What is most retarded philosophy that could still be argued for

File: Stirner.gif (10KB, 279x305px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 279x305px

>>1734983

Solipsism is the obvious answer. There is no way to disprove it as of now, and its just lex parsimoniae applied to the max (not even assuming that anything exists, which all other philosophies do),
but its still completely useless because it in no way tells us how to live what we (or just I) percieve as life.

File: 1473088140340.png (370KB, 680x738px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 680x738px

Anarcho-Capitialism

stoicism

>>1735357
this desu

whether or not this is all a creation of my mind doesnt matter because im unable to differentiate between this and reality soo

File: 1464481563115-1516760497.jpg (59KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 800x534px

>>1734989
This

Communism

>>1734983
Libertarianism
Any form of extreme skepticism

>>1735357
How does its uselessness make it retarded?
It's philosophy, not a self help book.

>>1735357>>1735357
>Solipsism
>>1735791
>>1735928

reminder that the lack of control on the world applies also to the whatever the solipsist (and realist) consider as the ''self''.

solipsism is the most retarded idea, because the idea of control of thoughts, emotions, desires is a fantasy.

>>1735357
Solipsism cannot claim its own truth, so it's false even within its own axioms.

Parmenides' philosophy was pretty fucking retarded. If we didn't have records of Zeno defending his position I would think he was asserting it ironically as a reduction ad absurdum argument.

>>1735362
While it is true that capitalism ad anarchism cannot be reconciled, much of ancap argumentation against the for free markets can recycled into mutalism and left-wing market anarchism.

>>1734989
>>1735814
Mad someone called something you hold dear a spook?

>>1735814
>>1734989
NO! THE RIGHTS OF MEN EXIST! THEY ARE AS REAL AS YOU AND ME!

all philosophy is equally valid
tempted to add "unless it makes wrong statements", but fact is just a social construct as well it's just that i'm socialized into believing facts are more valid

>>1734989
What is there to follow?

>>1736600
spooks

>>1735957
What about this:
there is an infinite number of possibilities to explain "what fuels consciousness"
materialism is one of this possibilities
therefore there is 1/infinite chance that materialism is true
the chance that materialism is true tends toward zero

>>1734983
Positivism. Refuted ad nauseam yet followed by the masses.

>>1736827
Just because you trust science doesn't mean yoy are a positivist. It just werks.

File: bestgirl.jpg (17KB, 335x378px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 335x378px

>>1734983
Semitic religions

>>1734983
This one >>1736399

>>1736863
First or second line?
For first: All philosophy starts with an opinion, and then tries to make arguemts in favor of that. No opinion is more right than any other, so all philosophy is equally valid.

For second: This one is more tricky, because my instincts are to say that facts are more valid. I think it also kinda ties into logic, which is also a social contruct. It feels a bit weird to argue that logic isn't any more valid than feelings with logic, but I'll just let that pass and do it anyway.
Our society's obsession with the importance of fact isn't really an absolute truth. Let's say your philosophy says that anything can be split into smaller parts, and atoms don't really exist. Our modern society would say that's wrong, but how does that make your philosophy less valid? If it makes you feel better, isn't that just as valid of a philosophy as anything else? that fact>feelings, or other constituents, is just an opinion that's very ingrained into society. Modern society assumes an axiom that fact and logic should get more respect than anything else, but this is just as assumption based on certain other assumptions about goals of philosophy or other things.

Sorry, it's hard to explain, it wasn't that long since I realized this, so I haven't thought out the arguments properly yet, and also, I tend to distract myself from the thought processes with the meta-observation that I'm using logic to dispute logic, and that paradox tends to stop my thought process due to my insufficient intelligence.

File: Er3RO.jpg (66KB, 708x588px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 708x588px

>>1736835
>trusting science
>not logic

>>1736620
Nevermind, solipsism isn't opposed to materialism

Capitalism

>>1736937

The search for truth is universally found across cultures and societies. There is something in nature which drives us to seek out this thing called truth. It can't be dismissed as a merely an opinion because everyone, in all times, and in all places have valued truth over falsehood.

>>1737052
only subjective truth, not objective truth. If you have an objective truth, that's not more valid than someone's subjective truth that's objectively wrong.
And majority's agreement isn't an argument.

>>1737130

My point is that the value of truth as opposed to falsity is not a social construct, but something deeply ingrained in our nature. I agree largely about the impossiblity of a truly objective science, but that doesn't diminish the pursuit of knowledge or the body of knowledge generated by this pursuit. All it means is that the philosophers have worked us into a puzzle by setting up this ideal of objectivity.

>>1735362
strangling them would infringe on their blood property. Choking would be better

>>1735884
What's wrong with Libertarianism?

>>1737165
Sounds to me like the question to be asking isn't, "What is the truth?" but should instead be "Is there a truth?"

>>1734983
communism

>>1734989

This desu

>>1737652
Could you please explain the significance of this to me, because I honestly don't get it why it matters.

Yeah, everybodys truth is subjective so there can't really be an "objective truth" and all that, I get it. But it seems to me like all this Pomo stuff just ends up in moral relativism where nothing's really better or worse and you can't really make value judgments on ideas anymore.

Everything ends up a social construct or a spook, so why do we give a shit? A society still needs a clear set of ethics to keep everyone on the same page, whether it's arbitrary or not.

>>1737652
Making any claim already presumes the existence of truth, so there is no argument against it.

>>1736827
>refuted
not a positivist but how?