Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 1426472098804.jpg (8KB, 250x238px) Image search:
[Google]
8KB, 250x238px
How can anyone look at the Munchhausen trilemma (or think independently) and think that any aspect of philosophy is non trivial? You literally can't. Everything Marx said was unfalsifiable garbage. The same with Nietzsche and so on.
When you see philosophers actually talk about real world topics it's clear that philosophy has given them literally zero additional tools for reasoning compared to a regular person. It's laughable.
It may sound like I'm being dismissive and elitist, and I am, but modern philosophical institutions such as universities and publishers are also elitist. They claim that their own areas of philosophy are worth debating but others aren't. According to them, Ethics is worthwhile (even after Hume, and every person of average or above intelligence knows about the is-ought problem) while "Philosophy of Doughnuts" isn't. There's plenty of unfalsifiable stuff you can say about doughnuts but there is a tonne of dogma surrounding institutions and they refuse to talk about what's worth talking about (not that there would be an answer, but no surprises that they don't risk the loss of importance / funding). Philosophy has become a very rigid circlejerk.
Treat my rants about philosophy and institutions separately.
I want to emphasise the Munchhausen trilemma but I may be accused of being a logical positivist. I know what's wrong with that, but then Godel has shown that a logical system has to be either incomplete or inconsistent, so every other system must be "flawed", but funny how this only gets used to dismiss systems that lower the potential for unfalsifiable circle jerking. If you bring up the Hegelian-Zizekian-Platonian Dialectical Jam Biscuit Capitalist Reasoning System then the academics will be in raptures.
So where does that leave us? Philosophy as a tool for pseudo intellectual posturing ("Oh look, I read about Aristotle's Physics in the original Greek!" and innumerable other examples). Can anyone convince me to think otherwise?
I know people will say that science and mathematics are part of philosophy and I agree that they are but I am clearly talking about all of philosophy apart from those two areas. Although the purview of philosophy is deemed to be so large that when I decide to go and have a shit then people will claim that that was an incredible example of philosophy (whether due to the resulting increase in world happiness or the aesthetics of my shit or infinite other reasons.)
>>
>>8305533
>or think independently
>implying you or everyone here or anyone on Earth "thinks independently"
>>
>>8305533
>retarded frogposter
>>
>>8305533
The problem with the Munchhausen Trilemma is that axioms aren't a logical fallacy, they are accepted propositions fundamentally outside of logic. To "skeptically question all axioms" is in essence to question the Law of Noncontradiction, which may be fun to try, and shouldnt be banned in any sense, but the LNC is essential to comuunicate or do anything at all. In effect, any sort of doubt placed on the LNC cannot be expressed, so doubting all axioms cannot be done. Not to mention the self defeating nature of doubting axioms as an axiom.
I agree with you that major academic philosophy schools are based out of fear and hedonistic materialism, giving up any sort of courage of philosophical system for money. The idea of being a paid professor and publishing journal articles is the corrupting influence that money has on what I would call "scientizing philosophy", or treating it like a science that can have repeatable monetary benefits.
Don't be narrow in the sense of what philosophy is. Mark Twain said "Don't let schooling get in the way of your education". I don't think that philosophy is trivial, I just hate the way its taught. "We dont know either way" is an unsatisfying answer.
>>
>>8305533
The incompleteness theorem applies to formal axiomatic systems containing arithmetic. Godel's technique uses Godel Numbering, which to my understanding has not been generalized to any degree outside of meta-mathematics.
But then wtf is fashion? Circle jerk. Wtf is architecture? Circle jerk. Do you have additional things to say about the real world as a designer? Every domain of knowledge has trends.
Also as Nietzsche said, all of science is based upon a moral premise: the pursuit for truth. Without philosophy there is no language for the premises of natural philosophy.
>>
>>8305533
>then Godel has shown that a logical system has to be either incomplete or inconsistent, so every other system must be "flawed"
I don't think you really get this. And are you dismissing mathematics too? Can you tell me the difference between mathematics and philosophy?
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1