Why do people still publish philosophy without solving the Münchhausen

Haven't seen you in a while. What is the Münchhausen trilemma based on, by the way?

>>9783940
Literally wikipedia it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

>>9783942
Which of these three is the trilemma based on? What is its claim to truth?

The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts

>>9783940
Hello, mate.

The beauty of your question is that it affirms the trilemma by refuting it. It's a paradoxical sort of feel.

>>9783925
>>9783940
>>9783942
*rides cannonball behind you*

>>9783940
Ich hab mein Sach auf Nichts gestellt.

>>9783925
Are you implying that all philosophy is epistemology? If so, that is an extraordinary claim, and stands in need of rigorous proof.

>>9783925
Something exists, instead of only absolutely pure nothing.

>>9784349
Nice baseless axiom.

>>9785352
explain.

Can you not comprehend the definition of something, and nothing? The most simplest, fundamental, necessary, obvious distinctions?

There is obvious, not only pure nothing.

There is that which is pure nothing, and that which is not.

If there was only pure nothing, i wouldnt be able to write this, I wouldnt be able to be, because...only nothing would be.

File: Tayama_Katai.jpg (21KB, 200x261px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 200x261px

You can't say anything cuz what if
>checkmate hurr hurr hurr

>>9785363
>can you not comprehend
>there is obvious

You're appealing to the self-evidence of your claims.

So basically you're asking people to agree with you for no reason, and that is the entire basis of your argument, which is one of the three insufficient proofs the Münchhausen trilemma addresses.

>>9785369
If you think scepticism is merely a annoying meme, what do you base the validity of truth claims upon?

>>9785385
It's just a waste of time if anyone decides to go Nagarjuna on you anyway. Everything exists, they don't, they do and don't, don't and do. If I think you're wrong I just move the goalpost, or make it into semantics.

He did get something correct though. There are no absolute truths. The requirement for absolute truth is obviously a ploy.