There are two types of smart people. Those that realise the implications of relativism / Stirner / Munchhausen trilemma and admit it, and those who realise it and ignore it (those who don't realise it are dumb).
People who ignore it are usually navel gazing, house of card building, obscurantist, pretentious charlatans / academics. Most people who admit it aren't even involved in philosophy. A few people who admit it, such as myself, point out how all talk of ethics, metaphysics, etc is based on feelings and has nothing non-trivial to tell us.
Of course religionfags and philosophyfags try their hard to associate themselves with things of people who are seen as respectable or intelligent or other things. So they will lie and dissemble, all out of self interest.
Well, if you really admit Munchhausen trilemma, you can't even justify natural sciences nor mathematics.
Jeremiah Ortiz
>A few people who admit it, such as myself, point out how all talk of ethics, metaphysics, etc is based on feelings and has nothing non-trivial to tell us. taking it a wee bit too far. stirner never says ethics and metaphysics are trivial. he just says you own them.
>Of course religionfags and philosophyfags try their hard to associate themselves with things of people who are seen as respectable or intelligent or other things. So they will lie and dissemble, all out of self interest. stirner himself is not a psychological egoist. it is not true that EVERYTHING people do is out of self interest, stirner just believes you can find self interest in many things people do believe.
i've read stirner a fucking lot too so don't try to condescend
Zachary Williams
try reading kant. most people believe there are minimal a priori truths from which you can build mathematics.
i'm one of those people. we have a minimum of faculty which we understand we have.
it does make natural sciences tricky though.
also stirner is not opposed to science and he's opposed to skepticism. so the munchhausen trilemma is your bullshit you're tacking onto stirner
Xavier Gray
Münchausen trilemma is another example of bored philosophers trying to and failing to make meaningful statements about the worlds of science and mathematics.
Face it, it's not 500BC anymore. Philosophers have nothing useful to say about science anymore and haven't done so in a while. Philosophy is dead.
Jason Fisher
but isn't those a priori truths axiomatics?
Owen Lewis
Philosophy literated invented all epistmological foundation which science still operates on. It's perfectly within their jurisdiction to re-evaluate it. If you don't think epistemological evaluations matter in science you are basically making science into some sort superstitious magick that pulls knowledge of thin air. Heaven forbid we try to question what we know!
Colton Hernandez
>>There are two types of smart people
Fallacious from the outset. There are not 2 broad categories of smart people but I'll at least entertain you because you at least are making an effort to seem intelligent.
>Those that realise the implications of relativism / Stirner / Munchhausen trilemma and admit it, and those who realise it and ignore it (those who don't realise it are dumb).
I'll bite, tell me the practical implications of relativism.
Leo Jackson
uh, no. kant would claim we have some a priori intuitions of space that we must understand before being capable of understanding anything about space.
for example, we must be able to identify different locations in space and be able to differentiate them before we can make any reasonable claim about space. if you take the sum total of a priori faculties like these you can see how math would be built out of them
note, though, that this isn't logicism a la bertrand russell
>Fallacious from the outset. There are not 2 broad categories of smart people but I'll at least entertain you because you at least are making an effort to seem intelligent. this
>I'll bite, tell me the practical implications of relativism. yeah he's just being an idiot. stirner just wants you to be your own master, OP is telling people they're wrong to have certain beliefs.
Adam Hughes
Way I see it there are two types of smart people:
Those who like Animaniacs, and those who don't like Animaniacs.
Ayden Richardson
how do you prove those a priori intuitions? By definition they can't be proven by experience.
Elijah Cook
The munchhausen trilemma is a logical explanation of something therefore it still defeats itself just like any relativist bullshit sophistry.
Colton Garcia
>how do you prove those a priori intuitions? By definition they can't be proven by experience. you could always try reading kant. but it's called a transcendental argument. you can read about it on the sep i'm sure.
Kevin Campbell
In short, "we wuz foundationz and shieet"
Any "epistemological evaluations" a philosopher can shit out are trumped by verifying experiment results scientifically.
Philosophy was certainly a precursor to the scientific method, but that doesn't mean it has any place in science today.
The use of the fedora meme is p much synonymous with defeat these days
Jackson Cooper
you can't defeat something that was never a threat, bro
Nolan Martin
Okay, I'm intrigued. What does "realizing the implications" of Stirner do to affect how you live your everyday life? Regardless of the doctrines of relativism and egotism, we still must act and engage with the world in some fashion. How has your understanding of Stirner changed the way you live and act?
Evan Thompson
Quick Veeky Forums, name 3 things that aren't spooks!
Cameron Martinez
pretty much any material thing.
basically tells you there's no truly transcendental "right way" to live, so you don't have to worry so much about trying to make anything perfect.
Sebastian Hernandez
The only thing which is not a spectre is death. Before it all things, pleasure and pain included, are insignificant.
Hudson Perez
TOOTHPASTE
BANANAS
SPOOKS
Carter Fisher
Math is more """empirical""" about its axioms. We choose what to believe in order to be consistent with previous math knowledge.
Mason Thompson
You being my property.
Leo Garcia
this, nobody actually uses axiomatic systems in applied math, only mathematical logicians try to build systems from axioms and they're pretty far from actually applied mathematics.
for the most part axioms are trying to lift an already existing building and place a foundation beneath it. we don't really need it or use it in mathematics, nor do we learn mathematics axiomatically, nor is it useful. it just tickles the super autist's brains
t. mathematician
Ayden Morgan
people who think they are smart usually aren't
Ayden King
So basically you're "rewarding" fellow posters by endowing them with the label of "smart" if they share you're viewpoints. And if they do not they're automatically "Dumb" (as stated by yourself). Hmm seems as though the basis of your argument has some fundamental problems and is pushing an agenda. If think you're just some basement recluse who's turned to >muh smarts To justify their worth, yet you are just as much a pawn as everyone else in here. So stop deluding yourself. /thread
Bentley Martin
That may be what he's doing, but he's not wrong.
Brandon Wright
That's an opinion. Some of these philosophies are based upon arbitrary arguments. The assumptions made by him based from these shaky philosophies are therefore not able to speak for much
Noah Scott
wrong in what sense? he's 100% entirely wrong in his reading of stirner, who says skepticism is utter shit (literally referring to the Pyrrhonian skeptics), and claims christianity was born out this skepticism, while literally citing a trilemma born from pyrrhonian skepticism.
but, whatever, you do you man. i'm getting really bored of discussing philosophy on Veeky Forums because nobody actually knows anything.
Owen Reed
>you don't have to worry so much about trying to make anything perfect
Alright, so you don't have to worry "so much." But should you worry at all? Should you even try to engage with the world in a way that makes it, according to your personal set of value judgements, better?
Joseph Davis
Both questions basically boil down to "if it suits you."
Grayson Ortiz
UH UH MY PROPERTY
UM UNIONS OF EGOISTS
AND UH THE SANCTITY OF THE CHUR- DANG IT
Michael King
because smart people don't know they are smart. kek.
Liam Long
but axioms can't be demonstrable by mathematical proofs. Isn't any mathematical theory or proof resting upon axioms?
Kayden Robinson
Epistemological and logical philosophy holds up the math and sciences.
The sciences assume that their axioms are true, even though it's not verifiable in their field.
Sort of like how biology assumes things about physics to be true even though it's not verifiable in their field.
Elijah Young
and how epistemological and logical philosophy are held?
Charles Bennett
Love
Andrew Mitchell
That's the final foundation.
Without epistmology no statements about anything can be made. For instance if you wanted to make a statement about a particular item you would first have to establish that you know what the item is. If you want to discuss it's properties you have to discuss how you arrived at the idea of it's properties. Basic logic concepts as identity (a=a) are needed to do this. Even basic concepts such as "I exist" need some Descartes.
In some cases you can put metaphysics before epistmology and logic (for example forms) but this has generally fallen out of favor and is a flimsy foundation.
Lots of epistmology and logic cannot prove itself (and it's even harder to do it with metaphysics) which means that...yes, at the foundation of all knowledge is uncertainty and there is very little....if any statements of absolute fact.
Tyler Hall
you dont know what your talking about
Cooper Collins
people usually aren't smart
Isaiah Walker
If capital-T Truth is impossible, just look for truth instead. It's not a big deal.
Bentley Howard
no they just don't think of themselves as such t. Socrates
Elijah Watson
We all have experiances of the same about uless we have less senses or are younger then another we are compared to. Th only question is if our experiences allow us to perform according to what is defined as smart at the moment...
Ryder Rivera
It is not about being wrong or right. That is all judgment and oppinion. A smart person is smart because he can make his judgments appear universal, or rather he can present them in a way that interests others to engage with them and perhaps accept them.
