How can philosophy boil down to anything other than assertions

It also shows that scientific objectives are based on feelings too?

>>8265752

>feelings/reason dichotomy

Did you ever really think about the above, or do you just blindly regurgitate every single meaningless trope society has ever fed you?

All ethics can be reduced to feels. Everything normative can be reduced to feels. That does not make it unsound.

Philosophy teaches you to think critically and rigorously. It may even teach you the virtue to stop being a frogposter.

>>8265768

I didn't say feels were unsound. But obviously deciding what is sound or not is based on feels.

>>8265834
Is unsustainable growth superior to sustainable growth?

>>8265840

I would just decide based on my feels. The sentences below this paragraph are all separate possible answers that I consider impossible to "judge" without further criteria that must obviously be decided on and are also based on feels. A philosophy worshipper would probably answer the question by name-dropping famous philosophers and their views, droning on about common ethical systems, and bringing in preconceived moral ideas (e.g., murder is bad). Not that I consider that a bad approach. But they would definitely shit on any other approach due to the academia-media-publishing industrial complex's desire for a monopoly in reasonable discourse.

No, because society may be led in to a position where it doesn't have enough resources to sustain itself.

Yes, because it is likely to lead to the discovery of other fuels for growth that will advance society quickly.

Yes, because I want to see people starve.

No, because the sky is blue.

Yes, because I like cats.

No, because it's Monday.

1. The trilemna never asserts anything about "feelings".

2. Circular reasoning isnt inherently flawed, nor is axiomatic reasoning.

3. The trilemna is basically repackaged solipsism. You can question everything into oblivion; that doesnt mean its reasonable to do so.

4. Pragmatism is the only fair answer.

>>8265861
tl:dr
It'll be decided based on feels.

>>8265861
The first two answers are fair.

The last three are just non-sequiturs.

You've basically stumbled yourself into the corner of value-theory and pragmatism. If you want to read some philosphers in your line of thinking, try out James, Peirce, or even Nietzsche

>>8265863

>doesn't make it reasonable to do so

Prove it based on our shared axioms or admit that it's just your feelings.

It's funny that philosophy phaggots claim a monopoly on reason and rigour but when you question the foundations they tell you to fuck off or to read [shit I'll obviously never read].

>>8265872

Non sequiturs? Oh my sweet summer child. If you can explain why that would "invalidate" anything (or explain anything at all) I'll be impressed.

>value theory

Oh look, you've packaged up a bit of applied common sense. Oh look, I'm so dumb yet you can't explain shit to me so you just name-drop famous people.

>>8265752
All memes aside, the munchhausen trilemma is the most depressing thing I've learned.