The blind are justified in saying light does not exist, because the blind are not acquainted with light

The blind are justified in saying light does not exist, because the blind are not acquainted with light.

Attached: th.jpg (474x604, 28K)

he say this?

So he was justified in shitting on Aristotle because he was a cuck? Is that what you're saying?

He says to justify believing a proposition you must be acquainted with its sense-data.

Reminder that Bertrand Russell was a racist prick.(Russell 1929: 266)

Russell, Bertrand. 1929. Marriage and Morals. Liveright Publishing Corporation, New York.

by this reasoning, everyone is justified by all of of their genuine beliefs

Empiricists are literally retarded.
Russell and Hilbert were bfto by based platonist Godel by and never recovered, like every other materialist and empiricist throughout history.

Russel was was critiquing a description of "Aristotle." Perhaps it was a bad description, maybe only Aristotle could say, but his critique against this Aristotle is still sound.

Attached: 15662719157138608627861803546146.png (454x520, 219K)

Except, of course, that the caricature of the person you're image is mocking is a materialist empiricist.

Russell is the king of all pseuds. This man is the quintessential hack.

>you’re image

Attached: 652165.png (474x711, 90K)

Seethe harder conty.

hmm so this is the guy that invented the idea of subjectivity?

Pointing out a spelling error isn't an argument.

Jung called himself an empiricist and he was pretty smart

>implying anything Godel did outside pure maths has any relevance whatsoever

Attached: 12472482_1759290040971281_1620382343698562056_n.png (777x656, 327K)

>I only believe what I see
>I can't see the act of seeing

Attached: 1567400078052.png (1200x1200, 42K)

>the act of seeing
see? this is why no one likes you metaphysictards

it's literally a non-issue. you haven't proven anything, just obfuscated. as is par for the course with you morons.

"the act of seeing" is just a language game devised to verbally report the first-person empirical data that is seeing. "the act of seeing" doesn't exist outside of this language game. it is not some immaterial principle.

based wittyposter

Attached: 31073345_979841055514278_9003109438629242462_n.png (676x376, 309K)

>"the act of seeing" is just a language game
Materialism is so incoherent that materialists deny the act of seeing.

Attached: 1566584157024.jpg (378x378, 31K)

Uhh... what about computer tho

totally missed the point

How do Empiricists even live? Do they begrudgingly accept a provisional Ideal every time they count things, or do they suppose they have been Empirically showed Number?

They probably care about actual consequences, unlike masterbatory sophists like you

All knowledge is derived from experience. All knowledge is empirical.

>Reminder that Bertrand Russell was a racist prick.
what’s the problem, again?

>this level of empiritard

lmao

Hey don't you have some of your own farts to smell and yourself to congratulate some more while less and less people pay attention to your fringe philosophy?

what u know about my ‘fringe’ philosophy boi, you have never met me. i thought you needed adequate sense data, apparently that doesn’t apply for your shitty assumptions

just admit that the OP quote is a retarded statement and quit larping.

All my sense data so far tells me your a pseud. Also, earlier experience tells me you're in your 20's, a former skeptic turned cringelord traditionalist, and that you blame everyone but yourself for the fact that you can't get laid. How you like them assumptions?

it’s yours to keep in your personal treasury of irrelevant private opinion that noone cares about, my big pants boi. truth is intersubjective, everyone and their 10 year old knows this.

Laser light of strong intensity would burn their skin and without the concept of "light", they'd have no explanation for the damaging of skin without tactile sensations - otherwise they would have to invent "spooky burning rays" which is another term for light.

His point is that "the act of seeing" is just seeing itself. You are seeing, therefore you are seeing the act of seeing.

>. i thought you needed adequate sense data,
This is enough sense data for anyone to conclude you're a pseud

suckie suckie big BOI U CLEVEREST BOI ON THE CHAN BRO WAUWWW. Big brainie scientistman

>pseud excited to discover mocking as a rhetorical device and defensive mechanism to protect his fragile ego
We know your type user, we all had retarded manchildren friends

Why are u wasting time on little pathetic swine like me here, highlord?

Who gives a shit faggot
Big agree. Listen to his "debate" about God with Copleston, he's a total pseud.

Seeing as mathematics and computer science are a proper superclass over physics - yea, what he did literally affects every discipline everywhere, from physics to literature (human grammars are finite automata, and are thus under computability theory) and literally everything else.

Back to Chapo

the telltale sign of a pseud is when they attempt to negate an argument by saying "t-thats just semantics!"

This is provably false, have you ever read Kant?

>Pointing out a spelling error isn't an argument.

Attached: 0C851D92-BEF9-4615-9B37-C6AE66F98BB4.png (785x1000, 301K)

>he thinks Kant actually proved a priori synthetic knowledge
Have you ever read Kant?

Not an argument.

>He claims Kant didn't when he did
Didn't understand Kant.

Okay then show us the proof retard

That makes about as much sense as saying ultra-violet light or gamma radiation doesn't exist because we can't see it.

We can see their effects, and thus find ways to detect those photons. It would make more sense to think of some kind of thing that exists, but has zero interaction with us or anything we can perceive.

>what is idealism

Read Kant retard.
>inb4 "so you don't have an argument"
Kant already made it, if you actually read Kant you'd know it, showing you haven't. The jist is: You are only right if you claim we know an object in itself and not only it's appearance to us. However if you are claiming that you can know an object-in-itself and not just it's appearance to us, you are disagreeing with Empiricism already.

>if I can't see it it not real
Lol caveman philosophy

>He says to justify believing a proposition you must be acquainted with its sense-data.
How does he justify such a weird belief?

>but has zero interaction with us or anything we can perceive.
Lol. This retard doesn't know the effects of gamma radiation.

Well exactly. A blind man could get sunburn, that would prove light exists. Just because you can't sense something doesn't mean its not there.

Ridiculous. Spirit does not create matter, matter creates spirit.

The prototypical basedboy bug man is an empiricist materialist who thinks idealism and such are "like religion", without actually understanding what he's talking about.
I.e you, you are projecting.

Imagine actually being a logical positivist in 2k19.

Shhhhh. OP still hasn't read Ayer or Quine.

Attached: 1567431648199.jpg (742x745, 74K)

>You are only right if you claim we know an object in itself and not only it's appearance to us.
Lol so your entire argument is a non-sequitur?

Logical empiricism is just as brainlet as logical positivism.
The ONLY correct metaphysical ideology is computational idealism (my own philosophy. I'm writing the treatise on it now).

Have you ever read any actual works dealing with these subjects? That is not a non sequitor.

>computational idealism (my own philosophy. I'm writing the treatise on it now).
Based.

HAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHABAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHZHAH, OH.... ANGLOS


HAHAHAHAHAHZHZHZHZHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Typical Yea Forums retard who has no understanding of logic, can never form a coherent arguement, and thinks they can just outsource their arguments to books they never understoood

>no understanding of logic
Fool, I literally wrote my master's thesis on constructive logics and Heyting algebras, my Ph.D is in Order Theory.
Do you know what logic even is? Logic is a supclass of mathematics that corresponds to a branch of the Heyting Lattice. Logic is a subclass of mathematics, which is a subclass of the theory of computation.
Where is the non-sequitor in what I wrote? Answer: it's not a non sequitor.

Post body and jaw

>proceeds to list his autistic credentials
Cringe is not a rhetorical device retard.

You claimed "all knowledge is empirical" requires that we know an object in itself, which it does not as no one claimed knowledge of noumena

You also said Kant proved that a priori synthetic knowledge exists, whereas he only proved it CAN exist and used it as an assumption for his following arguments

Give us a quick rundown

No, he quite clearly demonstarated, or at least tried to, that mathematics come from apriori synthetic. His arguments are far from rigiorous, but any modern reading on this is far better that Frege's Grundgesetze all aproiri analytic autism.

you are the biggest pseud in this thread