Axioms

I cannot read this post because I cannot prove that this post in fact exists.

Ok retard, what can be proven then?

You are retarded. Stop posting here.

I admire your ability to be smug while also retarded.

You tell me, user. If you want to prove something to me go ahead and fucking try it.

I have nothing to prove to you.

I cannot prove you're a retard because I cannot prove you exist.

>If you cannot prove your answer to the question then your answer is not an answer.
why not?

Yes, and?

I understand you think that you're making a point, but whatever you are trying to get across to me you are utterly failing to do so.

>bumping this bait

Because it has no utility above any other answer that I could make using any other assumption, even patently retarded assumptions.

"Is murder wrong?"
>I think that murder is wrong because people want to live, and I assume that is important for some reason.
>I think that murder is right because people want to live, and I assume making sure people don't get what they want is important for some reason.
Two equally valid answers because both are based on assumptions.

The only reason to choose one over the other is because you prefer it, not because it makes a better argument. Both arguments are equally weak.

I cannot prove I'm making a point because I cannot prove I exist.

Stop, you'll make Euclid cry.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma You already got your answer. Now fuck off with this dumb bait.

That's not a fucking answer. That's merely a statement of the problem.

"This is a problem but we ignore it so that we can talk about other shit and justify our fat government-subsidised university paychecks" is not a fucking answer.

That's because it is not possible to solve, nor will it ever be possible to solve. I'm out.

>That's because it is not possible to solve, nor will it ever be possible to solve
So how do philosophers justify their paychecks and existence?

>Because it has no utility above any other answer that I could make using any other assumption, even patently retarded assumptions.
prove it.

I don't need to.

In this hypothetical I am responding to an offered answer. My response is that I think the answer is not any more convincing than an other answer.

gonna need a proof of every word in that post chief, can't assume we're speaking the same language after all, wait scratch that, make that every letter, THEN every word. This is likely a futile endeavor because I can't assume that I am in fact typing to this response that I also can't assume is shitty bait.

It's not a problem. It's the way knowledge works. Go read a basic epistemology book, dumb brat.

Congratulations, you've finally realised my point.

Philosophical argumentation like this is pointless. You have just demonstrated it to yourself. Now what you are going to do is ignore this so that you can continue to waste everyone's time with pointless philosophical wank.

Neither of us can prove anything to each other. This being the case, there is no reason to continue to engage in philosophy.

>It's not a problem
It is if you're trying to tell me I should stop murdering you, or try and tell me to do anything at all really.

>If you cannot prove your answer to the question then your answer is not an answer.

no no no chief, that means there is no point in engaging in literally anything, that means the sciences, mathematics, literature, basically everything has to go. see since we can't prove anything and can't make any assumptions basically all human endeavor is pointless since we have no reference points in reality that we can take for granted, because we're not allowed. in this new hell we can't even kill ourselves because we can't prove that it will end to the endless suffering we are experiencing sitting around doing fucking nothing.

>Knowledge should be judged on the basis of its "utility"
Nice philosophical proposition, mind if ask you to prove it?

>that means there is no point in engaging in literally anything
No, wrong.

You see, despite being unable to prove that my car will start when I turn the keys, I have observed it happen enough to be certain to my own satisfaction that it will do so.

If it doesn't, I can also be certain to my own satisfaction that there is a mechanical reason for this failure. Even if I cannot prove that.

The thing about philosophy is that there is no observable component, so there is no possible way to be certain to my own satisfaction based on observation in lieu of theoretical proof.

Idiot.

>if you're trying to tell me I should stop murdering you
nobody in the history of humanity has ever murdered or not murdered someone on the basis of careful logical argument for or against the proposition.

>>Knowledge should be judged on the basis of its "utility"
I never said this.

Agreed.

>I can also be certain to my own satisfaction that there is a mechanical reason for this failure. Even if I cannot prove that.
nice assumption you've got there buddy.

oh no my good man, you can't assume that your senses report accurate data anymore! you can't assume anything! observation has no merit because not only can we not assume that we're observing something, we can't assume there's even an observer!

But I'm not trying to argue the point, user.

That's the difference.

I'm not trying to convince you my car will start based on theoretical proof going back to first principles. I am simply telling you that I have observed it do so enough times that I'm confident it will this time. You're free to disagree, but you'll look like an idiot if you do so loudly and then my car starts after all. The choice is yours.

>you can't assume that your senses report accurate data anymore
Yes I can.

I just can't use that assumption in an attempt to prove some theoretical supposition and pretend that my attempt at proof is anything more than just rambling.

Stop reading what you want to see and start reading what is actually written.

>Why is "I have no proof whatsoever of this but let's just assume it" accepted as valid in an argument?

but you have no proof, how is your assumption a valid argument?

>how is your assumption a valid argument?
It's not an argument.

I'm not sitting here arguing with you about whether or not the car will turn on when I turn the keys.

I'm just going to turn the keys and see what happens.

My expectation of what happens is what it is because of my observations - thus I am certain to my own satisfaction, and make decisions based on my expectation (such as waking up at such and such a time to get to work at such and such a time based on the travel time by car).

At no point do you or your opinions enter into the scenario.

The point of this hypothetical is to respond to the supposition that without certain proof nothing can be done. A great many things can be done. But none of them can be proven.

I am responding because I'm assuming your post exists.

these are all implicit arguments for basic bitch empiricism, you're inherently making the assumption that

1. your senses are accurate enough to make observations
2. said observations impart any information
3. repeated observations of phenomena imply they will repeat into perpetuity

anyways it's been fun but this bait starting to lose it's flavor

alright, so that's a satisfactory interpretation of the physical world, but what about mathematical propositions? do you expect that the square of the hypotenuse will almost certainly be equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides, but you won't know until you measure it?

>you're inherently making the assumption that
Yes, but I'm not relying on that assumption to make an argument you fucking retard.

Holy shit are you people incapable of NOT reading "between the lines" and seeing shit that isn't there.

>"you can't turn on your car without first making a philosophical argument about how cars work"
No fuck off.

>do you expect that the square of the hypotenuse will almost certainly be equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides, but you won't know until you measure it?
Yep.

I'm skeptical of the "correctness" of maths when shit like Zeno's infinite division still doesn't have a satisfactory mathematical answer.

>I never said this.
It's clearly implied in what you're saying.

Then I misspoke.

It would be hypocritical in the extreme of me to imply we should be making judgements about answers on the basis of some supposed objective criteria.

Guys! Guys guys!
What about doubt? How can we doubt anything without having a reason to doubt it? Hell, add the "faulty biology" argument to it, something is making us doubt stuff as much as it makes us certain of stuff, so surely, whatever makes you doubt something can make other things certain! So there! You doubting axioms is you proving that an inner axiom is making you doubt them. Now go find that one and come back to tell us

>How can we doubt anything without having a reason to doubt it?
Now THIS

...is a good question.

If I say that nothing should be accepted without being proven, that's an axiom.

Hmm.

>what is calculus?

Thank goodness Zen masters figured this out thousands of years ago yet westerners are still having trouble.

On Certainty has some good stuff related to this view.

wtf I hate philosophy now

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Here's at least one reason, you fucking dumbshit. Ever heard of reduction ad absurdum? You can prove a thesis wrong by assuming it's true and see whether it leads to absurd consequences.

Bertrand Russell tried to prove that 1+1=2 without using axioms and only pure logic, but they couldn't do it. You need axioms, even for the most self-evident statements.

>africans are genetically equal to Europeans in terms of intelligence and culture
>africans develop civilization, agriculture, writing, math, literature
yep, absolutely fucking absurd

Completely off topic but I love this meme.

>all moral truths rely on axioms
>most moral axioms are arbitrary, based on geographical location and cultural backgrounds
>applying universal morality to humans when different cultures are so radical in their morality is ridiculous
>certain tribes practice cannibalism
>certain Muslim countries throw gays off buildings
>certain western nations refuse to see a fetus as having rights
>we live in a chaotic universe where there is no immediately obvious grand moral purpose outside of dreary utilitarianism

How does everyone not collapse into nihilism, sophistry and suicide cults?

Proof by assumption.
>let's assume x is true
>if x, then y; therefore y
>if y, then z; therefore z
>if x, then z

Do you not like having law?

Why do you ask this question, when you know it cannot be answered without some assumptions? Why do you ever ask questions at all?

I hate over analytical faggots like OP. You can't have any sensible discussion with worthless blobs like this. Every time I go to the philosophy club the fat alumni, who just won't fuck off, keeps asking "but you've assumed X to justify Y, first you must prove X" and all interesting discussion is aborted in the womb of his retarded mind. So fuck off with your stupid moral problems that are irrelevant. This stupid mindset has crippled nearly every person who attends the philosophy club, they hesitate to make simple moral judgments because they either can't devise an argument to back it up, or they are afraid to make any judgment whatsoever about another person or idea. Even if you assume things are relative it doesn't mean you can't say that relative to OP, Foucault was straighter than Hugh Hefner.

> Philosophy is a waste of time
> None of it can be proven.
> It is an exchange of opinions and nothing more

prove it.

no.
> “When ignorance reigns in society and disorder in the minds of men, laws are multiplied, legislation is expected to do everything, and each fresh law being a fresh miscalculation, men are continually led to demand from it what can proceed only from themselves, from their own education and their own morality.” It is no revolutionist who says this, nor even a reformer. It is the jurist, Dalloy, author of the Collection of French law known as “Repertoire de la Legislation.” And yet, though these lines were written by a man who was himself a maker and admirer of law, they perfectly represent the abnormal condition of our society.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-law-and-authority

Got any proof for that?

>philosophylets are incapable of justifying their entire field of study
>instead of realising this is a massive flaw in everything they are doing, they just choose to ignore it and complain when anyone points it out

it's basically true. no amount of name-calling can actually change this

I think the main issue is that axioms in philosophy are not fundamental enough, sometimes straight-up vague, hand-wavy shit.

Legal systems in all countries are absolute dogshit.

Just acknowledge that they're arbitrary, and have them informed by biology and culture, at a given time and place.

>recc me pseud lit
>hahaha nigga what the fuck is an axiom
you should pierce your tongue with a knife and then bleed out on your floooor

Then what would the world you're advocating for look like?

Mathematics, Physics and, to a lesser extent, Chemistry all have underlying axioms. They're used every day and are far from being a waste of time. The same goes for philosophy.

OP is a fedora fag who believes himself the only being in existence and as such he doesn't need to prove anything to anyone. He can make all the assumptions he wants as long as he doesn't use them in communication with others. His social anxiety has led him to rationalize that you shouldn't communicate since it's based on assumptions that can be faulty. You would need omnipotence to make any argument and without an argument nothing can be done between people.

>Mathematics, Physics and, to a lesser extent, Chemistry all have underlying axioms
I don't think that they do - the experiential sciences, anyway.

What are the underlying axioms governing research into hypoxia in the womb's affect on the later development of children?

I tried to think of some and only came up with:
>we should only accept things that are proven
>we can understand the world
But neither of these are really present. The research is not concerned with proving anything in universal/philosophical terms but rather proving things in "scientific" or material terms - which is not proof at all, in the sense we're talking about. It only requires it to be proven to the arbitrary standard of science which is based entirely on repeatability. There is no axiomatic assumption that there is inherent merit in proof, but rather a collective recognition among people that the data about the world is useful to them as individuals.

In short people don't engage in science because they have a moral reason/argument to do so, they engage in science because they get paid to do so by people who want the data for their own ends.

Also, it's never assumed that we can understand the world. The research is an attempt to do so, regardless of whether or not it can be done.

I think trying to contaminate the actual sciences with the stink of philosophy is poor form. Leave medical research and engineering alone. They produce concrete material advantages, wholly distinct from the whimsical bullshit of philosophy.

>His social anxiety has led him to rationalize that you shouldn't communicate since it's based on assumptions that can be faulty
No, that you shouldn't base your entire argument on assumptions and then expect me to take it seriously just because you decided to call them "axioms" to disguise the fact that you made them the fuck up based purely on your wishful thinking.

>75 replies
>ctrl-f goedel, ctrl-f godel, ctrl-f incompleteness
>0 results
Fuck this thread.

Goedel proofed that you can't have a (nontrivial) logical system without axioms. You can't show that your system is consistent, you can only discover that it isn't. Therefore all inquiry has to be based on axioms of some kind.

>Therefore all inquiry has to be based on axioms of some kind.
WHY.

WHY NOT THE REVERSE - THAT NO INQUIRY CAN BE MADE?

"I WANT TO DO X, BUT I CAN'T, THEREFORE I WILL MAKE UP SHIT TO ALLOW ME TO DO X."

It's like a surgeon who wants to cut up a patient making up a diagnosis so he has an excuse to do it.

How do you create order in society and why should people believe in that method and follow it?

thats why science >>>>>>>>>>>> philosophy

>How do you create order in society
I don't need to. It's self-ordering.

>why should people believe in that method and follow it?
I don't care why they do it, so long as they do.

To expand on both answers - society is not in some impossible state of chaos waiting for a philosopher-king to set it straight. Society is doing just fine. I don't understand why you would posit that it needs to be ordered at all. It seems to be running orderly enough to me. And if it did need to be ordered, I'm very sure that guns would prove more useful than platitudes and assumptions.

As far as why should people participate in an orderly society instead of work to ruin it, there is no "should." People can choose to do it or not do it. People DO choose, and I can't stop their choices. The whole reason we have police is because laws alone are not enough. There are always people who opt-out of our social contracts.

However, the fact that I cannot justify enforcing my desires on those people doesn't mean I somehow have to refrain from doing it. My lack of a philosophical proof for why murder is bad will not weaken the bars on anyone's cell.

This is your brain on ludwig w

Ah yes, move to Africa and participate in their self-ordered society. Also does a society order itself? People invent axioms to create the order they want and people choose to follow it. Then they develop the systems based on these "axioms" and make arguments based on them. They punish the dissenters to the axioms because they don't want them. To then argue that someone is a dissenter you argue about the axioms they have broken. Which part of this do you have a problem with?

I'm a physicist, they do. At some point in your research, you have to rely on previously defined notions - axioms.

To add onto my previous statement, , this user is correct If you think you can do science without a little philosophy you're badly mistaken. If you're a teen, it's understandable. If you're an adult, I can only hope you're an experimentalist and rely on data to solve what some theoretician proposed a long time ago.

Something that bothers me with discussion in my country is that liberal mindsets such as democracy and equity are taken as inviolable axioms and to violate the inviolable is seen as defeat and may as well be considered social suicide on many platforms. How can you bypass this? The only answers I have come up with are deception or outright war and either way, honest debate seems doomed to futility

>If you think you can do science without a little philosophy you're badly mistaken.
prove it

Seriously. Specifically which axioms are involved in designing the chemical composition of a specific plastic to meet a customer order?

It has always been social suicide to go against the grain. But yet you should do it. A quote you might have heard:
>"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
If you don't want to commit social suicide use the Socratic method to help them realize problems with their axioms and to subtle make them see the opposite sides reasoning. Though a big problem will be that people usually regurgitate ideas they've heard from others and don't know the reason behind them nor care to.

Literally google "the axioms of chemistry" and read a little. And for fuck's sake, not every axiom is gonna manifest itself outright in any mundane thing you mention, you need to keep digging and start asking why. The same goes for philosophy.

We can't trust our senses to deliver valid information about reality, and all attempts at arriving at the truth rely on a priori assumptions. That's why philosophy and science are for cucks. Stop letting linguistics and conceptualization of ideas inhibit your ability to act in the world.

Logic is built on tautology. It's necessary.
You're also a moron, by the way.

Any statement accepted as true is an axiom. How many can you find under the process of your scenario?