Why does it seem that philosophy always appears to be an infinite reggression down a rabbit hole?
For example, in ethics, you could say that the withdrawal of consent is nullified if that action ends in a net positive poised in the aphorism 'what doesn't kill us makes us stronger'; if you were a believer of consequentalism that is.
So what are some books that deal with the regressive nature of truth or the Munchausen trilemna?
>Why does it seem that philosophy always appears to be an infinite reggression down a rabbit hole?
That’s all they got left.
>Why does it seem that philosophy always appears to be an infinite reggression down a rabbit hole?
Trying to ground philosophy on some objective first principle has failed, philosophy will always be contingent on tradition and on language. You can't prove your underlying assumptions, in practice, you inherit them based on the tradition you grew up in.
Wait till you realize physics is the same thing
bump
Sadly so. Rationality turns life to grey ash by its psudo-social strangulation of Reasons gifts.
>the withdrawal of consent is nullified if that action ends in a net positive
You are one kinky bitch
this. because we're in hell.
The only valid epistemology is one based on faith.
The spiral is a spiritualized circle. In the spiral form, the circle, uncoiled, has ceased to be vicious; it has been set free.
>in ethics, you could say that the withdrawal of consent is nullified if that action ends in a net positive poised in the aphorism 'what doesn't kill us makes us stronger'
For sure! I look forward to the next time someone takes away my consent because I’ll be stronger as a result from not dying from the experience
Implications
yeah, except yours, right faggot? yawn
How?
Münchhausen trilemma fails because it is itself an axiomatic system: the belief in a reality or a truth that can be known. It is a circular system, in that the the theory and pursuit of epistemology are self satisfactorily creating the validity of epistemology. It is a regressive argument requiring the endless pursuit of truth to sustain the question of whether you can ever find it.
The medium is the message
Happy Cinco de Mayo y'all. Can you tell I ate the worm?
How is this meaningful?
Shut the fuck up buttertard.
Philosophy is love of wisdom, but more specifically the use of reason to arrive to truth.
What truth is there to ascertained? What are you looking for?
In general there should be truth to things, obviously behind nature but also the abstract and even rationality itself.
Apprehending a logical system of metaphysics is probably the highest calling in philosophy, but the common simple minded folk just want to argue about absolute proof, which in the end boils down to possibilities and probabilities anyway.
consent or not wouldnt have much of a place in most consequentialist perspectives either way, and the ones it did would probably not adhere to your statement
>For example, in ethics, you could say that the withdrawal of consent is nullified if that action ends in a net positive poised in the aphorism 'what doesn't kill us makes us stronger'; if you were a believer of consequentalism that is.
Most pseud thing I read all day on this board, congrats.
Because reality is a flowing fractal
that's a helix
There's there inherent first principle of existence. We come from a singular existence.
Therefore all ethics, imperatives would form from that existence. This throws popular / Christian morality out the window
>Why does it seem that philosophy always appears to be an infinite reggression down a rabbit hole?
That's not philosophy. That's skepticism.
The two are not synonymous.
Von Hartmann averred that you must attempt inductive and seductive methods to develop your philosophical system
Why don't you want a rabbit hole in your life?
You can skirt your reliance on tradition through violent assertions of axioms.
A society could easily be constructed in such a way to explicitly state assertions made and explicitly list punishments for challenges to those assertions. People see this as immoral but we do the same thing now only its all implicit... which essentially has all the downsides of explicit assertions plus all the other issues that stem from an ambiguous fundamental value system.
That's how I want to structure a future nature/organisation.
Read Hegel's preface to the Phenomenology. He is aware of exactly this problem (among others) with philosophy, and outlines how to solve it. Specifically, he sees this as a problem with "formalism", which reduces the rich truth of actuality to a flat, lifeless shadow in order to deal with it more easily. This approach produces valid truths, but they are also lifeless and fail to be true to actuality. If you want the details, read the Phenomenology and then his other works. Then come to your own conclusion as to whether he succeeded or not.
Based Hegel understander
He derives this from Herder btw.
Your ethical question, is actually a political one. Consent is not a typical term, its a term of liberal political philosophy and it is one that is pretty awful, honestly. You are welcome to try and define it.
Furthermore, lets refer to the MT, and the nature of truth. What is your burden of truth? If you set the bar for truth to be so high as "ultimate, 100 percent truth" then youll be unsatisfied, in fact, what do you mean by true? Another word which is impossible to define.
I think there is a ton of linguistic confusion going on here, and I am not even a wittgensteinian.
Can you imagine what a time it was to be alive in Germany back then, with ALL those brilliant people within a 500 mile radius, just a locust of brilliance oozing out onto the past and future. Fredrick, Hegel, Goethe, Bach, Holderlin, crazy
>universal morality
>if le axe murderer comes to your door and asks where your Mum is you have to tell him because lying bad
>hasn't read Kants rebuttal or literally any of his works
Telling the truth and telling a lie is a false dichotomy, you can act morally good in that situation in hundreds of ways other then lying, you can for example, say nothing at all. You out yourself as an A class 50 ft brainlet when you make babbies first philosophy critique against the categorical imperative.
What's it like to experience the world as a girl like this?
It’s horror
Based Kant understander
Based kantposter, fuck amoralism.
I suppose you notice at an early age that you are desired, say at 13. Then you have to make the most of it, so first have fun and then get the best genetics you can, meaning you should marry at 23 or so. In between the world will be at your feet, so much so that you will have the overall social competence of a degenerate French aristocrat. You will not become good company, funny, smart or educated but people will pretend you are. Then after marriage and kids you will live off the status which is conferred by material wealth with a heightened need to enforce it. Your looks decline fast and you will become somewhat aware of the absence of compensating qualities. You now have to surround yourself with sycophants or materialists and you go all in on maternity to bind your partner, you infantilize your children far into adulthood. You are attracted by new-ageism because you delude yourself into thinking that it confers profundity onto your personality..I could go on but there are many ways this can develop, just a general outline.
Worryingly accurate.
>the world will be at your feet, so much so that you will have the overall social competence of a degenerate French aristocrat. You will not become good company, funny, smart or educated but people will pretend you are
Incredible user, right on the money
That doesn't sound like the trilemma fails -- only if you view it as a truth claim. It might be more benficial to consider it a thought experiment, or a question, or a challenge. The fact that the issues of the trilemma are themselves reflected in the trilemma doesn't suddenly mean we're now in a place of perfect certainty, where the trilemma's problems can be disregarded.
Very redpilled
Hegel, Hoelderlin, and Schelling were actually roommates in prep school. Bach's somewhat before this, but Schubert and Beethoven aren't.
Read The Nag Hammadi.
That sounds sad.
What about philosophy students? And I mean the female and non-American ones.
this
I don't understand the question. Women of considerable beauty will not become philosophers. They have already won the lottery, all of them can choose to become millionaires by marriage or if they want to retain independence by a form of prostitution like instagram thoterry. They will be aware of this at too young an age to make a maybe more philosophically sound decision. Obviously there are exceptions but we're talking one in a thousand and there aren't many philosophers to begin with, and certainly not female philosophers. I'd be surprised if the answer to your question would apply to more than 30 people, and that is too few to perceive a pattern.
The hottest female philospher I am aware of is Thea Dorn, and generously speaking she used to be a six or a seven (didn't age well). And that was enough to get her a TV show in Germany. She's not that bright, just average. Hot high IQ women become actresses.
Her eyes are the same color as her bikini.
>philosophy is solved
one of the goofiest things I've ever seen posted on this board
lmao
What's pseud about it? Do you not know what consequentialism is?
Not him, but using a Nietzschean aphorism as a truism doesn't "nullify" the negative consequences of a rape. If I stab you in the fucking dick and you somehow survive, I guess I just say "oh don't worry about it bro that just made you stronger." If I hold you down and fuck your ass, "I don't see why you're so upset, I only did it to make you stronger." If I literally flay your muscles from your body "you see dude? I'm just making you stronger."
stop being spooky
What if you did something immoral to me and it made me reflect and change my behaviour and after that I felt that I was a stronger man? Would what you did to me be 'immoral' after all?
>it made me reflect and change my behaviour and after that I felt that I was a stronger man
But you can never expect this as a necessary consequence of anything other than introspection. Chopping your dick off could just as likely send you into a tailspin as make you reflect. The only necessary consequence of something like that is suffering, so from a strict consequentialist perspective, it's impermissible.
Daily reminder that Nietzche was not a philosopher, he himself stated he was an existential psychologist. Consequense is irrelevant, the only thing that moral value can be ascribed to is intention, end of.
>Why does it seem that philosophy always appears to be an infinite reggression down a rabbit hole?
reading skills
Yes, it may send you into a tailspin but in this case the suffering brought forth wisdom. Let's say I am the victim and I determine that the suffering brought wisdom which brought strength and uncertainy is out the window. How would the action that caused me to suffer be immoral?
>no divine source
>no prophets nor revelation
>just human mental masturbation
>gee why we always going in circles and down dark holes???
PHILOSOPHY CANNOT SAVE YOU
how is physics any different? we found the molecule, then the atom, then the subatomic particle, and so on
i think most if not all disciplines are somewhat fractal.
>no divine source
Uhm, the logos.
And heaven is in the mind.
Continental philosophers say as much- Rorty I think - inquiry is really just increasingly novel description.
Analyticals lol at this and do ethics.
Did say anything was “solved”. That’s your meme.
I said there’s nothing much left to discuss.
Study it all you like. Some of it is useful, lots of it is useless, even more of it is stupidly wrong. But a fair amount is just unknowable.
The way that can be spoken is not the true way. This is why the analytics failed in their pursuit of formal systems, and why the continentals are stuck chasing each other's tails, despite being the dominant school today.
because all bodies of knowledge are institutions that must preserve themselves before fulfilling any other obligation. first it does this by exercising its explanatory power in the areas it can ontologically claim to explain. however, philosophy must also justify itself by making itself airtight, and it does so by extending its logic into infinite regressive paths that only the most dedicated and knowledgeable saboteur would travel upon. the more niche and specific a realm of philosophy, the more useless it is for anything other than maintaining the current philosophical paradigm