Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: Thisnigga.jpg (7KB, 183x275px) Image search:
[Google]
7KB, 183x275px
Looking for some philosophical help /his/
Is it possible to refute this claim?
Any worldview is necessarily predicated upon one or more unprovable axioms, which will be invoked as premises upon which to build logical arguments.
Eg: If one accepts the proposition that "all people are fundamentally prone to anti-social behaviour" then one has the philosophical justification to start building towards authoritarian modes of government in order to secure peace (if peace is accepted as the goal for which government exists)
If one accepts that human beings are a mixture of good and bad tendencies, and that we are able to choose our moral behaviour, then that lays the groundwork for social contract theory, with incentives for behaving in socially acceptable ways, and disincentives for behaving in socially unacceptable ways.
My question is:
Is this proposition a reasonable description for evaluating truth claims? (Does this position have a name?)
>>
I think it's reasonable, OP. Some friends and I came up with something similar in during college. So if a couple of anime-watching stoners could figure it out, I'm sure someone much smarter has done so, and probably given it a name.
>>
>>1641228
define your society dont let your society define you
>>
>>1641228
It's called "fedorable philosophy" and it has no name because it's ducking retarded.
Tell me the logical precedence for sexual bliss.
>>
>>1641707
>>1641228
1. Any axiom about the real world, including the one you listed uses undefined and unambiguous terms
2. You cannot have axioms without a priori truths, such as an understanding of how the "and" operator works
3. Not everything is logical or can even be expressed with language
4. It's terrible for evaluating truth claims because the truth of axioms cannot be debated in your model, and the truth of axioms will be hotly debated
>>
>>1641228
Also the closest thing would be Wittgenstein in the Tractatus, but that and logical positivism are completely dead ideologies.
>>
>>1641707
How do you mean? Are you asking why people enjoy sex? (Because I don't)
>>1641713
1) Granted, hence why it's necessary to engage in dialogue with the person invoking the axiom to understand what their terms mean within the context of their worldview
2) Hmmm.. granted, so would it not be advantageous to identify the most robust set of a priori truths in order to formulate axioms?
3) What types of things do you think are outside the bounds of language? (I accept that not everything can be logical, but am curious)
4) Can the truths of one's axioms not be verified through experimentation/history? If one hypothesises that all people are trustworthy and come to the conclusion that we should implement absolute communism, yet your society fails, the fruits of your worldview calls into question the validity of your axioms. And why is it a bad thing to debate the truthfulness of axioms?
>>1641719
Those were definitely some influences on this line of thinking, but what has replaced them, and why?
Thread posts: 7
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1