Please rip this thought of mine to shreds. I want to learn

No

what a stupid slut, bet her parents are proud

>We have to accept reason by faith. We can't have a reason for accepting reason

ehh, they aren't opposed, they should work together; basically faith is necessary for understanding and reason is necessary for coherence.

do you think that girl would mind a rape

This is an instant boner picture. But hair is good, of course. Only real man like this. Thou shalt grow hair. This is a lost law from moses.

I wish Katy Loves Classic Books would look at me like this in that kind of outfit

correction: "Katie"

you could check "pantheism controversy" any Jacobi

Don't find her attractive tbqh. Face is average at best and she's old and chubby.

"knowledge" in any strict sense is not possible...instead, read Hegel, and see knowledge as a mere mental process.

If I spend the rest of my life with this weird lack of libido, I'm gonna be really disappointed

Look to After Virtue and Whose Justice Which Rationality by Alsadair MacIntyre for this.

i want to sniff her armpits

Wish exactly is there to defend?

why do pseuds throw around Godel so often? His incompleteness theorem does not say this at all so unless he's referring to a proof I've never heard of he's just namedropping for its own sake

It does if you take mathematics in terms of its mapping onto reality and providing metaphysical implications for how any way of knowing reality can be represented in models. If you don't accept this, then it's just a mathematical treatise with no philosophical ramifications to you, but you'd be at odds with many classical thinkers by taking that reductionist position.

>b-but his proof only works on numeric logical systems, not linguistic logical systems
lmao
no.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
>The first incompleteness theorem states that noconsistent systemof axioms whose theorems can be listed by aneffective procedure(i.e., analgorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of thenatural numbers. For any such formal system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system
>The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency
Neither of these support memerson's argument or statement

they both do, you just can't understand logical implications branching out into multiple fields

True, but this dude is right, even if Peterson is not regarding faith in god as a requisite for proof.

Iirc Anscombe called C.S. Lewis out when he tried to say the same thing as Peterson.

>Peterson
>pseud
Is it trendy to hate him now or are you just trying to be ahead of the curve? The dude has a shitton of published papers and his lectures are great.

>there exist properties within any axiomatic system that can't be proven
>therefore proof is impossible without an axiom lol!
that's one hell of a logical jump buddy, want to explain how you did it?

the cross-field implications are alluded to in the very link you provided, just read it all and check references, no point to argue something you aren't aware of, i can't spoon feed you all the details

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

the incompleteness theorem isn't the only thing Gödel ever did in his live. Peterson is clearly referring to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof

To clarify for you guys: Gödel didn't want to prove God exists or anything, he was just a fanboy of Leibnitz. The important thing about the ontological proof isn't whether God exists or not, it shows you can prove anything from the right axioms. Whether those axioms are appropriate or not is a whole other question.

nowhere does it state that from the incompleteness theorems one can conclude that proof is impossible without an axiom

While this article is interesting it hardly supports Peterson's first statement, since it's an argument in favour of God's existence and not that proof requires an axiom

Mere Christianity - CS Lewis

yeah, i forgot to say, what Peterson wrote is total bullshit. Gödel didn't prove that you have to have axioms for proof, that's just how logic works. if he had written "Thus faith in God is a prerequisite for all proof [of God]" I could agree, don't know about the context of the discussion.

>open a thread because the pic is hot
>end up arguing about Gödel

M A R T I N L U T H E R
A
R
T
I
N

L
U
T
H
E
R

it's not about you, sperg. women dress for themselves

CS Lewis, Mere Christianity / Weight of Glory

and just about any Protestant theologians during the reformation trying to take the Church out of an Aristotelian box.

justifying reason via reason is begging the question
the idea of "begging a question", however, is a rational construct
all you need to accept is A=A, A∨¬A and ¬(A∧¬A)
do that and the foundations of logic, thus reason, are laid out for you

Can you explain the Aristotelian box part? Im not sure I understand what you mean.. is it a logic trap?

>Any philosophers that touch on this area?
Most

The earliest philosopher I can remember who brings this up as an actual form of skepticism as opposed to an excuse for DUDE GOD LMAO shitposting is Hume

literally every conservative thinker. read the suicide of the west.

Have you read the Updike story A&P? Good story.

good post

Stanley Rosen and Stephen Toulmin are worth a look. Rosen's project is concerned in part with the philosophical problems that arise from Descartes' framing of reason along the lines of mathematized logic (rationality).
Toulmin has a pretty good introduction to the relationship of reason-rationality and the differing scepticism they give rise too.

t. thot

There's been a well-deserved backlash ever since teenagers started shitposting with him here like he's a classic author. He has published papers in psychology, which is his fucking field, not literature.

> no cameltoe

YOU HAD ONE JOB

...

Pic related

There is no need for a reason to accept reason. Before reason there is nothing. Therefore only what comes after reason needs reasoning. A quasi big bang of logic. But even if you deny that: Reason is needed to prove we are indeed in a reasonable universe. It could all be a lie. It could all be shifted just a little to the left. Every color could be a bit different in reality. You get the point. But what does that matter? Can you prove it? Can you EVER prove, really prove, that you are NOT living in a lie? That you aren't residing within a fabrication? Ultimately no. So what you really need to do is look at the world AS IS. Then you work WITHIN the parameters it presents to YOU, you specifically, as an individual. If, by working within these parameters, you seem to find the world lacking, either try to change the parameters, or go on a search for "truth". A "truth" layered above to what immediately presents itself to you. Continue until satisfied. But what if I never find satisfaction??? Well then obviously in some sick and twisted sense you derive justification and satisfaction for your own being by that very search. Either way, you cannot escape what is, you cannot know what really is and you cannot ascend to a higher "truth" without first adhering to the constraints of your current reality.

So OP is right then

Depends on how you look at it I guess. You can say you need faith to accept that reason exists because you can't prove it. Or you can say, I can prove reason within the parameteres of MY world and therefore it exists. This is a different statement than just faith alone if you take into account that you CAN know that nothing can be known. Because to prove something you need to find something to which nothing can be imagined which contradicts it. But to disprove something all you have to do is imagine a single thing which does contradict it. Not being able to obtain ultimate knowledge can thereby be imagined and is thus proven. Which results in being unable to ever prove anything ultimately, therefore it really doesnt matter what "really" is and you just go with what seems right. I guess you can call that faith without actually believing in something.

You automatically accept the meaning of language whenever you write or talk.

even if truth were absolute, an absolute truth would forever be inaccessible. to maintain that what you believe is grounded in "reason" is no less pompous and ridiculous than pledging obedience to the wise man hidden in the sky.

but hey that's just me

this is a messy train of thought but if I could follow it I would say its wrong
not quite my tempo

too true, I think it was kierkegaard who challenged the german idealists trying to prove faith reasonably

Something like, if you have faith to begin with and your faith is in your perpetually flawed understanding why are you trying to understand...

makes sense to me

>if you accept reason you can use reason to use reason to accept reason

This is filled with assumptions. To even make the statement "i can know x if y" presupposes knowledge of the conditions of knowledge. It leads to an infinite regress.

Socrates: "all I know is that I know nothing".

i think that compulsion is rooted in that "I think therefore I am" bullshit, "cmon guys isnt it OBVIOUS? Im HERE"

Solipsism is a meme though, to be fair.

Its the beginning and the end