Why does nobody acknowledge that there are infinitely many possible

>>9246949
Well sure. We're generally interested in whichever ones refer to how things actually are in our world, however.

->If eating meat is wrong, then eating your mother's steak dinner tonight is immoral.
->Eating meat is wrong.
->Therefore eating the steak dinner is immoral.

The argument is valid, but so what? What really matters is whether 'eating meat is wrong' is actually true. The real issue at hand here is you're starting off by assuming some form of anti-realism/relativism. Why do you think no axioms are truer or more relevant than others?

Also my bad if I'm misunderstanding how you're using 'axiom' here, there are two uses in philosophy.

>>9246993

I'm not assuming that some axioms are not better than others. But i acknowledge that there are infinitely many possible sets of criteria for judging axioms (and for judging criteria (as infinitum)).

>>9247005
>But i acknowledge that there are infinitely many possible sets of criteria for judging axioms

I guess, but philosophers (and many people) are concerned primarily with establishing a 'criteria' that optimally allows for finding true axioms. But yes, it doesn't matter if "X is wrong" is true if my conditions for accepting premises/axioms is based on "how useful is this for me." That doesn't make it less true, though.

Embrace eliminativism.

"Thought" is a spook

>>9246949
>Why does nobody acknowledge that there are infinitely many possible philosophical axioms and infinitely many criteria for the judgement of these axioms?

Um, lots of people do. It's called postmodernism. It is, in fact, the dominant paradigm within academia.

File: 15802291_1212854965472429_7934752964676157440_n.jpg (85KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1080x1080px

Guys, intellectually I'm all spooked out. I can't stand philosophy because of all the unfalsifiable garbage. Many fields like economics etc are just applied common sense and stamp collecting. I see novels as nothing but entertainment despite pretentious people claiming life / philosophical insights and tonnes of people will consider you a disgusting plebeian if you don't initially read shitloads of boring as fuck canon novels.

I think I am painfully adapting to the idea of the Internet age / information overload by abandoning any pretension that I can be an all rounder or even dilettante in everything. There are ten trillion books called "Introduction to [broad and important field]", even if you only have one of each field.

History is similar to novels. Shitloads of reading along with a shitload pretension thrown on top telling you that you truly cannot no nuthin unless you have an in depth understanding of the Greeks / Romans / Christianity / USA / WW1 / WW2 / financial systems / or shitloads of other topics I can't stand it. And then there's current events. I don't care about climate change, outer space, inequality, China, the EU, applied psychology, the education system, diversity, Russia, South America, refugees, nutrition, mental health, and more. Admitting just one of these would make me an iredeemable idiot, no doubt.

Has anyone else had similar thoughts? The spooks are powerful and must be removed but their removal leaves your mind in a promordial state that is more susceptible to spooks than before.

I go to the city centre and see people shopping and the streets are busy, which is comforting compared to when they're empty, but walking through then brings no epiphanies.

I am so past watching movies or tv shows, even ones that pander to "edgy" young males. I just about read books but only because society tells me I should, though I don't derive much enjoyment

And obviously I have an existential crisis but /lit/ is fucking pathetic in demanding that anyone who has one should immediately "grow up" and become a monotheist and wagecuck. I fucking hate wagecucking. Seeing attractive young people is humiliating. I tell myself every day that I'll soon work intensely on one thing but I can't bear to do this. If you're really good at one thing then there are people lining up to call you a tard for not watching opera or being able to run a marathon or whatever shit. So I do nothing.

Every "thinker" is at their core an utter fucking fraud. Nietzche is a Tony Robbins tier Rorschach test. Science and mathematics provide non trivial insights but only in ultra specialised ways that probably require autism to appreciate. I listen to In Our Time podcasts and Bret Easton Ellis podcasts and I think at heart everyone cares about nothing more than social drama.

Apart from money, health, and time, there are very few non trivial concept.

>>9247184
>I can't stand philosophy because of all the unfalsifiable garbage.

What philosophical works have you read?

>>9247323
he's trying to argue a reason not to