What is reason?

I do not understand. How can 2000 years of philosophical and religious inquiry not come up with a definitive answer on the nature of our world? Every idea that has ever been was debated or disputed at some point in history. As such, is reason or objective reality even real? We see the world with the same eyes, we perceive it with the same brains— and yet there are thousands of competing religions and philosophies, all contradicting each other. Is there such a thing as universal truth, when we cannot even convince everyone, through centuries of reasoning, whether something is clearly true or not true (theism versus atheism, objective truth versus subjective truth, idealism versus materialism, human nature is fundamentally good versus fundamentally bad etc.)? Think of it this way (assuming there is universal truth): a statement can be either true or untrue, where truth cannot contain untruth and untruth can contain *some* truth. As such, there could exist a philosophy in this world that only consists of true statements— a perfect philosophy. So where is this perfect philosophy? There are debates that have been going on for millennia at this point, while the truth is not any clearer than it was one millennium ago. We are running in circles... I am beginning to question the idea of human reasoning itself. Our minds cannot even convincingly prove anything regarding the nature of a Universal Creator, or if it even exists. How can there not be even one (1) idea that is considered true by every man of this world? (And I am sorry if I am unclear or made any grammatical mistakes, I am an ESL)

>>84945 >So where is this perfect philosophy? Mathematics

Because most people hate the truth. Even if they know a truth, they desperately try to prevent others from learning it, and publicly push a lie instead. Most people reject the truth both consciously and subconsciously. Man is equally capable of convincing himself that his delusions are true as he is convincing himself of the truth. Many people these days even deny the existence of truth.

>>84945 The history of philosophy is far older than 2000 years. But I would answer your question as to why we haven't solved the abstract world is much the same as the reason why we don't possess a complete understanding of the material world. The universe is incomprehensively massive (it's so big we haven't proven it isn't infinitely large), impossibly complex, & and our scientific understanding is really tiny and pathetic in comparison. I think it should seem perfectly reasonable to you that our scientific knowledge is incomplete. If so, consider that the abstract domain consists of all the ideas ever, including the all the ones human minds have thought about in their 300,000 years of existence, and all the ones they haven't. It's literally an infinite domain, and unlike studies of the material, you don't even have objective measurements to back up your findings like science does. Mathematics is so powerful precisely because it can make objective statements about some abstracta sometimes. All things considered, I think it is expected that producing philosophical and/or religious consensus is like kicking dead whales down the beach.

>>84947 This right ere in a nutshell. People dont want nor care about the truth, they rather convince themselfs of a convient lie that gives them the least discomfort and allows them to just go along with their lifes as smoothly as possible. Reason and logic itself are only constructs by which we interpret and understand reality.

>>84947 >>84951 How can one tell what is the truth? How can we definitively tell if what we think is true is actually true and not just something our brains deluded us into thinking is true?

>>84948 You are right when saying that our reality seems incomprehensible to us and that our understanding of the world is horribly imperfect, but shouldn't the external world be the same for everyone? Yet when two people look at the same world, they— more often than not— come to reach opposing views. Scientists might even argue over the same data, that was obtained using the same tools, under the same methodology. How can we possibly hope to reach an absolute consensus about anything regarding our world when there are people arguing that the Earth is flat? Every single conceivable idea that ever was has at least one defendant, no matter how absurd we might think of it as. But maybe I am wrong in even thinking that there is one external reality that we all live under, when there are people who literally perceive the world in different ways than us (people who don't perceive color, pain, smell etc.). But if only colorblind people would be able to wake up tomorrow, would the roses or our blood cease to be red? >>84947 I disagree. I think everyone likes to believe that they are right (i.e. they see the truth clearly). Who wakes up in this world thinking that their truths are lies? Maybe you are angry at them because they do not subscribe to your conclusions regarding the world. I used to think— until recently— that everybody agrees that being in a state of inner peace was something good and desirable, but I was proven to be wrong yet again by humanity. There are people who simply wish to be always hyper-stimulated in some way. Until you start talking to other people, you might think that the truths you hold are self-evident, but usually you come to learn that there are people who do not even see the sky as being blue!

>>84956 different lain here you've accepted the world is hopelessly complicated and incomprehensibly large. now consider the fact perception of it as we know it is being filtered through the lens of billions of different biological computers, all of which assume different things, and none of which even share identical hardware. even if there is one single external reality, it's impossible that every person, or even a small group, will have the same views AND understanding. this is where the material meets the abstract, and where any hope of perceiving objective reality breaks down.

>>84945 everything and its opposite are both true at the same time. Hegel resolved every debate in philosophy

I think current obsession with materialism is explained by a frustration with life's abstractness and humanity's condition as an inherently delirant bundle of cells filtering stimuli into observable "reality" categorized by positive and negative stimuli as it relates to statistical survival, with this pattern-matching ability creating everything from torturous self-reference and self-identity to external icons, semiotics (and deities) that may or may not actively explain unobservable and yet misunderstood elements of a world that is either delusion or, indeed, another part of the puzzle. As another lainon already pointed out variety is part of nature's statistical game. Everyone, absolutely everyone, is categorically different. We collapse and come together under shared symbols (money, morals) as tiny cells of an even bigger whole, but this does not mean we can hope for more than some vague degree of relating. Yet we often think of the other as thoroughly sick. Cases of mental illness as understood by modern psychology denote above all an inability to integrate healthily into society. But ask the mentally ill and you'll get soykaf like "those whoring out their only time on this Earth for money are sick, not me", which depending on your own personal philosophy you can chalk up to anti-social behavior or a degree of lucidity not displayed by the common human denominator. Other times you'll realize we give ourselves and our physical existences more and more to abstract constructs. Is math real? Is money? Is god? Is society, politics, literature, poetry, engineering, computer science, is any of it real? At this moment you generally stump most people. Almost all value perceived in modern society isn't of physical nature. We long stopped valuing the world that surrounds us, unless it's tainted by some shared hypnotic delusion. You'd think, though, the physical world can do better for us truth seekers. There must be a solid foundation holding truth beneath it... Oh. There's at least one positive. Pain may not be "real", but death sure is. It's an unavoidable process of fleshly decomposition. Anything before or after it may be wobbly, but you have this to share with all your brothers.

The "truth" is kind of an immaculate unreachable concept. If we were married an I suspected you of cheating and said "I want the truth" there is a million passable answers to that whether you just say yes or go into detail about an encounter or whatever else. The truth is pass fail but you can never 100% it. But why give up on reason? Do you not clean your house just because its going to get messy again? Reason gives you many passing truths enough to look at something irrational and go "this reason thing seems to give me MORE of the truth which I can apply and somewhat predict outcomes off of, than being purely reactive and irrational". Many of the big philosophical and societal questions can not be ascribed a truth by just one person a truth can only be conjectured and then we have to wait and see how the interplay of millions over many many years pans out to verify. Not to mention once some potential truth is put forward about these questions, its very likely if it catches on that it then shapes people towards a different outcome. Maybe not all questions can be solved with reason or are a matter of an objective truth and they are bigger than us, but that doesn't inherently mean reason is fundamentally flawed just fundamentally limited.

>>84956 >I think everyone likes to believe that they are right That means people want to believe themselves, not the truth. People may know some truths that they want to be true yet are uncertain about, but people also want to believe their own lies. Your picture is even about how people want to push things they know aren't true. People love their lies, they love the lies they believe themselves and they love the lies they use to control other people.

>I do not understand. How can 2000 years of philosophical and religious inquiry not come up with a definitive answer on the nature of our world? thousands of years of cooking and yet nobody has a definitive answer on the nature of soup

>>84945 I can at least help you with this one: >How can there not be even one (1) idea that is considered true by every man of this world? For every sane, reasoning human: "I am." is considered true. Even the strongest skeptic cannot doubt this statement- their doubt is proof that something must exist to doubt, which demonstrates that they (in some form), must exist. >re the bigger question >#1 why don't we all agree on the same truth? 99% of people don't bother thinking among the 1% that do, maybe 1/100% think clearly. >#2 why haven't we FOUND the truth Among the 1/100 of 1% that think clearly, philosophy has made a decent bit of progress outlining and limiting the possibilities. Kant in particular seems to do an excellent job establishing a lower-boundary for minimal true things we can know. Also, like >>84946 said, Math. ***off-topic but potentially entertaining*** >untruth can contain some truth Not sure I would agree. "A flipped coin always lands on heads." is a correct predictor of outcomes 50% of the time, but that doesn't make it true 50% of the time. You could say something like: One plus one equals two AND the moon is made of cheese. But this is really just two statements, one of which is true and the other of which is untrue. Can you give an example of an untrue statement that contains some truth?

All reasoning is circular. People start with whatever various assumptions that they're incapable of questioning, and proceed to build belief systems on them. The belief systems are different because the assumptions are different. Sometimes the belief systems aren't even internally logically consistent. One might then consider that reasoning itself is fundamentally flawed, and can never lead to any absolute truth. The way out of this dilemma was proposed two millennia ago by the Greek skeptics known as Pyrrhonists. The part of philosophy that was the most successful in providing real physical answers to real physical questions became known as science and is no longer thought of as philosophy. But science, by it's inductive and experimental nature, can never provide absolute truth. IMO. the only modern belief system that embodies Pyrrhonism is Zen Buddhism. You can't reason your way to enlightenment;

Thank you people for all of your replies!! I will try to answer wherever I think I can muster some relevant answers (and sorry for the incoming wall of text/babble)! >>84962 >But why give up on reason? Do you not clean your house just because its going to get messy again? Reason gives you many passing truths enough to look at something irrational and go "this reason thing seems to give me MORE of the truth which I can apply and somewhat predict outcomes off of, than being purely reactive and irrational". I wouldn't say that I have given up on reason entirely, but I am starting to wonder just how many limitations it imposes upon us. As >>84957 and >>84959 pointed out, the abstractness of our world is just too incomprehensibly large for our minds to understand. But other animals do not use reason or judgement in order to manage their lives and do not understand/care about anything beyond what they can perceive. So wouldn't it be better to not judge at all if we cannot even understand anything beyond our minds? >but that doesn't inherently mean reason is fundamentally flawed just fundamentally limited I do not know, but isn't our ability to make reasonable judgements our downfall? If we view the world differently, and come into conflict because of our different worldviews, isn't that proof that reason is flawed? Whose fault is it that we see the world in different eyes? >>84991 How could the truth be known then? The only way I see is through the eyes of the Perfect Man, who would possess this Perfect Philosophy™ (mathematics? Hegelianism? monotheism?). But then how would this man be perfect? Is he perfect because everyone agrees he is perfect, or is he perfect independently of others, through some other means? Some might think of him as God the Creator, but would they be the same person? Or maybe the truth is right in front of us— and it has been this entire time— but we have been made blind? But who has made us blind, then? >>84995 The nature of soup is that soup is tasty liquid and I like it. >>85000 >For every sane, reasoning human: "I am." is considered true. But who are we, who is sane and who is insane? Are we not all mad because we seek that which is not in front of our eyes? There are men in this world that believe they are already dead (Cotard's syndrome). Are they insane because they have a different understanding of reality than most of us? Don't we all live in different realities? And if they can use their own reasoning to prove that they are dead, wouldn't that make them reasoning men? Or they are not reasoning men because their reasoning is faulty? Then that leads us to the same problem (what is reality? what is reason? who is to say what is right and what is wrong?). >99% of people don't bother thinking Why would you think that? We all think, it is just that most use their thinking for their own purposes. We all come to see the suffering of our world at some point in our lives, but most accept this suffering and try to become accepted by the world, and few try to rebel, to forge their own paths. Or maybe not, I don't know. >Can you give an example of an untrue statement that contains some truth? Your example ("A flipped coin always lands on heads") is wrong because it remains false ~50% of the time (you have a huge margin of error in your prediction). Maybe better example would be: "A flipped coin must land either on heads or tails". What if it lands on its side? The statement technically remains untrue by your reasoning, but contains some truth (in the vast majority of cases, it will land either on heads or tails). Maybe I am just being overly pedantic, sorry! >>85001 I will study more about Zen Buddhism. Thank you!

>>85000 >untruth can contain some truth >Not sure I would agree. Fuzzy math is more correct than binary yes/no given the right context. Lets say you mix cola/vodka. Is this cola? You can say above 51% cola its more cola in the drink so yes but that is also 49% no. Only by assigning it a range and saying its 51% instead of yes/no do you get the most precise answer.

>>85005 > "A flipped coin must land either on heads or tails". What if it lands on its side? The statement technically remains untrue by your reasoning, but contains some truth (in the vast majority of cases, it will land either on heads or tails). I think this explains our misunderstanding. My definition of truth comes with a capital T, and might be approximated as: "Absolute knowledge of the thing." For example "a triangle has three sides", is true because this statement correctly captures all the knowledge it claims to possess about triangles. For a coin example, the statement: "A flipped coin is flipped." is true, although uninteresting. The statement: "A flipped coin must land either on heads or tails" is not true, since, as you say, the coin can land on its edge (or cease to exist in midair, or float away, etc). Thus, statements that are only true *sometimes*, or *possibly* are not true at all. The statement "The sun will rise tomorrow" is not true, it is just an opinion that is probably correct. It contains no truth, since it contains no absolute knowledge as to whether or not the sun will rise. Now, if a being with perfect knowledge said "The sun will rise tomorrow", it would be true, since it would satisfy my definition of truth. If you have a different definition of truth, that is fine, please lay it out so we can examine it together. >>>why no generally accepted notions in philosophy >>people don't think >We all think, it is just that most use their thinking for their own purposes. I meant, in my limited experience, the vast majority of people: 1) Don't think about Truth/Meaning/Etc. (e.g: topics that pertain to philosophy) 2) Don't WANT to think about these things (as in, if you try to bring them up they turn away) 3) Don't think clearly about these things (e.g: make statements that are incompatible, such as: truth is relative AND there is a such thing as good and evil) >who is sane and who is insane ... reasoning ... Let me try to clarify... "I am." is a tautology- it is self-evident. In order to make the statement, you MUST be, so it is universally true for all sayers of it (only from the perspective of the speaker, obviously). Being insane doesn't make the statement false, it just may prevent you from recognizing it as true (in the same way that being retarded might keep you from recognizing that "A flipped coin is flipped" is a true statement). The statement in full is something like: "I am making this statement, and this statement is being made, so I the maker of the statement must be making the statement, and thus must "be" in order to make the statement "be"." > what is reason When I said "sane" I meant only: "Capable of logical reasoning" This pertains to things like: "If a triangle has three sides, then all three sided shapes must be triangles." "If two lines are not parallel, they must intersect." >>85006 >Fuzzy math is more correct than binary yes/no given the right context. It can achieve increased predictive accuracy, which can be useful, but this is not the same as truth. (At least, when using my definition of truth, see above.) Being 51% right is not being "right", it is being "less wrong" (close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades). >Only by assigning it a range and saying its 51% instead of yes/no do you get the most precise answer. I agree with this- except that where you say "most precise" I would say "true" (assuming you correctly specify the ratio). Semi-related story that may help clarify my understanding of truth: I asked a friend to give me his definition of "true/truth", to which he promptly replied: "That which is not false." (I agree, except for the exclusion of "not-even-wrong" statements ala "I blue banjo mangrove applesauce run smartly very, very, far.")

>>85000 >Even the strongest skeptic cannot doubt this statement- their doubt is proof that something must exist to doubt, which demonstrates that they (in some form), must exist. idk, it seems I must accept some premises: 1) I am actually asserting my own existence (seems circular -- wouldn't I need to exist to assert my own existence?) 2) something must exist in order to doubt its existence Additionally I must accept that logical deduction makes sense. For a humorous and thought-provoking story on this subject, see https://web.mat.upc.edu/rafael.cubarsi/intro/What%20the%20Tortoise%20Said%20to%20Achilles.pdf

>>85030 It is surprisingly slippery, but I don't think that invalidates it. You can toss (1) if you like, since really we only need ANY form of action+self recognition, or even just self-recognition (which is itself an action), from the actor to demonstrate their existence. I don't think (2) qualifies as a premise. In fact, I don't think you can construct a "valid" statement in which a non-thing performs an action- the statement is "not even wrong". Anyways, here is an expanded demonstration, please pick apart at your leisure. ::Observation: I (a potential thing) am doubting my own existence. -A non-existent thing does not exist (Tautology) -An action is an event involving at least one thing (If you have an alternative definition of action, please provide) -For a thing to be a thing, it must be[exist]. (aka: non-existent things are not) -The action "Expressing doubt" is an action (If you have an alternative definition of "expressing doubt", please provide) -::A non-existent thing cannot express doubt. ::-:: I express doubt, therefore I am not a non-existent thing. If you want to argue that existence is non-binary, this is your jumping off-point, otherwise: ::-:: If I am not non-existent, I must exist. >must accept that logical deduction makes sense The pdf won't load, can you post directly? I'm wary** of the level of skepticism it would take to counter this argument- IIRC even master-doubter Hume was willing to consent to the existence of a consciousness that he associated with himself. As in, you can doubt away the entire external world, all of mathematics, all sensory data, everything, with enough sophisms- but to negate the existence of the thing doing the doubting appears impossible by definition. **By wary, I mean, I think it is probably indefensible. **Also, forgive my made up notation above, I just thought it would be visually useful.

"I am" can't be proven without resorting the the logical fallacy of circular logic. The conclusion: "I am" The proof: "I..." Oops. That's using the conclusion as part of the proof, which is the definition of circular reasoning. You can start out with the assumption "I am", but you can't prove it. Taking assumptions as absolute truths is defective reasoning. "A priori" are "transcendental" "knowledge" are fallacious concepts and expose a lack of logical rigor.

>>85045 Observation: "I" Conclusion: "I" No assumption necessary, I start with my direct experience of being. Really, the statement "I" is a tautology- I could not make the statement without satisfying the prerequisite of existence. What are the alternatives? That "something else" exists that happens to generates and is coincident with each individuals experience of self-awareness? Isn't it legitimate to refer to the thing that generates and is coincident with me as "me"? If you insist on holding to the impossibility of proving the self, please present a viable alternative explanation for conscious-experience. Glad someone in this thread has read Kant.

>>85029 What i was trying to convey with the vodka/cola mix example is the general issue of categorization. Definitions are axioms so always true but having overlapping categories means a reduction to yes/no leads to information loss. Defining a distance metric be it 100%-0% or another scale is much better and especially more useful when comparing multiple elements. machine learning touches upon this with false positive / false negative when it comes to categorization errors. Reductions from n-dimensional data sets to 1 dimensional yes/no cannot be done without error, you can merely decide what error you want by moving the border.

Follow the middle path anon. The Pali Canon has your answers. I was stuck like you (and still am stuck) but now understand it all a tad bit more.

the reason why religion did not find the answer is because it was designed to exploit people. The original denominations such as Eastern Orthodox and Catholics are very true to this. Work for the boss selflessly and go to heaven, do not work and go to hell. Then bosses give the church generous donations to keep this drivel going. Protestants however saw this as corruption and went on th create their own religions. Protestants however had vastly different ideas as to what religion is about so now we have many denominations that at their core differ greatly from each other. On the other hand Philosophy and Astrology might have an answer, but this answer is kept secret by those in power.

>>85068 There is no secret. Your eyes are kept closed by only acknowledging Abrahamic religions. Their worldview is not ultimate. Lower your barriers.

>>85051 A tautology is a statement that is true under any possible interpretation or test. I have shown that the statement "I am" fails the test of circular reasoning... >>85045 Therefore, the statement "I am" is not a tautology. In fact, every philosophical tautology or other instance of "obvious". "self-evident", "irrefutable". "a priori", or "transcendental" knowledge fails this test or one of the Agrippan modes of Pyrrhonism. Thus, philosophical tautologies, a priori knowledge, and transcendental knowledge are invalid concepts. Kant was simply wrong.

>>85075 You showed that *assuming* "I ..." in order to prove "I am." fails as circular reasoning, which was a neat trick. This does not address the use of "I" as an observation. I do not assume "I", it is a constant, positive observation that I cannot avoid. >A tautology is a statement that is true under any possible interpretation or test. I referred to "I" as a tautology, since it is impossible to generate the statement without satisfying the conditions of its truth- you cannot get to "I" without "I'ing". (I consider it akin to the logical statement "TRUE"). I agree you can disqualify observations of external phenomena as unreliable, but I don't think you can discount direct self-experience so easily- in which case it seems like adequate grounds to build on. Can you explain to me which part of the '"I" as observation" argument you disagree with? Apologies for repeating the argument in >>85051, but I feel like you didn't really address it. p.s: thanks for the pdf- I will try to acquire a physical copy and read it- I was not aware that any of the ancient sceptics had well-documented writings. >>85063 I think I get it- is this akin to the argument that attempting to achieve categories that map perfectly to real objects will give you as many categories as there are things (defeating the purpose of categories?) So to hedge against this, you define a set # of categories and then allow things to be mixtures of categories? This seems useful for programming, although I am uncertain if it is helpful for thinking clearly- e.g: Is a vodka-soda really the same as 50% vodka 50% soda? Or is a spear really the same as 90% stick 10% knife? ( bit unfair, but still )

>>84945 Once you understand the concept of instrumental reason and start seeing it everywhere, you will realize why our world so massively fuarrrked up. Note, the Chinese, Indians, and Muslims grasped the inherent limitations of reason and moved away from philosophical systems based upon it, yet modern Enlightenment man has chained himself to this faulty and unreliable idea called rationality.

>>84956 The underlying material reality may be the same. But measurements are always imperfect, that's why accounting for error has to be factored into scientific methodology. Finally, every being experiences reality subjectively (pretty much by definition), so ultimately while there may be an objective reality, absolutely nobody and nothing actually perceives it (except God if some religious mystics are to be believed).

>>84945 Golden sayings of epictetus is the truth no one wanted to hear.

>>84945 Language is insufficient to describe such a universal truth. And it's easy to get lost in a sea of debate and dissertation. It's impossible to have any beliefs without some faith, and this faith is what separates people's philosophy. There is also the fact that lies always masquerade themselves as truths. Even the idea of truth can be attacked (as you mentioned subjective "truths"). Finding truth can be a minefield of hypocrisy - contradiction defines lies. Even in this post alone I've made several contradictions but it was necessary to get the general idea across. Just as every other post ITT. But if you wish to pursue truth, always keep an open mind. Consider the inversion of every statement. Consider the exceptions and question your own assumptions. And think outside of the box with your own thought processes. At some point you'll develop a kind of sixth sense.

>>85040 >In fact, I don't think you can construct a "valid" statement in which a non-thing performs an action- Why not? The sentence "Bob thought 'I think therefore I am'" is valid, even though there is no Bob. In fact one could even say that the fictitious Bob made a truthful statement, since the truth of a statement shouldn't depend on who said it, and we implicitly accept that fictitious characters can believe true or false things about their fictitious experiences. >Observation: I (a potential thing) am doubting my own existence. This is the core issue. Is this true? It seems to presuppose that we exist to do the observing. After all, nonexistent things can't observe. >but to negate the existence of the thing doing the doubting appears impossible by definition. This would be a problem if I accepted that the thing was doing the doubting. I do not, at least, not more than I accept that unicorns fart rainbows. >PDF won't load Here it is. It's really just an exercise in obtuseness. But then again, so is this entire thread.

>>85580 That story was fantastic. Thanks for sharing it.

Truth has a name. John 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

>>85584 Actually I am the truth.

>philosophical and religious inquiry Fairy tales. Repeatable well defined experiments, scientific, engineering achievements is where the rubber meets the road and you can no longer pretend a story is or isn't real. You can't say stars orbit the Earth which is on the back of a turtle after you planned and executed a mission to the Moon. Maybe you can, but it'll definitively be one or the other. >"but what if all of the universe is only my dream and everyone is NPCs" >"what if all people are really the same person" >"what if the universe is totally different than our sight/sound/touch mapping of it" Get to work proving it then, expose the Matrix instead of writing endless AI hallucination meanderings and hypotheses about what could be. Anything "could" be. >"is reality even real" Real enough as far as our entire life experience is concerned. We can reliably manipulate matter, everyone can witness it and agree. People can predictably be made comfy or to suffer by the manipulation of their bodies and surroundings. "That's just the materialism meme", so go and prove otherwise. Convince an open skeptic with a formalized experiment, stop weaving stories. >"what does it all mean" Doesn't have to mean anything. We like narratives and intent, but a solar flare or hurricane has no meaning, and the entire universe is likely the same. Random complex happenings in a sandbox. Including humans appearing and the "good", "bad" things we do to each other. >"what is the nature of the universe" Might be that it's outside the scope of our understanding. Pigeons at the chess board type of thing. Maybe there is a sensible objective reality but it requires a trillion times the intelligence to understand and needs a 100+ dimensional viewpoint instead of our 4, even if there was a book about it we wouldn't get it. Maybe someday, when we engineered ourselves into gigabrains, if the species makes it that far. We're barely more intelligent and capable than wild animals. >theism versus atheism, objective truth versus subjective truth, idealism versus materialism Due to retardation, people fall back to habits, stories, beliefs. Lack of intelligence and neuroplasticity or reptile brain overriding rational brain. People who aren't open to discussion when faced with overwhelming evidence are lost and will forever be managed by propaganda. Philosophy and religion have their uses. Philosophy, categorize all the interesting theories, be a starting point for creatives, thinkers, inventors. Religion, provide warm fuzzy hope, shared memes, a reason to meet up and cooperate, prevent a population spiraling into savagery at scale, collect taxes for NEET clergy. You know these branches are bullshit because you could delete all their accumulated knowledge from the world and quality of life and the state of human progress wouldn't be affected. Philosophy can be reinvented by dudes on an image board with relative ease compared to entire STEM fields, and religious texts have so little logical basis and relevance that they couldn't be remade at all. Spirituality can make people happier, but the sacred lore might as well consist of Tolkien's fantasy stories, followers wouldn't notice.

>>85589 I don't think it's valid compare science with philosophy and religion. They deal with topics like morality, epistemology, and spirit, that science definitionally does not seek to answer. Science is simply a methodology for producing abstract models of the material world based on observations. Historically, western academic tradition considered the domain of science as a subset of philosophy & styled it as "natural philosophy". Moreover, the validity of scientific models is entirely dependent on the quality of observations made and how well they are interpreted. Consider the radical differences in how pre-Newtonian, Newtonian, and contemporary "Einsteinian" physics understand the universe to be. These differences are largely based on how well they could observe the material world. It is all but inevitable that at some point technical advances in our observational capabilities will revolutionize our models of the material world yet again. As such, science is only as objective as we can engineer it to be.

I think humanity can create a set of universal precepts to be followed, in accordance with nature and solidarity. Whether it will happen, sadly, remains to be seen and I am rather skeptical. The problem lies in the digital age. We have unimaginable sources of untapped wealth and we squander it because humans are unable to cope with all this information. We are also incredibly gullible and unable to easily discern the unreal from the real. We are also in a time governed by unscrupulous data hoarders that cynically this data for marketing and consumerist purposes, being able to calculate a person's likes, personality and potentialities to a terrifying degree. For a better understanding of the postmodern epoch we are currently situated, I would suggest the Frankfurt school of critical theory, baudrillard, etc.

>Is there such a thing as universal truth I believe not. The moment you ask "What is a universal truth?", You will have Truths from multiple backgrounds and environments. Taking examples from religion, One Truth will be true for a Christian, and another Truth will be true for a Buddhist. And one Truth will be true of an agnostic. They are objective truths shaped and molded by their environments and conditions, valid for their needs and wants and believes. This is why Truths can and will contradict with eachother because they are true in their context that they were formulated in. So, I don't believe we should strife to find a universal truth, like the term implies. I don't believe it to be fruitful in the end. I believe that if we find a universal truth that we can all agree on, it will be very banal. We probably found it already and decided to put it aside because the truth is so boring that we think there HAS to be a deeper meaning to it or something more grand.

>>85585 No *I'm* the truth! >>85590 Worth separating science itself from scientism, a type of materialist philosophy which does have many similarities to religion and uses claims of scientific truthfulness to justify itself. Scientism is much younger than science, perhaps only becoming widespread in the 20th century (although I am not a historian and I do not know for certain).

>>84945 >is reason or objective reality even real? Yes. >Is there such a thing as universal truth Yes. >there could exist a philosophy in this world that only consists of true statements Read about the Principia of Mathematica and about the difference between total and complete. >I am beginning to question the idea of human reasoning itself. Just stop playing God, and the issue goes away. >>84946 Mathematics is merely applied metaphysics. You can consider it being something like the engineering of philosophy. >>84959 >Almost all value perceived in modern society isn't of physical nature. Well, society at large tries to replace reality by itself, which if a laughable goal, but it won't stop doing it until it shatters, or gets hit by the reality hard enough, if you are optimistic. >>85000 >For every sane, reasoning human: "I am." is considered true. Even the strongest skeptic cannot doubt this statement- their doubt is proof that something must exist to doubt, which demonstrates that they (in some form), must exist. Hey, I will slap you with the endure-perdure debate real quick. >>85005 >But other animals do not use reason or judgement in order to manage their lives and do not understand/care about anything beyond what they can perceive. How you can be so sure about that? Bees communicate by dancing, ants are better understood not as a set of units but as an organism. Bats use a fuarrrking sonar to avoid flying into walls just like an EV uses them to avoid hitting other cars while parking. >How could the truth be known then? The way forward is to accept realism but reject determinism. Ontology of Being is much less useful as the Ontology of Becoming for you. Read more about Goedel and Loeb. Understand that those results define a progression of time with a "later" modality. Study adjoint and temporal logics. Think some more, and then win. >>85081 >modern Enlightenment man has chained himself to this faulty and unreliable idea called rationality. Eh, it has its uses, but it is arguably a kids sandbox, yes. >>85589 >Repeatable well defined experiments, scientific, engineering achievements is where the rubber meets the road and you can no longer pretend a story is or isn't real. Scientism as a philosophy has its pitfalls, but generally, yes. If your bullshit isn't judged, does it even exist? >Due to retardation, people fall back to habits, stories, beliefs. It is not retardation. You wouldn't call a bear stupid just because it doesn't want to live in a desert. Those things are the very fabric of humanity. This fabric can be weaved with an outlook for reality, and it can be weaved to destroy itself. My own remark for this thread is as follows: What is the use for your philosophy if you don't win with it?

>>85598 Pro-tip: Science is only verified by perception and impression, same with philosophy when practiced properly. If you do not win, or if you have flatter and put lip stick on a pig to do so (be ingenuine) with science or religion or philosophy your not doing it right.

>>85600 The difference between science & philosophy is reliance on perception. Science is trust experimental data Philosophy is if we assume x then y must follow This is precisely why math is considered philosophy. You might use math to explain real world but you dont need the real world to practice math.

>>85602 >You might use math to explain real world but you don't need the real world to practice math. The usual caveat is that the brain is quite real and somehow runs the math in your head.

>>85603 The reply is humans thinking about it isn't relevant to whether it exists or not. The philosophical constructs can exist independent of our reality. That idea is also why they would say use discover not invent for philosophy.

>>85598 >Hey, I will slap you with the endure-perdure >debate real quick. ->it's just kvetching over how object-identity is compatible with change/time (???) You will have to slap me a bit harder, or at least more explicitly. I cannot comprehend how this applies to the denial of the immediate self-experience "I" and the resultant conclusion "I am." >>85580 > It seems to presuppose that we exist to do the observing. After all, nonexistent things can't observe. I am confused. We agree: -> nonexistent things cannot observe I state: -> I possess immediate self-perception* *By immediate self-perception, I mean only the conciousness of yourself- nothing more Because I possess immediate self-perception, and self-perception is an observation, I must exist.

>>85604 >The philosophical constructs can exist independent of our reality. Can they really? Expand on that, because it seems to me that if all people are dead when there is no philosophy.

>>85605 >You will have to slap me a bit harder, or at least more explicitly. Your measuring of yourself influences you enough to change from not having a thought "I am" to the thought "I am". So, unless you recognize that there was a time where you didn't thought of yourself existing, there are now two yous. I can slap you even better. Do you exist when you are sleeping, or under the anesthesia?

>>85606 Causality existed before humans discovered it as a concept and will continue to exist after humans. For math any reality that has objects will implement a form of arithmetic. These concepts are considered eternal independent of people because you cant build any reality without them.

>>85609 Reification fallacy: the post

>>85606 >Can they really? Expand on that, because it seems to me that if all people are dead when there is no philosophy. See attached. Hopefully you agree that it is a triangle. To speak more precisely, it is a representation of the concept of "triangle"- which can be defined as "a shape possessing three sides" Hopefully you will agree that the concept of "triangle" existed before you ever saw this image, and before I drew this image. Now pretend that you deleted this image. Would the concept of "triangle" be altered in any way? Would it cease to exist? *1 Now pretend you deleted every physical triangle- have we hurt the concept of "triangle" any? *2 Now pretend we delete EVERY physical object. Has the concept of "triangle" been harmed? *3 >But the concept of "triangle" isn't philosophy! Debateble, but the concepts of "good", "evil", virtue", etc. are. *1 Certainly not, since the concepted predated the image. *2 The represented can exist without the representation- the concept need not be manifest at all times. *3 Just extend *2- no representation is required >>85612 >I don't like idealism but I don't have any honest arguments against it: the post

>>85609 >any reality that has objects will implement a form of arithmetic Any reality? Not just one reality, or even the set of isomorphic realities? Are you sure you are not mixing the map with the territory? Also >Ah, yes, this pattern of rocks in my backyard is actually an arithmetic formula for the beer brewing.

>>85614 Elements, atomic mass... is already arithmetic... If there are objects, then you can count and define arithmetic operations for them over their properties

>>85613 >it is a triangle It is a picture. >it is a representation of the concept of "triangle"- which can be defined as "a shape possessing three sides" How exactly do you jump from the single picture to the ideal definition? >>85613 >Now pretend that you deleted this image. Would the concept of "triangle" be altered in any way? Would it cease to exist? *1 Now pretend I've deleted your visual cortex at your birth. Do you understand what the fuarrrk is a triangle? Now imagine you got blind, but you still remember the general sense of the triangle. Then someone comes to you and says that he drew a triangle with all angles being right angles. Will you believe him?

>>85615 >there are objects, then you can count Do unrepresentable objects exist? You can count only what you can measure. Elements have to be separated, atomic mass can be counted if the atom is stable. By the way, why is atomic mass not a whole number? and why exactly there is heat then you mix some of the elements?

>>85616 >>it is a triangle >It is a picture. I knew this pedantic soykaf was incoming at mach-seven, hence why I clarified in the very next line: "technically it is a representation of a triangle"- I hope you can at least concede this much. >How exactly do you jump from the single picture to the ideal definition? The picture is a representation of a concept we see reflected in many other pictures. We can identify the picture as a representation of "triangle" because it possesses physical characteristics that correspond (crudely) to the concept of "triangle"- it has three 'side-like' things, hence it is 'triangle-like' or a representation of a triangle. Maybe what you meant is: "How do you ACQUIRE the ideal definition of 'triangle' from the single picture?", to which I would say "You don't". >Now pretend I've deleted your visual cortex at your birth. Do you understand what the fuarrrk is a triangle? This is trivial- my lack of understanding of what a triangle is has no bearing on the concept of "triangle". Similarly, just because Mbutu the savage has no concept of triangle doesn't alter the concept in any way. >Then someone comes to you and says that he drew a triangle with all angles being right angles. Will you believe him? Assuming I can still think, the answer is no. (See: Euclid's Geometry- I don't need physical representations to handle concepts). Alternatively, I could believe he drew a really, really poor representation of a triangle. >>85617 >By the way, why is atomic mass not a whole number? Not me but I'll soykafpost for fun: Unit selection error Carbon-12 weighs precisely 1 Dalton, a nice whole number. This statement means precisely nothing.

>>84946 >>84945 Mathematics is an attempt at a self-consistent language that describes the world, neither purely philosophy nor science. It seeks to create new truths from established ones, forming connections that reveal alternative paths—paths that can bridge concepts within its abstract domain or apply to reality. History has seen many brilliant minds describing successfully the nature of the world, Lao Tse among them. Yet, without sufficient knowledge and experience, his writings appear ordinary. His insights arose from a self-consistent framework, much like mathematics. Interestingly, similar ideas emerge in the biomathematical "selfish gene" theory, ~2500 years later, whose deeper implications, understood through study, mirror those found in Lao Tse's philosophy. Awareness is by definition a journey without a destination. Yet, I've traveled far enough to realize that truth isn’t something most people seek. And that in fact everyone is on their own journey with no destination. The unattainable yet tangible goal of understading is more or less equivalent to the punishment of death faced by all, which even those that seek awareness must face. And real awareness, it turns out, is more of a burden than a blessing. A burden that seems to be more easily reached by those that were unfortunate and already carry burden, traumas, and actual scars. Ironically. A small blessing for those that reach awareness is that everythigng starts to dim in face of the void that is realized. You can think of the glimmer of Truth as an upgraded version of the realization of your own mortality that everyone experiences when a kid. In other words, the truth doesn't feel good unless you are addicted to it. So it doesn't sell. I could go more into depth into this. But I'll stop.

>>85617 >Do unrepresentable objects exist? Arguably no. You wouldn't have objects when you can't tell them apart. The whole mess would be one entity.

>>85619 >I knew this pedantic soykaf was incoming at mach-seven I couldn't help myself, Ceci n'est pas une pipe and whatnot. >Maybe what you meant is: "How do you ACQUIRE the ideal definition of 'triangle' from the single picture?", to which I would say "You don't". Why not? >>85619 >my lack of understanding of what a triangle is has no bearing on the concept of "triangle" See, I'm trying to make a very fine distinction. Imagine I would say the same thing about gravity. I could even say that gravity did not exist before Newton invented it. But I couldn't say the same about triangles. "Gravity" is a concept pointer to some outside force which we cannot produce. This force is fundamental and did a lot of stuff for the structures in the cosmos. "Triangle" is a concept pointer to the specific shape of a thing in the real world, and we can make things in the real world resemble triangles. You are equating gravity and triangles. >See: Euclid's Geometry Well, he explains to you how to draw it on the globe from the pole to the equator. Since I have subverted your expectations for a triangle by extending them to the spaces with positive/negative global curvature, is your concept of a triangle enduring or perduring?

>>85620 >In other words, the truth doesn't feel good unless you are addicted to it. So it doesn't sell. Do you wanna make it a social commentary?

>>85621 So, does the single unrepresentable object exist?

>>85624 Sure, you can say there is something but we cant describe it.

>>85625 But isn't "the single unrepresentable object" a description for the said object? Probably not, so we can't name it. But then the multiplicity of unrepresentable objects is not constrained.

>>85605 > -> nonexistent things cannot observe For the purpose of being as obtuse as possible, I still take issue with this, but even if I were to accept it, I still reject your next premise: >-> I possess immediate self-perception* This is the crux. If it were posited that "I" do not possess immediate self-perception, there would be no contradiction, unless it were also posited that "I" am doing the positing. Therefore the premise that "I" possess immediate self-perception is not irrefutable, it is an axiom. To be clear, it is an axiom that I am quite happy to accept. I think existence is preferable to nonexistence.

>>85622 >Why not? Because I'm a platonist (or a poor approximation of one). -> The ideas (concepts) are always there, whether we are aware of them or not. -> No sum of representations is sufficient to impart absolute knowledge, so our knowledge of concepts must be derived from a non-represented source. (Basically, I agree with Hume that you cannot build knowledge from empirical hogwash, but I disagree with him on the impossibility of knowledge). >"Triangle" is a concept pointer to the specific shape of a thing in the real world, and we can make things in the real world resemble triangles. This is where we disagree I guess. To me, "triangle" is "a shape which possesses three sides". It is a concept which only refers to itself. No "real world" object can satisfy this definition, there is no "real world" thing which is a pure triangle. Real world objects are may approximate triangularity, but they do not generate it. e.g: Even if you delete 1, 100, or every real-world representation of "triangle", you do not alter the definition or the concept. >You are equating gravity and triangles. I'm somewhat confused by your example... Your description of gravity I agree with more or less, but this description is exactly opposite to my description of triangles, so I don't see how I am equating the two... e.g: ""Gravity is an explanation of a force, and that *explanation* did not exist before it was invented. The force itself presumably existed before we took notice of it. The *concept* of triangle existed before some human cooked it up."" I agree with both of these statements. Not sure I agree, but I don't have strong feelings about gravity. I think it is an attempt to explain a collection of observable phenomenon, which places it directly opposite to my thougths on "triangle", but maybe there is some convergence point eventually... >is your concept of a triangle enduring or perduring? Thankfully I was worm-pilled by C L A M P E D anon so I know better than to endure these sorts of questions and prefer not to perjure myself. >>85627 I think I am both retarted and retarded. I recognize that hypothetically I could lack self-perception, e.g: if I were a stone. However, in practice, I cannot possibly conceive of a way to deny my actual possession of self-perception. Please explain this to me like I am your retarded-yet-strangely-attractive 17.9 year old cousin.

>>85606 Do you not know about Platonic Abstracta? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

>>85629 >However, in practice, I cannot possibly conceive of a way to deny my actual possession of self-perception Well, *you* can't do it. But it could be done. An axiom that feels self-evident is still an axiom.

>>85631 I'm not >85629 Have you recently asked a rock whether or not it believes that it exists? Or, should it have proven unresponsive, how did it react to a mirror test?

>>85632 come to think of it I have not. This would be a most useful experiment.

>>85584 But Jesus told me the opposite of this, what now?

Consider that modern science has abandoned the idea of a clockwork universe. See: quantum mechanics. There are also a number of well-regarded scientists who have begun to suspect that space-time itself is emergent, i.e. it is an illusory by-product of some underlying "reality" that we don't understand. Consider also that the foundation of all mathematics is unproven assumptions and undefined concepts. There is no point at which such a structure becomes suddenly "true". If/then: fine... absolute truth: not even remotely. People who believe in absolute truths are simply not logically rigorous. They will always "slip a thread" somewhere and go blithely on believing in nonsense. Kant was one such person.

>>84945 The problem lies with the distinction between material knowledge/scientific method/logic etc. and 'reasoning'. Reasoning requires semantics/pragmatics/comprehension/cognition etc, which is not *strictly* limited to 'logic' and the scientific method. Another distinction is that there's scientific method, and then there's scientific consensus (and then there's The Scientific Consensus). The former is a method; a logic, a technic, a system. It is one of the best, arguably the best. The latter describes a state; a state of nature, of consequence, a stage in a process, a moment in time etc. At least as a logic and a technique, scientific method is specifically designed to be permanent, invariable. Conversely, the entire ideal and history at least of scientific consensus is impermanence, variability, amendment, addendum, progression. To the extent that it can reach a kind of religiosity; where, just as some may preach that 'all hitherto society is the history of class struggles', followers of Scientism preach that all history is application of the scientific method. Scientific method itself is only really limited in its under- or misuse. Scientific consensus is limited by that misuse of the method, and by the available technics (techniques, tools, technology), and various practical systems and bureaucracies. The problem is when scientific consensus becomes limiting - if not antithetical - to the scientific method, or to consensus itself. What happens when the quality of the current consensus is limited by the very research/tools/people etc. its limiting? What happens when scientific 'consensus' becomes an antonym of scientific 'experimentation and 'innovation'? Of the very things that are supposed to keep churning the same Science that moves humanity along? The notion that all possible ideas have already been conceived of, or conversely that there can never be definitive consensus on these ideas in the future, are both the result of naive human hubris.

>>85631 >Well, *you* can't do it. But it could be done. Please demonstrate.

>>85639 I deny that you possess self-perception.

>>85640 This is the last time I trust someone in this thread not to drown me in pedantics. Obviously it is trivial to deny another's self-perception, because we don't have immediate self-perception of it. This is as trivial as denying another's existence. The whole reason denying your *own* self-perception is hard is because it is right there in front of you, always. Please demonstrate a denial of your OWN self-perception, which I can then use on MY self-perception. To make it extra-crystal-clear: simply writing "I deny my self perception" means not only self-perceiving, but actually engaging in an action, both of which clearly demonstrate your own existence.

>>85626 consider uncharted territory. You can describe it as unknown region but that description is really just "we lack knowledge to describe it". You can of course do the "here be dragons" thing and invent something but it lacks practical use outside fun factor. >>85635 isn't it easy to define time as emergent feature? All you need to create time is some strength vector between particles that gives reason why reactions can happen in a sequence (based on said vector difference) instead of simultaneous. Measuring time is just a matter of comparing the reaction order in the sequence. It should be obvious from how we measure time - we just take one reaction speed as basis and compare everything to it.

It's perfectly obvious to any intelligent person with good eyesight that the sun orbits the earth, or at least moves from horizon to horizon. The vast majority of the world's most intelligent and educated people he;d this to be irrefutable for about a thousand years. Ptolemy's Almagest was a masterpiece of sophisticated (for the time) mathematics and carefully recorded observations of the physical universe. But despite the meticulous observations, data, mathematics, reasoning, and scientific consensus of a millennia, and despite the usefulness of the theory for making accurate predictions of physical events like eclipses... ... it turned out to be utterly, fundamentally wrong. Any intelligent person with good reasoning ability can clearly see that if a train is travelling along a straight track at a constant velocity off 100 mph, and a person on the train shoots and arrow toward the front of the train at 100 mph relative to himself, that a person standing motionless by the train track will measure the arrow's velocity at exactly 200 mph relative to himself. But ever since a Swiss patent clerk came up with the theory of special relativity, we know that this is not true. And we know that if lightning strikes the train, the observer on the train and the observer on the ground will not see it happening at the same instant in time, because of the relativity of simultaneity. All rational and sane people know that a moving object has a position, a direction, and a speed. And yet we now know that the smallest particles can't have the position and their vector measured accurately at the same time. If you know the position of a subatomic particle precisely, you can know nothing about it's direction and speed, and vice-versa. Some things that are measurably and observationally verifiable require a suspension of certain aspects of rationality. After all, Zeno proved with faultless, irrefutable logic that motion is impossible, over 2,000 years ago. So, even though many things are "obvious", "self-evident", "irrefutable", "undeniable", etc, etc etc... ...that still doesn't make them true.

>>85641 >Please demonstrate a denial of your OWN self-perception, which I can then use on MY self-perception. Let the the following story be considered. This story is, of course, pure fiction, and nothing in it actually exists, even though it will be told as if it does, because that's how our language works. There is an entity named "I" and an entity named "you". "I" deny "my" self-perception. "I" then tell "you" this story. >simply writing "I deny my self perception" means not only self-perceiving, but actually engaging in an action, both of which clearly demonstrate your own existence. A purely grammatical limitation. Just because a sentence has a subject and a verb does not mean that the subject exists to actually carry out the verb.

>>85648 All of these essentially amount to new experimental evidence overturning old theories. Furthermore, all of them are built off of the reasoning in the initial theories... you wouldn't have special relativity without Galilean relativity, for instance. >After all, Zeno proved with faultless, irrefutable logic that motion is impossible, over 2,000 years ago. bad example, his "proof" relied on the assumption that there was some kind of contradiction in an infinite number of causally linked events occurring in a finite period of time. There clearly is not. People knew it was bullshit even before they could prove it was false using the method of exhaustion.

you just realise materialism/ atheism/ enlightenment subject/ object separating jew soykaf was a mistake and youre good

>>85651 >All of these essentially amount to new experimental evidence overturning old theories. Nonsense. Aristarchus knew 2000 years ago that the Earth and other planets orbit the sun, and that the stars are far-away suns. It was just easier to believe the "obvious" experience of seeing with one's own eyes that the sun circles the Earth. A person had to be crazy to deny it. ^_^ >Furthermore, all of them are built off of the reasoning in the initial theories... you wouldn't have special relativity without Galilean relativity, for instance. Again, nonsense. Special relativity would have been impossible to formulate without the second, and completely new and "irrational", postulate that any observer in any state of constant motion will measure light travelling at exactly the same speed. That idea came purely from Einstein's own brain and nowhere else. Galileo never dreamed of such a thing. >bad example, his "proof" relied on the assumption that there was some kind of contradiction in an infinite number of causally linked events occurring in a finite period of time. There clearly is not. Zeno stated that in order to get from point A to point B, an object first has to travel half the distance from point A to point B, which takes a finite amount of time. Then it has to travel half of the remaining distance, which also takes a finite amount of time, and so on. This would continue for an infinite number of half-distances, so that it would take an infinite number of finite times to reach point B. Maybe it's clear to you what the error is with that logic. Something to do with calculus and infinitesimals or limits? That's not science, that's math. We're talking about the real, physical world here. >People knew it was bullshit Of course, just like they knew Aristarchus' crazy ideas about the planets orbiting the sun were bullshit. And not just the average people, but the most brilliant and educated people in the workd, for a thousand years of Socrates -> Plato -> Aristotle -> Ptolemy-inspired bullshit. They should have all paid more attention to Socrates when he said that all he knew was that he knew nothing. That statement was a page straight from Pyrrhonism, and it would have saved them all a lot of trouble. Platonic idealism is a mountain of rubbish. Aristotelian physics is complete nonsense. Ptolemaic astronomy is the same. >even before they could prove it was false using the method of exhaustion. Archimedes came up with the method of exhaustion 2,000 years ago. Despite that, no one could find a flaw in Zeno's logic. What are you even talking about?

>>85649 Thank you for arguing in good faith, I genuinely appreciate it. My heart is a little bit warmer having read this. I counter by stating: That is an excellent story demonstrating that the hypothetical story-"I" does not exist, and I accept that within the framework of this story the hypothetical story-"I" does not exist. However, that story is insufficient to address the case I have requested, which is a demonstration of your own lack of self-perception which I can deploy on myself. Even if the "I" in the story (you) lack self-perception and do not exist, I (myself) cannot follow your example without immediately contradicting myself (see below). >Just because a sentence has a subject and a verb does not mean that the subject exists to actually carry out the verb. In written form, I agree, but when I actually perform the argument to make it true, then it becomes an issue. As in, your story holds wonderfully as a written story, but if an "I" ever actually said, "I deny my self-perception", the whole thing would fall apart. >>85658 >Nonsense. >Again, nonsense. Not him, but I think you are being a bit too slippery for your own good. If Grug says: "Planet circle sun because I think so." And Chug says: "But my theory explain many more thing if sun circle planet" Chug gets the prize, because his theory explains more. This is the normal standard in empirical science, the theory that explains more things more accurately is probably more true. Note that Chug is still using Grug's ideas about "celestial bodies moving in repeated patterns (orbits) within some great empty space" The same applies to Einstein, special relativity is (to my limited understanding) an attempt to explain how his one special addition (constant speed of light) interacts with traditional physics. Without any traditional physics to build of off, inventing special relativity whole-cloth would be a miserable affair. | W a R n I n g : HUMOR AHEAD | >We're talking about the real, physical, world here. Maybe an ancient, real, physical refutation will suffice. ""Diogenes the Cynic said nothing upon hearing Zeno's arguments, but stood up and walked.""

>>85658 >Aristarchus knew 2000 years ago that the Earth and other planets orbit the sun, and that the stars are far-away suns. Did he know it or did he just guess it? There were Greeks also proposing the atomic theory, but they didn't have evidence or sound reasoning for it, they were just guessing. >Special relativity would have been impossible to formulate without the second, and completely new and "irrational", postulate that any observer in any state of constant motion will measure light travelling at exactly the same speed. It also would have been impossible to formulate without the notion that physical laws do not depend on one's reference frame. Otherwise "yeah light just does that" would not yield any significant insight. Additionally, if I remember correctly, this postulate was based on some experiments which had been recently carried out. >This would continue for an infinite number of half-distances, so that it would take an infinite number of finite times to reach point B. But those infinite number of finite times do not change the time it actually takes to perform the motion, since the time is also halved for each halving of distance (assuming travel at a constant speed). This does not require limits, one can easily see that nothing about splitting up space changes the amount of time it takes to travel through space. The fundamental flows are that "infinite number of finite times" does not necessarily cause a logical contradiction, nor does the lack of "first point reached". The paradox is only paradoxical if you accept hypotheses that aren't true. These were all pointed out by Aristotle. >We're talking about the real, physical world here. First off, Zeno himself was working in a mathematical idealization. Obviously motion is possible because we do it. Secondly, by all indications, mathematics is the most precise way available to describe the real, physical world and to predict outcomes before they happen. >Archimedes came up with the method of exhaustion 2,000 years ago. Despite that, no one could find a flaw in Zeno's logic. You could prove that the infinite series 1/2^n is summable with the method of exhaustion, which conclusively shows that Zeno's paradoxes were bunk. Not sure if Archimedes himself showed the summability of that particular series but it was certainly known from antiquity. >>85662 >Even if the "I" in the story (you) lack self-perception and do not exist, I (myself) cannot follow your example without immediately contradicting myself Well, you're presupposing that "you" actually exist and not just in a storylike sense. If you do not exist, then there is no contradiction.

>>85682 >Well, you're presupposing that "you" actually exist and not just in a storylike sense. If you do not exist, then there is no contradiction. here we go again Statement from lain to repeat: "I do not exist." Observation: "I have just made a statement" Observation: "Non-existent things cannot make statements" Conclusion: "I must exist." To put it differently, I need not pre-suppose my existence to possess immediate self-perception, rather, my existence is a pre-requisite of immediate self-perception. Since I am observing immediate self-perception, I must exist.

>>85818 >I need not pre-suppose my existence to possess immediate self-perception, rather, my existence is a pre-requisite of immediate self-perception But how can you be sure you "actually" possess immediate self-perception, and not in the sense of a story? I can tell a story about someone who does possess immediate self-perception, and it would be true in the sense that fiction allows anything not immediately self-contradictory to be true. This obviously doesn't imply that the person exists in the real world. Therefore you would need some way to assert that you "actually" possess self-perception in a sense that makes it "real". This is the fundamental thing I've been trying to get at: there is absolutely no way to justify the claim that you are "actually" immediately perceiving yourself, other than simply taking it as self-evident, or to presuppose that you exist (so that your impressions and observations are "real").

It's literally just dialectical materialism. Engels explains this. Our ability to reason depends on the material configuration of the world. So it is a never-ending process. You cannot arrive at truth by writing down theorems in a dark room.

>>85818 >Statement from lain to repeat: "I do not exist." >Observation: "I have just made a statement" >Observation: "Non-existent things cannot make statements" >Conclusion: "I must exist." Leaving aside the >It is physically impossible, there is a speed limit for the interaction propagation argument, there is an issue with the usage of the proof by contradiction. It holds only in *finite* *unmoving* contexts, generally and roughly speaking. For instance, it is quite possible to become nonexistent while making the observation and concluding things.

>>85839 >For instance, it is quite possible to become nonexistent while making the observation and concluding things. I am happy to concede this- present existence does not promise future existence. To put it another way: Immediate self-perception only demonstrates self-existence immediately. >>85829 >other than simply taking it as self-evident Thank you for taking the time to explain things to me more clearly. To me self-perception is self-evident. It doesn't require proof because it is always, unavoidably, present. In my opinion, the burden is on those that deny their own existence to explain away the ever-present perceptions that press upon them- how can they be without a perceiver? How can we, for example, have this discussion if neither of us exists? >But how can you be sure you "actually" possess immediate self-perception, and not in the sense of a story? I feel like the "story" analogy is helpful, can you extend it further? >I can tell a story about someone who does possess immediate self-perception, and it would be true in the sense that fiction allows anything not immediately self-contradictory to be true. This obviously doesn't imply that the person exists in the real world. I agree- but if you grant that the person in the story actually possesses self-perception (not just hypothetically), then you imply that the person does exist. For a fun contrast, I cannot tell a story about someone who does not exist yet possesses immediate self-perception, because this is obviously contradictory.

>>85885 >I feel like the "story" analogy is helpful, can you extend it further? Well, it's a way to get around the grammatical problems with talking about something having properties, or taking actions, without existing. A statement can be true without referring to anything that exists. More importantly, I see no reason why our "existence", such as it may be, is not something like a story -- while the things we say about it are true in the fictional sense, they are not necessarily true in a "real" sense. Another way to think about it is as a dream: if I dream I'm someone else, does that person exist? Is their experience of self-perception real? There certainly is an impression of self-perception, but that does not mean that it is "real" self-perception. One would further need to make the assumption that I, something that does exist, am actually dreaming about being them, and it is I, the existent dreamer, which is actually having these experiences and generating this false self-perception. But maybe it's dreamers all the way down... The only solution, it seems to me, is to accept something like platonic idealism, where ideas are as real as physical objects. Then there is again no contradiction, because "nonexistent" things of this type are still existent, just of a different form. But this isn't self-evident, it's just an axiom that works.

>>85886 > There certainly is an impression of self-perception Should have said, that the impression of self-perception is certainly real within the dream.

>>85885 >I am happy to concede this- present existence does not promise future existence. >To put it another way: Immediate self-perception only demonstrates self-existence immediately. Then you should be also able to concede that present nonexistence does not promise future nonexistence. But it kinda destroys the *immediateness* of the self-perception, don't you think?

>>85917 >nonexistence does not promise future nonexistence if you assume a nonzero chance then it has to happen. And as time doesn't exist without context is effectively spontaneous as the duration of non-existence is equal to 0 from the view of your perception.

Consider absolute nothing. It's not easy. One has to free oneself from many ingrained assumptions. In abosulte nothing, there would be no time, space, matter, energy, etc. That's the easy part. There would also be no natural laws of physics or science. There would be no laws of causality. That's the hard one to "get" and remember. Without laws of causality, anything can happen for no reason whatsoever. There are no laws of causality to prevent it. So assuming a real state of absolute, nothing, something like the big bang could happen for no reason at all, with all of its expanding space, time, energy, matter, laws of causality, laws of physics, eventual appearance of life, etc. And it apparently did happen, and not necessarily for any reason or from any cause whatsover.

>>85952 Existence implies the state of nonexistence. Nonexistence implies the state of existence. Truth transcends existence and nonexistence, it is admitting truth exists and existence itself depends on truth just with the nature of words. The creator is God of Truth.

>>85623 i meant you dont need to be conscious of the nature of reality because you are living in it

>>85928 Non-existence has no duration.

>I do not understand. How can 2000 years of philosophical and religious inquiry not come up with a definitive answer on the nature of our world? Why philosophers can't seem to agree on anything is probably because philosophy is not an empirical science. That is, it does not generally make claims that can be falsified or "proven" (yet). When a field of philosophy evolves to the point where it can make falsifiable claims about reality, it ceases to be a branch of philosophy and becomes a branch of science (for example: physics). Since philosophical claims cannot (generally) be falsified (yet), they have a tendency to not be discarded in the same way falsified scientific theories are. Hence there will usually not be a ruling paradigm in any branch (a generally accepted true theory of the world) of philosophy in the same way it exists in scientific fields. Hence the widespread disagreement within philosophy. That being said, I do not think science can ever develop theories about the world that are absolutely true, due to the complexity of the world and the limitations of human cognitive capacities. We can, however, develop theories about the world that are closer to the truth than previous theories, and theories that are useful for understanding the world.

Philosophy and religion are, by and large, gibberish. Why would anyone expect anything sane to spring from gibberish?

>>85984 religion is a mind virus that like regular viruses is under evolutionary pressure. Religions that don't promote the infecteds survival die out. So they have to hold something of value by necessity.

While it may be true that common ideologies are a kind of social glue that can help people work together effectively, increasing their chance for survival and reproduction, that doesn't mean the ideologies are true, or even sane. Any old bullshit will do, as long enough people believe in it to feel connected and cooperative. One ideology is about as good (or bad) as another for this purpose. The problem comes when people start getting fanatical about their ideology. The greatest evils in the world are committed by people who consider themselves heroic, exemplary believers in their great and wondeful religion or philosophy

>>85995 hard disagree, if you look at founding state of abrahamic religions its just gang rules codified in a belief system, among the magic tales sits the core of 1. only members have rights 2. helping outsiders against members is to be punished by dead 3. crime against outsiders is permitted, the world belongs to us and the benefit of the religion aspect is exactly what you say >The greatest evils in the world are committed by people who consider themselves heroic, exemplary believers in their great and wondeful religion or philosophy Justification by sky daddy is what allows the religion based gang to thrive further than regular gangs that admit they are evil bastards.

>>84945 as for logic/reason faculty, it is largely a product of the id. the feminine id feels emotion, the masculine id sorts emotion to classify with symbols. they're both filters over raw experience. >true or not true, theism versus atheism, objective truth versus subjective truth, idealism versus materialism, human nature is fundamentally good versus fundamentally bad these are all dualistic concepts, binary aristotelian logic. there is a state of mind wherein you stop classifying things into either/or black/white good/evil

>>85996 Utter larping bullshit. How would you know what the founding state of Abrahamic religion was? There isn't any historical record of it. All we have is passages from the Bible that depict Abraham as a nutcase who thought God spoke to him directly and ordered him to do things like kill his own son.

>>85998 Blind rambling. jews&muslim still have the rules in their writing. All you have to do is read. And christianity purged europe of rival religions doing the same we vs heretics soykaf. Among muslim you have the same soykaf as with well known irish protestant vs catholic conflict where they will say you not a real believer so i don't have to keep my word to you. Its literally gang soykaf where its okay to fuarrrk up non members.

>>85999 >Blind rambling. jews&muslim still have the rules in their writing. All you have to do is read. The "founding state" (your words) of Abrahamic religion would have been during the life of Abraham. There is no historical record of the life of Abraham or how he got what would become Judaism started. The works written by the Jews came later, after Judaism was already established. They don't describe the founding state of Judaism. They describe the established state of Judaism. The Christians wouldn't exist for many more hundreds of years after that, and the Muslims wouldn't exist for hundreds of years after the Christians. So the way you imagine they had any knowledge of the founding state of Abrahamic religion is more amusing than anything else.

>>86001 abrahamic is just a grouping term for all tree, if you acknowledge the order in which these religions came to be why would you not assume their foundation to be when they respectively came into existence? The founders are the people who developed their brand of abrahamic religion not abraham. I.E. christianity history lore for west is a bunch of persecuted desert dwellers fled into europe and then managed to convince royalty that monotheism is better for ruling which allowed them to use state power to purge existing religions and they did it thoroughly destroying anything remotely related including other groups that fled from orient to europe. in islams case you got on historical record dude was a bandit leader and the writing reflects it with stories aka "rich merchant didnt share with us but next day he died,we took all his wealth and leader took his wife. God is great!"

>>86001 >historical record of the life of Abraham It's literally in the Bible. In Genesis. Abraham was called Abram before Abraham, did you miss it because of that?

>>86038 The Bible isn't a historical record. Dumbass.

>>84945 You can't really solve it with logic alone. The overall human/life experience is mystical so you need to practice mystic arts >and yet there are thousands of competing religions and philosophies I would be more disappointed if there weren't. That means everyone or the general chaos is inexistent and that everything following by the design. All the rabit hole leads to the concept of Monad ft. Demiurge which is not that hard. Now moving back to the mystic arts I am disappointed that the concept of Mazalot is not that much given importance. Practice brainwave meditation. Practice lucid dreaming and astral projection. Read into chinese geomancy, astrology (mazalot), etymologies. Notice the glitches (deja vu, jamais vu, mandela effect, etc.), Notice the clues of glitches (e.g, astral wheel *wink wink*), Pre-dict and will(wish), Look into remote viewing foundation and remote view the edge of the earth and the net angels, and the universe then find moksha along with astral projection. I know these concepts are incompatible with Lainchan as there's not even a "paranormal board" here and it's mostly all about "fight logic with logic" kind here so there's a lot of those who automatically disagrees and yet have never seen a repeatable mystical experience simply with brainwave changes (or maybe if you're feeling brave opening your eyes during a sleep paralysis works too, it's repeatable but maybe horrific experience to some). You may not notice it but you are funnily worry-warting over how humanity is "running in circles". I think that there's too many mysteries I've not even mentioned them all (some I don't want to since it affects my reality negatively like I'm not supposed to give it away for free) but these mysteries seem to only appear consistently once you focus on them. If you're the "horoscope is bullshit" crowd kind then that is like kicking dead whales down the beach. 1nce you get it going you don't really get more answers, you just get more questions.

>>86116 A recording of what people of times past believed to be true is all a historical record is. The Bible is a completely valid historical record, it's just opposed to modern ideologies, so it's dismissed without thinking.

>>86169 >A recording of what people of times past believed to be true is all a historical record is. Lol, no, that's not what a historical record is. A historical record is something that someone personally witnessed and accurately recorded, or documents that there is reason to believe are valid, or physical archaeological evidence. >The Bible is a completely valid historical record, (still laughing) The Bible is a collection of mythological fictional stories of much the same type as Greek or Roman or Nordic mythology. Little of it was actually true. For instance, the story of Abraham is something that the Jews made up in an effort to claim valid ownership of the land formerly known as Canaan. They fabricated a narrative about how God Himself long ago told this person Abraham (who never actually existed) to go there and take it. There is no (zero, zip, nada) evidence that Abraham ever existed. It's sort of like how a little kid might steal another kid's toy, and then claim that the Easter Bunny said he could do it, so it's really and truly his and he doesn't have to give it back. >it's just opposed to modern ideologies, so it's dismissed without thinking. That's not it at all. It's dismissed because there's no plausible evidence to support it. Mythological stories are not evidence. If someone ever found some sort of valid archaeological evidence that this particular Abraham actually existed, I'd happily accept it. I'm just not willing to believe in supernatural or mythological fiction.

>>86171 >A historical record is something that someone personally witnessed and accurately recorded Exactly a historical record is just hearsay, something we believe someone witnessed but don't know ourselves, and we presume the report is accurate. People cannot know another's past, we can only believe or disbelieve it. You can see the present, but you cannot predict how things came to this present state, no one can peer into the future or the past with their own eyes.