> In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought

>>131201341
bump. c'mon /pol/, this is serious; pragmatism is opposite of ideological and political absolutism

File: Anger.jpg (6KB, 276x183px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 276x183px

>>131202282
/pol/ literally cannot answer this. Taking this seriously means that we should be developing/cultivating our presuppositions and axioms, with the aim of selecting axioms which are conducive to human flourishment
> Mind-independent reality exists (Time/Space/Matter/Energy)
> History has happened
> Human consciousness exists
> A = B and A != B cannot be both true at the same time

File: 1477177367411.jpg (125KB, 363x463px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 363x463px

>>131201341
Whatever this is its communist. Plz go.

>>131203355
Why should I accepted any of those axiomatically
Get more basic and I might start accepting some stuff.

Faggot post modern chumps.

File: Interdasting.gif (940KB, 627x502px)

940KB, 627x502px

>>131203592
Because they are useful, aka pragmatism. How much more basic do you want to get?
> legit curious

>>131203763
As basic as possible. It doesnt matter anyway because Godel.

>>131201341
>which axiom should we pragmatically accept
Whichever fits the objective. The problem is when the objective is somehow corrupted by emotion, confusion, sabotage etc. Or when it is not well defined/non existent.

Is it possible to teach pragmatism. Words are mostly references to culture and even eloquent explanations are interpreted subjectively. Ultimately every truth has to be realised by the subject alone.

>>131203964
Yeah, Godel fucks us all over in terms of absolute knowledge, but a pragmatic perspective would be that we don't have to have absolute certainty to get the outcomes we want. We didn't need to understand quantum physics (or whatever will replace it) in order to make a fire

>>131204051
True, selecting a goal is the most difficult part, because how do you decide what is important/not important? However, if you haven't committed suicide yet, I would say that you are acting out the presupposition that surviving and thriving is preferable to not-surviving and not-thriving, which is a good place to start, and is really in line with a lot of Darwinian thinking. I'm not really sure how to dissuade someone from committing suicide though, because they could just reject that presupposition out of hand and kill themselves :S

>>131203964
Don't let this thread die, damnit, this problem is at the bottom/foundation of my worldview, and I am trying to stress test it with your help

you cannot fully formalize many of the things you argue about, the complexity is just too huge
you'll have to live with the fact that in any discussion people will argue with different prepositions and the discussion may spiral into arguing about the prepositions for those prepositions

>>131203964
>>131204063
you do not necessarily need both consistency and completeness in a formal system that is supposed to accurately model reality or a subset of it
not being able to prove a certain statement may be perfectly fine and intuitive

>>131201341
In practice this is useless wankery. In theory we can define axioms that are pretty reasonable. For example in mathematics numbers and basic operations can be treated as axioms

TL;DR kys

>>131205291
Right, hence the need for pragmatism. There is nothing to be gained by believing you are a brain in a vat, or that the world popped into existence five minutes ago, that gravity is just a social construct, or any of the other philosophical thought experiments/wankery that push people towards post-modernism.
>>131205618
Right, but we can also create interesting and useful math by trying out other axioms, such as the axioms which underlie non-Euclidean geometry (which underlie modern GPS systems, amongst other things). The fact that some mathematics appears to correspond to our existence is both exciting and fascinating, because other mathematics clearly does not (such as the p-adic numbers)

>>131201341
Easy, an infinitely small thing is nothing.
Saying ''you can't prove it'' is an infinite thing. However, it's smaller with every step.....infinitely small is 0. nothing.

so therefore, you can't prove it is an infinitely small argument.

>>131204565
It is also possible to see different perspectives and have them both be useful.

I can assume that I am here for a purpose as there is enough evidence to support that. It may help me to through hardships and for strife. I can also legitimately assume that I am without purpose. I have no meaning to the greater cosmos and searching for guidance will have me searching in vain. Purpose as such is created by man and it is myself that find meaning.

>>131206175
>Right, but we can also create interesting and useful math by trying out other axioms, such as the axioms which underlie non-Euclidean geometry (which underlie modern GPS systems, amongst other things). The fact that some mathematics appears to correspond to our existence is both exciting and fascinating, because other mathematics clearly does not (such as the p-adic numbers)
Yes? What of it? The answer to your question is axioms, what do you still want m80? You can build different thought constructs under different axioms, if that gets you off then knock yourself out

File: Its_a_moderate_kind_of_feel.jpg (23KB, 310x310px)

23KB, 310x310px

>>131206192
Right, but to believe that, you have to first believe in the concept of infinity, or pragmatically accept the concept of infinity as an axiom, which most mathematicians do, but some don't, and those that don't try to pass off the belief in infinity as an example of white men oppressing stronk womyn of color, which is endlessly frustrating because they are completely ignoring the pragmatic argument.
>>131206269
Interesting. I would say that believing A and not-A would be a violation of the law of non-contradiction, unless you are also dispensing with that axiom in order to make your point? What is the utility in believing your life has no purpose?
>>131206947
I'm trying to articulate the axioms which underlie my life, and attempt to discern whether or not any of those axioms need changing/updating. My meta-goal is to create a perspective on life that is conducive to iterable individual and collective flourishment, and I am curious to see what axioms it would be necessary to accept in order to achieve that goal. Some obvious ones seem to be
> I exist
> Other minds exist
> Mind independent reality exists
> History has happened
But I am unsure about what other axioms would be necessary to achieve this goal, hence the thread

>>131206175
yes, arguing about statements that you know you cannot prove is pointless

>The fact that some mathematics appears to correspond to our existence is both exciting and fascinating
it isn't exciting because asking "why" for that statement is pointless
>because other mathematics clearly does not
debatable
most axiomatic systems we come up with are intended to simplify certain branches of maths because defining everything in terms of zfc or category theory is hard and may feel unintuitive
this includes p adic numbers, they have useful applications

>>131206192
>infinitely small thing
undefined in any sensible context

the rest of your post is gibberish

>>131206175
You know that those solipsistic hyper-empiricist philosophies are really typical of anglo tradition and you find them with people like Popper, who is then used by economists to say things in the vein of "Can't know nothing so let's just make some cash"

>>131207655
>But I am unsure about what other axioms would be necessary to achieve this goal, hence the thread
Well obviously that varies argument by argument. So have fun listing all the arguments that tickle your anus and feel free to come up with axioms to support those. Or alternatively get your autism cured

>>131201341
>Which axioms should we pragmatically accept?
Jesus died on the cross for your sins, past, present and future. Solves the problem, as it enables one to be wrong and try again

>>131207730
r/ing more information about how p-adic numbers are used.
>>131208124
Not an argument.
>>131208565
Yeah, to believe that requires a fucking lot of other axioms tho, and I am unconvinced that adopting axioms about Christian metaphysics is helpful.

>>131207655
assuming infinity leads to many unintuitive problems

>I would say that believing A and not-A would be a violation of the law of non-contradiction
any sufficiently complex consistent axiomatic system cannot prove its own consistency

>I'm trying to articulate the axioms which underlie my life
you're trying to formalize things that are both imprecise and extremely complex

>>131208787
>r/ing more information about how p-adic numbers are used.
consult wikipedia
like anything related to primes, it's interesting in number theory and thus in crypto

>>131208787
My take on it is that I'll worry about the axioms when I cross that bridge. If you want to construct some kind of all-encompassing set of axioms then maybe a finite set of axioms will do. Or maybe not. In any case I doubt that you can ever be sure that you have a conclusive set of axioms for everything

>>131207732
Actually, I've been more interested in people like Roy Baskar and the critical realists, who seem to strike the correct balance between postmodern wankery and dogmatic empiricism.
>>131208565
I should point out however that i do think one can reasonably be an agnostic theist, (agnostic from the sense of epistemology, and theistic from a pragmatic perspective) I find it hard to believe that the beginning of the existence of the universe can be ignored, though I am skeptical about the Bible and organized religion/Jewry
>>131209142
Alright, fair enough Godel, but that doesn't change the fact that it is more helpful to have a consistent map of the world by which to operate compared to an inconsistent map of the world. While one can philosophically argue a la Hume that we shouldn't expect the laws of the universe to be constant and thus should be frenetically preparing for the possibility that gravity is going to reverse itself, or the strong nuclear force is going to wink out of existence, to do so is completely unhelpful.
>>131209488
Right, hence the need for continual dialogue and 'rescuing your father from the underworld' as JBP would put it. I interpret that statement as exhorting us to critically examine the presuppositions which underlie out worldviews/institutions etc., see what is working and what is not, and to be open to changing those presuppositions if it is merited, which I would guess 99% of the time it isn't, and 99% of proposed changes will likely make things worse by almost any metric you care to name.

>>131209814
>JBP
JBP is a wanker. None of his tirades ever really go anywhere

God take the fucking dick out of your ass moron, why do you need so many posts to say "lel, im gonna do what i think is right"

>>131210179
You are just really small of mind

>>131209488
many interesting axiomatic systems actually are not finite

>>131209814
>have a consistent map of the world by which to operate compared to an inconsistent map of the world
i do not understand what this means

>JBP
JBP is a snake oil merchant

>see what is working and what is not
zfc or maybe category theory work pretty well
for practical applications we also have a bunch of type systems and a few axiomatic systems that are essentially part of zfc that we use so we don't need to come up with ugly definitions within zfc

File: 1467257061495.jpg (133KB, 480x608px)

133KB, 480x608px

>>131201341

pic related

>>131209814
In any case, if you're looking to fix institutions, then I suppose you'll necessarily have to dip into pragmatism. I'm not sure what you had in mind exactly but I if institutions are shitty then I doubt their problem is epistemology

>>131210436
Sure I'll just pretend it's deep and meaningful

>>131207655
I guess my point is that a concept can have multiple meanings. Also, as per your original post, ultimately any contradictions are indiscernible because the proof involved is not definitive.

Understanding that you have no purpose, as in a preconceived ambition, might force you to create that purpose you where meant to find. Also you might get lost in scripture looking for signs of it or get high headed and legitimise your selfish desires.

By being aware of the bigger picture you get more complex problems but more tools and a better adapted solution.

A lot of concepts are contradictory in nature. But only their logical meaning and not the underlying reality to which they are referencing. Such as duality and non-duality.

>>131209814
You overthinking mate. The believe in a theist being is a psychological reassurance to not fear what comes after dying. The axiom of Christianity that we are already saved through the messiah Jesus Christ is an extra plus to be able to even think about axioms and the meanings of life. Then no matter how wrong you may be, Jesus teaches to better ourself, try again, think about different ways and be aware if you are wrong if you understood, that one was wrong.

The scriptures are merely marketing and a way to give a glimpse at, in which context the teachings were developed, for the church first is also true, but unfortunatelly, like every thing man made it can fail, where it is in the hands of humans to think about why it is wrong and better it.

>>131210555
> consistent map of the world by which to operate
Okay, let me see if I can explain a bit better.
When you go to the store to get something because you are having friends over and wanted to make a cool recipe you found on the internet, you don't stop halfway to the store and think:
"Gosh, my belief that the store is going to be the same place it was last week is predicated on unprovable assumptions that might be wrong- maybe I should check and see if gravity is still in effect"
You just go to the store and spend way too much money on some bullshit ingredients. Most of the time, you have a certain amount of faith in your fundamental presuppositions which allow you to simplify the world enough to live in it and do whatever bullshit you are planning to do that day like go to work, pay rent etc.

File: banach-tarski.png (73KB, 668x150px)

73KB, 668x150px

>>131210555
>zfc
Axiom of choice
Axiom of infinity

Do these work pretty well?

>>131211064
>deep and meaningful

lol, no, its self-evident and practical

the lads ideas all flow around his central idea on how the psyche succesfuly reintegrates chaotic experiences

>>131209814
>I interpret that statement as exhorting us to critically examine the presuppositions which underlie out worldviews/institutions etc., see what is working and what is not,

lol, no its not, its exhorting you to clean your room

>>131211525
>the lads ideas all flow around his central idea on how the psyche succesfuly reintegrates chaotic experiences
This is exactly what I mean. Useless wankery that has no connection to reality. But he uses a lot of big words so retards think it's deep

>>131212308
it actually does connect to reality, you are just dumb as shit

this whole thread suffers from unkempt rooms

>>131211141
I was asking about the utility in believing that you have no purpose, and you said that if you believe that you have no purpose you might create that purpose you were 'meant' to find. Doesn't that statement implying teleology? How can you be 'meant' to do anything if there is no purpose in life? We can certainly disagree about what we think our purpose IS, but I am hard pressed to understand how it is helpful to dispense of the notion of purpose entirely.
>>131210607
Mickey pls go.
>>131211199
Ah, so you are proposing a different understanding of the Christian religion compared to the more literal interpretation of a god-man dying and being resurrected? If you accept the presupposition that history has happened, I don't find it unreasonable to believe that someone named Jesus of Nazareth lived and died in 33BC. I suppose I am more skeptical of the traditional metaphysics, however.
>>131212077
Yeah, cleaning your room comes first, and cleaning your room and sorting yourself out almost invariably means that you will reject leftist presuppositions, but that doesn't mean that we can't engage in critical discussion about our society and institutions. Hell, this board does it all the time when we criticize our society for not being right-wing enough.

>>131201341
>demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth
that's easy as fuck to disprove though:

I think therefore I am. I able to think therefore I know at the very least I exist and this is an absolute truth.

>>131211410
yes
unless you're looking to use computer assisted proofs, zfc is pretty useful, otherwise one of the many more limited type theories are useful

>>131212504
Ok prove it. Prove that psyche reintegrates chaotic experiences

>>131212654
Prove that you think

>>131201341
With regards to metaphysical outlooks, different ideologies subscribe to each of these answers in one form or another.

For example:
Circular = metaphysical answer used by egoism, most forms of materialism
Regressive = metaphysical answer used by Buddhism, pantheism, Stoicism, Hinduism, some forms of materialism
Axiomatic = metaphysical answer used by theism and panentheism. God is the fundamental, transcendent precept from which all existence, being, logic, truth, etc. come from.

The axiomatic metaphysical answer is the most satisfying as it is the only one which has a beginning and thus may have an end. It is the most innately logical as well: all mathematical or logical proofs begin with a list of axioms from which to reason, recursive and circular reasoning have always been condemned as unsatisfactory methodology.

tl;dr - God is the metaphysical axiom upon which the universe is based. The decadence and open denial of clear and present truth we see today is a consequence of our society's abandonment of the way of the metaphysical axiom, and instead choosing to follow circular or recursive proofs

>>131212654
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#Criticisms
Sorry breh, brainlets need not apply
>>131212790
Is there anywhere that I can read about calculus/linear algebra/other math theories in terms of ZFC?

>>131212840
>Prove that you think
lmao, you're asking me to disprove my own argument using thought and ideas, therefore proving that I am able to think

how fucking stupid are you?

>>131212654
you proved a single absolute truth (not both consistency and completeness) given a single axiom in a severely limited axiomatic system insted
how can you mess up so badly

>>131212531
>but that doesn't mean that we can't engage in critical discussion about our society and institutions

Yes it does, it literally means that, you are simply parroting progressivenes now. You don't need to engage in critical discussions about society and institutions, its a void of shit, you are wasting your time losing yourself in a maze of words, meddling with control freaks and impotent wannabe tyrants whose life is so devoid of everything that they think if only they artificially altered the natural course of human societal interaction they might not cry when they go to sleep every night


You need to slay the dragon of modernity and impregnate a virgin

>>131212840
??? Its everywhere friend
But if you want a dramatic example of chaos reintegration look at Germany during the last century. It reintegrated three times.

Also, you don't always reintegrate successfully, thats why he studies the process, to help those who are stuck

>>131212531
New, barely. Not according to the Protestant church, sure heretics lost themselves in the books, like the Mohamedanians; and the catholics and orthodox church are to hard into worldly matter.
>Not believing in a god-man dying and being resurrected?
Wouldn't say so. for first, we are all made after God, so was Jesus. Him getting "resurrected", whatever that should mean, I believe, as I can't prove otherwise. It may mean he had an insider who helped him, mad luck surviving and being a badass who survived and a small earthquake or his guys moving the stone, or just an analogy for him being remembered unless other crucified. It doesn't change anything about the essence, the narrative, I would even go so far to say the meme. He died for our sins, past, present and future, if we believe and be aware, trying to make it better and develop ourselves and our next.

>>131213110
Thoughts faggots?

>>131213237
I'm asking you to prove the statement you made. Prove that you think (you didn't even understand the op, did you?)

>>131213298
>hurr hurr Germany durr
None of that has any tangible connection to JBP's bullshit

sounds lyk modern socialism/leftism

>>131213298
> We currently do A, B and C
> We should instead do X, Y, and Z
That's literally all i'm saying. If you're afraid of someone using the word 'critical discussion' you are the perfect example of a thoughtlet right-winger. Unless you're a radical egoist/solipsist, whenever you are trying to convince someone who is currently doing A to do X, you are engaging in critical discussion/persuasion, but instead of faggy 'power analyses' like the deconstructionists, I am arguing that we should primarily be concerned with pragmatic outcomes which are concerned with human flourishment, which is very different.
>>131213110
Yeah, axioms are the patrician's choice, what are you trying to say? I already have accepted the deist/theist/panentheist axiom, but I am highly skeptical of organized religion.

>>131213906
>human flourishment
easy there pal, you will get stuck simply trying to define this entity

>>131201341
first prove that the munchhausen trilemma is true

>>131213906
Im not convincing anyone of anything, im just saying your shit is all retarded and explaining why, i don't really care if you listen to me or not

>we should primarily be concerned with pragmatic outcomes which are concerned with human flourishment, which is very different.
No, its the fucking same, those other people just have a different view than you have of what human flourishment is and what is needed for, the end result is the same, whoever has more people wins and then turns everything into a fucking nightmare to the rest of us who have tidy rooms and aren't out there trying to control humanity

You are all faggots with unkempt rooms, thats the most pragmatic truth

>>131213826
Yes it does brainlet

>>131213179
there's a bunch of papers exploring different definitions, but not a single collected source afaik

>>131201341
>believing that you have no purpose
>dispense of the notion of purpose entirely
Not the same thing. I guess my point reads a bit between the lines.

Any concept, such as purpose, can have different meanings. Asking wether it exists or not is not be a definitive question but you are expecting a definitive answer. The question, does god exist, can not be answered as god is not a defined concept. Yet it does convey meaning in a subjective sense if you oversee the fundamental error.

Does my toothbrush have a purpose? Yes.
Does the sun have a purpose?

>>131203588
Why did anyone post after this?

>>131214489
Teaching anons about how Jesus Christ saved them

>>131214301
>My dick reintegrates chaotic experiences. It reintegrated Germany 3 times in the last century
Wow I am now a philosopher king on the level of the mighty JBP. Give me all your neetbux

>>131213906
Yeah, and we can argue endlessly about what is good for humans (we already do) but I'm trying to think of a viable alternative to the postmodernist power analysts
>>131214236
You're being a faggot is what you're doing, all politics is arguing over what is good for society. I'm of the opinion that paleolibertarianism is the best way to pragmatically ensure human flourishment, but the leftists are behaving in such a way that we'll have to resort to fascism for a time in order to purge our societies of their influence. Are you going to tell me that this is somehow a leftist progressive perspective too?

>>131214662
pls no bully ;_;

>>131214489
> thoughtlets unable to discuss anything beyond literal memes
>>131214662
meant for >>131214081 and >>131214301

>>131201341
Why are we accepting the assumption that requesting proof of the proof is a valid counterargument to the validity of a proof?

>>131201341
> in episthemology
You see,the problem relies on this precept in wich the reasoning has no values, as it is based on a private experience,is wrong at a subjective level as it is measured objectivly but percived and send subjectevely. And its knowledge also contingent primarly.
Episthemology is the SJW of science.
Even onthology beats it.
Realism measurement,Espinoza or Kirkegard views are the thing for me.
Also, regard my get

>>131214604
you are just stupid

>>131214662
1 - I didn't say leftist progressive, i said progressive
2 - Yes
3 - All politics is faggotry
4 -
>I'm of the opinion that paleolibertarianism is the best way to pragmatically ensure human flourishment
Whats your plan if paleolibertarianism becomes outlawed? Gonna stop flourishing yourself and let the state degenerate you?

File: I'm_fine.jpg (94KB, 601x508px)

94KB, 601x508px

>>131214819
>>131215000
> mfw another leaf ITT
I actually liked your point. I think there is a formal proof (somewhere) that all axiomatic systems are incomplete and/or self-referencing, but I can't think of it off-hand. It's a good point though, and similar to the point that the post-modernists are self-defeating when they dogmatically claim that there is no such thing as truth

>>131215234
My theory is as solid as JBP's. Now suck my dick bitch before I reintegrate your chaotic experiences with my dick

>>131201341
Foundationalism, you dumbo

>>131215234
Are you some kind of anarcho-primitivist who doesn't believe that anything can or should get any better than it is? If so, enjoy getting anal raped by literally everyone who isn't a brainlet.
> all politics is faggotry
Yeah, probably tbqhwy, but it doesn't change the fact that it shapes a lot of our daily lives.
> whats your plan if paleolibertarianism becomes outlawed
That's what the guns are for, Santiago.
>>131215503
Explain yourself, Vicente

>>131215498
Your theory is just a failed attempt at being edgy smart

>>131215762
Yeah just like JBP

>>131213110
i thought a bit on how to disprove this, but i think it's valid
defining god as an initial system of axioms is fairly unintuitive though (and does not necessarily imply a 'creator'), and i think it doesn't really line up with most of theism, which defines god in a much more limited way

>The decadence and open denial of clear and present truth we see today is a consequence of our society's abandonment of the way of the metaphysical axiom
i don't see how this is a direct logical conclusion

>>131215000
because if A is always false, A => B is always true.
if we assume something that is wrong, we can show anything, thus we need to prove A to be true for A => B to be meaningful.

>>131215695
>That's what the guns are for, Santiago.
So you don't give a shit about politics, you only care about yourself and your shitty opinions, you are not out there to play a fair game of critical discussion and agreement, you are not willing to switch around if proved wrong, you are there to shill for yourself to gain power by pushing your own way of life into the state, and in case of being severely outnumbered, you plan to go out with a bang

You wouldnt be in a such a stressful place if you focused on your proximity instead of abstract global bullshit

>>131216103
Nope, kind of the complete opposite

>>131216656
Violence is always the last resort when arguments and discussions fail, that is a truism borne out by history. Why are you trying to pretend you have the moral high ground again? Fact of the matter is that other people's actions affect my life, and not having an opinion because I have stuck my head in the sand is not an argument. Also, having a goal and direction in my proximate life usual requires having some values and goals and beliefs, which (coincidentally enough) is exactly what we are talking about. I agree with JBP though, if you are trying to control other people's lives while your own life is in complete shambles, that is retarded, which is (one of) the many things wrong about college activism/leftist progressives. They want to tell everyone how society should be organized while they can't even hold down a job.

>>131203592
Based on observation. Ever see a living dead man?

Tadaaa we have a law of non-contradiction. Now build logic.

Fucking faggots, Git gud and read Kant.

>>131201341
Belief and faith play a large role in our worldview. This approach denies both for a purely logical point of view. Accept the neccessity of belief (the sun will rise tomorrow) as part of our experience and the trilemma goes away

>>131217822
it is impossible for any sufficiently complex consistent axiomatic system to prove itself consistent

>>131218140
?? The Munchhausen trilemma literally demonstrates that faith in unprovable axioms is an absolutely essential part of our worldview, what are you talking about?

>>131218297
Then leave it a faith. You can't rationaly or logically explain or even understand faith. You're overthinking this.

>>131217498
>Why are you trying to pretend you have the moral high ground again?


If you are just like me then why say all this shit about critical discussion and human flourishment? You don't give a shit about critical discussion, you care about your own survival and are willing to turn full murder if they stick their finger too far up your ass.

Why the need to engage then? Its like you are willfully torturing yourself engaging in senseless uncritical discussion with other people who are also scared it might go the other way and they would have to go full murder

If you just tune out you can be happy and still have your gun ready for when shit hits the fan and the happening really starts, but stress free

>>131218412
claiming that you cannot project from a well defined formal system to reality is just as pointless as claiming that you can project from a well defined formal system to reality
OP assumes that we can, you assume that we can't. we cannot prove this statement to be either true or false, and thus the münchhausen trilemma will remain impossible to prove.

>>131218412
I'm saying that faith is necessary, yes, but faith in what? That's what is essentially at issue here. You can believe all kinds of shit, you can believe that the earth is flat, that fairies help you digest your food, and that ice cream sandwiches aren't fucking delicious, but the question is to attempt to figure out what we should believe, and why. I've attempted to argue that in light of the (apparent) fact that our worldviews are ultimately predicated upon one or more unprovable axioms, we should think pragmatically, and adopt those axioms/presuppositions which are maximally conducive to iterable human flourishment individually, and collectively.
>>131218560
Well, I would rather avoid a SHTF scenario if at all possible, and you have provided zero reasons for why I should believe anything differently/how I am wrong. Are you just saying to give up trying to engage people to your point of view?

>>131219095
>I would rather avoid a SHTF scenario if at all possible
exactly my point

>you have provided zero reasons for why I should believe anything differently
im not trying to convince you of shit im just explaining why politics are retarded and its only use is a way to pretend to be in control of your sense of impending doom and everybody's very real sensation that the behemoth we call civilized society can turn into a nightmarish predator at any moment, which is not only stressfull as fuck but is also a form of escapism

>>131219534
Okay, fair enough, politics can be retarded and often is a form of escapism/psychological coping, but I fail to see why that means we should give up on it. Or are you ITT to offer black pills? Even if you ignore politics, the Munchhausen trilemma is still relevant for your own life/beliefs

>>131219996
>Or are you ITT to offer black pills?
Ah shit, hahah, yeah i was kind of trying to spike everyones drink

But when this black pill wears off it leaves behind an afterglow of personal focus and infinite potential, when you stop worrying about the configuration of society you start noticing all the shit around you you can actually affect

>the Munchhausen trilemma is still relevant for your own life/beliefs
I dunno, i tend to try to shut of the part of my brain that tries to form bigger narratives out of shit and operate on things based on desired outcome

>>131220455
Well I was under the assumption that the whole point of /pol/ is that we dispute many of the fundamental assumptions of modern life, and achieve a modicum of freedom from the prison-like modern system as a result, even if only in our minds. A ruthless pragmatism is helpful, yes, but it doesn't change the fact that bigger narratives can and do affect your daily life, and knowing how to critique them/offer a different perspective is (~usually~) helpful, even if you don't attempt to take action on that different perspective.

My main problem now is that I don't know what goals to set. I like the idea of flourishment because it encapsulates a lot of what I would describe as desirable, but I haven't yet decided what that exactly looks like. It is also somewhat unstable, because it relies on the assumption that life is preferable to death (aka not killing yourself) and that axiom can get called into question in moments of despair/existential despair, necessitating courage and existential courage, but I think you can make a pretty good case for not killing yourself because you are cutting off the possibility that things could get better. Idk. Do you ever feel like killing yourself?

>>131201341
>The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other
You have to love philosophy, where you can circle-jerk yourself into asking if everything is a figment of your imagination...right up until you get hungry again or need to use the toilet.

This is why WORKING PEOPLE laugh at philosophers.

>>131222393
*shrug* Ideas shape the world, m8. Working people are simply making manifest the ideas and goals of other people.

>>131221272
>doesn't change the fact that bigger narratives can and do affect your daily life
The thing with bigger narratives is they are all ephemeral and tied to the present moment, even science, Kuhn and shit, you are under no security that all the stuff you think is real is just a small part of a bigger more complex stuff that gracefuly explain the seeming paradoxes of your current model.

Of course they affect, but in the same way a psychotic can affect you, they are irrational shit flying around stabbing people, can't logic with them

>knowing how to critique them/offer a different perspective is (~usually~) helpful, even if you don't attempt to take action on that different perspective
Yeah i can't argue with this but i would say this is mostly achieved by rhetoric

>My main problem now is that I don't know what goals to set. I like the idea of flourishment because it encapsulates a lot of what I would describe as desirable, but I haven't yet decided what that exactly looks like.
I would look near you.
Also flourishement is an idea in itself, its growth, development, tends to happen naturally when you "water" stuff

>Do you ever feel like killing yourself?

Not anymore, that is fagottry too, at some point i figured if im alive is cause i chose to, so talking and thinking about killing oneself is nothing but a way to bullshit oneself into exchanging the emotions connected with guilt for betraying oneself into those connected to an existential victim position, its an easy cope out of taking full responsibility, not only for your fuckups, but for the fact you free willingly chosing to exist

Pragmatism is for dead men and the soon to be dead.

>>131222900
Yeah, I mostly agree. I guess the main questions I have been wrestling with have been whether or not I should get married, whether or not I should have children, what to study in school, what jobs/industries to go for, whether to be self-employed, or an employee, all that normie shit. I was going to school, but after an intense period of 'questioning everything' my resolve basically melted, I moved back home, took a low-skill job to pay the bills, and I'm just in the process of sorting myself out.

ever hear of ockams razor? We in the scientific community use it to prove truth

>>131202282
>>131203355


The Greeks figured this shit out 2,500 years ago. Why is it being debated again?

>>131224418
Ah well i dunno man im in a similar situation but i don't have existential angst anymore since i figured i can literally nope out any sec i want so im in full control

I just have issues dealing with self control and substance abuse

You should prolly try to learn a lot of varied shit and generate passive incomes, besides any other shit you decide, thats a good advice i think

>>131202282
Pragmatism is fine. Anything else is snake oil.

File: internalism:externalism.png (221KB, 642x482px)

221KB, 642x482px

>>131201341
>The Münchhausen trilemma

This is primarily an issue for internalist epistemologies.

Externalist epistemologies like reliablism can get around this. Though they face their own issues like the generality problem and such.

>>131214843
You guys all actually have very interesting ideas about philosophy, and I have to ask: do you really think you're going to find the answers to this on 4chan?
Read some proper philosophy books, even just read up a bit online about Socrates or Kant or something.
4chan (especially /pol/) is simply a dead end when it comes to ideas like this

>>131225532
you are a moron not a scientist.

it's Occam's not ockam's

File: 1_-_.png (325KB, 382x417px)

325KB, 382x417px

>>131201341
>Which axioms should we pragmatically accept?

Disregard female studies and keep to repeatable and disprovable ok?

File: G7uHJNU.gif (382KB, 392x500px)

382KB, 392x500px

>>131201341

>>131230183
>>131230708
>>131225532
> thoughtlets
>>131229093
Yea, thanks man. I've tried to take JBP's advice to imagine what your life would be like if everything went 'right', but I keep coming up conflicted. Would I want to be sitting on a beach, surrounded by models and margaritas? A house in the suburbs with a devoted wife and six kids? A cabin off the grid with bookshelves full of books and guns? A downtown condo with a BDSM loving gf and no kids? Working for life as a doctor? Working super hard for a couple years up north as a tradesman for oil companies and then early retirement? Trying to get a job as a researcher in some academic field? I can see myself enjoying and hating parts of all of those, and I am at a loss for how to decide what to pursue other than meme-tier advice to
> just go for it
> follow your heart
>>131229832
I unironically have better discussions about philosophy and politics on /pol/ than irl. Partly because I have more time to articulate my thoughts, and partly because anonymity ensures that no perspective is left unheard. 99% of the conversation is garbage, but the other 1% is absolute gold. Panning for gold in an ocean of piss.
>>131229715
I'm too lazy to try to discern what you meant. How does externalism circumvent the Munchhausen trilemma

>>131213298
> void of shit - wasting time - need to impregnate virgin

Yep

>>131218297
No it doesn't. Desire is sufficient. I want X. Given that, how to get X?

>>131220455
>operate on things based on desired outcome

Bit of a brianlet here myself but isn't that a pragmatist axiom?

>>131236540
Yep. Pragmatism is the only reasonable antidote to postmodernism. Hierarchies of competency form hierarchies of power. Praise Peterson.

>>131234698
You'll tie yourself in epistemic knots with sophists making posts like that

File: Alvin Plantinga.jpg (28KB, 314x313px)

28KB, 314x313px

>>131232161
The Munchhausen trilemma is a matter of knowing that we know. The externalist is not concerned with whether we know that we know. They're not concerned with proving the skeptic wrong to get at knowledge like Descartes tried to do. Reliabilism encompasses a broad range of epistemological theories that try to explain knowledge or justification in terms of the truth-conduciveness of the process by which an agent forms a true belief.

So there are basic beliefs that we have formed non-inferentially, much like in the foundationalist horn of the trilemma, however the reliabilist sees these non-inferential beliefs as being formed by a reliable process (perception, memory, etc) and so are not arbitrary and need no argument to support them. The burden gets switched to the skeptic in this arena.

>>131236751
Postmodernism's abandonment of the idea of attainment, or flourishing, is a negative concept in pragmatism but not in postmodernism.

I'm still not convinced that postmodernism and pragmatism are inherently incongruent. A main tenant of postmodernism that I have trouble with is the idea that there is no true good and evil. This doesn't clash with any pragmatic axioms and it seems to be the most destructive position of postmodern thought.

What of Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality?

Please be gentle, I didn't go to school after high school, all of my philosophy studies have been self pursuit while working two to three jobs.

>>131237232
bump smartanons help

>>131237211
Does Plantinga argue this? I have heard his name tossed around, but haven't read any of his stuff, as I've been caught on the Munchhausen trilemma. I still fail to see how reliablism gets around it, as the externalist has merely said that their axiom (non-inferentially derived beliefs are formed by a reliable process and need no justification) is best. That's still an axiom, m8. A compelling one, but still an axiom, and still not immune to global skepticism (brain in a vat, etc.)
>>131237232
I remember reading ZMM, but I found it a pretty incomprehensible mess. I never really quite got what Pirsig was trying to argue with the MoQ. His thing about an 'infinite number of hypotheses to explain scientific phenomena" also seems pretty poorly informed. Yeah, we have competing hypotheses, but some are able to integrate more or fewer amounts of facts which have been observed, some predictions made by various theories better accord with later observations, etc.
> Quality is the underlying force of the universe
> Quality cannot be described
Why not just call it God then? Make an argument instead of getting high on peyote and claiming to have perceived ultimate reality.
(Personally, I think that the 'oneness' described by many mystics is compelling, and lean towards a form of agnostic panentheism/deism. Spinoza was GOAT besides the fact that he's a Jew, but w/e)

>>131238786
Thinking about it more, I did enjoy ZMM when I read it, as his articulation of the difference between the classical and romantic perspective were interesting. The axioms he presents are interesting, and wikipedia is probably the easiest place to source for them
> Pirsig explores the meaning and concept of "quality"; a term he conceives as undefinable.
>Pirsig's thesis is that to truly experience quality one must both embrace and apply it as best fits the requirements of the situation.
Okay, so he takes two axioms along with a bunch of other, not articulated axioms to make up his worldview, okay, fine, I would assume most people do the same. If you liked ZMM though, I would highly recommend "Philosophy is bullshit" which dives into the Munchhausen trilemma and the problem of skepticism/induction more fully. Ever since I read it, I was able to stop reading so many philosophy books in the pursuit of 'absolute truth', but instead examine ideas from a more nuanced and critical perspective. That communism is intellectually compelling (on paper) means nothing once i consider the fact that the manifestation of the axioms of communism in the world led to terrible, terrible outcomes, and hence the set of axioms articulated by the communists is wrong, plain and simple.

>>131239372
The way I understand it and the way I've chosen thus far to rationalize it is that Quality is neither substance nor form.

If I see a square, quality is not me and quality is not the square. Quality is not my perception of the square either.

Quality is the dividing line, the rhetorical edge of subject-object relationships.

If an object were to exist to me, it would have to exist AFTER the quality moment. If nothing were to have any quality it all it would be completely imperceptible ergo that which has the slightest perceivable existence has quality.

Quality isn't existence but it is necessary for existence.

Allegorically an empty space before my eyes would have "nothing" in it until a quality experience occurred, a knife "cutting" a circle into being.

Quality isn't the circle, quality isn't me and quality isn't the experience but it's intrinsic to all three in their relations.

>>131239997
ZMM is a wonderful entry level book to philosophy and definitely came at the right time. His critique of what he describes as the "West coast suped-up 'fuck you' attitude" that he believes is detrimental to American thought is spot on, I'm sure he has a lot to say about relativism.

>>131240033
From a pragmatic perspective, you could just as easily as say to "sbrilingz" is neither substance nor form. If I see a square, sbrillingz is not me and sbrillingz is not the square. There's no point in using a word which you (or Pirsig) claim is undefinable means that it is functionally useless, and makes him no better than a new age woo peddler.

>>131240321
Do words themselves have meaning?

Does "good" or "better" exist?

File: Externalism.png (434KB, 1072x799px)

434KB, 1072x799px

>>131239372
I don't think he explicitly talks about the Munchhausen trilemma by name but he deals with skepticism and rival epistemologies in his warrant trilogy:

1. Warrant: The Current Debate:

2. Warrant and Proper Function

His 3rd one is interesting in regards to religious epistemology called "Warranted Christian Belief" but not completely relevant for our discussion at the moment.

>need no justification

I never said that. I said they're basic belief. These non-inferential beliefs are not arbitrary but are formed by reliable processes and are thus warranted as sufficient for knowledge in this externalist framework. We don't have to prove we're not in the matrix, or that I'm not just a brain in a vat. That's internalism.

>>131240518
words are dead symbols that we use to try to describe internal experience.

>>131240518
Pragmatically, yes. Absolutely? No. When we communicate, we are presuppositionally accepting the various premises which underscore communication, which can, and have been doubted. If I remember correctly, Wittgenstein rejects the idea that words can correspond to reality, or that we can even understand each other when we speak, offering up examples of how we use words which we cannot know with certainty how the other person will understand them.
Eg:
> I'm depressed
points to a fuzzy set of phenomena that we can roughly group together, but I don't (and cannot) know what 'depression' means to you. Is it a dull, grating thing? A sharp, hot and shameful thing? Other words are similarly ambiguous, to the point that it can feel like we are using the same words to describe completely different things. Whether or not there is such a thing as 'good' or 'better' will largely depend on how you derive your system of values, which will depend on other axiomatic statements. Getting whipped is undesirable... unless you're in a BDSM scene. Not eating for a week and a half is not a good thing... unless you're in the midst of a religious fasting period. Killing an innocent person is not a good thing... unless you are also able to take out their kidnappers and save the lives of 500 other people (maybe. Trolley problem fags can leave)
>>131240832
You've piqued my curiosity, Plantinga gets a lot of respect from what I've heard. I would be curious as to how he would defend proposition 2, as global skepticism would appear to undermine any kind of certainty. Pragmatic belief is one thing, proximate knowledge is one thing, but I am skeptical about knowledge claims in general.

>>131241372
Quality isn't a word chosen at random, like sbrilingz. Quality, the measure of something's "goodness" is the same quality that creates the subject object relationship in Pirsig's MoQ.

I've got to go but this should be a regular thread if not on /pol/ then on /his/ or something, I'd like to keep this conversation going.

'night anon

>>131241551
Right, but you've already violated Pirsig's insistence that 'quality' is undefinable. He is using the leftover preconceptions of what we normally think of as 'quality' in order to justify his Eastern philosophy, peyote induced woo.

'night anon, don't let the Jews under the bed eat you.

File: 1497501548326.jpg (511KB, 1280x720px)

511KB, 1280x720px

>>131201341
There are no absolute truths. We typically use empirical and rational barometers to assess what is true, there is also the phenomenological which is not taken seriously at all but is in a way the most fundamental truth, as a subjective pseudo-science. That's about all, peace out.

>>131241372
He's very well respected. Ph.D in philosophy from Yale, distinguished professor at Notre Dame, the warrant trilogy I mentioned earlier is published by Oxford University Press. I can go on and on. He's a major figure in contemporary philosophy but he's not the only reliabilist in town. I would link you more stuff but 4chinz won't let me because it thinks I'm a bot lol

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an entry on reliabilism you can check out called: "Reliabilist Epistemology". It's a good start for further research.

>certainty

There's the issue right there. Why should we accept the notion that we need certainty to have knowledge? And why should we look at knowledge as justified true belief (as implied by the trilemma)?

>skeptical about knowledge claims in general.

That's understandable. I can actually show you a host of far more fundamental problems than just the trilemma (a.k.a. the regress problem). For example, The Problem of the Criterion is an issue regarding the starting point of knowledge. The Problem of the Criterion. This is a separate and more fundamental issue than the regress argument found in discussions on justification of knowledge. According to Roderick Chisholm (often called "the philosopher's philosopher") the Problem of the Criterion is “one of the most important and one of the most difficult of all the problems of philosophy (1973, 1).

There's even more than that but one step at a time.

File: 1227973401370.jpg (61KB, 461x568px)

61KB, 461x568px

>>131218296
>Sufficiently
Making an absolute statement with vague wording. No description of what is "sufficiently." Thus it can never be achieved. GTFO you leftist parasite, never bring your drivel back here again.

>>131241944
> There are no absolute truths
> Is this absolutely true
Meme-tier answer, but appropriate, because it demonstrates that any finite, formalized, axiomatic system (or set of statements) will be self-contradictory, self-referential, or incomplete, and thus should not be taken as absolute truth. Pragmatically, I think it is far more useful to believe that absolute truth does exist in the way that the limit of a function exists, but that we are finite, and hence unable to completely grasp it, but can nonetheless possess proximate knowledge of the Truth(tm). To believe otherwise is to make it impossible to do science/believe in gravity/strong nuclear force etc, which I would argue has a very poor track record in terms of generally desirable goals like 'staying alive long enough to find your next meal' etc.
>>131242064
I may check that out. Separating certainty from knowledge is a somewhat interesting idea, though I am loathe to try to slog through more academic philosophy.

>>131243022
>I am loathe to try to slog through more academic philosophy

I understand the sentiment. I stick to the experts in an attempt to get the strongest arguments around and at least provide reputable sources that explain in detail.

>>131243358
Fair enough. At the very least, I would be interested to hear different perspective on the MT, this site more or less captures my thought process, though I end up as an agnostic theist rather than an agnostic atheist as a matter of pragmatism/convergence of non-conclusive evidence.

>>131243600
Forgot link
http://counterapologist.blogspot.ca/2013/11/the-munchhausen-trilemma-entails.html
The apologist mentioned in the article
http://randalrauser.com/

>>131243600
>I would be interested to hear different perspective on the MT

I used to be obsessed with the MT. It goes by several names. The ancient greek skeptics talked about this as well and called it Agrippa's trilemma and such.

>though I end up as an agnostic theist rather than an agnostic atheist as a matter of pragmatism/convergence of non-conclusive evidence.

There's a few ways theists can navigate this skeptical landscape actually. I won't go through them all but one way to approach this through religious experience and note how religious beliefs would thus be justified like any other experiential belief. This video featuring several philosophers/epistemologists of religion discussing religious experience and its relevance to knowing God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MvvauasSvY

In general, atheists often talk about the universe and other minds as if they're not in question and it's the existence of God we should be skeptical of. Well in the framework of religious experience we note religious beliefs have a prima facie justification just as they do other minds and the universe. If we grant such justification to one we should the other.

>>131244761
Oh yeah, I would not be one to say that belief in God is irrational any moreso than belief in atheism is irrational, my agnosticism is more a reflection of the MT and my views about epistemology than it is a censure on the respectability of religious/spiritual axioms/beliefs.

Which is why axioms were invented in the first place. Circular argumentation is a fallacy and recursive argumentation implies an axiom at the end.

File: All atheists should read.png (1MB, 797x3342px)

1MB, 797x3342px

>>131245113
That makes sense, that's consistent. I hear atheists all the time espousing themselves to be skeptics yet they're hardcore physicalists and endorse scientism while rejecting philosophy without a hint of irony.

I think a big part of this whole debate is what is actually meant by the word "God". The question "does God exist?" presupposes God is a being of sorts. As if there's an ontological list of entities that exist like trees and cars and humans and oh there's God. That's an improper way to speak of God. Bishop Robert Barron explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zMf_8hkCdc

>>131245659
Neat, good article, and very similar to Paul Tillich's conception of God as the 'Ground of Being', and probably identical to the 'God' which I believe in. To me, God is more of a philosophical necessity/idea/precondition of existence rather than a personal being (and I am skeptical about people claiming to hear from him). Atheists are fags precisely because they claim to have certainty about the existence or non-existence of 'that' God, and set up strawmen about bearded-men-in-the-sky, though dumb people doubtlessly do believe in that version of God also, and hence why agnostic theism is the patrician's choice.
> only problem is that it means you're basically a heretic for any mainstream religion and thus lose out on all the socio-cultural aspects of religion, but at least I have a consistent map of the world.

>>131201341
>Which axioms should we pragmatically accept?
People are not equal

File: Being, Consciousness, Bliss.jpg (189KB, 1920x1080px)

189KB, 1920x1080px

>>131246213
>Paul Tillich's conception of God as the 'Ground of Being'
Exactly. This would mean the question of God's existence is really a misguided question. I really like how the Orthodox Christian theologian Dr. David Bentley Hard describes what I'm trying to get at here:

“To speak of “God” properly, then…is to speak of the one infinite source of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things. God so understood is not something posed over against the universe, in addition to it, nor is he the universe itself. He is not a “being” [...] he is not one more object in the inventory of things that are, or any sort of discrete object at all. Rather, all things that exist receive their being continuously from him, who is the infinite wellspring of all that is [...] In one sense he is “beyond being,” if by “being” one means the totality of discrete, finite things. In another sense he is “being itself,” in that he is the inexhaustible source of all reality, the absolute upon which the contingent is always utterly dependent, the unity and simplicity that underlies and sustains the diversity of finite and composite things. [...] All the great theistic traditions agree that God, understood in this proper sense, is essentially beyond finite comprehension; hence, much of the language used of him is negative in form and has been reached only by a logical process of abstraction from those qualities of finite reality that make it insufficient to account for its own existence. All agree as well, however, that he can genuinely be known: that is, reasoned toward, intimately encountered, directly experienced with a fullness surpassing mere conceptual comprehension.”

Source: Hart, David Bentley (2013). The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. Yale University Press. p. 41-42

>>131246660
Right, I remember reading an excellent quote which said that God neither exists nor does not-exist, the category of existence cannot be predicated of God because 'he' is 'beyond' the concept of existence. And this is where language starts to breakdown, as we start having to use scare quotes to indicate what we mean. All in all, I respect the theistic/deistic/panentheistic perspective on 'God', and endlessly ridicule gnostic atheists and theists.

File: Classical Theism.png (76KB, 1508x1133px)

76KB, 1508x1133px

>>131246976
This whole divide between gnostic/agnostic theist seems to land in the same issues I was discussing earlier. As it goes for ontology it goes for epistemology here as David Bentley Hart described earlier. What those theists you're referring to though I would say are more akin to believers in a "demiurge" rather than God.

File: the more you know.jpg (18KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 640x480px

>>131201341
The only objective truth is tautological truth and tautologies are only true assuming that everything we know about the universe is not completely off base, which can not be proven.

Truth is something living things invented to make living easier. It's just what we call the phenomenon of having our expectation and measurements correlate strongly enough for us to feel confident.

We can not even prove that anything existed 10 seconds ago.

>>131247549
? What were the issues you were discussing wrt gnostic/agnostic theism? It's getting late here, so apologies if I'm being a brainlet. And are you Eastern orthodox by chance? I have admired them in the past, I was raised Protestant and never had much contact with them until relatively recently. I couldn't really get past icons or the unfamiliarity of it all, but they certainly have my respect as a spiritual/religious practice. Prosperity preachers like Joel Osteen and demiurge preachers make me mad af tho.
>>131247956
Yeah, and? We've been discussing that this whole thread.

>>131249908
It's late here as well, no problem. I am Orthodox, yes. The Orthodox Church is the one holy catholic apostolic church. If you're not much for reading this watchable documentary actually does a good job of breaking down church history and why the Orthodox are the true church of Christ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laHcgdE55Mo

>>131250169
Aha, gotcha, you Orthodox anons are a strange, but interesting bunch. My main complaints were mostly wrt the strangeness of Orthodoxy. When I went to an Orthodox church, he was really nice, and was quite sympathetic to my philosophical questions. Any particular reasons you are Orthodox instead of Catholic?

>>131250169
Nvm, just watching the documentary now. Great schism is very sad. In my country (Canada), there are almost no Orthodox churches, which is very annoying. While you're here, I'd appreciate an Orthodox's explanation for why you have icons, the liturgy, all the exoteric aspects of Orthodoxy which are so foreign to Protties and 'nones' like myself.

>>131250561
>you Orthodox anons are a strange, but interesting bunch.

Indeed. When you have guys like Dostoyevsky on your side it's an interesting crowd.

>My main complaints were mostly wrt the strangeness of Orthodoxy.

That's probably the number one complaint. It's traditions are alien to those who weren't raised Orthodox. Catholics can understand a bit, but even then there's some stark differences. Though the traditions are odd they are what has been passed down from the apostles themselves.

>he was really nice, and was quite sympathetic to my philosophical questions.

“We see that it is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.”
― Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way

>Any particular reasons you are Orthodox instead of Catholic?

Church history. The Bible and church history shows us what the Orthodox practice. This whole papal supremacy is a new invention not found among the early Christians, and protestantism is an invention of the 16th century that has now splintered into thousands of denominations with no unity. Christ called us to be one (John 17:21).

>>131251261
ty anon, I appreciate it. Now a harder question, how do you reconcile your Orthodox beliefs with race? Afaik, Heimbach and his ilk have been severely reprimanded by the Orthodox leadership as being fundamentally at odds with the tenets of Orthodoxy.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/church-to-orthodox-fascists-repent/

>>131250891
I'll stay as long as the thread will last but since I can't fit it all in at once check out these channels which do in fact answer your specific questions:

Y2AM (Greek Orthodox Christian Youth and Young Adult Ministries), specifically the "Be the Bee" series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i60S6r_sf8o&list=PLbyQMR-_r8bJTrcWpWxSUPdJHdZJsq_zG

Theoria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YimgCkBbH7c&list=PLxcntdlvObPgDGgBg1mYsUxnfGcyTBKcc

Icons explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8iFOgppS6Y

Liturgy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNNy39I5YuI

>exoteric aspects

In the estimation of the spiritual fathers of the Orthodox Church, knowing God is not just another kind of knowledge. ...knowing God is not just another intellectual exercise. It is the kind of Knowledge that commits your entire existence, it is an existential, experiential, apophatic, and doxological Knowledge. We know God when we experience His presence as filling and overtaking us, when we feel completely dependent on him, "as infants feel dependent upon their mothers" (St. Basil). We know God not through our concepts and ideas only, but beyond and above them: for our entire existence is united with Him. We know God when we are familiar with Him as "the cattle are familiar with their manger." We know God when "we breath Him," when we feel His presence any place we are or go; we know God when we constantly depend on Him, when our lives belong to Him, when our lives become a constant praise of His Holy Name. ... Our Christian God, then, is not the "God of Philosophers." He is not a "Supreme Being" similar to other beings, another "essence" among many essences. The Christian God is "super-essential" and "super-existent" only in the sense that He is totally different from created existence. "If everything else is being, God is not a being," said St. Gregory Palamas.

Source: http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8038

>>131251712
>ty anon, I appreciate it.
You are welcome. I appreciate the stimulating questions.

>how do you reconcile your Orthodox beliefs with race?

What is there to reconcile? There's very few things that are actually dogma (e.g. the 7 ecumenical councils) and even then much is a mystery. As I see it, God is the creator and he said creation is good. God made us different and that's okay. That doesn't mean you need to hate other races, just love your own.

"Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." -1 Timothy 5:8

>Heimbach

I heard about what happened to him. I don't know the details, but again the church doesn't seem to have any sort of formal doctrine against race realism and the implications it has.

>>131201341
>Which axioms should we pragmatically accept?
>pragmatically
I mean you answered you're own question there - the ones that work and are applicable to external reality outside of your mind

>>131201341
>*reads pop philosophy once*

>>131201341
If your going to dive down to the inner workings of the universe in every question, you can't get anything done.

We answer real questions with real data. If you want to question if the data is real, then that's another question.

Its outcome doesn't effect the awnser to the first question.

Philosophy is a poormans politics. Even more talk and even less action.

>>131252019
Pretty sure phyletism is still considered a heresy, and has been strenuously opposed by many in the Orthodox leadership, with justifications from scripture and tradition.
http://religiondispatches.org/how-orthodox-christianity-became-the-spiritual-home-of-white-nationalism/
>>131252560
No, but you "should" dive down to the inner workings of the universe at least once, in order to understand that it applies to every question/scenario you are going to be a part of in the future, and maybe even change your mind about some things

>>131252758
>phyletism
When did I make such a claim?

I was just going off of 1 Timothy 5:8 in that we should take care of our families. Just as a father should look after their child, so should we look after our people. You should keep in mind the story of the tower of babel. Mankind tried to unite under one government and one language before and God saw it as an abomination and spread the humans around and confused their language.

Apparently God wanted diversity.

>>131253139
Ehhhhhh.... gonna have to take a rain check on this one, the fact that Heimbach was forcefully denounced and excommunicated demonstrates pretty clearly that the Eastern Orthodox church doesn't want anything to do with the alt-right, no matter how much we may agree on many things.

File: 214235235312.jpg (256KB, 985x720px)

256KB, 985x720px

>>131253540
>Heimbach

Again, I don't know the details but one incident is not a precedent for dogma. That's not how the church works. I'm not preaching hatred or affirming phyletism or any of this stuff you're attributing to me without even asking if I actually believe it... You should be more charitable and attack beliefs I actually hold and claims I actually make instead of straw men.

>>131253919
Fair enough, and point taken, I didn't bother to ask what your particular views were, I went from the nat soc flag and affirmations of belief in Orthodox faith to imply an incompatibility between race realist views and Orthodox Christian faith. So what do you believe?
> I personally hold anti-racist race realist views, in that I don't think hatred for others on the basis of race is desirable, but do think that race is a relevant category for understanding macroscopic trends such as black dysfunction, and countering SJW victimhood narratives

>>131254232
>nat soc flag
I understand the temptation. There's a lot of stuff associated with national socialism.

>So what do you believe?
To be honest pretty much what you stated in what you personally hold. I don't hate other races just like I don't hate other people's children. I merely acknowledge the reality that I have my own children and other people have theirs and it's perfectly fine to want to take care of our own (1 Timothy 5:8). In fact if you don't take care of your family, you're worse than a non-believer the scripture says.

Again, I don't hate other races but we should definitely consider the reality of race when making certain policies. For instance, as you may know, blacks in the U.S. are 13% of the population but commit 50% of the murder. If we're going to be honest with ourselves here and want to prevent murder as much as possible and take care of our own then we should probably do something about this whole black violence issue. That doesn't mean gas chambers, but certain immigration policies and allowing whites to live among whites freely doesn't sound too bad.

>>131254878
Well I'm certainly glad I asked, you've demonstrated a level of nuance which is usually non-existent on /pol/. I may just end up going to church tomorrow, thanks anon. Any tips on surviving/appreciating the liturgy? I nearly fell asleep on my feet the last time

>>131255077
I'm certainly glad we spoke. You've demonstrated far more nuance then I usually encounter here as well. I never encounter anyone who even knows about the MT so it's refreshing getting to finally talk to somebody who knows a thing or two about philosophy.

I hope you do go to church tomorrow. I would say try to be active in the service. Sing along or hum with the chorus. Look around at the icons and contemplate their meaning. Let the aroma of the incense surround you. Make the sign of the cross. Don't be shy. Just try to mimic those around you. Don't worry if you miss any beats or anything, they know you're a new to the congregation (and they're happy you're there!) and they're not paying attention to you during worship. Their focus is all on God during worship. It's supposed to be a spiritual experience (not a drug though), it's supposed to be something you partake in and feel with your senses not just your mind. Let all your senses take part in the liturgy. The liturgy really comes alive when you understand what the little things mean and how rich the symbolism really is.

I'm sure there's more to say, but words will never be enough. You'll have to experience it.

>feet

The standing can be brutal lol you get used to it and when you're engaged that helps too.

Thanks again for such an interesting dialogue. Hope to run into you again around here sometime.

>>131254878
Well said, Anon.

File: 1474453994540.gif (2MB, 235x240px)

2MB, 235x240px

>>131255952
Thanks for the encouragement.

>>131236540
Yeah but OP is abstracting pragmatism

I like this quote from a Colombian philosopher that was namedropped a lot here before the reddit invasion:

"Lo que aleja de Dios no es la sensualidad, sino la abstracción."
(What strays one from God isn't sensuality but abstraction)

God being used as a kind of taoist/traditionalist "way", sensuality not meaning degeneracy but literal sensual perception

The point is the fucking guy spent his whole life amongst books and delving into western civilization's most prominent minds and philosophical traditions to finally discover that mundane life is the most direct way of communication with the transcendental

Similar concept to John Lily's E.C.C.O , its like the experience of life as an indirect metaphorically-based conversation with God

Like life not as its literal representation of an intelligent agent in a 3d world like some sort of videogame, but life as the subjective act of metaphorical information being decoded by the soul in its development of understanding the metaphysical rules of its relationship with God and its place in the world

Abstraction is the rational mind spiralling into an infinitely complex maze of mirrors of the objective, postmodernism is the main proof of it

>>131232161
>I've tried to take JBP's advice to imagine what your life would be like if everything went 'right',

Im no one to talk about living life the right way i just pour whisky down my throat and try to understand what my dreams mean

But i think the trick was the opposite, to imagine what your life would be like if everything went wrong, then go the opposite way