What I want more than anything is for philosophy to be over. I want to find the argument that ends it all, that ends every -ism, crushes every debate, crisis, quandary and quagmire. I believe that life can only start once we have killed the foundation.
The foundation of all philosophy, and therefore the foundation of life, is the question: Does it even exist? And we can't even answer that. We skip it, go to the next. What is consciousness? No clue, and all the proposals make someone upset. Next: What is a good moral system? Don't even try. Etc. Etc.
Give me the Gordian knot, fellas. Is it Wittgenstein? Is it each of us?
Also, how do I end my anxiety over believing in a minority position? Don't pull the "U shouldn't have anxiety if u think ur correct", because I have anxiety when when I know the answer.
help
Camden Gray
Wittgenstein and Wilfrid Sellars
Ethan James
>He hasn't read any Wittgenstein or Heidegger
Jacob Campbell
Just because those delusional lunatics claimed to end philosophy it doesn't mean they actually did it Keep dreaming OP this shit is here to stay
Ian Johnson
Hegel did it, but I'm not spoon feeding you.
Parker Lewis
Spinoza
Brayden Torres
There is no answer. This was always the case. You played yourself; and you're not the first. Sorry, there is no going back. You want philosophy to end ? It never began. Pic related
Asher Morris
what is kant lul
Asher Anderson
Let P = Reality is plural. Let Q = The number of things there are is only as many as the number of things there are. Let F = The number of things is finite. Let T = There are two distinct things. Let B = There is something between any two distinct things.
a) P -> Q b) Q -> F c) P -> T d) T -> B e) B -> ~F
1) P (Assumption) 2) Q (1, a -> E) 3) F (2, b -> E) 4) T (1, c -> E) 5) B (4, d -> E) 6) ~F (5, e -> E) 7) ƛ (3, 6 ~E) 8) ∴ ~P (1, 7 ~I)
But if you include an Existential Statement: (∃s) Fs & ~Fs then it resolves the paradox, and you realize that there has to be some singularity wherein all contradictions are resolved, because finite and non-infinite amounts cease to be separate.
I think it's probably the source of Zero-Point Energy, because it's something that cannot exist in this universe, but is something that all can imagine easily.
I'm working on a few more details of this, but for now this is sort of the kernel of it.
Isaiah Foster
Your anxiety comes from the establishment of an ego. You know the truth, that you only exist insofar as you are perceived by others, and yet you also know that your perspective is valid and unique, and requires no other perspective for verification.
That's the struggle, mah nigga.
Benjamin Fisher
>Let P = Reality is plural. >Let Q = The number of things there are is only as many as the number of things there are. >Let F = The number of things is finite. >Let T = There are two distinct things. >Let B = There is something between any two distinct things. what the fuck do any of these statements mean
Adrian Nguyen
>Let P = Reality is plural. There is more than one perspective in the universe.
>Let Q = The number of things there are is only as many as the number of things there are. The entire universe consists of the sum total of all perspectives.
>Let F = The number of things is finite. There is a limit to the amount of information, and therefore energy, in the universe.
>Let T = There are two distinct things. Literally: more than one thing exists.
>Let B = There is something between any two distinct things. If two things exist, there is a third between them.
The implied iteration is for B, because if there is a third between two things, then there must also be a fourth between the other three, and so on toward infinity.
Gabriel White
Non-dualism is the beginning and the end of all philosophy, the alpha and the omega.
Carson Mitchell
Read up on the Münchhausen Trilemma. Philosophy is already dead, or rather, it was never alive.
Justin Evans
Not to mention the Aleph Null... lol
Isaac Garcia
>the argument that ends it all, that ends every -ism, crushes every debate, crisis, quandary and quagmire That is a foundationalist project, and nobody believes in it anymore.
Turn B into the Identity of Indiscernibles. A thing is distinct if it is discernible, and any two things that are indiscernible are the same. This really doesn't resolve the problem, but it grounds the argument quite plainly.
Let ß = [math] \forall T(x,y) |P(x) \oplus P(y) [/math]
ß is a collection or accounting of all distinctions between any and all two objects, but they are still at least contained by the two objects. It can be translated to a list of all distinctions(L). ß > L
If L is infinite, then F is false.
We can show L is infinite by pointing to any boundless set of discernible things such as the natural numbers. Of course, people like to then argue that numbers aren't things, or that the distinctions between numbers aren't 'real' distinctions.
Justin Harris
milton wrecked academic philosophy
Jonathan Powell
>We decided not to believe in the thing that deflates our beliefs anymore, lul Philosophy strikes again.
Isaac White
How did neither of those people articulate a way that philosophy had run its course? Bozo
Joshua Jones
Alex Kierkegaard
Xavier Price
Just because the shit is here to stay doesn't mean it's not dead.
Pictured here: Philosophy being paraded around by proud nu-intellectuals.
Jonathan Stewart
read hume
James Brown
Stop reading white cis male philosophers FFS
Joseph Russell
You should start with how you reason before you go on reasoning about this or that. Focus on your methodology
