Read Descartes, Kant, Mach, Poincare, Frege

>read Descartes, Kant, Mach, Poincare, Frege
>dogmatism is bad
>intellectual intuition is impossible
>mathematics is ahistorical cognitivist but somehow adequate to reality
>matter is just extension in some quantity
>structural realism makes sense
>naturalism makes sense

>read Bachelard
>einstein was the end of traditional metaphysics
>we should no longer smuggle everyday concepts into our understanding of scientific reality, except as stepping stones
>even "matter" is only a convenient everyday term to allow us to visualize true reality
>true reality should be understood as mathematical functions describing structures composed of more elemental mathematical functions like "probability"
>structural realism makes sense
>naturalism makes sense

>read Guenon
>wait, matter = extension = quantitative magnitude makes no sense, because it presupposes unexamined qualitative determinations
>the structural paradigm presupposes qualitative differentiation, at the very least between ground and figure (container/contents)
>mathematical and structural realism can't work UNLESS by dogmatism
>naturalism makes no sense, except as a pragmatic philosophy for engineers

>read Godel, Husserl, Heidegger, Derrida
>wait mathematics isn't even ahistorical or transcendental, it's completely arbitrary
>many mathematics are possibly
>mathematics and all our implicit qualitative determinations have to deconstructed and reflected upon
>our mathematics is at best a tool for producing results whose nature is already foreshadowed by its axioms
>doing modern science is like saying a hammer "works" because the definition of a hammer working is that it hammers in nails, while going around hammering nails into everything
>without ever asking "why would i want to hammer nails into everything? why would that be the only thing i do? maybe that's useful sometimes, but not the only thing that's useful whatsoever?"
>naturalism not only makes absolutely no sense, it closes reality off by narrowing our view to one random, historically relative, arbitrary form of looking at it

>tfw realize philosophy like ontology and metaphysics are necessary to begin doing science in the first place
>tfw realize modern scientists aren't anti-metaphysical, they're doing just as much metaphysics as anyone, it's just that they're shitty at it
>tfw when any study wants to be "scientific" or seek after "truth," it models itself after modern scientists, who are basically retarded idiots with a completely a priori metaphysic that makes no sense
>tfw there are people doing psychology right now and thinking they are accessing true reality, by smuggling in the already-stupid preconceptions of stupid idiot scientists

you should read David Hume you little bitch

Ignore above, try Hegel and reread the beginning of Phenomenologyof Mind until you actually grasp his epistemology.
Tl;wn Knowledge is correct when its conceptions are identical to reality (bla bla noumena is stupid). Any affirmation assumes something. Thus, knowledge can only be obtained through critique of previously available knowledge.
>can't we throw Evil Genie at everything then?
No, because the notion of knowledge as a dialectical process has already been grasped, consequently the only path available is the path towards the betterment of knowledge.

>Knowledge is correct when its conceptions are identical to reality (bla bla noumena is stupid).
>"My solution to scientific realism is Absolute Idealism, using a reading of Hegel supported by no one for over a century"

>you should read David Hume you little bitch
There should be a bot that posts this in like half of the retarded threads on Veeky Forums

>Knowledge is correct when its conceptions are identical to reality
could you please rephrase this in a clearer and simpler way

>Any affirmation assumes something
rephrase this as well plz

Read Hegel's Logic and come back. If you don't understand what I mean then read it again.

why dont you want to rephrase that shit lol

Original Hegelfag here. This wasn't actually me but really what I wanna say.
Hegel's critique of Kant in Phenomenology of Mind's introduction can be summed up as 'to separate Noumena from Phenomena you need an understanding of Noumena. Because you don't, you don't draw up the difference at all and simply reduce the world ontologically to phenomena and leave things in themselves in the back of your mind where they belong. Because or this, you might as well simply say that criteria for the adequateness of your perception are your perception because you can't hold them up against anything else.
Nietzsche made a critique of Descartes's proof of existence by saying it assumes that you exist in the first place. As in, to think you need to exist, so by saying 'I think' you are implicitly assuming you can actuqlly think. Furthermore, you are assuming causality, since you're considering that those thoughts were produced by yourself. Essentially, every single piece of knowledge you can draw up assumes something else, like how you can't define a word withou using different words.

this board is such a fucking embarrassment

Why?

you haven't indicated what distinguishes hegel from kant then lol all you've said is exactly what kant said, that a critique of the conditions of possibility is necessary

No. All knowledge takes the condition of critique, therefore our understanding of the world must take the shape of dialectic.

and what guarantees the judgements of the dialectic

The part about how the only thing you can hold up your knowledge to being your perception.

what does that mean?

if the dialectic eventually reveals categories, what guarantees the certainty of the categories?

if the dialectic reveals the necessity of a continuous immanent historical critique, that's just derrida then

lol... No.

>what does that mean.
That knowledge is apt description of the world.
>if the dialectic eventually reveals categories, what guarantees the certainty of those categories?
Their necessity for thought. Supposing you were to remove them from thought, you'd arrive at what knowledge was before them: nothing.
>if the dialectic reveals the necessity of a continous immanent critique, that's just Derrida then.
Not really, because we have the Absolute Idea, that is, the conclusion of the dialectical process through awareness of it.

>That knowledge is apt description of the world.
>Their necessity for thought. Supposing you were to remove them from thought, you'd arrive at what knowledge was before them: nothing.
right, that's kantian finitude/phenomenalism, and "concepts without intuitions are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind." that's kant.

>Not really, because we have the Absolute Idea, that is, the conclusion of the dialectical process through awareness of it.
what guarantees the "conclusion?" self-evidence as judged by Vernunft? you quote nietzsche's critique of the cogito which shows that not even simple utterances or judgments are purely rational, which is the same critique that is applied to hegel

you use the premise "Knowledge must be dialectically critiqued to show the conditions of its possibility," but you don't apply that premise to the standpoint of the critique. if you do, you arrive at immanent critique, as everyone from nietzsche to derrida did, and you cannot build your castle on Vernunft. if you want to justify Vernunft as the bedrock of certain judegments, how do you do it?

What if one system readily explains phenomena at a rate far more accurate than another? e.g., science > philosophy, despite a seemingly different ontological or metaphysical starting point? Are we to say that the criteria for making such a claim is referent only to the first system and not the second? Shouldn't there be some meta-criterion we can use to compare one system to another? and if so shouldn't accuracy be part of that?
If not, I don't see how one could make a claim against either system, because you would have to use (internal) criteria limited to one system, to judge the validity of another system, which makes no sense. I generally think that's why some don't consider modern scientists stupid idiots,
>after modern scientists, who are basically retarded idiots
because they try to utilize the best, albeit normative, universal criterion to judge systems against each other.

Systems here means simply a network of rules/language/logic that makes sense insofar as it doesn't extend outside itself.

Read Leo Strauss's "What is Political Philosophy?"

He addresses these problems

Same guy,
>tfw realize philosophy like ontology and metaphysics are necessary to begin doing science in the first place
Philosophy isn't necessary, language is.

This thread is too high eye cue for me

Why is Veeky Forums so Hegelian?

>wait mathematics isn't even ahistorical or transcendental, it's completely arbitrary
>many mathematics are possibly
>mathematics and all our implicit qualitative determinations have to deconstructed and reflected upon
>our mathematics is at best a tool for producing results whose nature is already foreshadowed by its axioms
All of this is true, with the caveat that "arbitrary" is taken in the mathematical rather than the conventional sense. Obviously mathematical axioms are not really chosen arbitrarily.

>doing modern science is like saying a hammer "works" because the definition of a hammer working is that it hammers in nails, while going around hammering nails into everything
>without ever asking "why would i want to hammer nails into everything? why would that be the only thing i do? maybe that's useful sometimes, but not the only thing that's useful whatsoever?"
There is nobody who does nothing but science, so this analogy is irrelevant.

>naturalism not only makes absolutely no sense, it closes reality off by narrowing our view to one random, historically relative, arbitrary form of looking at it
Wrong.

You are asking the fascist and communist board why it's hegelian?

fpbp

blah blah
wittgenstein.jpg

you're all wasting your mental energies on gratuitous mental masturbation that's of no significance. retreading the same shit the greeks did but with more complexity and greater self delusion

reality is real
science is useful
science like all human endeavors is prone to error
the error can be minimized and it's usefulness optimized
all of this is empirically verifiable

>"This-is-the-problem-with-liberals", the thread

t. shitty metaphysicist

OP is an okay guy, but Goedel was a Platonist about mathematical objects, so it's strange to see him lumped together with the 'historicists'.

Is the statement 'all statements are empirically verifiable' empirically verifiable?

Think about it for more than the time it takes you to reactively post 'yes'.

You know what the next step is, right?

No. But it doesn't matter.

Most of the nonsense in this thread doesn't matter.

wittgenstein.jpg

nothing matters

wittgenstein wasn't a positivist

neither was peirce

this is a discussion board for maladjusts

Yes. Consider all the statements that exist. Then empirically verify or falsify them, one by one. That is possible. Hence, yes. :^)

>Hegel.
tfw too much a brainlet to understand POS

>>because they try to utilize the best, albeit normative, universal criterion to judge systems against each other.
but scientist cannot establish that they talk about what I perceive

>>reality is real
>science is useful
>science like all human endeavors is prone to error
>the error can be minimized and it's usefulness optimized
>all of this is empirically verifiable
this is what liberal have been believing for 200 years

What did Peirce mean by this?

what do you mean by "statement" "empirically" and "verifiable"?

Go paint a house Wittgenstein

This isn't even philosophical anymore, you're just being a blunt instrument of utilitarianism, and it IS very shitty metaphysics because you think "utility" is absolutely and clearly defined minus misunderstandings among sentient entities.

If you define "utility" as the predictive power of a theory regarding the external world, then there is absolutely no misunderstanding. Unless, however, you deny the validity of mathematical reasoning (what we use to measure the predictive power of theories regarding the possible objects of experience). In which case, your position would seem prima facie absurd since your ability to respond to posts on Veeky Forums is entirely dependent on math working.

>If you define "utility" as the predictive power of a theory regarding the external world,

Prediction means nothing for understanding.You can manipulate a device without understanding its workings or principles.

>math JUST WERKS

Your primitive version of it allows you to make cellphones. Maybe a more reflective mathematics would unlock the secrets of the universe, but you'll never know, because all of your success markers are "better iphone."

Give me one reason to not punch OP in the face the first time I see him

That's rude

read Jean-Louis Krivine. Mathematics is the discipline that examines the programs in our brains. For instance Geometry and Topology are the study of the way our brains make our sense of vision work

Veeky Forums is, was, and always will be a reactionary board.

That's because we are all able to sit behind computers and shitpost. For the most part, we don't have it hard, so we have no desire to be revolutionary. Generally speaking, however, Veeky Forums is a lot more radically progressive than other boards (other than /lgbt/, maybe.) I think generally we are right leaning, but we also have a large group of people either extemist centrist or extremist on the edges.

The only people on Veeky Forums who are "radically progressive" are people who came to Veeky Forums for the first time within the last year. And that's not isolated to Veeky Forums, every board has this new wave of progressive fags hitting them ever since /pol/ blew up with the election. Board culture on Veeky Forums has always been reactionary/traditionalist. Sure maybe there's some fascist/communist spillover from /pol/ when the pseuds decide they want to talk to somebody about the wikipedia summary they read, but again that's not a phenomenon that's isolated to Veeky Forums. This is a reactionary board, it always was and anybody who denies that is a revisionist.

Like I said, we are right leaning, but generally we are centrist. We are well read enough that we don't confirm our biases either way. Rather, we intergrate what we read into our beliefs. That's why people always shit on Marx, Rand, and other radical literature.

No user, "we" are not centrist. Veeky Forums is a reactionary board and if you're denying that, you're trying to change board culture. I don't care for people who think they have any right to come to a website with an established culture and change it. The whole 'centrist who's too cool to believe in anything' meme is a post-election meme. Now, Veeky Forums by no means was ever dogmatic, and I think that's what you're trying to say. But it was never centrist.

Not him, but predictive power generally requires better understanding, though understanding is of no value in itself

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you, my dude, at least for the most part. My point is that this board is right leaning, but not radically right leaning. From my observations, most people on this board are free-thinking, and are reactionary in regards to that freedom. I don't see anyone frequently trying to change this board, or at least having any success doing so, due to how independent everyone is (outside of memes.) By centrist-right I mean towards the bottom of the political spectrum.

You use the critique as bedrock. The possibility of critique, shown by its execution, demonstrates the shape of knowledge as dialectic. As Hegel put it, 'the true shape of the truth'.

First of all, not all statements are empirically verifiable/falsifiable (e.g. mathematical statements). Secondly it's unclear how we'd evaluate the truth-value of counterfactual conditionals on your model. Third, the set of all statements that exist is either going to be countably infinite or uncountable (depending on your definition). Assuming it's countably infinite, we could at least in principle assign them all a truth value given an infinite amount of time, although prctically speaking it would be impossible. Assuming its uncountable infinite then we couldn't even assign them all a truth value in principle.

t. know-nothing kekistani newfaggot fuckwad

I've been on and off Veeky Forums since, like, 2007. It has its memetic phases, just like any other board, but it was from the very beginning predominantly soft left with contrarian tendencies. 'Reaction'-posting only started getting popular/incessant over about the past 3 years, and it's brought the quality of the board down significantly. Veeky Forums has always been shit, but now it's nearly impossible to discuss ANYTHING without you smarmy cunts elbowing into the conversation with your unearned swarm and pre-digested ideofaqs and faggoty 《rare》peypeys and whatever the stupid fuck else.

He didn't say all statements were, just those ones he listed off

yet my meaning was understood by him just as well, evident in his response

u pedantic faggot

>The guy who didn't post a single meme MUST be a kekistanfag because I just know
>I'm going to claim that I've been here for a decade but then say things that are blatantly wrong
>You should listen to me even though I go out of my way to sound like the biggest pseud possible
SUMMER IS OVER GET OFF MY BOARD AND GO BACK TO SCHOOL

>he's really just a bobby-posting /tv/ transplant

Explains a lot.

>without ever asking "why would i want to hammer nails into everything? why would that be the only thing i do? maybe that's useful sometimes, but not the only thing that's useful whatsoever?"
We already know why, to improve human well-being. NEXT QUESTION!

>bobby
Literally who?

Unironically hope you choke to death :^)

Rude

scientists do not describe anything but the numerical outputs of some tools that they bought from somebody else. Scientists do not rely on their 5 senses, they are not empiricists. Scientists claim that their imagination is a way to ''truth'' or ''objectivity'' or some other big words that somehow describe a' ''reality'' wherein humans are not, and of course to sort all their fantasies, since they think that senses are shit and corruptible, they build the fantasy of ''validity'' of a fantasy with respect to something that ''is not human''.
at this point, the rationalists can either go even more full retard by clinging to a sky daddy, or can go full retard like ''nature'' but of course there is no ''nature''. There is what is experiences thru the 5 senses and what is experience through the imagination [= opinions, ideas, through, concepts, inferences, whatever]. So some guy though he was genius because he slapped back his fantasies against ''the 5 senses'' as the validity of inferences, to check whether his ''inferences'' were valid.

but it turns out that what is experienced through the senses is just what is experiences through the senses, no matter how hard people cling to their fantasy of a validity of a ralitionalism-claiming-to-be-empirisist. Well the only good thing from this religion by the secular humanist is that it has been providing, for the last 300 years, a salary for lots of people in the liberal revival of the academia


so the trick of those people is to develop ''models'' (modelling what? nobody knows) and then to make the model compete and say ''this model is more valid than this model''.
Of course a model cannot model the ''reality'' since to model the reality you must know the ''model of the reality'', plus the ''reality'' plus the comparison between the ''model of the reality'' with the ''reality''.
But if you know the ''reality'' you do not care about modelling it in the first place.

Then they develop statistics, because those people claim that statics somehow gives you ''truth'' and the other big words that they love. Of course they have no proof of this, for people who love to claim they prove things it is disappointing from them.... THey claim that you cannot know knowledge with ''just one event''.
They claim that their fantasy of the ''repeatability of the conditions leading to an effect'' is the way to check ''a model against the reality'' (which is again retarded).

So how do you get truth from stats according to these people. You run your little model, you run an ''repeatable experiment'' several times (these people love to claim that the condition producing an event are stable across time) and you collect ''data'' which is ''the reality'' (these people love to claim that reality is just a bunch of numbers,like a photon, and then those numbers are axiomatized, by those people, as some sets).

After this you read a book, where the ''convention'' for determining ''the truth'' is to have a statistical significance. So for instance people in biology claim that ''the statistical significance'' for some ''repeatable experiment'' is ''3 sigma'' or some ''p value of whatever number they choose at this date of the conference''.

then they publish their articles, they are happy about what they are doing, they get their salary and a few awards if enough big names already approved have faith in their article and they die. This is their rewards.

You are both forgetting that in any relevant, non-meme scientific field the knowledge is then put to the test in the real world, so some biologist might get salary, awards, and a better chance to to save the lives of patients with a blood cancer because their p-value was small enough. Having your biostats department approve your numbers is never the end of a scientific endeavor unless you're doing totally irrelevant science.

Seriously kill yourself. Seriously.

>All the butthurt from this comment
Topkek , but it's sad in way because all those pseuds from leddit still have time share a board with me

math does not get you pussy
men want pussy
men must not do math

your head is way too far up your own ass. try solving some putnam problems and then re-read everything you just wrote and realize you're completely full of shit.

bumping for this

>Janusz Korwin-Mikke

yips fedora

>Your primitive version of it allows you to make cellphones. Maybe a more reflective mathematics would unlock the secrets of the universe, but you'll never know, because all of your success markers are "better iphone."
So what are your markers? Are we getting closer to them?