If rational arguments ultimately come from flawed presumptions and our senses are deceiving so they cannot be trusted, where does all knowledge come from? the divine? that answer seems convenient thus shallow.
Plz frens tell me your opinions and books on this topic
If rational arguments ultimately come from flawed presumptions and our senses are deceiving so they cannot be trusted...
Ryan Lewis
Other urls found in this thread:
Alexander Evans
Mathematics is pure. 2+2=4. God cannot make a prime number unprime.
Adam Sanders
Ultimate knowledge of physical reality seems impossible. Yet, some form of knowledge seems obtainable, even if it's not ultimate. I don't "ultimately" know that my phone won't spontaneously explode since my beliefs derived from experience are fallible, but if guess that it isn't going to explode, in other words, act in my beliefs derived from experience, I seem to right. And as long as I constrain my beliefs to scientific rigor, I seem to get along just fine without "absolute" knowledge about the physical world.
Math on the other hand, just fucken rocks. Math is true whether we know it or like it. More to it than that obviously but it's a lot easier to work with than real life.
Tldr; absolute knowledge, at least in empirical matters, seems overrated. And math rocks.
Wyatt Martinez
As an empiricist, I believe that the universe that I observe corresponds to a universe that actually exists outside of my ability to perceive it. That is the sole axiom I am willing to accept out of faith and faith alone. The rest is simply the application of method, and being clever enough to turn what a human being can observe into quantifiable data that can be measured and known. Sometimes that occurs by the development of a tool that expands our ability to make observations, like the telescope. Sometimes this occurs because a human thinks of a new and clever way to coax signal out of the noise. I believe that that is how human beings can "know" things - in fact, because I'm an empiricist, I believe that this is the only way a person can ever know anything, outside the field of mathematics. Everything else is simply poetry to me - and I love poetry.
But that's just the philosophy I have adopted for my own sake and my own peace of mind. It's the only thing a person like me can believe in.
Your problem seems to lie in the fact that you don't know what you mean when you say "knowledge". If you can define that for yourself, you'll have an easier time finding books about it. Something that is only poetry to me could be the mirror that shows you the shape of your universe, and your own lived reality.
Cooper Walker
>2+2=4
Can't prove it though. Russell tried and failed, I doubt you can do better
Camden Butler
>senses are deceiving so they cannot be trusted
The senses are infallible, it is in conception where fallibility occurs. Although, chronologically, man’s consciousness develops in three stages: the stage of sensations, the perceptual, the conceptual; epistemologically, the base of all of man’s knowledge is the perceptual stage. Sensations, as such, are not retained in man’s memory, nor is man able to experience a pure isolated sensation. As far as can be ascertained, an infant’s sensory experience is an undifferentiated chaos. Discriminated awareness begins on the level of percepts. A percept is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism. It is in the form of percepts that man grasps the evidence of his senses and apprehends reality. When we speak of “direct perception” or “direct awareness,” we mean the perceptual level. Percepts, not sensations, are the given, the self-evident. The knowledge of sensations as components of percepts is not direct, it is acquired by man much later: it is a scientific, conceptual discovery. Man’s senses do not provide him with automatic knowledge in separate snatches independent of context, but only with the material of knowledge, which his mind must learn to integrate. The senses cannot deceive us, physical objects cannot act without causes, our organs of perception are physical and have no volition, no power to invent or to distort. The evidence they give us is an absolute, but our minds must learn to understand it. We must discover the nature, the causes, the full context of our sensory material and dentify the things that we perceive.
Julian Williams
>If, thing that isn't true 1 and thing that isn't true 2, where does all knowledge come from?
Oliver Kelly
The self. Everything is relative. Our minds are just our reflection of the universe. There is no alternate consciousness we can comprehend, leaving ourselves uncomprehensible like that of space or time. Objects are concepts. The self is our view of the self.
Zachary Thomas
1 + 1 = 2
2(1) = 2
1 = 1
2 + 2 = 4
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4
4(1) = 4
1 = 1
Luis Martinez
>where does all knowledge come from?
the principle of sufficient reason
Jose Barnes
Gabriel Hall
The quality of things image reflects the quality of this post. Dumb frogposter.
Carter Butler
>let me prove my axioms by using other axioms
Chase Anderson
>show me how you prove conventions without using conventions
Lucas Wright
show me then how a thing isn't itself. a thing is a thing. if that thing is modified, it will still be itself. If a thing is divided, it will still be itself. If a thing is expanded, it will still be itself.
Cooper Walker
even nothing is itself. I am proving my axiom by using undisputable knowledge. Unless you can dispute it, which is impossible. A thing with multiple forms is still itself. A thing that is transcendental is still itself.
Dominic Roberts
>I am proving my axiom by using undisputable knowledge
yikes
Hunter Russell
It's impossible to dispute it because it's axiomatic. To change the axioms is to change what it is you're arguing about.
Luis Anderson
>If rational arguments ultimately come from flawed presumptions and our senses are deceiving so they cannot be trusted, where does all knowledge come from?
read the thread. I am proving an axiom.
Mason Lopez
>undisputable knowledge
Matthew Butler
You prove operant axioms (that means field-specific axioms kids) by reducing to irreducible axioms. These are the axioms of; existence, conciousness, and identity.
Joseph Morgan
Then dispute it. dispute that a thing is what it is.
Brayden Price
>when retards on Yea Forums don't understand axioms, reducibility, presupposition, and ostensive definitions.
Aiden Stewart
What's the flaw in these axioms? Let's take a specific example, what do you see as the flaw in the simple axiom that a + b = b + a. You (or OP, I'm not sure if you're one and the same) claim that all rational arguments come from flawed presumptions, so I'm interested in what the flaw in that is.
Logan Brooks
Kayden Taylor
Read Richard Popkin's history of scepticism, then get ready to spend several years of your life reading German idealism and 20th century meta-criticism of German idealism (Leo Strauss, Karl Lowith's work on nihilism, Martin Heidegger, etc.) just to come out to the answer:
>All contemporary philosophy seems to be limited to provisional descriptions of how discursive reason works, while simply taking for granted that it DOES work, and without ever tackling the problem of WHY it works or where it comes from? Positivism completely collapsed under the critiques of Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Godel, and a thousand others, and all we have left is the choice between pragmatism and unreflective scientific naturalism, both of which beg the question of their own validity and simply have to be taken for granted, i.e., pre-rationally "believed in"? And all the defenders of Reason in the classical sense are openly religious or they're mystics. This sucks.
Enjoy! Should take you about a decade to reach this depressing aporia and actually understand its depth!
Jackson Ortiz
103:7.9.The science of the material world enables man to control, and to some extent dominate, his physical environment. The religion of the spiritual experience is the source of the fraternity impulse which enables men to live together in the complexities of the civilization of a scientific age. Metaphysics, but more certainly revelation, affords a common meeting ground for the discoveries of both science and religion and makes possible the human attempt logically to correlate these separate but interdependent domains of thought into a well-balanced philosophy of scientific stability and religious certainty.
103:7.10.In the mortal state, nothing can be absolutely proved; both science and religion are predicated on assumptions. .
103:7.11.All divisions of human thought are predicated on certain assumptions which are accepted, though unproved, by the constitutive reality sensitivity of the mind endowment of man. Science starts out on its vaunted career of reasoning by assuming the reality of three things: matter, motion, and life. Religion starts out with the assumption of the validity of three things: mind, spirit, and the universe—the Supreme Being.
103:7.12.Science becomes the thought domain of mathematics, of the energy and material of time in space. Religion assumes to deal not only with finite and temporal spirit but also with the spirit of eternity and supremacy.
Sebastian Rivera
The Pythagoreans were a bunch of numerologists. They had incoherent ideas that revolved around, practically, number worship. Plato is the first one to come up with a coherent mathematical (specifically, geometric) model of physical reality/interaction. And then Aristotle sidetracked that project with his inchoate poetic mumbling about "potentialities" and "actualities".
Plato needn't have necessarily got the idea to involve mathematics in his philosophical exploration from the Pythagoreans. A fascination with mathematics was weaved into the social milieu of his time.
Pythagoreanism is actually a kind of either devaluing or elucidation of Primally old shamanic wisdom expressed fractally in almost cargo cult like fashion (compared to its unbroken form) in ancient Egyptian and ANE cultures and cosmologies etc.
Thus it follows that Platonism is a degenerate and secular form of pythagorianism and neoplatonism is a partial affirmation if not return toward the reconciliation of the profoundly illogical aspects of "philosophy". The commentary tradition of neo pythagorean, middle platonist and of the "commentators" are contrary to popular belief, not banal rote missives rather invocations of punctuated equilibrium born of repitition. This repitition guarantees to prove unequivocally that univocal agreement is practically impossible.
There is an inherent geography and corporeality to language, at it's limits (this limit is paradox/Demi-god) and when these limits are stroked and fluffed into affirmed arousal they become paradoxes which in turn become vaginas which are liminal zones, thresholds and portals in the mind of the human.
Western civilization has lost its roots in true magical training but Platonic philosophy is derived from this original mystical magical training. So Plato used the Archytas version of Pythagorean philosophy and so the "harmonic mean" did not exist in traditional or "orthodox" Pythagorean philosophy.
Liam Davis
>the responses to this post
>mfw your superiority has been the cause of some controversy
Ayden Nguyen
Knowledge is social convention. Validity is illusory and irrelevant. Methods are redundant.
Owen Green
Feels good BTFOing some retards on Yea Forums every now and then hehehe.
Luke Howard
Cant we just take a scientific approach to this? scientific knowledge started and continually uses false presumptions but science evolves. so has logic and rationality.
Jonathan Flores
Our consciousness.
Through our consciousness we interpret reality around us. You cannot prove that your senses are accurate but if you make the assertion that that are then you can move on to a system of discovering truth. Historically, truth was uncovered by asking a witch doctor who would invoke spiritual beings and speak his schizophrenic thoughts to the tribe... or something. There have been many systems to divine truth but it wasn't until the enlightenment period that this system was solidified. A few more assertions about the permanent state of natural laws and such and then you have the scientific method where most truths are derived.
>but isn't logic formed from prior unprovable logical statements faulty?
Yes. Everything we believe is a Faith position.
>doesn't this prove God?
No. One may argue that a religious position is not inherently illogical but logic for God, and especially religion, is almost always faulty and just requires more assertions
>if nothing is real and everything may be a lie why keep living?
Humans are irrational animals and they function according to how they have evolved.
>doesn't this mean values and morality are all nonsense that is just asserted then?
Yes. Societies use violence and coercion to uphold values and beliefs that are implicitly held by most members of society (e.g. do God given rights make sense if the citizens dont believe in God?) by repressing any challenge to these values. Most people are cattle who just believe these values are objectively true and cannot fathom someome arguing against them. Socities tend to get fucked uo when members cant even implicitly agree on what fundamental values they share.
>so what do I do so I don't go insane?
As someone who has been in and out of psych wards, been homeless, mutilated themselves, and lived for years in drunken isolation because of the existential dread this issue causes:
1. Don't be arrogant and understand that there may be a point I the future where you are exposed to further knowledge to disprove my beliefs
2. Join the new organisation I'm creating that explicitly states the fundamental logical assertions we make as the basis of our truth. The organisation will also have an unamendable constitution that states the values and paramount motivation that is shared by all members - an attempt to avoid the apathy and aimless hedonism that is inevitable in modern collectives as well as disagreements that are based upon fundamentally different asserted axioms, an issue that is painfully obvious in developed nations currently. The concept of a constitution that asserts values and goals of members is so important to assure that the work you out in today will not be in vain, like so many soldiers of nations before us who fought and died for a future then could not foresee and values they did not share.
Angel Garcia
fuck off m8