/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7451032]

Ask a pure Empiricist anything

[Anonymous No.7451059]

how do you feel about "I am John von Dorf" as a modern exploration of empiricism?

[Anonymous No.7451065]

Empiricist? What does that mean?

[Anonymous No.7451067]

>>7451032
where does it hurt?

[Anonymous No.7451070]

Are you the most based philosopher ever?

What is the current state of ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, and political philosophy?

[Anonymous No.7451074]

>>7451032
How do you know that empiricism is true?

[Anonymous No.7451077]

>>7451032

how can causality be derived from experience when all experience gives us is pure succession?

[Anonymous No.7451084]

>>7451077
Thought experiment: Try deriving causality with a mind that has no experience

[Anonymous No.7451090]

>>7451059
I've never read it so I can't speak of it

>>7451065
All knowledge is derived from the senses.

>>7451067
Currently in my stomach, I've been living off of coffee, rice and cigarettes for a while and, while great on the wallet and sufficient for academic work, it does leave me wanting.

>>7451070
I'm not, neither is Hume. That honour falls upon Al-Ghazali.

I'm not explicitly involved in the current academic landscape of ethics or political philosophy and only tangentially involved in the other two, I wouldn't take anything I say with regards to these fields to be too authoritative.

>>7451074
I don't, it's simply the most probable thesis which is all we can really reach. Certainty is a false idea.

>>7451077
Causality can't be derived from experience because causality is a false idea. I've experience events which have been followed by other events within a close enough spatio-temporal frame of reference enough times that I can assume with some probability what will happen. There is no causality, merely events that follow from other events with the same regularity that the earth revolves around the sun. Causality can be reduced to the movements of natural bodies.

[Anonymous No.7451092]

>>7451090
>I don't, it's simply the most probable thesis

Why do you think this?

[Anonymous No.7451103]

>>7451090
Why al-Ghazali?

[Anonymous No.7451105]

>>7451032
Who hurt you?

[Anonymous No.7451123]

>>7451092
Because I cannot conceive of knowledge received via any means but sensory experience. I can reliably trace back even my most ineffable ideas to some simple sensory impression or amalgamation thereof.

It may very well be possible, but from what I can tell not from the perspective of a finite human being, and I'm not going to make any assumptions or inferences because induction is an impossibility

>>7451103
He attempted the cogito doubt and, unlike Descartes, didn't fall into the trap of assuming that there is a thinking "I" (all in 15 pages and all centuries before Descartes), he btfo rationalism 700 years before Modern Philosophy and had a Hume-like theory of causation rooted in an arational foundational truth.

These are very broad and general claims to fame but imho he was the greatest philosopher to ever live.

>>7451105
My ex-girlfriend

[Anonymous No.7451142]

>>7451032
First question: what's your fedora size?

Second question: >>>/his/

[Anonymous No.7451148]

>>7451142
1) I've never worn one so I couldn't tell you
2) >>>/pleb/

[Anonymous No.7451158]

>>7451032
Kant already btfo Empiricists a long time ago

[Anonymous No.7451166]

>>7451148
>pure Empiricist
>I've never worn one
On the outside maybe. You're clearly wearing one on the inside.

[Anonymous No.7451234]

>>7451032
Why don't you understand Kant?

[Anonymous No.7451255]

>>7451166
I've never experienced this "inner fedora" so I have no basis to assert its existence

>>7451158
>>7451234
I'm genuinely interested in how you believe Kant btfo Empiricism. His attempted synthesis of Rationalism and Empiricism is definitely sophisticated and he was far from wrong but I don't see how he disproved that knowledge arises primarily from sensory experience.

Always interested in other interpretations though. How do you believe Kant killed empiricism?

[Anonymous No.7451267]

>>7451090
>I've been living off of coffee
True empiricists drink tea senpai.

[Anonymous No.7451288]

>>7451255
>I've never experienced this "inner fedora"
>total lack of self awareness
How does it feel to be stupider than some non human animals?

[Anonymous No.7451291]

>>7451288
>believes in a "self"
>believes a self contained finite system can ever understand itself

No anon, you are the pleb

[Anonymous No.7451295]

>>7451288
Why are you being so mean to him, family?

[Anonymous No.7451306]

>>7451295
Fedoras do not deserve kindness

[Anonymous No.7451312]

>>7451291
Sophist.

[Anonymous No.7451315]

>>7451255
If all knowledge was derived from experience we wouldn't all experience the world in the same way

[Anonymous No.7451316]

How do you get around the whole hallucinations thing and how your mind interprets everything you see for you?

I mean in the sense of losing things that are right in front of you and the phenomenon of phantom pain.

[Anonymous No.7451321]

>>7451315
>he thinks we experience the world in the same way

>>7451316
Unfortunately I don't believe we can ever escape hallucinations and false sensory impressions, the best we can do is be aware and make educated assumptions with the inherent subjectivity of our own existence in mind

[Anonymous No.7451328]

>>7451306
I think everyone deserves a little kindness. :3

[Anonymous No.7451333]

>>7451321
We do though

[Anonymous No.7451336]

>>7451328
>>>/a hippie commune/

[Anonymous No.7451340]

>>7451336
:/

[Anonymous No.7451352]

>>7451333
We quite literally all experience things differently.

Nobody ever experiences exactly the same thing, if we did then how would you ever account for any disagreement? That would relegate all human interaction into a relational framework rooted entirely in the ego, which, as Hume rightly pointed out, is a false idea born of language.

There's a reason solipsism is a problem anon

>>7451336
Your virulence is second only to your complete lack of an argument

Please keep bumping the thread, we're getting some good discussion going

[Anonymous No.7451362]

>>7451166
would someone get this rationalist fag out of here?

[Anonymous No.7451372]

>>7451352
no, that's not true. we all experience things the same, however we may interpret them differently based on our genetic constitution/passions that develop as the result of that. The reason there are disagreements is because while we EXPERIENCE the same, our SITUATION is different. if you could occupy the same space as another individual, for as long as they lived, thus experiencing what they experience from the same perspective, you would think 100% alike--you would be the same person. the reason nobody experiences the same thing, is because by virtue of being different-bodied individuals, our perspectives are necessarily different. were you to have the same perspective as someone else, you would think and act exactly as they do.

[Anonymous No.7451379]

>>7451352
Right but if people on different ends of the world gained all of their knowledge through experience, people would drastically different
People on opposite ends of the earth wouldn't be able to communicate with each other.
They wouldn't have the same basic understanding of math.

I'll put it a different way.
Two people on opposite ends of the earth are told that a container in front of them is half empty
They both come to the conclusion that since that glass is half empty, it must also be half full
Did they need to stick their finger into that container in order to determine that?

[Anonymous No.7451424]

>>7451352
>you're a fedora
>Your virulence is second only to your complete lack of an argument

>that guy is kinda ugly
>Your virulence is second only to your complete lack of an argument

>I think we should eat pizza
>Your virulence is second only to your complete lack of an argument

[Anonymous No.7451441]

Explain math then btich
check fucking mate buddy

[Anonymous No.7451446]

>>7451255
>How do you believe Kant killed empiricism?

Knowledge can't be derived entirely from the senses, there necessarily must be synthetic a priori ideas that structure our understanding of what the senses intuit.

[Anonymous No.7451466]

>>7451441
wouldn't that just arise from reflection?

[Anonymous No.7451468]

>>7451084

better question: try having experience with no intellectual causality

[Anonymous No.7451469]

Does smoking cause cancer?

[Anonymous No.7451471]

>>7451466
What do you mean? Reflecting on previous experiences?
How would you be able to reflect on these experiences and critically analyze them without an innate ability to do so?

[Anonymous No.7451474]

>>7451446
why do you say necessarily? why couldn't the structure of our understanding develop as we do? naturally, I'm sure, for the first years of one's life, they've not a clue wtf is going on--who's to say that, then, via our sense impressions, and the ideas they bestow, we are not discerning how one must understand the world around them?

I'm not disagreeing, I'm just curious

[Anonymous No.7451483]

>>7451474
The underlying ideas of space, time and logic must be a priori, or else all experience would be impossible.

Just read the Critique of Pure Reason, it explains it best

[Anonymous No.7451490]

>>7451471

Well, Frege in his Foundations of Arithmetic argued that we acquire the idea of number through concepts to which that number corresponds. i.e. in the concept 'boots composing a pair' we obtain the number 2; in the concept 'moons of the earth' we obtain the concept 1. This allowed him to define 0 as 'the extension of the concept 'is not identical with itself'', and 1 as 'the extension of the concept 'is identical with itself''. From this, you can use the Liebnizian method of defining numbers in terms of their predecessor and adding 1. The idea that we obtain numbers from concepts, which naturally we must experience first, accords (so far as I understand) with empiricist claims. Naturally, we can never *experience* numbers greater than, say, the total number of atoms in the universe. But, by reflecting on these ideas, and following the Leibnizian method, surely we can generate numbers that big, and we do.

How could we reflect on anything without an inherent capacity to do so? I think Hume was right on this point, wherein he criticized Locke's notion that there were no innate ideas, stating that while we certainly posses no innate IDEAS, the faculties required to cognize/understand them must necessarily be. However, faculty =/ idea, nor knowledge.

[Anonymous No.7451492]

lol i remember when i discovered locke/hume

first read the logical positivists and understand why they were wrong

then read quine

[Anonymous No.7451496]

>>7451483
I certainly will someday, however I'd argue that while the capacities to understand them must be innate, the ideas we obtain via their employment certainly are not. However, as I have yet to read Kant, I obviously can't respond to any of his claims.

[Anonymous No.7451497]

>>7451032
What are your thoughts on Berkeley ? should he have been your OP picture?

[Anonymous No.7451527]

>>7451496
>hasn't read Kant
>arguing against the ideas of Kant

[Anonymous No.7451537]

>>7451527
> 'you cant have ideas of your own!'

[Anonymous No.7451542]

>>7451537
But you're stuck thinking empiricism is the only way of thinking when you haven't exposed yourself to other thinkers
Come on man, use your pure reason!

[Anonymous No.7451561]

>>7451032
Do you favor the phenomenological or naturalist reading of the idea/impression distinction?

Do you think that Husserl successfully transcended the rationalist/empiricist divide?

Mathematics: Millian or Humean?

If the problem of induction undermines the possibility of a rational justification for the efficacy of empirical evidence, is it possible to consistently demand that empirical evidence be the only standard of evidence?

[Anonymous No.7451562]

>>7451542
you may be right, anon, however I've read lots of rationalist thinkers!! (by lots I mean Descartes and Leibniz l0l)

[Anonymous No.7451571]

This is a weird comment and I'm not really sure why I am posting this but uh.

I was in an /a/ Umineko thread and David Hune was mentioned several times.

Why?

[Anonymous No.7451576]

>>7451561
DEFINITELY not Millian. Mill was BTFO by Frege, regarding Maths

[Anonymous No.7451586]

>>7451561
>If the problem of induction undermines the possibility of a rational justification for the efficacy of empirical evidence

How are these things related? Why would the problem of induction cause you to not trust your senses? Are you thinking of the Cartesian demon?

[Anonymous No.7451591]

>>7451571
>Umineko

Is that an anime or something? Probably was referenced because anime fans are pseuds.

[Anonymous No.7451596]

>>7451591
This is why I said this is a weird comment.

It's a VN series and playing it takes like 100 hours to complete it.

So the likely hood that someone who understands Umineko and David hune being in this thread is very low.

[Anonymous No.7451604]

>>7451032

Why aren't you a pragmatist master race?

[Anonymous No.7451606]

>>7451596
>>7451591

I got this from Wikipedia article on Umineko, it is probably relevant:

>After this comes to pass, Battler is the only one left alive who does not believe in witches or magic, and as such the door to the "golden land" (as stipulated on the epitaph) cannot be opened. Beatrice takes Battler and herself to a parallel dimension, Purgatorio, which is able to oversee events on Rokkenjima. From this point on, Battler and Beatrice are locked in a game of twisted logic where Battler must attempt to explain all of the mysterious events on Rokkenjima from the standpoint that they are caused by a human, and Beatrice attempts to explain everything with witches and magic. One of the recurring motifs is use of the locked room mystery, and several logical arguments are presented to explain the mysteries including the devil's proof, the raven paradox, and Schrödinger's cat. If Beatrice can get Battler to ultimately surrender and accept witches and magic, Beatrice wins.

[Anonymous No.7451611]

>>7451586
Taking the problem of induction seriously means that no present empirical evidence can guarantee any future corroboration of that same evidence. If the coherence of the physical world, or anything else, is confirmed by a continual empirical verification, then the fact that empirical evidence cannot in any way be 'corroborated' by future or past experiences means that there is no more reason to believe one thing over another based on empirical evidence, unless you restrict yourself to the immediacy of the cogito, in which case you can infer nothing beyond what is forcibly impressed on your senses.

[Anonymous No.7451621]

>>7451611
>guarantee

OP already stated

>I don't [know empiricism is true], it's simply the most probable thesis which is all we can really reach. Certainty is a false idea.

[Anonymous No.7451625]

>>7451621
It doesn't matter. Swap out 'guarantee' for 'give any reason to believe whatsoever.'

The problem is not one of perfect evidence, but of any evidence at all.

[Anonymous No.7451631]

>>7451625
(In other words, the problem of induction undermines probability as much as certainty.)

[Anonymous No.7451665]

>>7451123
THANK YOU.

I was starting to think that I was the only one who saw this about al-Ghazali.

The Neil DeGrasse Tyson fedora interpretation of al-Ghazali is that he "destroyed philosophy and science in the Islamic world" by denying causality and BTFO-ing the Neoplatonists and Aristotelians, but actually reading his work I realized that he was actually a medieval Descartes/Hume, but better.

[Anonymous No.7451687]

>>7451631
I don't see how induction is related to probability. They are entirely different methods

[Anonymous No.7451690]

>>7451665
Did NDT really say that? What's his justification? Makes me hate him more tbqh.

[Anonymous No.7451702]

>>7451690
>>7451665
This was during the Islamic golden age, when the science and progress that the region was doing in the middle ages was at its highest point ever. Unfortunately, it got completely ruined for everyone when the anti-scientific Ash’ari philosophy (it's like Christian Fundamentalism, to make a comparison, and it is the basis of the largest denomination of Islam) was spread by the very influential al-Ghazali

[Anonymous No.7451708]

>>7451032
Where does the notion of identity come from?

[Anonymous No.7451733]

>>7451702
Is this what he said or are you stating this?

[Anonymous No.7451734]

>>7451702
Islamic fundamentalists hate Ash'arism and oppose al-Ghazali's teachings.

They follow Ibn Taymiyya, not al-Ghazali.

Also, Ash'arism is not anti-science. Science in the modern sense didn't exist at the time of al-Ghazali. It's anachronistic and foolish to conflate the non-empirical and mostly incorrect Aristotelian "natural philosophy" that al-Ghazali opposed with the scientific method.

Al-Ghazali barely even spoke on anything we would call science.

[Anonymous No.7451764]

>>7451733
NDT stated all of this.

[Anonymous No.7451772]

>>7451733
I have no idea what NDT said, I've never watched him or read him (does he write books?)

[Anonymous No.7451789]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl1nJC3lvFs

Here's Neil DatAsse isTightSon donning his fedora and doing battle with Based Ghazali.

[Anonymous No.7451790]

>>7451764
Oh OK
>>7451772
?

[Anonymous No.7451792]

>>7451734
Care to offer an alternate explanation then? Ash'arism rises at the same time as the Islamic golden age rapidly declines.

[Anonymous No.7451797]

>>7451792
>al-Biruni
>Ibn al-Haytham

Islamic Golden Age dies with the Mongol conquests and the destruction of Baghdad, the cultural and intellectual capital of the world at that time.

[Anonymous No.7451803]

>>7451797
There is little agreement on the precise causes of the decline, but in addition to invasion by the Mongols and crusaders, and the destruction of libraries and madrasahs, there is evidence that political mismanagement and the stifling of ijtihad (independent reasoning) in the 12th century in favor of institutionalised taqleed (imitation) thinking played a part. There was considerable decline under the reign of al-Mutawakkil. The caliph al-Mutawakkil enforced a more literal interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith. Science and rationalism were dismissed in favor of revelation. Greek philosophy was condemned as anti-Islamic.

[Anonymous No.7451808]

>>7451792
1. Correlation =/= causation.
2. Ash'arism was the dominant theological position among Muslims for well over a century before Imam al-Ghazali. Ash'arism also has no appreciable "anti-scientific" component. Ibn an-Nafis (who studied pulmonary circulation) was an Ash'ari.
3. The "Islamic Golden Age" was largely that due to material prosperity. It's a little harder for emirs to spend lavishly on intellectual projects when the Mongols are slaughtering everyone and the Islamic world is in constant internecine war.

[Anonymous No.7451815]

>>7451803
>a more literal interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith
>Mu'tazili
>literalist
topkek. He was a radical, no doubt, but not a literalist.
>Greek philosophy was condemned as anti-Islamic
-_-
He didn't support intellectualism monetarily during his age but he did support architecture and didn't use the religious establishment to condemn or stop "science and rationalism".

Economic decline is where the age declines. Not religious "fervor", if it could even be described as such.

[Anonymous No.7451819]

>>7451808

Reminder that neither Averroes nor Avicenna were Arabs.

[Anonymous No.7451830]

>>7451819
Ibn Rushd was an Arab. Ibn Sina was a Persian. So what?

[Anonymous No.7451841]

>>7451815
Oh and I mean support "intellectualism".

[Anonymous No.7451849]

>>7451803
Ijtihad has to do with legal interpretation, not science or whatever you seem to be thinking. Ijtihad never actually went away in any case. Muslim jurists argue over legal minutiae to this day.

Also, you're conflating Greek philosophy with modern notions of science. If anything, the west's rapid scientific rise in the Renaissance was a result of sloughing off Greek scientific notions.

Greek philosophy and medicine never died in the Muslim world. To this day madrasas teach "al-Isaghuji" (Isagoge) to students as a primer in logic and in Pakistan you can still find doctors who practice "Tibb al-Yunani" (Greek medicine). If anything, the Muslim world held too tightly onto Greek influences.

>>7451819
Ibn Rushd was an Arab.

It's also a bit of a canard that "The Islamic world would have been so much better off following Averroes instead of al-Ghazali!"

Ibn Rushd was a brilliant and able commentator on Aristotle, but he could be described in many ways as having made "taqleed" of Aristotle. Al-Ghazali is actually the more modern thinker of the two.

People also forget that Ibn Rushd was an Islamic legal scholar who wrote a compendium on the sharia for the Almohads (a compendium which is still fairly influential). He wasn't some liberal secularist hippie like some people seem to think.

[Anonymous No.7451854]

>>7451830

Averroes was a Berber actually.

The point is that sandniggers never shut the fuck up about 'muh Islamic golden age' and love to imply that Arabs aren't subhumans because of it.

Even Kemal Ataturk had to kick imams out of Turkish universities and change to the Roman alphabet to stop the decay under Islamic absolutism.

Holy fuck, your entire region of the world is a war-torn poverty-stricken shithole. Stop pretending al-Ghazali, Averroes and Avicennna make up for that somehow.

[Anonymous No.7451866]

>>7451854
Ibn Rushd wasn't a "Berber". He could speak Amazighiyya because he did so to read legal texts.

>The point is that sandniggers never shut the fuck up about 'muh Islamic golden age' and love to imply that Arabs aren't subhumans because of it.
What is wrong with you?

>Even Kemal Ataturk had to kick imams out of Turkish universities and change to the Roman alphabet to stop the decay under Islamic absolutism.
?

>Holy fuck, your entire region of the world is a war-torn poverty-stricken shithole. Stop pretending al-Ghazali, Averroes and Avicennna make up for that somehow.
Why are you here?

[Anonymous No.7451880]

>>7451849
In addition to this anon's point, Ibn Rushd's tahaafut at-tahaafut was a very horrible reply to al-Ghazali's tahaafut al-falaasifa but Western thinkers favored it regardless. In the Muslim world it was mocked.

[Anonymous No.7451885]

>>7451866

Stop trying to claim Averroes as an Arab. Andalusian Spain was overwhelmingly populated by mudslime Berbers, not Arabs. Go on, find some proof that Averroes was an Arab. I bet you'd like to claim Avicenna was an Arab too, and Rumi and Hafez as well if you could. But you can't because kebabs gonna kebab.

Seriously, explain to me why anyone should give a fuck about al-Ghazali when the Saudis are funding Wahhabi fundamentalist mosques throughout Europe and the United States and funding Islamic State.

Islamic State is the inevitable outcome of putting the Quran into practice btw.

[Anonymous No.7451887]

>>7451854
REMOVE /POL/ FROM THE PREMISES

[Anonymous No.7451890]

>>7451123
Can't you arrive at a priori sythetic judgements through things like math?

[Anonymous No.7451892]

>>7451887

Damage control apologists please go. I bet you cheered and gave a whoop whoop when people died in Paris right?

[Anonymous No.7451899]

>>7451032

>OP pic is fat decadent wearing a turban

>thread degenerates into 'muh Muhammad shitposting'

[Anonymous No.7451900]

>>7451885
I already said Ibn Sina was Persian. I am not an Arab nationalist.

I have never heard anyone say Ibn Rushd was an amazigh. There were Arabs in al-Andalus as well.

I don't care whether he's Arab or not though.

Once again, why are you here?

[Anonymous No.7451910]

>>7451899
We were talking about al-Ghazali. If you don't enjoy it, go back to the original topic or leave. I'm sorry for the offense.

>>7451892
Why would people cheer over the deaths of innocents unless they are deranged?

[Anonymous No.7451915]

[Anonymous No.7451921]

>>7451123

>greatest philosopher
>occasionalist

Muslim education.

>>7451900

>you: Averroes is an Arab!!!
>I ask for proof for this claim
>you: W-w-well, he might be an Arab!
>you: I d-don't c-care whether he's an Arab or not!

>why are you here?

To put a stop to your jihad against the West.

>>7451910

OP pic doesn't look like Al-Ghazali to me, Ibrahim.

[Anonymous No.7451943]

>>7451792
Al-Ghazali's philosophy, employed correctly, would call for everyone to become a Sufi

This is unrealistic and the message of Religion as the only basis for true knowledge was politicized to the point of mass subjugation and bred a very anti-intellectual environment

It's a philosophy that works much better at an individual level than on a societal one

>>7451921
>implying occasionalism isn't just a theological account of the atomic nature of reality
>implying the Ash'arite doctrine of acquisition isn't 9th century multiverse theory

>>7451921
I'm OP, I directly stated that Al-Ghazali was my favourite philosopher here >>7451090

[Anonymous No.7451944]

>>7451885
Al-Andalus also had huge Arab clans who migrated there en masse (Ibn Arabi and Ibn Khaldun came from such clans), mostly from Yemen and Syria. Are you really this stupid?

[Anonymous No.7451952]

>>7451943
>Al-Ghazali's philosophy, employed correctly, would call for everyone to become a Sufi

No I'd rather enjoy freedom and democracy thanks.

>>7451944

You still haven't proved that Averroes was an Arab.

>Are you really this stupid?

Wow, just good critique. You must have been top of the class at Kebab University

[Anonymous No.7451958]

>>7451943
>implying occasionalism isn't just a theological account of the atomic nature of reality

>implying it is

>guys, my favourite irrelevant pre-Cartesian philosopher is greater than Einstein! No, really!

Holy fuck Arabs are dumb.

[Anonymous No.7451960]

>>7451952
>No I'd rather enjoy freedom and democracy thanks.

And that's your prerogative

Doesn't mean his claims about the incompleteness of logic and the need for an arational foundational knowledge aren't legitimate

[Anonymous No.7451971]

>>7451960

>incompleteness of logic

Stop trying to claim Muslim supremacy by pretending your favourite imam is Goedel. He's not.

[Anonymous No.7451973]

>>7451958
It's Hume's theory of causation at an atomic level

But then again your /pol/ack ass wouldn't know that considering you haven't read any Al-Ghazali or Hume for that matter

[Anonymous No.7451976]

>>7451952
I'm a white American, and I'm not even Muslim, you dipshit /pol/nigger.

How do define an Arab? Because Ibn Rushd was a native Arabic speaker with an Arabic name in an Arab cultural mileu, writing in Arabic for other Arabic speakers. I don't have his 23andMe results, but since there is not evidence of his being Amazigh, I'm going to guess he was an Arab.

[Anonymous No.7451984]

>>7451973

>it's Hume's theory of causation

No it isn't. Stop trying to rewrite history to pretend that muslims don't have an average IQ of 80.

>>7451976

>dipshit /pol/nigger

My race has an average IQ of 118. Can you say the same, Achmed?

[Anonymous No.7451985]

>>7451971
He claimed that any finite set cannot prove itself

Is that effectively any different from Goedel's claim that no system is capable of proving all given truths within that system?

[Anonymous No.7451986]

>>7451971
I'm not even sure OP is Muslim. This topic is actually about empiricism.

But because your /pol/ senses started tingling you came here and had a severe autistic chimpout.

[Anonymous No.7451993]

>>7451984
http://www.ghazali.org/articles/gz-riker.pdf

I know reading isn't really your thing because you judge solely on accidental properties but give it a shot

You might learn something

[Anonymous No.7452000]

>>7451984
>My race has an average IQ of 118.
Have you ever heard the one about the statistician who drowned because a river had an average depth of three feet?

[Anonymous No.7452008]

This is the first time I've ever seen a legitimate case of ad hominem argument.

[Anonymous No.7452016]

I come back after getting food and the thread is still in this state. It was getting interesting. :s

[Anonymous No.7452020]

>>7452000

[Anonymous No.7452026]

>>7451952
>However, another story has it that Ibn Rushd, in one of his works on zoology, referred to Al-Mansûr as 'King of the Berbers’ - a derogatory expression among the Arabs in Muslim Spain. This is supposed to have greatly displeased the caliph and was the reason for his exile.
http://www.alhewar.com/habib_saloum_averroes.htm

Why would an amazigh use a derogatory term of his own race against a corrupt leader?

Even if Ibn Rushd was amazigh, who cares? :p

[Anonymous No.7452032]

>>7451985

You should actually read Goedel before you try to abuse his name to prop up your kebab 'philosophers'.

>>7452000

My race gave the world the theory of relativity. Your race gave the world al Qaeda.

[Anonymous No.7452038]

>>7452032
Didn't that guy already state that he was white? And why does what race you belong to determine your worth? That seems very close-minded. :s

[Anonymous No.7452044]

>>7452032
>My race gave the world the theory of relativity.

JIDF COMFIRMED

[Anonymous No.7452045]

>>7452026
>Even if Ibn Rushd was amazigh, who cares

This t b h

If the subject is Islamic philosophy and empiricism how did race even get put into the mix?

>>7452032
Oh, right

[Anonymous No.7452047]

>>7452038

>Didn't that guy already state that he was white?

What is taqiyya?

[Anonymous No.7452051]

>>7452047
Is that a sincere question because you don't seem to know what it is based on your usage of it. :/

[Anonymous No.7452052]

>>7452047
What is the Kol Nidre?

[Anonymous No.7452066]

>>7452047
Nice try, Saul.

[Anonymous No.7452067]

>>7452047
YOU are secretly a muslim following taqiyya trying to make westerners look stupid by acting like you have 0 reading comprehension because really no one can be THAT dumb

wow you're line of reasoning is fun and i dont have to think how nice

[Anonymous No.7452070]

>>7452051

Taqiyya is the obligation of all muslims to lie in order to achieve Islam's conquest of the world.

[Anonymous No.7452077]

>>7452070
dont listen to this poster he is a jihadist acting like a westerner trying to make westerners look stupid

[Anonymous No.7452084]

>>7452077
I knew it. :o

Let's just ignore him so that he doesn't convert us to Moslamics.

[Anonymous No.7452089]

>>7452077
>>7452067

Oh god

It all makes sense now

/pol/ is ISIL doing psy-ops on western internet forums in order to make them lose faith in their own culture

[Anonymous No.7452095]

>>7452089
Why else do you think /pol/ wants everyone to hate Jews, Muslims, non-whites, and immigrants? To make the West go into a rampant state of fear and collapse upon itself. It's Da'ish's plan.

[Anonymous No.7452148]

>>7451815
b-bump... :s

[Anonymous No.7452153]

How big is your cock?

[Anonymous No.7452156]

>>7452153
finally back on topic :D

[Anonymous No.7452170]

>>7452153
You have to empirically observe that for yourself.

[Anonymous No.7452180]

>>7452153
>>7452156

I've measured it several times in several different erect states don't lie, so have you

The range varies from 6.2 - 7.1 inches (from when I was 14 to when I was 21) but the most consistent measure was around 6.8-9

However, I would chastise you if you didn't do what >>7452170 suggested and observe it for yourself you are a true empiricist aren't you?

Now this, my friends, is why empiricism is the best method

[Anonymous No.7452185]

>>7452180
So empiricists love measuring dick?

[Anonymous No.7452189]

>>7452185
I've only surveyed myself authoritatively so I can't really generalize

but yes

[Anonymous No.7452219]

>>7452185
All philosophers are involved in competitive dick-measuring.

[Anonymous No.7452260]

So Al Ghazali was a bad guy or what

Seriously there's way too much sperging out on here to read all of it

I'm asking OP

[Anonymous No.7452282]

>>7451032
is purity even possible to an empiricist?

[Anonymous No.7452290]

>>7452260
OP here

Al-Ghazali was one of the most overlooked and influential philosophers to ever live. He was an essential influence on many great philosophers, including the likes of Aquinas, Hume and Kant.

He believed that we needed an arational foundation for knowledge since logic was based in and limited by itself and our finitude. He advocated the Sufi life (the life of a religious ascetic) as the best means for achieving a foundation for knowledge. He was separated from his fundamentalist peers because he was a master philosopher and absolutely wrecked them at their own game instead of just denying them as heathens, not something many traditional muslims could say.

Unfortunately his work was co-opted for political means and used to promote an atmosphere of anti-intellectualism that is the cause for most of the griping in this thread. Also there's that one guy from /pol/ who keeps getting mad about race for some reason.

He is my favourite philosopher not so much for his conclusions (I'm not sure an arational foundation for knowledge is possible) as for his method, it was incredibly sophisticated and would not be replicated until nearly a thousand years later. He is arguably the most influential philosopher of all time (he's not called "Proof of Islam" for nothing) and he has affected profound change in the way I see the world.

>>7452282
Pure in the sense that I don't admit any exceptions to the main thesis of Empiricism (that all knowledge is derived from sensory experience).

[Anonymous No.7452302]

>>7451352
why is solipsism a problem?

[Anonymous No.7452404]

>>7451985

>be me, almost master's degree mathematician
>see this
> well that's enough /lit/ for today.

Godels incompleteness theorems have to do with ZFC. They, however, do not apply to model theory and its appeal to universal algebra and Tarski's truth definitions.

Please gtfo ur pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.7452407]

>>7452302
bump

[Your Friendly T.A. No.7452411]

>this thread

How did /lit/ degenerate into this?

[Your Friendly T.A. No.7452416]

>>7451352

Okay, so if our phenomenology is so radically different, then what the hell did you just post? **We** certainly can't understand it.

Gtfo pseudo-Foucalt

[Anonymous No.7452433]

>>7452404
Gödel's completeness theorem (not to be confused with his incompleteness theorems) says that a theory has a model if and only if it is consistent, i.e. no contradiction is proved by the theory. This is the heart of model theory as it lets us answer questions about theories by looking at models and vice versa. One should not confuse the completeness theorem with the notion of a complete theory. A complete theory is a theory that contains every sentence or its negation. Importantly, one can find a complete consistent theory extending any consistent theory. However, as shown by Gödel's incompleteness theorems only in relatively simple cases will it be possible to have a complete consistent theory that is also recursive, i.e. that can be described by a recursively enumerable set of axioms. In particular, the theory of natural numbers has no recursive complete and consistent theory. Non-recursive theories are of little practical use, since it is undecidable if a proposed axiom is indeed an axiom, making proof-checking a supertask.

The compactness theorem states that a set of sentences S is satisfiable if every finite subset of S is satisfiable. In the context of proof theory the analogous statement is trivial, since every proof can have only a finite number of antecedents used in the proof. In the context of model theory, however, this proof is somewhat more difficult. There are two well known proofs, one by Gödel (which goes via proofs) and one by Malcev (which is more direct and allows us to restrict the cardinality of the resulting model).

Model theory is usually concerned with first-order logic, and many important results (such as the completeness and compactness theorems) fail in second-order logic or other alternatives. In first-order logic all infinite cardinals look the same to a language which is countable. This is expressed in the Löwenheim–Skolem theorems, which state that any countable theory with an infinite model {\mathfrak {A}} has models of all infinite cardinalities (at least that of the language) which agree with {\mathfrak {A}} on all sentences, i.e. they are 'elementarily equivalent'.

[Anonymous No.7452436]

math/logic/science relies on induction and is nothing more than a bunch of conventions.

[Anonymous No.7452450]

>>7452411
into what?

[Anonymous No.7452463]

>>7452436

Do a 'HISTORY' one please

[Anonymous No.7452465]

>>7451985
Naturally, there are mathematicians who are against the (deductive) axiomatization of the mathematics, in the sense of an axiom as a definition which must thus be accepted by some other mathematicians, as opposed to a common sense, an intuitive truth. They believe that there must be some initial axioms, in the ancient sense, where those axioms are intuitively valid for every person on earth, past, present and future, irrespective of their ambient culture — let us think of the paradox from Allais. The axioms as a definition are not convincing nor persuasive, especially if those are not intuitive, typically when their advocates seek a minimal number of axioms à la reverse mathematics, minimality often seen then as a beauty. The mathematician à la Connes rejecting the formalization, the logicization of the mathematics calls for a primitive mathematical reality, typically via the arithmetic or the geometry, which would be whatever existing before its exploration by the mathematician, before the categorisation, through induction, of these primitive mathematical entities. The mathematician perceives the (disorganized) mathematical reality, such as most people seem to perceive the (disorganized) phenomenological reality.

Even when the mathematician bundles his personal intuitions into a system where some deductive rules connect the intuitive statements, the task of seeking an axiomatization remains. Can we claim that what is the mathematics are such systems of intuitions connected by some chosen rules of inferences before they are axiomatized in a formal logic ? Naturally, the axiomatization of the field of study enjoyed by a mathematician is difficult : the axioms attempt to capture and organize some patterns that the mathematician enjoys. The task consists in finding a set of independent axioms and to seek a result on the consistency as well as the completeness of the theory, here theory as a mere set of axioms. From the work by the logicians, we recall briefly that the soundness of a deductive system of some logic means that what is derivable formally from the syntax will be true semantically, whereas the converse, the completeness of a deductive system of some logic means that each (true) theorem has a proof, consequently true syntactically, deductively. The equivalence between the soundness and the completeness exists for the classical logic of propositions and predicates. From the work by Gödel on the incompletenesses of some formal system attempting to encode the arithmetic through a theory consistent and recursively axiomatizable, the crucial questions become “ what does the logician do, once that he is not assured that his favourite logic is complete ? once that he is assured that his favourite logic is incomplete ? ”, “ what does the mathematician do, once that he is not assured that his favourite theory is consistent ?, once that he is assured that his favourite theory is inconsistent ? ”.

[Anonymous No.7452468]

>>7452465
Other mathematicians can accept the axiomatization, but still reject other classical constructions. Belonging to those, are the predicative mathematicians à la Poincaré and Weyl, even though the predicative mathematics splits into classical and constructive : the two predicative branches agree on the rebuttal of every (or rather almost) impredicative definition, self-referencing definition, definition such as the axiom of the power set, that every set possesses a power set (which is thus a new set). In being constructive, the constructive predicative mathematician rejects equally the excluded third — the principle of omniscience à la Bishop. The mathematicians rejecting the infinite sets, such as ℕ, are called the finitists, those radical rejecting the finite sets of large cardinals are the ultrafinitists.
The task of the mathematicians is thus to derive as many theorems as possible, without knowing in advance how many there are, within the chosen definition of the theorem, of the valid intellectual step in the proof, belonging to the choice of the logic — thus far, the traditional mathematics have been done in a deductive logic, most of the works in deductive classical logic. Hopefully, soon, we will have the computers to carry all our proofs, all that will remain for the humanity will be to seek new logics and new axioms ; however, we can bet that this last task will be done by our machines sooner or later.

[Anonymous No.7452471]

>>7452468
>>7452465

What a waste of pixels.

[Anonymous No.7452544]

reminder

>

They are indeed formally equivalent. See for instance Johnstone: Topos theory, p. 243 but here is a quick explanation. Given a topos T one may define a geometric theory associated to it consisting of formulas describing essentially the topos. More specifically a geometric morphism from another topos S to T is the same thing as a model for the theory in S. In particular if S is the category of sets this a set-theoretical model fo the theory. In general the language of the theory has arbitrary disjunctions leading to theories that in general do not have models. However, if the topos is coherent only finite disjunctions are needed and we are in the realm of the Gödel completeness theorem which then can be interpreted as saying that a coherent topos has enough points. Conversely, given a geometric theory one can associate to it a syntactic site whose objects are the formulas. An implication from a disjunction of formulas to a formula is a covering. The topos of sheaves on this site will then be a classifying topos for the theory (i.e., geometric morphisms to it are the same as models). If the theory is finitary (i.e., uses only finite disjunctions) then the topology is coherent and there are models for the theory by Deligne's theorem.

It is amusing that Deligne's fairly natural example of a topos without points, "measure sheaves" on a measure space for which all points have measure zero thus gives an example of a consistent geometric theory (with countable disjunctions) that doesn't have a model.


http://mathoverflow.net/questions/68335/what-do-coherent-topoi-have-to-do-with-completeness

[Anonymous No.7452571]

>>7452471
see >>7452471

[Anonymous No.7452578]

>>7451372
My nigga

[Anonymous No.7452586]

>>7451372
do you have any evidence to back this up beyond it being a compossible theory?

[Anonymous No.7452601]

>>7451379
>They wouldn't have the same basic understanding of math.

Pure logic transcends language

People are drastically different on other ends of the world and aren't able to communicate with each other because they grew up in different cultures which each experience the world differently.

Your argument is that logical truths, which language is necessarily founded upon, is evidence that we are all one mind enmired by our own circumstances?

I agree that there are similarities and superficial evidence that our minds are SIMILAR (we share the same basic physical features, we communicate using a similar symbolic logic, we share some basic rituals (eating, sleeping, recreation etc.)) but there is no empirically sound way to prove that we are all fundamentally the same.

The closest I would come to asserting that would be to agree with Locke's tabula rasa, and if you're asserting that that is enough to do away with subjectivity and inhabiting fundamentally different worlds then you're essentially likening nothingness to nothingness.

Like it or not we are all different by virtue of living different lives. We are similar on a physical level but there is no way of knowing exactly how different people are with regards to how their minds structure the world.