Do you agree with Godel on philosophy ground?

nick land fan detected

>someone destroyed some Leibniz writing
idk if this is true, but much of what Leibniz had written still remains untranslated, he is typically omitted from the accepted group of the age of reason thinkers, and his philosophy can be seen as a counterweight to the prevailing current of philosophy at the time. It's not inconceivable that some of his work was destroyed. That's typically how the game is played.

Do we really believe Shakespeare never touched pen to paper except when he wrote those 37 plays and scribbled some poor signatures? At what point is the burden of proof lifted enough to allow room for hypothesis and investigation?

he also thought that Leibniz came up with a master language that would solve all philosophical problems and there was a literal conspiracy to keep humanity in the dark about this kind of thing

no doubt people were working against Leibniz but he was very out there

he thought that Husserl was hiding his discoveries made with fenomenological method, cause "structure of world" would literally kill him

completeness

Formalism is still useful (especially for automation) and a valid position to hold, Godel's work doesn't negate this.

as long as you conform to incompleteness

If he was here I'd tell him to read Kant one more time, Heidegger, Agamben.

>Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.
What a lameo dude aren't you a bit slow on the uptake the ENlightenment's over bro lol.. just read notes from underground dude....

The better option is paraconsistency.

>1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Yes. Concerning 11, what I interpret this to mean is that these beings are connected immediately through a 'form' which they share. You'll see analogical reasoning in mysticism a lot, such as senses are variations of touch, and all beings are a variation of sound.

>4, 5
No. One could speak of beings with perhaps the possibility of more senses, finer ways to experience the world and far better processing brains, but as far as intellect itself I am now convinced anything intelligible at all is intelligible to us due to our capacity for self-transcending reason. It's also a religious Kantian thing about the logical possibility of noumenal beings like angels or intellectual intuition/divine intellection, and that's partly nonsense. Don't believe in 5 because despite knowing some spooky 'psychic' people I'm not convinced of the immortality of the individual 'self', nor does it really seem consequential if you never remember.

Hegel would have loved Gödel, shame that he did not like Hegel.

2 is the very progress and goal of humanity. Languages are developed to accomodate an ever more intricate-growing system of knowledge about the world

5 is vague, but I think he speaks collectively. Humanity will inhabit other worlds (through space travel or other world-transforming means), and has lived in arguably different worlds (ice age time, or perhaps he refers to panspermia theory)

14 is most definitely right. The decline of religion as a whole in humanity has caused depression and existential crises. People need to find meaning in life again... if necessary at the cost of "bad" religions

4-11 is tricky, but it coincides with my own beliefs that consciousness arises naturally out of the rules of existence, and gives rise to new existence and hence, over time, new consciousness. We are therefore connected to higher beings (God) through being an analogy of him. But I would argue that Godel is wrong here and that we are also connected through composition.

>he also thought that Leibniz came up with a master language that would solve all philosophical problems
But he came up with a theorem that says we could never solve all philosophical problems, by default.

>It's also a religious Kantian thing about the logical possibility of noumenal beings like angels or intellectual intuition/divine intellection, and that's partly nonsense.
Why?

it's better but it's also not

came in to post this.

godel was all kinds of ill, so he constructed a complex world to play inside because he refused to live and experience the real one.

I walked right into that one, epic.

See how it's better?

It is a natural philosophy after reading too much Leibniz and Husserl. Also all true.

That's not what incompleteness is about. It has a precise meaning and trying to explain it as "we could never solve all philosophical problems" is simply false.

>I don't know what he means by 4 and 11
Gödel, like Aquinas and Husserl which he followed here, had an autistic interest in angelology. Combined with point 5-6, it was largely about discovering what manner of life could be lived based purely on a priori phenomenological reasoning.
Then the guy also thought that kobolds were haunting his office.

>the world
Stopped right there

can't make my logic incomplete if it's already incomplete now can you?

I wish I could get a handle on what level of complexity a system needs to aspire to before it can be constrained by Godel's theorems. Apparently arithmetic is complex enough, and thus all of mathematics is, but somehow philosophy isn't? Either that or you're claiming philosophy doesn't have an effective axiomatization. I've personally never seen such a philosophy.

btfo!

Philosophyfags will never accept the implications of incompleteness. Don't bother.

kek

real horror is, that incompleteness is true in mathematics, which is much more "clear", concise than philosophy, grounded on fact more than on speculation. So if even in mathematics we cannot have theory that we are completely sure its correct, we cannot have such universal truth in philosophy and other science, and we should kill ourselves. It means end of metaphysics

the end of metaphysics?

assuming mathematical platonism, incompleteness of arithmetic would imply that there's something beyond mathematics that proves it to be true. It's like gateway or gives to a need for metaphysics.
One might say that it's the human mind that makes arithmetic true, but then then arithmetic would just be inconsistent because it'd be a relative idea made up by humans

completeness is about being able to prove all truths, not about if you're sure that the proved truths are actually true

Not quite. In addition to the incompleteness theorem, there is also the completeness theorem. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_completeness_theorem

you cant prove consistency of sentence from inside theory in which you made this sentence. It means you cant prove it 100%. Same you cant make universal theory of all math which contains everything consistent, because you always will need one axiom from outside to prove rest

>the world is rational
This is exactly why few people take him seriously. Only a cloistered idealist determined to project his own worldview on humanity and the universe would believe this. The world and the universe itself is chaotic and irrational, and without first accepting that it’s almost impossible to make sense of it all.

You realize you just said exactly what he says in inverted form? You just claimed that irrationality IS the rationality of the world. Quite a lot of people agree if what you means is contingency vs necessity. A funny thing is that contingency is actually a form of necessity.

How on earth could he think there are systematic methods for solving all problems when he himself showed that any set of axiom which could express arithmetic form a system in which there are true statements the system itself can’t prove?

You can systematically solve all problems, just not with the same system.

cant prove it but can solve it

>mathematics, which is much more "clear", concise than philosophy, grounded on fact more than on speculation
I've rarely seen such brainletism. Not to mention that it goes entirely against Gödel's views. Mathematics are completely outside of fact. He would have also regarded with suspicion such q claim as philosophy being less clear.

The theory of numbers is the stopping point of his theorem. It bears little relation to the view of a system such as he envisioned, which is the same as Husserl's view.

1 is wrong
2 is wrong
3 is wrong
4 is half wrong (transcendental is above rationality)
5 is half wrong (there is no notion of personhood in heaven)
6 is true
7 is false
8 is false
9 is false
10 is true
11 is true
no judgement on 12
13 is false
14 is true

christ this guy is a cuck

cogito, bitch

are you the a.n. whitehead fag?
keep posting please

No, I'm one of the Hegel posters. Ironically, I have a distaste for Whitehead.