How can anyone look at the Munchhausen trilemma (or think independently) and think that any aspect of philosophy is non...

Could you support this claim with an argument?

Is Ought does not matter when you look at ethics as a series of choices. You can pick anything you want as an ethical mode but the metaphysics of the universe has given it a predefined outcome.

Asking for the "Truth" with a capitial T, which you can never get from the Munchhausen trilemma only harms Platonic and Modernist philosophy. OP mentions Nietzsche for instance. Nietzsche knew about the impossibility of truth, in fact he's one of the guys that the concept so well known. His philosophy is specifically designed to function within that realm of thinking, so is all (decent) post-modern philosophy. In fact the uncertainty of truth is what empowers their philosophy.

Nearly all per-Nietzchean philosophy is dead because it depends on "truth".

One cannot prove a counter factual.

Can you disprove evolution?

Why is Nietzsche an authority and not Plato? Why should one look at ethics as a series of choices?

Because Plato's entire system assumes absolute truth. The entire basic for his ethics is based on the idea that there is some transcidient absolute truth that can be figured out rationally. In fact pretty much all modernist and Platonically derived philosophy follow this pattern.

OP gave some reason why such a thing could not be. Nietzche had some other ones.

Nietzsche's ethics operates within perspectivist epistemology, which see's truth as contain wholly within a perspective, rather than an absolute. This is completely compatible with "truth" being elusive or even non-existent.

The modern philosophy really does start with Nietzsche. Everything we've done after him has just been continuing his work (Heidegger, Post-modernism) or trying to defeat it (Analytic). This is sort of how Plato was in the past, the whole philosophical universe revolved around him.

You are 100% correct sir.

Philosophy is for pseuds who are insecure about their their own intelligence, and are desperate to prove it to others.

>Nietzsche's ethics operates within perspectivist epistemology, which see's truth as contain wholly within a perspective, rather than an absolute. This is completely compatible with "truth" being elusive or even non-existent.

Oh, you're just one of those. OK. I don't care about this conversation anymore.

You're welcome to play with any epistemology you like. I'm telling you what your choices are. You can go with the rationalist tradition (Kant, Analytic, etc.) and try to pull up absolute truth through some thought experiments, or playing around with language and axioms.

Or you can go with the alternative. Personally I think we can only live in our own perspective and that's what we had to deal with. Kant thought we should still consider what is outside perspective in the form of the thing-in-itself, if you think that's a good idea go with him.

Either way ethics are derivative of whatever epistemology and meta-physics you pick.

Please stop replying to me

Special pleading.

Maybe some of your lawyer friends can tell you something about why logic is useful.

>there is no truth

Is this statement true?

It's a statement contained within a perspective. My perspective of the statement is a different perspective of the statement than yours.

So it can true in one perspective and false in another perspective. Either way whatever choice you pick will have some sort of consequence. I don't think there is some sort of magical "thing in itself" or "form" which contains the "real" truth value.

Why is it all 'muh munchhausen' e/lit/ist babbys are objectionable manchildren

It's gotten awfully spooky in here.

>mentions Munchhausen trilemma
>unfalsiable garbage

You do realize the Munchhausen trilemma destroys falsification? In order to falsify anything you must assume certain things are true (ie the instruments you are testing with are accurate). But the trilemma prevents this.

Popper's theory does not provide a proper way to gain true knowledge, it's just another method of testing that still cannot escape the problem of induction.

>It's a statement contained within a perspective.

kill yourself

I just hope that some day soon we can selectively draft humanities students to fight ISIS. I know if I was supreme leader of the west I would build labor camps on the moon and send career academics there.

Fact: Dicks in my butt make me wanna nut

There's some unfalsifiable fact for you, Stephen Molyneaux.

>Philosophy as a tool for pseudo intellectual posturing
I would say quoting Godel theorem to prove nothing at all is such a tool.

I know, and I mentioned it in my OP. But it's part of my reason for criticising institutions. Without unfalsifiablity, there is an inifinite amount of things to do within the philosophy of dougnuts, but somehow nobody does that. Why? Why do we instead pretend that Philosophy has a monopoly or special over certain subjects (Philosophy the institution, because the definition encompasses so much that everyone philosophises)?

I posted this topic on reddit ask philosophy and it was deleted quickly but I'll show you my reply to one of the posters below. It clarifies the poiint about the munchhausen trilemma clearly showing everything to be trivial

>Replier
>It's obvious, for instance, that very many political platforms draw on frameworks developed by political philosophers.

Looking at the Munchhausen trilemma, and ignoring circular reasoning and infinite regression, this leaves us with axioms and deductions. Well obviously these political frameworks start with axioms and then deductions and then clarifications in grey areas (e.g. to define terms I.e. more axioms).

Obviously the selection of these axioms is based on feelings (possibly while mentioning facts). So for you to say that a political framework has led to non trivial reasoning is utterly laughable.

E.g.

My entire political framework is the axiom that murder is wrong.

Is abortion allowed? That depends on whether it's murder or not. Is abortion murder? Well at this point I'll set another axiom saying when the zygote is classed as life, maybe either when the female's egg is immediately fertilised or at some later point (maybe relating to brain development).

End of example.

You would have to be stupid to think that this, and all other "frameworks" do not obey the axioms, deductions, and more axioms and deductions pattern. Utterly stupid.

This is basically unfalsifiable garbage

yeah but my unfalsifiable garbage isn't allowed in universities

can you falsify that statement?

the munchhausen trilemma is no more adequate at explaining the truth than any other 'aspect of philosophy'. stop spamming this shit and read a book

it's only an american problem

you got absolutely btfo

>me irl when some internet genuieuses mention le absolute troof, le perspectives man !!!

Fuckée my asse... wow .. so doge... so deep.... so phulosohpy.

WHERES STEPHEN MOLYNEUX ?!?!!

dae like. skeptic man? whatever dude. nothering mattres..

why do phallosohpy when u can be a Quietist. "whereof I cannot speak, therefore I hush my little lips" -- t.Wittgeinstum?

DAE skeptical, if U cant force me 2 believe sumthin then it cant be troof. Caz I can belief somefing else?!??!

DAE!!
!!?!??!

What Woulds Stefan Molyneux Do?

Why so triggered? also mods barely exist.

MAN THOSE TRUTH BOMBS !!! THOSE POTENT FUCKING STANKY TRUTH BOMBUMS !!! YOU'VE GOT ME THERE, I GUESS IM A DOGMATIC FUNDIE AFTER ALL !!! SHIT!!!

*TELEGPORTS BEHIND U*

*THROW'S MUNCHAISSENS' DICK DOWN UR THROAT*

hehe....... now U will taste the Pain of the Infinite Regress.... How can I know da troofies without another troofies?? Wadahek man!?!??!

Crazy shit. I guess all philosophy ever was just btfo ... ya got me... every belieb is fundie piety dogmatism, what iff reals. not reals? God reals? Does the reals really reals? Or just really appears to reals? tHEN WHAT IS THE REALS?? WOAH!!!!

>How can anyone look at the Munchhausen trilemma (or think independently) and think that any aspect of philosophy is non trivial? You literally can't. Everything Marx said was unfalsifiable garbage. The same with Nietzsche and so on.

When you see philosophers actually talk about real world topics it's clear that philosophy has given them literally zero additional tools for reasoning compared to a regular person. It's laughable.

>
I want to emphasise the Munchhausen trilemma but I may be accused of being a logical positivist. I know what's wrong with that, but then Godel has shown that a logical system has to be either incomplete or inconsistent, so every other system must be "flawed", but funny how this only gets used to dismiss systems that lower the potential for unfalsifiable circle jerking. If you bring up the Hegelian-Zizekian-Platonian Dialectical Jam Biscuit Capitalist Reasoning System then the academics will be in raptures.

So where does that leave us? Philosophy as a tool for pseudo intellectual posturing ("Oh look, I read about Aristotle's Physics in the original Greek!" and innumerable other examples). Can anyone convince me to think otherwise?

Dae the academy is just le circlejerk, I'm a real Lone-Wolf Philosopher, heh...
DAE LOVE TO MISREAD LE GODELS !?!!?!?!?!

ALSO QUANTUM PHISOCI?????????????????????? LOVE IT. I REMEMBR LERNRN ABUT DIS IN INTRO 2 PHULOSOPHY CLASS.... AND I ALWAYS ALSO WATCH PHILOSOPHY TUBE!??!!

DAE debate me fundies.

DAE win debates becuz u cant prove shit... im just gonna deny evrythin... heh hehe hehe... intellectual charity is FOR THE WEAK !!! MOTHERFUCKER!!!

THat's intellectuaool Slave-Morality... I'm above this ACADEMIC circlejerk ...

DAE ?

Is this a cleverly crafted troll?

If not, you're saying lots of stupid shit.

>How can anyone look at the Munchhausen trilemma (or think independently) and think that any aspect of philosophy is non trivial?
Because you can respond to the munchhaussen trilemma without too much difficulty. Try looking up Chomsky's response to skepticism, or read William James' talk of truth.

Also the trilemma eats itself: if there's no grounding for knowledge, you have no grounds to assert others don't have knowledge. Skepticism always embeds beliefs

>You literally can't. Everything Marx said was unfalsifiable garbage. The same with Nietzsche and so on.
There are a bunch of problems with the falsifiability criterion of truth, read some Quine.

>...Philosophy has become a very rigid circlejerk.
First, Hume doesn't make ethics irrelevant, second, no it's not. Sure you won't have much luck arguing against morals altogether but that's less an institutional bias and more because most people prefer morality..

>I want to emphasise the Munchhausen trilemma but I may be accused of being a logical positivist.
How would anyone confuse those things?

>I know what's wrong with that, but then Godel has shown that a logical system has to be either incomplete or inconsistent, so every other system must be "flawed", but funny how this only gets used to dismiss systems that lower the potential for unfalsifiable circle jerking. If you bring up the Hegelian-Zizekian-Platonian Dialectical Jam Biscuit Capitalist Reasoning System then the academics will be in raptures.
Godel did not prove such a thing.

>So where does that leave us? Philosophy as a tool for pseudo intellectual posturing ("Oh look, I read about Aristotle's Physics in the original Greek!" and innumerable other examples). Can anyone convince me to think otherwise?
Ah fuck it, this is just a troll.

>Nearly all per-Nietzchean philosophy is dead because it depends on "truth".

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

DIS STATEMENT IS FALSE!!!

is dis true??

KA-POW FUNDIES

¯̿̿¯̿̿'̿̿̿̿̿̿̿'̿̿'̿̿̿̿̿'̿̿̿)͇̿̿)̿̿̿̿ '̿̿̿̿̿̿\̵͇̿̿\=(•̪̀○́)=o/̵͇̿̿/'̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ REAL NIGGA ATHEISM UP IN DIS BITCH ...

just get the fuck ┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐ outta my face fundies and....

(‿|‿)
eat this ass o mine.

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

>Because Plato's entire system assumes absolute truth.
Wrong.

>The entire basic for his ethics is based on the idea that there is some transcidient absolute truth that can be figured out rationally. In fact pretty much all modernist and Platonically derived philosophy follow this pattern.
Wrong, wrong.

>Nietzsche's ethics operates within perspectivist epistemology, which see's truth as contain wholly within a perspective, rather than an absolute.
Wrong.

>This is completely compatible with "truth" being elusive or even non-existent.
Nietzsche does not reject truth.

>The modern philosophy really does start with Nietzsche.
Wrong.

>Everything we've done after him has just been continuing his work (Heidegger, Post-modernism) or trying to defeat it (Analytic).
Wrong.

>This is sort of how Plato was in the past, the whole philosophical universe revolved around him.
Wrong.

Just.. Stop talking. Please. You're embarrassing yourself.

>You can go with the rationalist tradition (Kant, Analytic, etc.) and try to pull up absolute truth through some thought experiments, or playing around with language and axioms.
Confirmed for having never read Kant

now this is some philosophical cringe right there do NOT sign me the FUCK up bad shit ba̷̶ ԁ sHit thats some bad shit right th ere right there if i do ƽaү so my self i say so thats not what im talking about right there right there (chorus: ʳᶦᵍʰᵗ ᵗʰᵉʳᵉ) mMMMMᎷM HO0OଠOOOOOOଠଠOoooᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒ Bad shit

There's totally a material world that we actually try to talk about and real lives and real people. Philosophy tries to actually talk about that, it's not just "infinite regressions", and pyrrhonic skepticism has plenty of replies.

Probably because it's virtually nonsense.

LE DEFINE THIS !!! I DONT KNOW WAT U MEAN.. IT ISNT CLEAR.. .WAT.. I HAVE NO FUCKING EARS !!!

if u cant define this in a trillion different thesaurian simpsonyms then ur wrang. DAE skeptic. FUCKIGN DEFIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE!!!

This is mostly appeal to authority.

I'll answer only the ethics bit right now because I'm on my phone. You say that I claim that ethics is irrelevant. Of course "ethics" is relevant, whether I like it or not, but to say that capital P Philosophy has the special ability of being able to reason better than the man on the street is a big pretentious lie. Everyone follows the axiom-deduction model I talked about and gave an example of here .

Of course you can fuck about before ethical discussions ("How can I trust my senses" or whatver) but you still have to set axioms.

This is ignoring infinite regression reasoning and circular reasoning.

What an appeal to authority obscurantist you are.

Note that, and I mentioned this in my OP, of course extreme edgy skepticism can "tear down anything" (including itself) by laying bare the assumptions (axioms) at the beginning of everything. Of course it can. But funny how capital P Philosophy only cares about tearing things down if it isn't part of their institutions. Funny how you refuse to answer any of my points and just appeal to authority like a pretentious undergrad who won't admit that there are assumptions behind his philosophical papers.

Oh yeah, here is my system of ethics:

I think murder is wrong because the moon orbits the earth.

/End of system

Now tell me what's wrong with my system. Critique it. What do you think of it?

What we all know will happen: You'll not respond or you'll just insult me, but we all know that my system is just as rigorous (i.e. free of logical errors) as any Harvard philosopher's systems.

...

[spoiler]Is/Ought[/spoiler]

>How can anyone look at the Munchhausen trilemma (or think independently) and think that any aspect of philosophy is non trivial?

Well, it's best to begin at the beginning, or so I hear ... Descartes reformulated philosophy so that it would mirror the rigor of mathematics -- proof, whatever could not be doubted, would be the foundation of thought. Well, it turned out that this didn't work for a posteriori or a priori truths. Sadly, you can't have proof, at least on the level wanted in mathematics, without assuming axioms.
Proof is out the window. You simply cannot get it. In response, people noted that, "Well, let's just focus on what's true." This looked like a good program, the only problem is: how does one know what is true? Truth has several big theories, the biggest being correspondence with the facts. These are known as correspondence theories. Assume they're right for the moment; 'a cat is on the mat' iff a cat is in fact on the mat.
So what else is there in 'knowledge'? Traditionally, you have justification, or grounding, something that connects your belief to what is true. Therefore, even though we don't have certainty, we have the next best thing: if we have justified true belief, we have knowledge, and knowledge is just as good as certain knowledge, because they're both true.
In response to these justified true belief (JTB) theories, a lot of people began to notice that they assume that when you have the 'justified' part satisfied, it doesn't do you any practical good unless you know that you are justified. It would be like having a checklist, but being unable to review it. What good is the checklist if you can't say, "Yup, got that sprocket, and that hoozit, and the whatzit. Check!" So, these people thought, you'd need some kind of knowledge that you've satisfied the requirement of justification. But then this starts a regress of justifications, just like in the Münchhausen Trilemma! It's starting all over again!

1/2

2/2

What if I saw what I took to be a red barn, believed it was the case, it happened to be a red barn, but I made this belief as a matter of luck? (Say, I see the red barn, but it's surrounded by barn-facsimiles. Now, I happen to pick out the one red barn, but for all I care, it could have been one of the facsimiles, or I picked the wrong barn. It looks like having a grounding for the justification requirement is necessary, but not something I can have access to, or know that I have access to. (This is known as a 'Gettier counter-example', and there's tons of literature on the subject.)
So you do away with having to know this justification requirement is satisfied, at least for now. You obviously know that you're believing something, it's true, and it's justified. So have this justification requirement be something satisfied outside of your brain. Say that it's like a review board is watching you, and you get a passing grade when you do something unconsciously, like act in a specific way. In this way, we may function in the correct manner, but we need not demonstrate that we've functioned correctly. But what use is this compared to just true belief? If knowledge is just as good as certain knowledge, is true belief just as good as knowledge? I certainly don't know that I've functioned correctly, and I'd do just as good if I just had true belief? (This is known as the 'swamping problem', and there's not as much written on it). And what if we didn't believe it at all, but instead just functioned as if a statement was true (for instance, as scientist doesn't believe a theory, but he provisionally adopts the theory for the sake of experiment)?
In other words, the Münchhausen Trilemma (or the Agrippa Trilemma, or Fries's Trilemma, all of which are tangentially related to the problem of the criterion, worth checking out) leaves us with a very nice definition of truth ("correspondence with the facts"), but very little as a criterion for knowing the truth.