[ 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: 221 KB, 1024x890, F4D46B77-5D2B-4D96-8490-059308B43D0E.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19744633 No.19744633 [Reply] [Original]

I have not seen a single argument for anything that wasn’t either tautological or circular, and I don’t think it’s possible to make non-tautological or non-circular arguments. You either say something is true because it’s true or say that it’s true because other things make it true, but how would you know whether those other things are true or not? How would one test the validity of the truth without appealing to some divine authority inherent in the truth? How do you know that the truth is true? Heaven was the standpoint from which the earth used to be moved, but now that we have lost heaven, we have lost the authority of the truth.

>> No.19744697
File: 274 KB, 1002x1600, 1611776246482.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19744697

>>19744633

>> No.19744744

>>19744697
I see no way out and no way in

>> No.19744769

>>19744744
There isn't a way out. The trilemma shits on any claims to knowledge. To continue doing philosophy you just have to ignore it

>> No.19744776

>>19744633

Ultiamtely, yes. You must at some point assume some axioms and "proofs" of truth must come from those. Mathematics is completely fine with this. The po-mos are fine with this. Most physicists with any intuition for how quantum stuff can only really be modelled mathematically are usually fine with this. It is a feature of using logic. It doesn't mean you shouldn't use logic, it just means you should consider your set of axioms.

>> No.19744781

Note that assuming a set of axioms and working from them isn't the same as circular reasoning.

>> No.19744786
File: 70 KB, 480x608, op.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19744786

Will you fight, op? Or will you perish like a dog?

>> No.19744787

God

>> No.19744790

>>19744787
Same as reasoning from an axiom or brute fact

>> No.19744794

>>19744786

Greatest meme of all time

>> No.19744832
File: 19 KB, 274x400, main-qimg-90a652f6a5eb987949f2214fa1c91cee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19744832

>>19744633
what are you going to do about it, OP?

>> No.19744844

>>19744790
Yes, you need to read a lot more before posting about this

>> No.19744850

>>19744633
Godel on these nuts.

>> No.19744857

>>19744769
This is the same with mathematical axioms?

>> No.19744863
File: 1.57 MB, 942x960, perish like a dog.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19744863

>>19744786

>> No.19744868

>>19744857
Math doesn't have a problem with starting from arbitrary axioms. See the different non-Euclidean geometries without the parallel axiom. The interesting part of a mathematical proof is the steps taken after the axioms. Philosophy does have a problem with starting from arbitrary axioms

>> No.19744889

>>19744863
First time I see the full meme. Thanks, now I can perish like a dog!