When did you realize that reason led nowhere and that no certain knowledge was possible?

how do you know the axioms are true though

Read my answer again.

You're only demonstrating why Socrates said the only thing he knows is that he doesn't know anything.

When I discovered Sextus Empiricus and the Sceptics. Also Taoism.

I have no beliefs now and I live a life guided by experiences with no dogmatic knowledge, ideas or principles. Never been happier since I became anti-intellectual.

A priori knowledge.

>Dismissing these guesses would be nonsensical since they do work

The effectiveness of our heuristics will never tell us anything about things-in-themselves and will never allow us to establish any certain knowledge. A scientific theory, as efficient as it may be, is never true but only not yet refuted (Kark Popper), and only one chosen among an infinite number of possible explanations for the same facts (Pierre Duhem).

How do u deal with suffering, dissatisfaction and death user?

The inability to know what? Knowledge? Do you know that you know nothing?Why is truth contradictory? And if it is, that must be a true statement. If it isn’t contradictory, then this whole discussion would be null.

103:9.7.Faith most willingly carries reason along as far as reason can go and then goes on with wisdom to the full philosophic limit; and then it dares to launch out upon the limitless and never-ending universe journey in the sole company of TRUTH.

103:9.8.Science (knowledge) is founded on the inherent (adjutant spirit) assumption that reason is valid, that the universe can be comprehended. Philosophy (co-ordinate comprehension) is founded on the inherent (spirit of wisdom) assumption that wisdom is valid, that the material universe can be co-ordinated with the spiritual. Religion (the truth of personal spiritual experience) is founded on the inherent (Thought Adjuster) assumption that faith is valid, that God can be known and attained.

Attached: 4534535353.png (404x402, 229K)

I guess the axioms would have to be self-evident and the inferences from them logically sound? But there are no "objective" axioms to start with in the first place. The axioms you go for are relative to you or the person choosing them. So that's a dead end as well.
How about truth coming from pragmatic action to solve problems. Isn't that what Dewey and the pragmatists gave as a test for truth? Problem solving?

Yeah and you can act in defiance of science in general, scince it does not contain truth at its core, as you again pointed out, but that life won't be good, even if it is "true"

>sophist master

>How do u deal with suffering, dissatisfaction and death user?
I don't have any beliefs about them. If suffering or dissatisfcation happens, it's unpleasant but after it's finished then it's gone. But outside of the event, I don't have any beliefs about these things either way. This is bliss.

>How about truth coming from pragmatic action to solve problems. Isn't that what Dewey and the pragmatists gave as a test for truth? Problem solving?
Buddha did that

Very buddhist way of thinking
Not surprising since the Greek skeptics have maybe inherited the Buddhist thought (Pyrrho).

What's wrong with axiomatic arguments? It's the literal best we have.
> t. sperglord

You can reach Descartes, man, just some centuries late, keep going

>Buddha did that
Buddha had all kinds of inward beliefs to do with desire, suffering and nirvana though? The pragmatists literally have no beliefs that can't produce external effects.

I’m just arguing how Socrates would have.

Descartes didn't go through with it. "I think therefore I am" -> but who perceives thoughts? We are as much our thoughts as the objects we perceive. Read the Upanishads. Then you will understand that even primordial consciousness is always a conditioned relationship and therefore cannot be the Absolute, and then you can read the Buddha.

if they are self-evident, why even postulate them?

>Descartes
He was wrong about nearly everything. That's what happens when you use foundations or axioms.

thebuddhistcentre.com/westernbuddhistreview/pyrrho-and-buddha-reasons-be-sceptical

As a grounds to prove further truths to get rid of regress.

Let me rephrase that:
I would like to claim, that I've understood and agree that no human knowledge of truth is obtainable. However, are you advocating that we overthrow our "heuristics" because they are build on what we (can) know to be untrue?
I would say that it is the strive for truth, knowing that we can never achieve it, that is the essence of the (human) soul, like Goethe or Schopenhauer did

you didnt understand the line of argumentation - anything that is "self-evident" wouldn't need to be even mentioned as it would be self-evident

>However, are you advocating that we overthrow our "heuristics" because they are build on what we (can) know to be untrue?
No user
I use my pc right now
Its useful
But its not an answer

It's truth is self-evident. The statement might not be self-evident.

But then what's the problem?

if truth were self-evident, this thread would not get posts.

Who said anything about a problem? Read my first message again

> When did you realize that reason led nowhere and that no certain knowledge was possible?

But if there is a problem, it is the human thirst for an answer and the existential emptiness that this realization leaves behind.

No, truth in "general" is not self-evident. I'm discussing axioms only. The truth of an axiom is self-evident. But the axiom itself might not be self-evident.

I don't think you understand what self-evident means outside of autistic logical terms. Think upon the words.

ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy_Emmanuel.pdf chapter 14 "A survey of early buddhist epistemology"

Ok good, i was checking if I understood you correctly, I agree, there is no problem, as I (tried to) point out in the second part of my response, humans strive for some sort of truth, knowing they can't obtain it. But I do not think, that that realisation leaves behind existential dread, because that incompleteness is what makes you human as opposed to a god and since you cannot measure up to (the) god(s) at all, why sweat it?

I thought like this, once upon a time.
Then I saw men build rockets and go into space.
So I stopped sucking my own dick and accepted that our material existence is an axiom one must accept blindly, or risk being blind.

When I realized I'm in hell.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duḥkha

Can someone try to refute me here? I understand that he’s trying to say that asserting ‘truth is contradictory is a true statement’ must also be contradictory, but ascribing a contrarian nature to truth must still be a true assessment of truth’s nature if it’s true 100% of the time (e.g. truth is never not contradictory).

I'll give my thoughts on it but that does not (have to) mean much.
I think that your argumentation lacks the second component of the op.
That truth requires proof and that humans ("limited" /restricted beings) can not create a proof of truth, thus truth might exist but independently from humans, we can only strive towards it but never achieve it and also never employ truth
Did I understand what you meant?

principle of non-contradiction is an axiom -> axiomatic argument of the trilemma

Yeah, but he was right about what you're wrong

>truth requires proof
This is what I don’t understand, because that very statement must be true in order for it to hold any weight. If ‘truth requires proof’ is not a true statement, then truth requires no proof, invalidating the OP. How can you assert things about truth’s nature if you’re arguing from a nihilist’s perspective?

I propose
There is no other way for us to define truth, than to try and find a proof, it's also what you did in your original statement

a truth needs to be proven in order to be convincing, otherwise all assertions are equally valid and none of them carry any weight, which cancels out the very notion of truth.

>Truth requires proof
Is a false proposition. This fuckers know nothing about logic.

>I am a brainlet who dares to talk about logic, the science of demonstration, when I deny that a truth needs to be proven

>a truth needs to be proven in order to be convincing
Not if it’s a deductive truth. For instance, if I say ‘there is no truth’ then that must be a true statement; if the statement is not true, then there is truth. I agree that 21st century science mostly relies on faulty “truths” though.

Not a science, and it is not about truth but reasoning, you retard

>did you really think I wasn't dumb enough to take the word science literally? Ha-ha!

God is the only solution.
Philosophy is self refuting.
Science has no real answers.

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness

Yeah, stop outing yourself as a retard

Read the critique of pure reason, please. Or any book

The proof of a deductive truth is the fact that it was deduced/ the process of deducing it I would think.
What I am thinking is that, of course proof exists, as soon as humans try to understand that truth (interpret it) they proof it, inescapably

*Try to proof it I meant

>but who perceives thoughts?
The Atman, obviously
>We are as much our thoughts as the objects we perceive.
only if you mistake your thoughts and sensory data for the Atman
>Read the Upanishads. Then you will understand that even primordial consciousness is always a conditioned relationship and therefore cannot be the Absolute, and then you can read the Buddha
The Upanishads don't teach this though you retard, they say that Consciousness is unconditioned and is the Absolute, Buddha didn't offer any arguments against this at all. In the one sutta in the PC where something like this is mentioned Buddha had to use his fake supernatural powers because he had no good arguments against it

If science, god and hope are pointless, then why not commit suicide?

Give me your best answers anons, extra points for non- Sisyphesean answers.

Reason cannot ground reason just as language cannot communicate language. If you don't believe the latter, consult the sentence "This sentence is a lie."
Notice how there is something "meta" about that sentence. It's stepping out of the bounds it was intended to stay in. It's like science trying to do philosophy. By stopping your inquiry at the trilemma you are a Sam Harris stopping dead at neuroscience and not doing any real Ethics.
Now the trilemma is trying to do "meta" reason. Step out of it. Move on to the next level. Embrace unreason.

Attached: 1521365516430.jpg (1056x704, 98K)

lmao it took this nigga three tries before getting right
and before you ask, why yes, I am a phoneposting chad, how could you tell?

Attached: nigga_cant_get_it_right.png (1080x1185, 131K)

>unprovable and has as much rational weight as any other belief?

Just because something cannot be proven does not make it equally rational to every other belief.

Some beliefs rest on mountains of observations, others do not.

Read the Science of Logic. This is only an issue if you’re still stuck in formal, substanceless logical thought. The arrival to unreason is immanent in the elevation of reason as mirror to reality. Where does reason ought to lead us? Truth? How do you know that? Is it not through some prior precept you hold derived from the ideology of rationalism itself? Is a precondition for truth not reason itself as a method of recognizing it? Do you not reject reason on the basis of rational principles (as the trilemma exemplifies)? What is this trilemma doing if not using the immanent principles of rational thought to negate itself? Is this criticism of rationalism not another instance of it?

based brainlet

What matters is he got it

>The Atman, obviously
yes

>only if you mistake your thoughts and sensory data for the Atman
that was my point: you are as much (not) your thoughts as the table in front of you.

> they say that Consciousness is unconditioned and is the Absolute, Buddha didn't offer any arguments against this at all.
the Buddha reached the Atman-Brahman and realized that it was not the absolute but always a conditioned state. Consciousness is not better defined as what perceives, so it is always a relationship with what is perceived. No perception without perceived, and that which is relational is conditioned. Nibbana goes beyond consciousness and all conditioning.

I know that if there's a meta way out to reason, it's supra-rational mysticism. But it is precisely irational (or rather supra-rational), so it is difficult to get involved in it and not to have great periods of doubt for a modern mind like ours.

>Nibbana
I'm all well and good with this, but you didn't have to call him the n word to get your point across dude.

>retroactive argument

Attached: 1582784360685.jpg (190x272, 10K)

>be indoctrinated within the cultural Marxist system
Clearly, it is impossible for us to know anything, since an entire knowing of things would require a super knowing with which we are further provided without knowing.
>Leave the cultural Marxist wasteland of modern ‘academia’ and arrive in the deep web void of post-Traditional postmodernism
Clearly, if we are able to formulate and postulate Ideas which transcend the bounds of a unveiled ontology, then regardless of the teleology unveiled, we can logically deduce a stable origin which is mostly of irrelevant material. We do not need to know what we do not know in order to understand what we already understand.

Attached: 419520A1-89AE-47B2-B04B-3052114C059F.jpg (265x281, 19K)

How do you know they’re really good?

How do you know he was wrong

>that no certain knowledge was possible?
Are you certain?

>no stop using the words right you’re autism
cringe

Then we can't be certain that truth as a concept is even true, because asserting truth = truth would require us to be able to know what truth is in the first place, if it exists.

As such, we have license to define the phenomenon of 'truth' ourselves, and so truth then is ultimately our ability to subjectively define objects. Truth is definition itself, then.

> Truth is definition itself, then.
Can there be a circle which is not a circle? How can one thing be something which it isn’t made of?

>didnt read hegel
for shame, user

This is the subject of Wittgenstein's On Certainty.

circular argument, or axiomatic
Theory: there is truth in reason
Proof: reason says that there is truth in reason (via non-contradiction principle which is an axiom)

I just didn't give a shit, who cares if truth is impossible.

>Then I saw men build rockets and go into space.
Why did this change anything about what you thought? Who cares if they went to space or they went to 7-11? What's the difference? Who gives a fuck about space or rockets? Prove there is more meaning in going to space than jacking off.

Read Kant

Attached: kantgoblin.png (793x529, 304K)

Based kant poster

>Niggana

Attached: LAUGH.png (327x316, 208K)

Attached: raven.jpg (1920x1080, 433K)

Knowledge is proven by demonstration. The consequences that the knowledge yield should "cash out" its truth value.

the concept of truth is misguided and primative

>mucher theory is true
prove it

Attached: 1581078569528.jpg (680x682, 65K)

Imagine at some point we finally reach the limits of reality. We visit literally everywhere in the universe, explore every nook and cranny and research every tech on the tech tree. Imagine this society as having reached the pinnacle of speculative physical reality. Now imagine with all that knowledge of literally everything there is still not a single shred of proof that god exists. Would you still believe, religionfags?

I think if the opposite were true, that we found god or some similar entity that transcends the mortal realm, I think I'd have no problem with believing in it/him/her/them.

since i realised the demiurge put us in agnosia. You NEED gnosis nigga

ITT: like 10 edgy pseuds trying to use reasoning to prove reasoning doesn’t exist.

here’s a real challenge for you autistic faggots, try live your life without using reason at all - tomorrow morning when you wake up remember that just because you thought the floor was there to stand on yesterday, there is no mechanism with which you can assume the same today, stay in bed, don’t move, and die.

Obviously things break down if logic doesn't work.

Start with the Greeks.

Attached: sextus-empiricus-c160-c210-granger.jpg (500x967, 133K)

Why should I start with anything if I shouldn’t be capable of being convinced of literally anything?

...

proofs cant prove proving, reason can't reason without unreasonable presuppositions, jeffrey epstein didn't kill himself

Kek

Regressive argument works for the same reason Zeno's paradox doesn't.

>Regressive argument (proofs go ad infinitum)
Why would that invalidate the answer?
We all know 0.999... is infinite, but that doesn't preclude the fact it is equal to 1.

.999.... isn't 'proofs' you fucking mongoloid.

Jfc...

you're missing the point. 0.9 isn't equal to one, and 0.99 isn't equal to one either, but it is closer and 0.999 is closer still. Just like a chain of proofs, each brings it closer to the truth, and we can interpret that since an infinite number of nines reduces the discrepancy to zero, an infinite number of proofs can reduce the uncertainty to cero as well.

>axiomatic: rests on accepted precepts
>One cannot eat one's cake and have it too.
There are absolute physical constraints on cognition and action; there is no 'assenting' to a certain discrete set of these -- man's sentience issues forth from them. There is no dividing by zero.

>Just like a chain of proofs
Nonsense. A proof only needs two sides, the proposition, and the reverse: Sufficiency and Necessity. If there is any exceptions, like a diorism, then this is placed after everything, but only then is anything more than two proofs required.

Obviously in order to approach a central proposition, many propositions are needed, but your point is a simple number, it isn't a number. And if you wanted to show me that .999...99...n approached 1 as n approaches infinity, then you'd simply have to make some kind of argument for generality, you wouldn't make an assumption.

You know, mathematics isn't exactly all you think it is. It isn't so rigorous that someone writing down in his book goes WHAT THAT SUPREME MATHEMATICIAN SAYS IT APPROACHES ONE?!? In some ways, Set theory can be similar to philosophy, in that it's how the mathematician approaches the theory.

I'm actually having some problems with this because if their understanding of set theory is too watery, they might do some things like Lloyd Shapley and compare a sigma field with a lebesgue measure, or try to say that a lebesgue measure is greater than or less than a linear constant. :3

I like this image, it is funny, but it is far from true in its skepticism.

" Said the drooling the drooling retard.

Attached: I'll register you as a retard.jpg (211x244, 19K)

>led nowhere
quite the oppoiste, reason is pragmatic rather than other thing

This would imply there is no certain knowledge and that we are no better off than the ancient Sumerians when it comes to reaching a stronger position

>Why should I start with anything if I shouldn’t be capable of being convinced of literally anything?
to understand how ignorant you really are

Not him, but indeed. Just have fun, and always remember there is nothing to be accomplished. Everything will be ok, even when the tower of Babel we call civilization falls.

So, are you an eliminationist or a mysterian?

Bro, you created hell for yourself. Just stop hitting yourself already.

It was pretty based of God how He made you stumble on your own words even when making such a simple statement.

It's not that we're not better off, it's that the project will never be finished. God was rejected on the basis science would eventually solve everything.

>God was rejected on the basis science would eventually solve everything.
Yes.

Attached: 38293535-72F1-445C-907C-4A5CE6E7B9A9.jpg (1034x1264, 180K)

if truth and knowledge are unattainable and we are working with beliefs, does ideology become the bedrock of thinking?

>he thinks we can reach the limits of reality
>he thinks reality has limits

Attached: point_and_laugh.gif (480x256, 2.44M)

>Mysterian
interesting idea, one that I'm totally open to. I have my own ideas about consciousness, but thanks for the reading-hole.
>Eliminationist
All I could find on this was something about eliminating jews, could you be more specific?
In any case, neither of these directly touches my idea. It's more like brain-in-jar syndrome. Sure, we can't conclusively prove that our senses don't deceive us. More than that, we know for a fact that they sometimes do. But if we don't take it on faith that, yes, we are speaking to each other in this room, and yes, we are affecting a mutually-inhabited reality with mutual consequences, then we would just spend our lives quibbling about nonsense and doing nothing with our lifetimes.
Sound familiar?

Slines get read.

Attached: ehhhh.png (261x329, 60K)

Thinking is just unimportant mind chatter. All that is needed is for people to understand they don't need to do or accomplish anything.

Eliminationist materialism is the position that consciousness does not exist.

> reality... nothing with out lifetimes
You can take reality as seriously or unseriously as you like. I'm with the Indians, who treat reality as a magic show lasting two or three days. But if being a min-maxer makes you happy, go for it.

Ah. When I learned about this, we called it Qualitative Reductionism. If your claim is "consciousness does not exist", then I laugh at you, sir. If your position is "consciousness cannot be explained by physical mechanisms", then I'm more open to discussion.

I'm of a mind that enjoying life is just as important as doing something with it, and vice-versa.

No, I think eliminationism is a total joke and the death knell of materialism/physicalism, and by extension, modernity and post-modernity.

And your position re-life is totally fine. As the wise Father Zosima said, if you're happy, you're doing God's will upon the earth.

judging the importance of thinking or judging the necessity of some axiom that applies to judging necessity looks to me like being waist deep in ideology. Also, because you posted that post, you either don't believe in what you're saying, or you don't understand what you said, or you didn't communicate what you meant with sufficient clarity, or you believe something in addition to what you said that justifies making that seemingly contradictory post.

The notion I'm trying to communicate is that the important stuff lies beyond reason, and as such, it is unnecessary to build up an ideology (a series of propositions) to reach it. It can help though with getting to the point where a revelation can occur, but the final leap is purely qualitative and indescribable. Or actually, it's somewhat similar to tripping on acid, but more low key.

Ok, you may be right. Going beyond the reason/unreason bubble is one of the most interesting things a person can do.

guys when you stop reasoning its like tripppiiing on aciid broooo

fucking kill yourself

>didn't read Al Ghazali

Attached: al ghazali.jpg (506x373, 30K)

When I got brain damage

> t. never tripped on acid, or is such a hylic he got nothing from it

Based retard

retarded presumption, i have and felt plenty. that's the only reason i know these wannabe edgy retards are talking shit when they say this philosophical contemplation is akin to a psychedelic experience.

Underrated post. What is it from?

>incapable of establishing the slightest certain knowledge, the slightest truth
And what are you using to come to that conclusion, something other than reason?

fifth grade

>reason cannot give objective truth.
>therefore we must reject it and use *whatever*
seems a bit of a leap