of language. For him the meaning of words are defined in their usage, by convention. These are what he calls ‘language games’. For Wittgenstein all metaphysical problems that philosophers have try to deal with are the result of taking concepts out of their normal language game and transplanting them into a game in which they don’t belong. Wittgenstein would argue that philosophical contemplation can never lead us to ‘answers’ about these problems because they arent really problems in the first place! At most our contemplation can help us understand the language games our speech is involved in, but never anything deeper about the world itself.

Anyways, thinking about the relationship between science and True knowledge is a great topic, and worth while thinking about. I’d just advise you to keep reading, and keep working on refining your idea.

[Anonymous No.16812195]

You write like a 19 year old schizo who thinks their intro to phil 100-level class has given them license to write like an incoherent love child between Fauerbach and Yuval Noah Harari.

I won't waste my time rebutting your ideas, but please take the time to do the leg work and properly learn about the history of philosophy and Christianity before writing so poorly about it.

Also take a few grammar classes. This shit is unreadable.

[Anonymous No.16812528]

Honestly, if I were OP and I posted my work on /lit/ and got shit on like this I think my day would be pretty ruined. Whenever I see threads like this where an Anon shows off some pretentious swill they made and /lit/ craps, farts, and poos all over them, while it's funny, I think that would destroy my self esteem pretty hard for a good week.

[Anonymous No.16812570]

Best (or should I say based) quotations from the essay of the most quotidian philosopher to ever besmirch us with such mirthful musings most bemuseful to the unblemished erudite German continental minds--aye ready to avert their attention from the scorching flames of that fire whose cause we shan't ever know called empiricism!

So I'll start at the start, eh:
>Let us start at the start, eh?
A brilliant hook to catch the nascent Platonic fish and save them from the Aristotelian shark.
>If we are to
strip away the mysticism’s around one man, we are to
see that he is a copy of men before him
A gnomic masterpiece detailing the perennial nature of man!
>You gasp, the Ancient Greeks! How have they,
consisting of a small population, changed the world!
And agast I remain! Tis the smallest mote with the greatest might!
>What be it with these Greeks?
The Greeks do be it from time to time. Magnifique maestro!
>Egypt is
the Nile and the Nile is Egypt
Tis an irrefutable syllogism--here is your truth nay-sayers.
>How is fire made? Why do things go down?
Even the Herculean pillars of science cannot withstand the shaking of your quake!
>Dear Plato, how you do make me smile!
Dear Jarvis, how you do emblazon my loins!
>To say that the world of forms is a simple theory is well,
audacious.
Tisn't simple at all to proclaim all human abstractions have metaphysical reality and need no further justification!
>Let us say you have a knife, what image does that put
into your mind?
Is this a dagger which I see before me,
The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee.
I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
This is the dagger of truth I seek to hold, dear Jarvis.
>You speak
of engines and exhausts but this was a time before the
car so you must not use those terms
How could I ever use such terms before flint, gilt, and falling apples! Pah, fool that I be!
> I have never seen someone shout “Elephant!”
when they see a three-legged horse, it must be
something different that makes it a horse.
So the sapient astrologus says!
>“I am but a simpleton, living a life of leisure” I hear you
say, “what does this have to do with me”?
How the simpleton errs, the erudite flourishes for the air exhaled by the enlightened man only chokes that of the ignorant.
O brilliant Jarvis, you kernel of fruition, you blossoming oak of unshakeable wisdom, beakon of light in a dark cave, O you shadow puppet teasing before my eyes the very depths of philosophical enquiry, you storming sea with waves lapping against the harsh shoals of England tell me O wise one whence came the angel of inspiration bearing the message, the new testament even, to you?

[Anonymous No.16813548]

>>16810098
see >>16808855

[Anonymous No.16813558]

>>16810136
see >>16809324

[Anonymous No.16813563]

>>16810148
Nice one

[Anonymous No.16813570]

>>16810192
see >>16809175

[Anonymous No.16813576]

>>16810264
You were only one page away from the theory, what a shame...

[Anonymous No.16813581]

>>16810273
Thanks anon

[Anonymous No.16813587]

>>16811415
the former

[Anonymous No.16813597]

>>16811495
see >>16809429

[Anonymous No.16813601]

>>16811533
see >>16813581

[Anonymous No.16813607]

>>16811627
see >>16809777

[Anonymous No.16813613]

>>16811674
Man, I was going to read what you had to say, but I didn't see a capital letter at the start of your reply, sorry

[Anonymous No.16813624]

>>16811690
Was going to read your reply, then I noticed you used "u" instead of "you", sorry anon, it's literally unreadable

[Anonymous No.16813636]

>>16812061
see >>16809777

[Anonymous No.16813642]

Why is it ALWAYS idiots with illusions of grandeur? Why can't they JUST focus on a simple, measurable, problem, issue, or concept? Why do they always HAVE TO ((solve)) it at the foundational level? And why do they always write like a PSEUD?

BECAUSE THEY FUCKING ARE.

>Let me shorten it down for you, we’ll call it the essence
>Let us start with Analytical Philosophy, who has a quite
famous fellow in, Wittgenstein.
>So, what do I propose? We must have a Renaissance and it must come from the inside - the English-speaking world.
>A fight for Continental Philosophy
>A fight for Rationalism
>A fight for Truth
>A fight for Philosophy
>Being the bold fellow I am though, I will start this Renaissance with a theory that I invented,

[Anonymous No.16813644]

>>16812133
see >>16813581

[Anonymous No.16813647]

>>16812195
>I won't waste my time rebutting your ideas
Seems like a very common theme...

[Anonymous No.16813648]

>>16809273
>It's just a prank, bro

[Anonymous No.16813650]

>>16812528
Anon, it's completely okay, none have them have disproved the theory so it's all okay in my book

[Anonymous No.16813654]

>>16812570
This but unironically

[Anonymous No.16813659]

>>16813642
So simple to disprove, you don't even have to disprove the theory

[Anonymous No.16813677]

>>16812570
You’re not intelligent and English is as much of a language as those shitty Caribbean pidgins

[Anonymous No.16813680]

>>16813642
EFLs have never produced any real philosophy, their language is unable to transmit statements about the world
No wonder they have produced a whole school out of analysing language LOL

[Anonymous No.16813703]

>>16810252
I'm not anyone in this thread, and what's FTFY

[Anonymous No.16813765]

>>16813703
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=ftfy&iie=1

[Anonymous No.16813774]

>>16808855
>HOW DARE YOU USE LANGUAGE THAT DOESN'T MEAN I HAVE TO GET A DICTIONARY OUT JUST TO READ IT
Cringy ESL.

[Anonymous No.16813795]

>>16813774
see >>16809324

[Anonymous No.16813922]

by expanding out philosophy to too many people, some will inevitably not understand and create a worse theory due to their inherent mental laziness. (...)
This is the rise and continued dominance of Empiricism.
>yfw confronted with the definition of Dunning-Kruger

[Anonymous No.16813937]

OP, you may solved philosophy. All the pseuds in here seething are in a death spiral. Good job. Could your next topic be the ethics of abortion laws in South America?

[Anonymous No.16813961]

>>16813937
This but unironically

[Anonymous No.16813969]

>>16813922
see >>16809324

[Anonymous No.16814056]

Some guy said your ideas were 'fine'. They are shit. What are those random statements on the last page even on about? What is the theory.

>As we are unable to know the answers to any of
these questions, it must follow that all knowledge is unknowable, as to answer any question would
require answers from these fundamental questions, which, as of being unknowable, also makes the original question unknowable
Is this the position you are supporting or refuting? You stated that you wanted the 'real truth' then say it's inconceivable? How does this relate to your questions on 'objective' wellbeing and purpose?
Anyways, there is a mention of 'common counter arguments' and I didn't find any mentions of contextual and theorem based 'philosophy' (in the broader sense) which Math (mentioned for some reason earlier in) is an example of btw.
Just state what your effing point is and cut all the incoherence.

[Anonymous No.16814078]

>>16814056
Its literally titled "Jarvis's Method Problem"...
supporting? Everything before was meant to show what we as philosophers are meant to strive for, of course I don't think that all philosophy should stop after my theory, but its an example of this truth based philosophy we should be doing
I know my theory is right, the only issue people had with it was that "there was no point", which I've explained in my essay, is the whole point

[Anonymous No.16814091]

>>16808989
your*

[Anonymous No.16814101]

>>16814078
Would you say your philosophy can be summarized with you having no point but knowing this absence to be true?

[Anonymous No.16814108]

>>16814101
In other words, that this is not philosophy but some kind of literary joke?

[Anonymous No.16814160]

>>16814091
>see >>16809175

[Anonymous No.16814166]

>>16814101
no? I don't know what you're going on about, can you disprove my theory or not?

[Anonymous No.16814186]

Wow OP stop being a nigger

[Anonymous No.16814196]

>>16814166
I first would need to know what exactly your theory is. It is not stated explicitly anywhere, there are just random incoherent references and a list of statements which I have already provided a string counter argument for here >>16814056 (theorems).
Anyways, if I was a teacher that would get you a barely passing, as I would think of it as a joke.

[Anonymous No.16814209]

>>16814186
see >>16809429

[Anonymous No.16814216]

>>16808813
>continental philosophy vs analytical philosophy
>continental philosophy
>a real thing
It’s clear you haven’t even opened the SEP once

[Anonymous No.16814217]

I can never tell if this is actually posted by the lolcow or if someone in their class recognizes this shit for what it is.

[Anonymous No.16814218]

>>16814196
It's a paradox...

[Anonymous No.16814225]

>>16814216
see >>16809324

[Anonymous No.16814266]

>>16808813
>21 page introduction to a thesis that’s two pages along with one image and seven bullet points that are not barely, but not developed at all
Wow, sasuga /lit/ards
Your bulllet two is unproven to the point of absurdity, and everything else falls apart from there. And even if you manage to prove bullet two (it’s not that hard), you are three hundred years late on the subject of epistemology, the scarcity of sure knowledge is as novel as steam engines
Try reading Descarte (in a real language, such as the Neo-Latins, English is a pidgin and will distort it) and then some SEP entries, though you’ll likely be unable to

[Anonymous No.16814275]

>>16814225
I’ve just told you. It’s not a real thing, you anglx-kike
Good thing you wretches are being genocided by shitskins
Good fucking riddance

[Anonymous No.16814279]

THREAD CLOSED
OP is a sophomore pseud.
His theory is a paradox (and he tries to prove the circularity of questions by referring to the same unrelated questions over and over without providing substantial answers. TAKE THAT philosophers.
I repeat
THREAD CLOSED

[Anonymous No.16814303]

>>16814266
>the scarcity of sure knowledge is as novel as steam engines
You can't even refute my argument, you're just upset that I like a philosophy that you don't like

[Anonymous No.16814321]

>>16814275
Still can't disprove my theory

[Anonymous No.16814325]

>>16814279
Oh no guys, the scientist is closing down the thread, maybe he wants to talk about the trolly problem instead!

[Anonymous No.16814342]

>>16814325
see >>16813922

[Anonymous No.16814343]

>>16808813
This obvious bait-post gets 200+ replies on this board. Fuck. What happened?

[Anonymous No.16814348]

>>16814343
Covid, people are bored

[Anonymous No.16814376]

>>16814342
see >>16809429

[Anonymous No.16814384]

>>16814303
I don't need to, everybody agrees with your twisted dumb argument in a twisted way, to make it the right way. You are centuries late to this chat, nigger

[Anonymous No.16814387]

>>16814343
>op writes an entire essay
>hey guyse i figured op out hes baiting!
you're not an oldfag, tourist

[Anonymous No.16814391]

>>16814343
>bait-post
>no one can disprove me

[Anonymous No.16814396]

>>16814384
>I don't need to
you've now admitted twice that you have argument against me!

[Anonymous No.16814405]

>>16814396
Good job, nigger. How much weed is your brother smoking?

[Anonymous No.16814459]

>>16814405
You see, I was going to reply, but then I realized that you don't have a full stop at the end of your last reply, so I'm just incapable of understanding

[Anonymous No.16814492]

>>16808813
Read it for yourself man, It is a a painful experience with all these mistakes. Plus after each paragraph i expect you to show up in my room and give me a proper blowjob. Your writing is trying so hard to establish an uneeded intimacy between you and the reader. Why? It is boring, not funny at all. The writing is so banal, the monotony of it leaves me completely apathetic in front of my screen. Taking my eyes off the screen it simply infuriates me. READ IT FOR YOURSELF YOU DUMB FUCK, WHY YOU ASK US TO READ YOUR SHIT WHEN YOU CLEARLY DIDNT BOTHER. Reading your work is a proper and constant kicking in the head.
I had to get it out, now i am somewhat calm.
Also your knowledge on the Greeks is equal to a guy who read 37 articles from google and now he is trying, that generous soul is really trying to share with us his wisdom. There is nothing profound in this essay, it is just a collage of those 37 articles.
You speak of academia's dissaray, but in all our dissaray i wonder who do you think would take this work seriously? You are not smart and you sound like a guy who has nothing to say but desperately needs an audience.
Hope you are pretty though. If you are pretty, there is a chance you can make through instagram.
Don't give up though, just delete this and rewrite it. No matter how much and who edits this shit cant be saved. You write like a proper zoomer, so you have plenty of time till your 50s. Give it the proper amount of time and effort.

[Anonymous No.16814512]

>>16814492
see >>16809777

[Anonymous No.16814535]

>>16814512
I wasted my time on a bait, good luck with the rest of your life.

[Anonymous No.16814540]

OP's essay reminds me of this classic dialogue

[Anonymous No.16814548]

>>16814535
I just wanted to talk about the theory man, I liked your advice...

[Anonymous No.16814571]

>>16814548
People have already, but you are a little nigger

[Anonymous No.16814572]

>>16814343
Maybe OP's thesis and essay is this contentious because he is onto something? If I posted that the sky is blue no one would respond to me.

[Anonymous No.16814589]

Usually in philosophy it’s seen as pretty crass to actually name something after yourself. Typically people will give a more descriptive name to something they do, and then other philosophers who talk about your thing might name it after you. For example, Edmund Gettier asked ‘Is justified true belief really knowledge?’ and later philosophers call this The Gettier Problem.

[Anonymous No.16814594]

>>16814571
see >>16809099

[Anonymous No.16814600]

>>16814572
Right on the money

[Anonymous No.16814652]

>>16814572
People on /lit/ are too nice. They try to help even when they shouldn't.

[Anonymous No.16814660]

>>16814548
Your so called "theory" is tilting me, most importantly how lightly you use the word Renaissance. The implications on a historiographic level are out of your grasp. It sounds like you wanted to write "rebellion". You are trying so hard to sound smart and that makes your writing even worse. Stop being dellusional, judge yourself harsher than we do here, there is no other way around to overcome yourself.
Taking philosophy out of science is impossible. One of the main tasks philosophy has is creating the necessary vocabulary to express scientific ideas. You know nothing of history in general that be world''s history, philosophy's history, literature's history, you are just a toddler on a piece of wood trying to cross the ocean. Just know your place, that be the child's swimming pool. I don't know why i am still here, but take it as a sign of my good will towards you. Bottom line is you barely have any knowledge, you barely understand what you are asking for. Your essay is absurd, just like the logic you are talking about.
I said delete this essay but don't, use it as a tool to get laid. Maybe that would help you find some clarity. You are lacking on every aspect of that work you produced and this doesn't take more than 5 minutes of reading to become obvious.

[Anonymous No.16814678]

>>16814660
see >>16814303
you're not refuting me at this point, you're just upset we like different philosophies
and also see >>16809099

[Anonymous No.16814686]

>>16814678
Read the theory, OP
Huh? No, not THAT theory.
See >>16809670

[Anonymous No.16814690]

>>16814686
see >>16809099

[Anonymous No.16814691]

>>16808813
Holy cringe. All I needed to read was the first paragraph. please stop.

[Anonymous No.16814698]

>>16814690
https://www.wikihow.com/Keep-Your-Cool-when-You-Are-Criticized

[Anonymous No.16814702]

>>16808813
It's trash. Can't be bothered to provide further criticism. Happy to see a /lit/ thread which is actually active for once though

[Anonymous No.16814703]

>>16814678
I WILL REFUTE YOUR THEORY HERE:
Karl Popper
i.e. your "writing" and "philosophy" does not fulfill the criteria for refutable theory. --> case solved.

[Anonymous No.16814704]

>>16814691
see >>16809777

[Anonymous No.16814709]

>>16814698
see >>16809099

[Anonymous No.16814713]

>>16814678
In order to refute something it first has to be worhty of being refuted, your work doesn't. You have no particular philosophy, you use the dialectics of greeks and move from one topic to the other. The philosophy you think you have is the mix of Greek's ideas applied on the edgy spirit of a 18year old rebel who despises the current system but can't really tell why. Stop linking that diagram anyway, you only prove how dellusional you are. When you making a proper point that forces us to critically think on our own, even for a mere minute, then ask for our refutation. But know that it is the writer's duty to force the refutation, not the other way around. At your current state you are a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.16814715]

>>16814702
>can't be bothered to provide further criticism
still haven't seen anyone refute me yet...

[Anonymous No.16814720]

>>16814703
So you're a scientist? Interesting to know, if you read the essay and you still think this then I think you're in the wrong place anon

[Anonymous No.16814721]

>>16814713
finally. OP lost when he started using terminology of a shared understanding such as refuting. had he continued with his kindergarten level of responses we could not have resolved this puzzle

[Anonymous No.16814724]

>>16814715
Really, the best refutation of it is that it's bait

[Anonymous No.16814728]

>>16814713
Fancy way of saying
>YOU'RE JUST WRONG OKAY

[Anonymous No.16814733]

Worry not, friends. I have descended from the great hyperintellects beyond to refute OP. Here is the crux of the matter:
>Things exist

[Anonymous No.16814738]

>>16814721
see >>16814728

[Anonymous No.16814744]

>>16814724
see >>16814728

[Anonymous No.16814745]

>>16814733
Looks like someone started at the start, eh?

[Anonymous No.16814755]

>>16814733
>going to need some evidence for that

[Anonymous No.16814764]

>>16814745
see >>16809429

[Anonymous No.16814765]

>>16814724
I would say there are at least 2 aspects to it.
- the bait (the really bad and ignorant references to history of philosophy and the misusage of concepts, as well as the ridiculous style which has been addressed at length)
- the immanent contradictive statements in his so-called "theory" (using quotes to indicate the non-adherence to common understandings of theory) The non-applicability of theory (in common understanding of the term) created the confusion of refuting the "theory".

[Anonymous No.16814783]

>>16814720
maybe you start by defining science

[Anonymous No.16814785]

>>16814765
see >>16814720

[Anonymous No.16814786]

It is clear now that OP has left this thread. This young fella is now probably pondering on all these nice posts that anons made, offering him free of charge their knowledgable advices. Meanwhile a fucking wanter grabbed the chance and hijacked this thread pretending to be OP and baiting us all. If that is not a based anon, then i don't know what is based anymore.

[Anonymous No.16814789]

>>16814786
a post of clarity.

[Anonymous No.16814795]

>>16814783
>Truth, in a scientific sense, is an approximation
it's clear as day that you haven't read the essay, funny that, the essay is just too horrendous for you to read but you'll reply and reply and reply to me
I'll sum up your thoughts
>no I don't want to do the hard stuff, can we do the trolly problem again?

[Anonymous No.16814798]

>>16814786
Sounds pretty based. Did we get played, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.16814799]

>>16814785 see pic related >>16810394

[Anonymous No.16814804]

>>16814798
I did, admittedly.

[Anonymous No.16814812]

>>16814786
The best part is, by complaining about the 'terrible' theory, they're just keeping it on page 1 on the board

[Anonymous No.16814817]

>>16814804
NOOOOOOoooOooOooo
>slowly fading into the abbyss

[Anonymous No.16814826]

>>16814755
>>going to need some evidence for that

[Anonymous No.16814831]

>>16814795
I actually read the essay. And you're the one going on about trying to categorize the feedback as "science". Again missing the point. Just go back to school and come back a decade later hopefully more educated and more humble.

[Anonymous No.16814837]

>>16814826
see >>16814720

[Anonymous No.16814841]

>>16814831
see >>16809099

[Anonymous No.16814844]

>>16814831
If you want to refute science (and btw I see no reason of pitting science against philosophy), try it offing yourself, and please give feedback how close the approximation came to the real thing.

[Anonymous No.16814870]

>>16814844
There is no joke a part in the essay where I talk about this

[Anonymous No.16814871]

>>16813795
That sentence is ("HOW DARE blablah") is a disaster. I can only guess that you were trying to say something like "how dare you use difficult words that require me to use a dictionary".

[Anonymous No.16814887]

>>16814871
No, because I didn't use difficult words, you're implying that I did and therefore you need a dictionary to read my work.

[Anonymous No.16814903]

>>16814887
>you're implying that I did
how am I implying that I did, I just commented that the sentence "HOW DARE YOU USE LANGUAGE THAT DOESN'T MEAN I HAVE TO GET A DICTIONARY OUT JUST TO READ IT" is something that only someone with really poor grasp of English would write.

[Anonymous No.16814914]

>>16814903
Okay man, just don't read it then...

[Anonymous No.16814963]

>>16814786
OP is back apparently?

Let me use the opportunity to sum up the discussion
> op providing a text (if we can accept that the action of posting that link is fulfilling the defined (by humans, I have to state everything explicitly due to OPs demonstrated incapacity of understanding) criteria of what a text is. This applies to all further and prior usage of common words.
> people giving criticism on style
> people giving criticism on content or lack thereof
> inconclusive discussion of whether the text contains an argument and what it is
> neither the text nor the discussion have been able to state a provided argument so far (also called a "philosophy" by supposed OP)
> discussion on the refutability of the supposed argument and which standards would apply

As there is no substantial basis on how to evaluate the matter, I would suggest discourse ethics as a method to resolve this. Please google it yourself OP. (Habermas)

[Anonymous No.16814992]

>>16814963
>discussion on the refutability of the supposed argument and which standards would apply
Still can't find a single refutation, been called a nigger a couple times though, so I guess you should put that in your summary too

[Anonymous No.16815031]

>>16814963
2nd revision, thank you for helpful remarks by >>16814992

updated:
> op has been called a nigger (in a derogatory way) a couple of times
> op can't find a refutation
> non-ops can't find an argument to refute

[Anonymous No.16815041]

>>16808989
faggot

[Anonymous No.16815049]

>>16815031
Technically the 1st revision, 2nd edition

[Anonymous No.16815065]

>>16815031
see >>16809777

[Anonymous No.16815075]

>>16815041
see >>16809429

[Anonymous No.16815085]

>>16815075
See >>16815041

[Anonymous No.16815099]

This makes me not want to write

[Anonymous No.16815100]

[Anonymous No.16815105]

https://youtu.be/CWPo5SC3zik

[Anonymous No.16815107]

>>16815099
see >>16809429

[Anonymous No.16815116]

But what good would living do me

[Anonymous No.16815118]

God only knows what I'd be without you

[Anonymous No.16815132]

God only knows what I'd be without you.

[Anonymous No.16815148]

If you should ever leave me

[Anonymous No.16815154]

Well life would still go on believe me

[Anonymous No.16815162]

The world could show nothing to me

[Anonymous No.16815170]

So what good would living do me

[Anonymous No.16815176]

God only knows what I'd be without you

[Anonymous No.16815181]

God only knows

[Anonymous No.16815187]

>>16814992
>>16815031
I unironically refuted OP here >>16814733

[Anonymous No.16815191]

God only knows what I'd be without you.

[Anonymous No.16815194]

>>16814540
I’m much more interested in solving the mystery of whatever the fuck that autist was trying to say here than any abstract philosophical inquiry.

[Anonymous No.16815195]

>>16815187
see >>16814755

[Anonymous No.16815200]

>>16815195
See >>16814826

[Anonymous No.16815234]

>>16815200
see >>16814720

[Anonymous No.16815240]

Okay, let's put this thread and the young boy to bed. I will give you your so needed refutation if that is good enough to make you shut the fuck up and provide space for new threads to spawn on /lit/. But so you know, you should have thanked all of the previous anons, even those who called you a nigger instead of a retard who can't put together a proper sentence, IN HIS NATIVE LANGUAGE. Nigger.
So after the kind anon gave us a summary of what is going on i decided to figure what your point is, upon what ground that non existant theory of yours stand. Would that be the Jarvi's problem? Your youtube channel confirms that this is indeed the case. Five months ago the kid after intense google search and thinking grabbed a pen, a piece of paper, and decided to save the world from itself. Those marvel movies really fucked with his head, i bet he wore a cape when he drew the >pic related. My dear hero.
You suggest that each question should be answered with another question. First mistake. All those questions have plenty of good answers and i will give you my favorites.

>Do words have meaning?
There is a whole school of philosophy around this questions. And it is indeed a fine one. Short answer is Yes, they have meaning. Do they have only one meaning? No, a word depending on how and when it is used it can mean a lot of different things. Are these meanings static? No, they change through history. Words are meaningful and if they were not then why would you try to express yourself using them? If, i hear you say, it is a matter of expression, then please stick to drawing i really like those straight lines you drew.

>Can i know anything?
Yes you can know something but not everything. And even if you know something there is no guarantee that you know everything about that something. Our understanding of things is indeed limited, and it can only take us that far. The rest is a wild guess and those wild guesses distinguish true intellectuals from the niggers of your kind.

>Does logic exist?
Doesn't it exist? It exists, but the way you describe and try to apply logic is not making the term any justice. If logic was as absolute as people want to think, then there would be no space for emotional reactions. How many times did you act based on your emotions? Does that make you an absurd being? No, that just makes you a human. Logic can't be applied always. If it could, we would already have the perfect templates that dictate and predefine all action. (That last part is something that Dosto said, got to give him the credits).

>Does anything exist?
Yes, the only thing that doesn't exist is the idea you have for yourself and your "theory". As i said stick to the shallow waters of the pool, there, your feet will never have to leave the net of safety.

Please go to bed and take a sci fi novel with you.

[Anonymous No.16815251]

>>16815234
What do you mean by 'scientist'? You're the one asking for evidence that things exist, not me. If we go by methodology it would seem like I'm the philosopher here. Why do you presume you need evidence for your beliefs?

[Anonymous No.16815317]

>>16815240
Alrighty, assuming you're not an omniscient being, at some point you did not have answers to those questions, so, let us start at the start, eh?
You tried to answer the metaphysics question but unfortunately you ran into a problem, if the other questions (for example, the language question) was negative, then you'd have to answer that question first because how could you read the metaphysics question if language didn't have any meaning?
So off you go, on your lovely mental walk but what's this! If the epistemology question is negative, how could you know the answer, as you cannot know the answer if you can't know anything
You've cracked it! We just need to figure out this question then, oh, seems like if logic didn't exist, then how could you reason your epistemology question?
No matter, this must be the first question you answered but... oh no...
It seems as if to answer the logic question you have to answer the metaphysic question, because if that is negative, then how could you read the original question, it doesn't exist!
Looks like we've gone in a big circle, oh darn!

[Anonymous No.16815321]

>>16815251
I'm calling you a scientist because you assumed that things do exist, without any rationalist evidence

[Anonymous No.16815348]

>>16815240
There was a really good piece of spoken word poetry on empty signifiers on YouTube but I couldn't find it anymore :(

[Anonymous No.16815357]

>>16815321
>"rationalist"
>"evidence"
Do you not see the contradiction here? Your "method problem", which is just a less lucid version of the Münchhausen trilemma, actually argues FOR the use value of induction, inference and empiricism. From the outset belief is necessarily axiomatic, this is something that probably to your dismay the analytic philosophers, and especially Wittgenstein, tried to point out. That's why he calls metaphysics 'sinnlos', not because they're not true, but because assessing the truth of a metaphysic is nonsensical. I'll echo him on this:
>My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)
Please read a book, or at least the bare minimum of checking the wikipedia pages of the authors you're attacking.

[Anonymous No.16815362]

The Death of Sneed.

[Anonymous No.16815367]

>>16815357
see >>16814303
at this point you're just upset I'm using rationalism

[Anonymous No.16815378]

>>16815357
I like your reply. What is your educational background? Cheers.

[Anonymous No.16815411]

>>16815317
You are stubborn but to no surprise, it is a common attribute among your kind.
The whole post you wrote is based on that i had difficulty answering the metaphysic questions which i did not. I answered that question in a previous answer and saved that space to mock you and remind you of your stupidity. But you obviously need to be spoon feeded. I won't do that, go figure it yourself. I did more than anyone will ever do for you. Thank me. You are welcome.
Starting an arguement on a false premise is not wise and it saves me a lot of time but i pity you, so here we go again. Later you typed " if the other questions were negative", but the questions cant be negative and hence why words have meaning There is no circle, the circle you see is a creation of your poor imagination.
Questions can't be negative, questions are questions, the answers are either positive or negative but i don't like this explanation. There is no answer absolutely right or wrong. As i said, a part of our answers-knowledge is precognitive.

> if the other questions (for example, the language question) was negative

Btw, were negative*. Thank me again, You are welcome.

You also don't seem very eager to focus on what we are trying to tell you. And to begin with you are the one that came to us for help. Still writing in that moronic tone.

[Anonymous No.16815414]

>>16815378
I'm a STEMfag. True to form I'm autistically obsessed with logic problems. I don't have a formal philo education but it's what I tend to read on my off-time.

[Anonymous No.16815419]

Worst piss of garbage I’ve read in a while

[Anonymous No.16815438]

>>16815411
>but i don't like this explanation
see >>16814728
Sorry, I was going to reply but then I saw that you used a capital letter for "You" when it should be a normal letter, sorry this is literally unreadable

[Anonymous No.16815449]

>>16815419
see >>16809033

[Anonymous No.16815453]

>>16815411
I thank you not on behalf of OP but the wider community. You made a greater contribution to /lit/ than OP will ever do.

[Anonymous No.16815457]

>>16815453
see >>16815438

[Anonymous No.16815464]

>>16815457
what is grammar. can you believe it. (periods intended.)

[Anonymous No.16815480]

>>16815464
Sorry man, I was going to read your reply then realized it didn't start with a capital letter, it's literally unreadable anon.

[Anonymous No.16815515]

>>16815453
Thank you, but isn't this thread great? So far it made me laugh, it pissed me off, it made me start smoking again and it taught me of Münchhausen trilemma.
I think we should also be thanking the retard OP for bringing us together, even if that is under the roof of his shitpost.

[Anonymous No.16815540]

>>16815515
Still no refutation...

[Anonymous No.16815571]

>>16815540
And there will be none, because all refutations are, see >>16814728
But on a side note, how does life feel when you have no capacity to acknowledge and feel your own embarassments?

[Anonymous No.16815585]

>OP made a theory that is literally impossible to refute
Im shaking

[Anonymous No.16815597]

>>16815571
see >>16809099

[Anonymous No.16815599]

>>16815585
We are retards, thousands of years of human history are worthless, because OP realised that life as a whole moves in a circular motion. Instead of reading the Greeks, people should read Oliver, if they can make it through his aweful writing.

[Anonymous No.16815616]

>>16815585
see >>16815540

[Anonymous No.16815631]

>>16815457
No, you can't, now delete that trash and get a job

[Anonymous No.16815633]

>>16815599
Was going to reply, but unfortunately you spelt "awful" wrong so I'm literally incapable of reading it

[Anonymous No.16815637]

>>16815633
you're literally incapable of writing as well

[Anonymous No.16815645]

>>16815631
Was going to reply, but unfortunately you didn't use a period at the end of your sentence, it's literally unreadable.

[Anonymous No.16815710]

>>16815637
Was going to reply, but unfortunately you didn't use a capital letter at the start of your sentence, it's literally unreadable.

[Anonymous No.16815854]

>>16815540
I'd like to see some evidence that anons in this thread haven't refuted you.

[Anonymous No.16815875]

>>16815854
Just read the whole thread, if you can find some, ill refute it, if you can’t, well then I guess I was right

[Anonymous No.16815891]

>>16815875
No, you're the one making the claim that nobody's refuted you. If you want to stay true to your philosophy the burden of proof lies on you. Please provide evidence for the claim. If you can't, well then I guess I was right.

[Anonymous No.16815903]

>>16808813
>The Death of Science, Philosophy and Truth
Holy fuck just kys right now. If you're stupid enough to title anything published on 4chan that, you're a lost fucking cause.

[Anonymous No.16815905]

>>16815599
>he didn't start with the /lit/ posters

[Anonymous No.16815916]

>>16815891
Yeah okay buddy, do I need to prove to you that unicorns don’t exist too?

[Anonymous No.16815923]

>>16815903
It’s caused quite the stir up, I would love to see you do the same

[Anonymous No.16815928]

>>16815916
Yes, unless you want to admit that certain things do exist, in which case: >>16814733

[Anonymous No.16815967]

>>16815928
See>>16815540

[Anonymous No.16815974]

henceforth I think /lit/ should primarily a board for sharing our essays and original literature. posting about deleuze or socrates is old asf now. the board would get much more needed traffic if we wrote and critiqued our own material like based OP did

[Anonymous No.16815984]

>>16815974
See >>16813581

[Anonymous No.16815987]

OP refuses to give grounds for his cognitive dissonance, his silence being the admission. Everybody rejoice, for the beast has been slain. Tonight, we feast.

[Anonymous No.16815996]

>>16815987
See >>16814728