This shit fucked me up for real senpai. Anybody got a good response to it? Even Karl Popper just said "fuck it I give up".https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
>>16539069TLDR:>proofs require more proof>those proofs require more proofs ad infinitumOptions:>circular reasoning>dogmatism>assume (dogmatically) that an infinite number of proofs exists, that you don't know and can't prove
>>16539070Final (correct) option:>skepticismNo knowledge can be gained and you are all playing around in your own filth masquerading as "truth-finders". Really not any better than religious tards that appeal to muh bibuh
>>16539069What scientific discoveries did Mr. Munchaussen's trilemma result in? Zero. Ergo, it's pointless philosophical garbage. This is the scientific answer to your question.
>>16539072>120IQ take
>>16539069This is inevitable.Consider if you will, what exactly is a "Proof"? And what exactly is a "Truth"?Given our understanding and definition, "Truth" is an experience that will come to pass, and "Proof" is the (accepted) why you would think such an experience will come to pass, which, is either a previous experience (scientific, based on past observations), or blind faith (not based on past experiences).Former will always be circular/regressive, the latter, dogmatic.Nonetheless, neither are disqualified from been true by this fact. Because we do not ultimately know why things are what they are, we cannot say for sure what will or will not come to pass.
>>16539069
>>16539123>My monkey brain know how the vending machine works because I can get snacks from it.
True things are true.
>>16539126So you're anti-science because of some dumb story some retard at some party made up. Sums up the anti-science mentality pretty well.
>>16539138>u r anti-scienceIt's so over used and meaningless at this point.
>>16539069>>16539070>>16539071>I do NOT understand the axiomatic method.We get it, you do not understand the axiomatic method. Here's the deal, in order to avoid the complaints brought up in the article, we make a few assumptions (e.g., any two points determine a unique line) and then we see what logically and necessarily follow from those assumption.>So you admit it! Told you!Sure, but we can also assume negations of those axioms (e.g., any two points determine more than one line) and see what logically and necessarily follow from those axioms.>Ha-ha! Mental masturbation!Whatever, but we can also test to see if our assumptions are true in our universe. As a result we now know what truths must occur as a logical and necessary result.Interesting enough, we might see different versions of the axioms in play. For a carpenter, two points make a unique line. For a astronomer, gravitational lensing can cause two points to determine multiple lines.>You contradict yourself. I WIN!Because the universe behaves differently at different scales? No, we observe that all the time, but now we can say why we observe this.I am sorry if you don't see this as gained knowledge, but it is. We use this gained knowledge to do cool things like build builings, airplanes, global communications networks, etc. You use these things every day, even if you don't believe in them.
>>16539150>reeeee whd do i keep getting called retarded???/
>>16539069ITT: tards and midwits who have collectively read maybe one Medium article on any epistemology topic.The existence of one absolute truth (Descartes' first principle) implies the potential for multiple, all of which may not be known to us because we are forever just sharp enough as observers to witness our clumsiness and because we live in a (perceptually) probabilistic regime. It is our nature for absolute truths to be asymptotically inaccessible to us, save for the one underlying our cognition in the first place.
Most philosophers are just mentally ill faggots who happen to be eloquent.
>>16539069Mathematicians solved it over 100 years ago yet philosophers still insist on pushing sophistry instead of getting a real job. There are exceptions like Kant and a few others but in general 90% of philosophy is just meaningless wordsmithing.
>>16539195>Mathematicians solved it over 100 years agoPost the solution.
>>16539069whats the problem with this? yes we require some assumptions or axiomsyou could call that dogmatism, but does that really matter?you can look at different axioms and see where they lead you
>>16539195>There are exceptions like KantKant's a dumbfuck though.
It's a false trilemma since there is literally nothing wrong with circular arguments.
True /sci/entists are okay with this because they know science isn't about finding eternal truths but about how things are now and leverage that knowledge to better lives.Triggered soiyence worshippers oust themselves immediately because they are in the business of religion and can't handle non-confirmity in narratives.
>>16539069Sounds like a waste of time to me
>>16539199Already posted. Sorry you missed it.
>>16539337Nobody solved anything and you lied.
>>16539327Imagine being so dumb that you think religion has produced any truth at all and denying that science in fact has produced truths.
>>16539348Again, sorry you missed it. The thread is still short though, so you should be able to easily read though it in its entirety.Good luck.
>>16539350>bu..buuut those other religions!Ousted
>>16539156>axiomsI prefer the term "dogma".
>>16539449You routinely negate "dogma" and follow it to it's logocal and necessary conclusions.I sincerely doubt that.
>>16539474Why is that necessary?
>>16539477This too was already covered in the thread.Again, I am sorry if you missed it.And again, the thread is short enough for you to be able to review it and answer your own question.
>>16539479I saw where you think it was "covered"; I also saw the very clear and correct rebuttal. Perhaps you missed it. Give the thread another read, and then answer my question.
>>16539126The monkeys are not being scientific in that their theories of how the vending machine works internally are neither testable nor falsifiable. Their theories are purely faith based and belong in /x/ or /pol/.
>>16539126he isn't wrong. it's impossible to know how things work past a certain point.
>>16539069Karl Popper is a philistine. Most of his "thoughts" go like this and the response to this is very simple.This whole argument is all about axioms yes? But the axiom of this argument is that axioms exist. Of course you can't escape assumptions when you are always acting inside the assumption that everything must necessarily be an assumption. But an assumption is just something a human makes and uses for their own needs. In reality there are no "assumptions". Everything just exists and all of its proof is in its existence. Just because you a little human can't get it doesn't mean it isn't there. That would be a pretty big assumption wouldn't it...
>>16539481You have already established that you accept axioms as unquestionable dogma.Tell me another story about the little monkeys in the vending machines.
>>16539484>are neither testable nor falsifiableWrong, they pressed the buttons and the predicted snacks came out. Their theory is experimentally verified.
>>16539493Fair enough, but it also does not mean that it's little monkeys either."We don't know" can be a valid response.
>>16539501You are intentionally conflating "how to operate the vending machine" with "how the vending machine operates internally".You are insincere and disingenuous.
>>16539506>I read my instrument, I press a few variables, I read my instrumentHmm sounds like you don't know how anything operates internally either then.
>>16539503it was a metaphor for stuff like dark matter, black holes and everyone making bullshit theories about it.
>>16539530No, we get the point of the story. It attempts to trivialize science by misrepresenting it. It fails on multiple levels.Again, you are being insincere and disingenuous. It does not help your fallacious arguments.
>>16539524No evidence of your conclusion has been presented.
>>16539541he doesn't mean science in general you faggot. he means current state of science where people make lots of bullshit theories just to get a paycheck. sabine has a lot of videos about this.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rqZlsjgbXE
>>16539493>it's impossible to know how things work past a certain pointand how do you know that?
>>16539549That doesn't change the fact that the story misrepresents science to make its fallacious conclusion. Nor does it change the fact that Anon is being intentionally insincere and disingenuous.You too may want to reread the thread to pick up the points you may have missed.It's still very short.
>>16539549>sabine is the source of my dogma
>>16539555Dogma
i think this goes away if you accept a bayesian view of truth, no? since truths only approach 1 in such a scheme?
no lol
>>16539496What tools are you using to question the dogma? How do you know you can trust these tools?
>arguing with individuals that refuse to adhere to dictionary definitionsHere, let me start with a proposition.Prove that in using a device to measure a length that you have, in fact...This munchies tautology is a pursuit of absurdity. I assume that establishing a framework for evaluation is in the "dogmatic" category, which is just a bald faced lie.The 3 rules:>I don't understand logic>I don't understand logic>I don't understand logic
>>16539591I can't even tell what stance this guy has. Is this peak schizoposting?
>>16539598Little monkeys stole his phone.
>>16539598Academic philosphers are schizo wordcels.The real philosophy chads are the ones that can state their position without you realizing they are a career philosopher.
>>16539598>>16539600>>16539601>I don't get itNone of you were expected to
>>16539607
>>16539123This is hilarious.It's always funny to see people so dismissive of philosophy, and then use terms that were developed in philosophy.The concept of falsifiability originated from the philosophy of Science, and now we have people just take the concept for granted What a dumb meme.
>>16539610Science itself began as "natural philosophy". Just got a rename by butthurt phillets.
>Anybody got a good response to itA,~A⊢B>Is logically sound.>Doesn't presuppose B.>Isn't a regressive argument.>Doesn't rely on dogma.Checkmate, atheists.
>>16539069>Answers all basic philosophical questions>Philosophers continue to struggle with bullshit like this because they don't want answers, they want to sound smart
>>16539742Do you really want to argue about a tautology?
>>16539742Can you prove that that's logically sound?What tool are you using to make that judgment?>>16539757Not even tautologies are safe.
>>16539069dogmatic argument (i.e axioms) for mathexperiment and observation for everything else, which isn't even listed
>>16539795>Can you prove that that's logically sound? Yes.>What tool are you using to make that judgmentTruth table.
>>16539802>not using dogmatic arguments for science tooPrinciple of stationary action broh. ever heard of it?
>>16539805How do you know the rules governing a truth table are correct?
>>16539806a physical principle based on a lot of experimental and observational evidence that supports the theoryif you aren't basing your physics on exp/obs, you ain't doing physics
>>16539809You have totally misunderstood the revolutionary importance of Lagrange's work.
>>16539807Because I have manually validated them as have the millions of students who passed their introductory logic courses. It's a first week assignment. You can do it too.My turn. Demonstrate that the rules governing truth tables are inconsistent.
>>16539757>Do you really want to argue about a tautology?Sure? Why not? If someone's going to claim bullshit about when you can prove truths, tautologies seem highly relevant.Also as long as I'm arguing in favor of the tautology, it's not like I can lose.Do you really want to argue against a tautology?
>>16539069this is literally the same argument a 4yo makes when you try to put them to bed>go to bed>why?>because you need to go to sleep>why?>because we're human beings and we need sleep>why?etc
>>16539813sonny, it's not even clear if energy conservation, one of the most profound guiding principles in physics, holds on cosmological scales.a physicists studies models of the natural world, they are concerned with describing "regularities of the phenomena"a physicist that thinks their model is unassailable truth is a bad physicistit took me years of studying physics to appreciate this
>>16539824>i can't lose if i switch to the winning sideKek.
>>16539126It's painfully obvious this story was fabricated by a buttmad christcuck
>>16539610Guess what, people were scientists well before some dumb philosopher coined the term 'falsifiable'
>>16539072>What scientific discoveries did Mr. Munchaussen's trilemma result in?The modern scientific method itself which incorporates aspects of all three elements so as to provide more comprehensive explanations than accepting just one alone. Hypothesize - Dogma, Experimentation- Circular Reasoning, Peer Review ie Repeat/Refine Experimentation Ad Infinitum - Infinite Regression.
>>16539351If that were true, you could easily link it, but since you don't even understand how reply linking on 4chan works, I highly doubt you have "solved" anything.
>>16539555Uncertainty, Incompleteness, Irrationality and Indeterminacy are mathematically and physically proven facts.
>>16539591The Cult of Pythagoras basically proved that a diagonal length can not be exactly measured by a base unit length since the Babylonian Era, hence sqrt(2) instead of a rational decimal.
>>16539742>A,~A⊢B>Doesn't presuppose B.As a logical assertion, that statement is a presupposition of both A and B and their relation.
>>16539753Yea and his ultimate philosophical argument is a circular one, "I think, therefore I am" so he doesn't get around the trilemma at all.
>>16539910Certainty, Completeness, Rationality and Determinacy are mathematically and physically proven facts.
>>16539802see>>16539904
>>16539904That's just an adhoc rationalization rather than an answer to the question
>>16539921No, they are are in fact proven to be mathematically and physically impossible through Uncertainty, Incompleteness, Irrationality, and Indeterminacy. You can't even complete the sequence for something as simple as sqrt(2) without exploding to infinity and having an indeterminate decimal expansion for an irrational value that can not be completely calculated or expressed in terms of the ratio of two digits.
>>16539925It it the specific incorporation of each of the elements of trilemma into the scientific method since none of the individual elements are satisfactory enough on their own.
>>16539809>a lotNo, a lot is not enough, the scientific method demands testing ad infinitum via a continuous circular feedback loop of experimentation which can't even be done unless you have first established a dogmatic hypothesis that can be infinitely tested via circular experiment.
>>16539927There's no problem with calculating the square root of 2 to any precision you want.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_computing_square_roots#Digit-by-digit_calculation
>>16539922this stupid "trilemma", dated 1968, had nothing to do with the development of the scientific method, which predates it by at least 500 yearsgod, philosophers are the most useless and insufferable of fags
>>16539817>durr its true because me and a bunch of my friends all got bribed with mutual admiration to say it is true in lockstep
>>16539932Then feel free to calculate the complete sequence with complete certainty and convert it to a ratio of two multiple of the base unit and disprove incompleteness, irrationality, and uncertainty like you said you could with complete mathematical and physical precision >>16539921.Also, you can't even identify the tree(100)th digit, let alone the final digit in the sequence, so much for your any precision statement.
>>16539931you wouldn't even be able to get out of your bed in the morning if you subscribed to this nonsenseseethe harder about scientists and engineers building the modern world without your autofellating self-aggrandizing humanities mumbo jumbo
>>16539933Munchausen wasn't even close to the first to state the trilemma, he just modernized it with the new mathematical tools that were available in the 20th century.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa_the_Skeptic
>>16539938The modern world was built by craftsman working for shady imaginary paper persons called corporations often funded by extremely wealthy religious organization like the Vatican.
philosophers are just ass blasted that math and science displaced them in consequence and all things pertaining to the higher faculties of reason and knowledge
>>16539938>you wouldn't even be able to get out of your bed in the morning if you subscribed to this nonsenseNo, you wouldn't want to get out of bed if you knew for an absolute fact that everything you were going to do that day was already solved for you because you knew for 100% mathematical fact that your life was just on rails instead of largely undetermined and open to your spontaneous decisions.
>>16539920>If I am thinking, I must exist, because it is impossible for something that doesn't exist to think>It is impossible for me to falsely believe that I am thinking because you have to think in order to believe>I am thinking, therefore I existWhere's the circle?
>>16539945Sure and masons are totally mad that modern world is crafted of stone, brick, and concrete.
>>16539937I just gave you several algorithms which can compute any digit you want. Cope more.
>>16539947>>>/x/discussions of free will aren't science unless you can come up with a test for it (which you can't)
>>16539949>I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think because I am because I think.How's it not circular?
>>16539951So then why can't you do the calculations and either complete the sequence or the arbitrary tree(100)th digit I provided if you have these algorithms at your disposal?
>>16539953I didn't say will was free, I said it was mathematically proven to be indeterminate (and uncertain and incomplete and irrational).
>>16539949Premise1: My thinking requires my existingPremise2: I am thinkingConclusion: I am existingPremise2 is clearly circular if you want to prove the conclusion. If he wasn't retarded, he could have just said I exist therefore I exist.
>>16539960babble
>>16539964>words make head hurt, me hate words
>>16539964You don't get to freely choose the spontaneity of your environment and you can't account for it all, you can only react to it within the bounds of your own physiology and physical experience.
>>16539958>complete the sequenceWhat are you babbling about?
>>16539957Holy illiteracy Batman. Let me try to Barney style it a little more for you:>I am because I think>I think because I don't not think>>16539962Just because it's an "if p then q" statement doesn't mean it's circular. Are you saying modus ponens is wrong?
>>16539971An argument is circular if the conclusion is obviously contained in the premises.
>>16539970see>>16539921You said completeness is a mathematically and physically proven fact, so you should be able to complete the calculation, instead of just picking some arbitrarily small finite digit at which to stop calculating because its too calculation intensive to calculate further.
>>16539985Your complete retardation just further proves my point that completeness is proven.
>>16539983Lucky for ol' Rene his conclusion is not contained in the premises. Is this some kind of "the emperor has no clothes" scenario where you'll get your head chopped off if you acknowledge what's right in front of your eyeballs?
>>16539971>Just because it's an "if p then q" statement doesn't mean it's circular.It does if the q also depends of p.
>>16539990>I can't calculate the number I said I could because someone else is retarded.No, retard, you will never calculate the tree(100)th digit of sqrt(2), you will always just keep pretending like you have a complete calculation and slipping into fallacy when asked to prove it because you are retarded.
>>16539069Don't seek truth, seek entailments or, more generally, structures. Simple as.
>>16539992In this case it doesn't because it's possible for something that exists to not think, like a rock. This is why scientists hate philosophers, you don't have to explain shit like this to normal people.
>>16539991You think it's not circular? Then you should have no problem accepting that "I fart therefore I am" is a good argument too.
>>16540004I don't have a problem with that, in fact I'm gonna start saying that. I fart therefore I am.
there is nothing fundamentally wrong with circular reasoning as long as it is consistent
>>16539996Is your penis incomplete?
>>16540007Yes, there is a hole in it and it is constantly changing in size and mass while adding and shedding cells.
>>16540006Well, that's not consistent so it's wrong.
>>16540002>it's possible for something that exists to not think, like a rock.No, a rock has never told me its name and tried to convince me it existed, a rock isn't even a whole well defined thing, they are partial fragments of other rocks made up of smaller elements.
>>16540015How is that supposed to contradict what I said?
>>16540012in what way?if your reasoning can prove a contradiction, then it is not consistent, because then you can prove anything.circular reasoning is not necessarily inconsistent.
>>16540020Your philosophy that circular argument is fine means that both"X therefore X" and "not X therefore not X" are acceptable. So you've proved both X and not X, a contradiction.
>>16540018The rock is never going to make that argument to try to save itself from being crushed or otherwise mutilated, so its a moot point that you can't really project onto the rock and has nothing to do with Descartes argument for his own existence.
>>16540024if your reasoning system assumes "X" and "not X", then yes, that is an inconsistent system.you may choose to assume "X", or you may choose "not X", just not both. either system is consistent.
>>16540024No, its only a contradiction if you can prove that X is not X rather than both X and Not X are two separate valid states.
>>16540029>you may choose to assume "X", or you may choose "not X"Exactly, so to you X and not X are both equally valid. Hence, the contradiction.
>>16540027Are you pretending to be retarded? I'm saying the rock may exist but DOES NOT think.
>>16540032here, let me show you with sets. you can choose {X} or you can choose {not X}, both are valid and consistent. however, you cannot choose {X, not X}, as that is inconsistent.
>>16540030A contradiction just means you can prove both X and not X. From that you can prove any other statement.>>16540036>both are valid and consistentExactly, both are valid so you have a contradiction.
>>16540040you assume that just because you can choose one or the other, both must be taken as true at the same time, which is not how it works.at least try to be imaginative in your shit posting. say the law of excluded middle is bullshit or something.
>>16540043>both must be taken as true at the same time, which is not how it works.It is how it works according to you because both are consistent.
>>16540045*yawn*
>>16540047Ok grandma.
>>16540032>Hence, the contradiction.No, contradiction is when they are proven to be the same exact thing, not two completely different separate states that are distinct from each other.>>16540040>A contradiction just means you can prove both X and not X.No, it means you can prove X equals Not X rather than you can prove X and some opposite state of X called Not X are both possible distinct states.
>>16540045No they aren't, X and Not X are two different things, they are not consistent with each other, they are the opposite of each other, its only when something is its own opposite x=not(x) is that thing x, said to be a contradiction.
>>16540051>>16540054The truth value of X is supposed to be the opposite of the truth value of not X, so by proving that both X and not X are true, you've proven that true = false.
>>16540056>so by proving that both X and not X are true, you've proven that true = false.No, you haven't, you have "proven" that X is equivalent to x=true and Not X is equivalent to x=false, the only time you have proven a contradiction is if you can show that X=Not X rather than showing X=X and Not X= Not X and X Not= Not X.
>>16540057Yes you have.Let X be a proposition like "God exists".We know that A) truth_value(X) = -truth_value(not X), where 1 = true and -1 = false.According to the "anything goes as long as it's consistent" theory, both "God exists" and "God does not exist" are true (assuming they are both consistent), so B) truth_val(X) = truth_val(not X) = 1By (A) and (B), 1 = -1.
>>16540061>Let X be a proposition like "God exists".No, that isn't one proposition, X, it is a complex formulaic proposition involving three separate truths: existence is true, god is true, and the complete overlap of god and existence is true.> truth_value(X) = -truth_value(not X), >"God exists" and "God does not exist"No, you left out the first - sign in your formula, it should read "God Exists" is equivalent to saying "Not God does Not Exist".> truth_val(X) = truth_val(not X)How did you jump from X= opposite of not X to X = not x? That is where your contradiction occurred because you forgot to carry over your double negative because your original "proposition" wasn't actually a single proposition, but a complex formula of propositions involving the proposition of god, existence, and the complete overlapping of the two.You are basically trying to say that because 1 = -1*-1 => 1 =-1 which is clearly wrong, you are just forgetting about one of your negative signs.
>>16540067I have not forgotten any signs. Read my post again.>How did you jump from X= opposite of not X to X = not x?As I explained:According to the "anything goes as long as it's consistent" theory, both "God exists" and "God does not exist" are true (assuming they are both consistent), sotruth_val(X) = 1 and truth_val(not X) = 1
>>16540069>I have not forgotten any signs.You clearly have, you went from truth_value(X) = -truth_value(not X), to truth_val(X) = truth_val(not X) = 1 without any real explaination of why you dropped the first -.>"anything goes as long as it's consistent" theory, both "God exists" and "God does not exist" are trueThose statements are not consistent, though because you dropped off your negative sign with no explanation, you first equivocated the statement that God Exists is equal to No God does not exist, then you just arbitrarily changed No God to God to get God does not exist, your math is not consistent, so neither are your results.
>>16540071My logic is clearly perfect. I can't help you if you don't see it.
>>16540075Nope, its obviously flawed in the way I described, you clearly aren't consistently carrying the negation to both sides of the equality, sorry you don't understand something as basic as -1*-1.
Some truths are selfevident. No need to sperg about it. If you say you dont believe this, then your actions betray your hypocrisy. You act on concrete sense data. NEXT
>>16540090That is still circular reasoning. Its not about believing, its about being satisfied enough to develop fool proof explanations that can stand the test of time for your future generations of descendants instead of just having tomes of uncompelling nonsense that fail to be relatable as soon as you are no longer there to provide your direct evidence.
>>16540096>Fool proof explanationsFuture will look at us as the fools. Dont be so haughty.>stand the test of timeHow naive you are.
>>16540099>us as the foolsEspecially (You), and you shouldn't speak for others since your entire argument is that truth can only be evident from the self rather than others.>How naive you are.>t. the anon whose entire argument is just trust me, bro because my truth is evident only to my self and yours to yourselfThis was one of Agrippa's tropes that was removed from the trilemma, by the way, besides making room for "I don't know" he also included the relative subjectivity of "Its all just like opinions, man, so trust me".
>>16540103Its a bad faith to interpret me as "just trust me bro". I never said that. Im just telling you that you are overcomplicating things for no benefit. If you write good stuff *maybe* it will be preserved. But you can guarantee that and if relevancy is your focus, then you fail at the main task. Even in 2000 years humans will have comparable basic senses. No need to overengineer your language. I hate pretentious faggot philosophers.
>>16540108>Its a bad faith to interpret me as "just trust me bro".No, that is exactly what self evident means, you expect me to completely trust you to provide your truths that are only evident to your self.>Im just telling you that you are overcomplicating things for no benefit>Just trust me, bro, its only as complicated as I need it to be for my benefit.>Even in 2000 years humans will have comparable basic senses.I wouldn't be so sure of that, we have only just started this century using technology to add senses to ourselves, there is really no predicting the degree to which we can modify ourselves as we are just now starting to scratch the surface.>No need to overengineer your language. >Just trust me, bro, I already basically know all truths even if I can't put it into words or symbols.>I hate pretentious faggot philosophers.They are better than solipsistic retards like you with your head up your own ass only to reach the same pretentious faggy endpoint as them, but with less interesting things to talk about along the way other than how much everything stinks.
>>16540114Talking about self evident things is the most authentic way of speaking. If I tell you its because of x, y and z then Im just rationalizing after the fact. I cant tell you what exactly makes me horny, only that I am horny for beautifuly women.
>>16540118>self evident things is the most authenticAuthentic is synonymous with one's own self, it is the most naive self contained way of trying to express truths to other people, but that doesn't make it the least false most universal way since you have just created a reality where everyone gets to have their own individual truths.>If I tell you its because of x, y and z then Im just rationalizing after the fact.>durr defining the words you use is just rationalizing language after the facts >I can't tell you exactly what makes me horny, so here is exact the one thing what makes me horny.You aren't even self consistent.
>>16539071>>16539070final knowledge is leaving rationalismat some point it would be nice if intellectuals were honest: the truth is that the fantasy of the intellectuals that rationality leads to truth and that somehow there 's a method to separate mind-poop ie schizophrenia from wisdom is preposterous.Intellectuals can't even acknowledge that their stance is not natural.Intellectuals are so narcissistic, that they think their position is the absolute norm across space and time and that somehow it's the biggest insight into reality that their brain poops are just... brain poops....WOAH I AM LE ENLIGHTENED WOAH LOOOKKKK AT ME I 'M BUDDDDHAAAA RRRRRRRICKKKKKKKKKAnd then the intellectuals think they can pass as super duper crazy gurus over their shirty insights which remains infantile in front of any non-rationalists wisdom.
>>16539832Again, you have totally misunderstood the revolutionary importance of Lagrange's work. Spend a few more years studying physics, "sonny".
>>16540133And yet you rely on the stories those intellectuals came up about how brains work to make up your retarded conspiracies.
>>16539904>121IQ response
>>16539942Munchhausen was not a real person you dumbass
>>16540167Then how exactly did he pull himself AND his horse out of that mire using his own hair?
>>16540168I... I don't... shit, man, you got me.
>>16539072Allowing for circular arguments allows for theories like particle pair creation.
>>16540130Rational consistency exists on paper but not in the actual human mind. It is impossible because of combinatorial explosion of checking every belief against every other belief. You are just being nitpicky. I just gave the example, because you didnt seem satisfied. You are no fun.
>>16540170Bot tier response
>>16540172Ok, thanks for identifying yourself, but it wasn't hard to figure out given your response had zero substance.
>>16540171>Rational consistency exists on paper but not in the actual human mind.So now you have gone from saying that truth is self evidence to saying the self is always deceptive, so its truth is impossibly unknowable?
>>16540005Based fartesian.
>>16540176You are just bad faithing me to get one over on me. I am done with this conversation.
>>16540179No, you literally went from saying truth is self evident to saying it was impossible for the human mind to know truth, if you are detecting bad faith arguments, its coming from inside your own mind.
>>16539126The monkeys just need a bigger vending machine accelerator.
This actually has a very easy response if you're not dumb. But clearly anons ITT are too dumb to appreciate it. Honestly the munchausen trilemma is one of the dumbest and dishonest framings I've seen of a thing in philosophy.
>>16540297You are actually a legitimately stupid person if this "trilemma" bothers you and if you cannot immediately resolve it in your mind.A single exposure to any mathematics textbook should make it clear what's going on.
>trilmaos need to be convinced they exist
Philosohpy is a really goofy subject
>>16539934That's your counter example demonstrating the inconsistency of truth tables? Talk about weak thinking.Please try harder next time.
>>16539126
>>16539918>As a logical assertion, that statement is a presupposition of both A and B and their relation.No, it isn't. B isn't part of the premises, only the conclusion.And presupposition of A is immaterial to the trilemma, which only claims conclusions can't be reached without circular argument.
>>16540177The best part is it does actually work.>How do I know I exist?>I just farted. >How do I know I actually farted and it wasn't just an illusion put there by some mind controlling aliens?>That may be, but for them to pull that trick on me I'd have to exist anyway.
>>16540077to play retard's advocate, perhaps he's saying -(1*-1)
>>16540311No, its an argument against your retarded appeal to committee.
>>16539069If you breath >99% helium for 30 minutes you will die in the process. You are more than welcome to disprove this OP. In reality there is a large but finite amount of states. You made up infinity and you are being confused by it.
