Words like "fact" and "truth", are pure fucking

>>8687246
fuck off with the postmodern crap

fact and truth are well-established notions and your deconstructionist attempts won't work here

>[It is true that] words like "fact" and "truth" are pure fucking cancer.

>>8687246
it's the scourge that is scientism. sadly i'm afraid it will stick around for quite a while before we can put it behind us.

>>8687246
facts
>op made a post
>op used some words like "words", "like", etc., to make up the content of his post

(You) deny the truth of these facts?

>>8687246
Can we please hear more of your mental masturbation please?

>>8687258
How do you know it's even person that wrote it? It's a digital representation of input, on an anonymous website where anyone or anything can input data. If it was by a person, how do you know it wasn't copy and pasted from somewhere?

>>8687262
fuck off OP
even if it wasn't possible to know a single truth, truth and facts themselves would still exist independently.

>>8687262
Because we can make safe assumptions in life. Nobody who makes the sort of masturbatory arguments you make is actually committed to them. Here's a challenge, if you don't believe that anything is true, then you don't believe that starving yourself will kill you. Try not eating for a year.

let me guess...OP believes climate change is a big liberal conspiracy

>>8687265
It IS impossible to know a single truth. The very nature of information processing in the brain negates the possibility of us perceiving enough information to constitute any mental phenomenon that can accurately be described as knowing the truth of a situation or condition.

Beyond that, it isn't even certain whether there can be such a thing as a fixed "truth" in this universe, although we don't have enough data about that and probably never will.

>>8687271
If you study semantics, you'll understand that using language presupposes belief in truth. Linguistically negating truth is contradictory.

>>8687267
Any and all assumptions we make about the nature of our reality can only be based on the biological parameters in which we exist. Species-typical drives require no assumptions, it's our consciousness and our cultures that create the assumptions. Try to not eat while ignoring my drive for hunger would be a cultural assumption that my image of reality has more "truth" than my actual biological hunger.

>>8687274
I do, but this is a really interesting way of putting it that is very useful for me. Thanks I guess.

Language is nothing but a pale reflection of actual processes in our lives that are beyond its capability of accurately expressing and its very nature puts constraints on the interpretations of phenomena it's supposed to describe. You've expressed this in a very compact and interesting way.

>>8687271
>[It is true that] It IS impossible to know a single truth.
>[It is true that] The very nature of information processing in the brain negates the possibility of us perceiving enough information to constitute any mental phenomenon that can accurately be described as knowing the truth of a situation or condition.


If you don't believe in truth you should shut your mouth about anything, every sentence you proclaim assumes existence of truth, even if it is to claim truth is impossible.

This is called performative contradiction.

Jordan Peterson-watching /pol/faggot pls go and stay go.

>>8687276
No, truth is a primitive, and there's absolutely no way of making a sensible argument against truth because that presupposes the truth of your thesis. Your very argument presupposes that there exist biological parameters, that these impact our assumptions, that cultures influence our assumptions, etc. You are displaying to us that you believe things to be true. Postmodernism is self-defeating.

>>8687284
I know it is, but I like discussing viewpoints with people. The bundling together of as much information and interpretation as possible. What frustrates me is that a lot of people don't really have their own viewpoints, but culturally coloured default modes of interpretation.

Words like "fact" and "truth" keep people from critically thinking about situations and things, and they force blind assumptions.

>>8687289
Alright let me put it like this.

What this guy said >>8687274 actually hits the nail on the head. Look up the definitions for things like "true", "truth", "fact". What is "truth" actually has no set definition. All these words refer to one another and supposedly they mean that some sort of described phenomenon is beyond dispute.

Whatever I display is simply disputation. There can be no defence for the the existence of truth, simply because the definition of the term is grounded in that it is indisputable. The logic for the existence of a truth is circular, and the fact (har har) that it is disputable and we can question the validity of the human view of reality based on what we supposedly "know" about how the human brain processes information, negates arguments in favour of its existence.

>>8687310

the concept of truth is a necessary condition to make language (as in sentences, inference, arguments) even possible in the first place. It's not by virtue of the definition of the English word "truth".

>>8687246
>Words like "fact" and "truth", are pure fucking cancer.

I feel the same. I, too, quest open-mindedly and thoughtfully for answers. This defines intelligence.

Most people, if you listen to them, are constantly saying:
"Right?, Eh?, Hear me?, You know? Know what I mean?" and the most perverted of all, "Feel me?"

These adults need constant validation and reassurance, as immature children. Some people say them every fifth word. Drunks say them a lot.

These people cannot face their fear [of the unknown], so they desperately cling to their beliefs; and their cultures that repeat the same rites, over and over, but never learning to change, adapt, evolve.

>>8687413
You're such a fucking beta tier thinker. Your 2 cent philosophy is embarrassing.

>>8687246

If it's a dream world, it's a pretty coherent one in which I lack more than the most basic of lucid dreaming capabilities. You could be right but it will never matter to anyone.

>>8687425
Getting angered by such obvious bait is not a great sign, friend.

>>8687262
>How do you know it's even person that wrote it?
Where did you get "person"? Anon said "OP", which could be any number entities.

Fact remains they're all faggots tho.

Scientific theories are judged by the coherence they lend to our natural experience and the simplicity with which they do so. The grand principle of the heavens balances on the razor's edge of truth.