How can philosophy boil down to anything other than assertions + marketing when the Munchhausen trilemma clearly shows...

Okay that's what I thought you meant. I agree completely. It's kind of like how you can't prove or disprove solipsism. It still is either true or false.

What do you think some necessary axioms of epistemology are?

I think that change exists, that something exists, that something either is or is not X in one and the same way, are all good starting places. There are probably more as well that I am not thinking of at the moment.

I disagree. In math we call what you're talking about "morality", and it's pretty much the math version of fee fees.

Not that I'm in the group of math people who reject morality, though.

And you think these are absolute?

What the fuck are you going on about?

>he thinks philosophy is about truth

not op but curious as to what you think its about

Mathematicians deal with morality now ?

Math does the same thing I described. Mathematicians start off with what they think are good axioms and build up from there.

Also, I really doubt that every mathematician believes that the default meta-ethical theory is intuitionism. Less that an intuition must necessarily be an emotion.

Yes. Change is because for us to learn or cognisize anything we have to go through a change. When someone changes your mind from thinking that there change, to that there is no change, a change had been made in you and your belief has been invalidated by the process itself. That something exists is self evident, even if we don't know exactly what it is. and if one denies the principle of non-contradiction then their assertion can't rule out the principle of non-contradiction since they have no means to see that one thing and its opposite cannot both simultaneously hold. Meaning their assertion gives us no reason give up the principle.

When mathematicians choose their axioms, don't they feel doubtful? What if their axioms are wrong? What are some examples of mathematical axioms?

> What if their axioms are wrong?
Axioms can't be wrong by themselves. Only group of axioms can be wrong and only if they contradict each other and therefore can't be in one system to made some sense. This is why one mathematical scientist can follow axiomatic where for in certain point there exist only one line parallel for another, but other mathematician could prefer the system where for any certain line and any certain point is possible for infinity of parallels lines to exist. You can't doubt axiomatic statements by itself, doubt is possible only for entire systems by means of a contradictions.

An lone axiom can't be wrong? Why not? What if an axiom was wrong like "the moon is underwater"?

You can build Underwater Moon Theory from such axiom if you really want. You wouldn't apply it to a real moon as such application would introduce the physical axioms to your theory and create a bland contradictions here and there. Doesn't means that theory doesn't works in isolation. There is also the possibility that it could be applied for some things. Things that aren't the physical moons or waters of course, but possibility exist if there are no internal contradiction in theory. For example, such theory, if it is a proper one, could be used for analyses of structures of gas giants and they are just a metal moons under the oceans of gases. Perhaps, even more obscure shit would fall under word of theory.

Wait what? What do you mean?

You need some fact to contradict for axiom to be wrong and if you consider the fact than it isn't the lonely axiom anymore. You need a some second axiom to come up with the fact than moon wasn't actually underwater because your lonely axiom is "the moon is underwater" and you can't conclude that it isn't from that. Basically, there are no false statements. Just a false applications statements. Universal *truth space* where all true statements about the world coexist in some form of harmony doesn't really exist and its all context dependent.

Because given a certain frame of reference and set of assumptions things can be correct, wrong, better or worse. Munchhausen's trilemma is just another expression of uncertainty, human fallibility, scepticism. Philosophy examines and examination is always useful. Even if something truly becomes useful people stop calling it philosophy.

I can't say I'm super educated on it, but isn't that basically the "How do you prove your evidence is true?" "By x." "But how can you prove x is true?" "With y" "but how can you prove that y is true?" ad nauseum?

Yes, user, you can get stuck in the idea that nothing is real, but it won't be very productive.

No, that's one of the lemmas in the trilemma. There's two more, circuler reasoning, which is "x is true because of y, and y is true because of z, and z is because of x", or, there's the (correct) way, where there are true axioms, such as the laws of thought, or that existence exists, or that consciousness exists. These CAN be proven in the fact that in order to "disprove" them, you must use them in the act of disproving.

> the (correct) way
The point is there is no correct way. For example, your (correct) system literally based on baseless statements, while there is nothing like this shit in infinite regress and only "problem" is that you are too lazy to follow the casual chain or find a better foundations of axioms if you really doubt them. In life there is always a reason behind a reason and even if we don't know what exactly it is, there are like no reason to doubt that it exist. Why prefer a baseless axiomatic solution to endless infinity of advancement and better understanding of nature?

Because they're not baseless assumptions. If you deny the law of identity, every single word you just said doesn't mean anything, and neither does the concept of infinite regression.

Inability to deny law of identity doesn't mean that there doesn't exist some principle that prove that law to be true, you even trying to do it yourself in some sort of round about way.

What? What are you saying?

You say that axioms aren't baseless assumptions and there exist a reason behind them. That mean, that infinite regression is a true solution as you try to base your axiomatic on something beyond that. Basically, because your answer for [ Why X ] isn't [ Because X is true ], but [ Because of Y ] you are still actually using not (correct) solution, but some sort of infinite one.

No, the axioms justify themselves.

You could hold a wide variety of contradictory "provisional perspectives" without dogmatically holding to any of them in order to gain a comprehensive and approximate view of reality.

In that case it is a circular reasoning, user.

help guys im being a tard

why is it that axiomization is a bad thing?

Is it? It's only circular reasoning if the axioms justify something else, and then that something else justifies the axioms.
Self-evidence is not circular reasoning.

It isn't. People think axioms are assumptions, when they're not. They're definitions.

They can't. Every philosophical position eventually boils down to "because I said so" when you play the why game with it long enough. This is not a failure of philosophy, and it is not a reason to abandon the thought.

The problem I figure is the attempt to build on solid ground, when one should be building with the anticipation that their thought shall be built on nothing, and eventually destroyed by that nothing.

Self-evident claims are baseless.

I don't understand how the law of identity is just an assumption.
They're based on themselves.

> based on themselves
Yeah... That is what baseless means. All fucking claims can be trivially concluded from themselves, except the ones that are purely self contradictory nonsense... Except even last one could be done, you can conclude everything from contradictions.

So what do you propose as a solution to the trilemma?

>self-evident
>baseless

do you not know what words mean you fucking mong

OP, I'd like to thank you for being based as fuck on account of your mentioning the Münchhausen trilemma and understanding its implications. However, you are missing a small part of the puzzle. Even though everything we do is based on feelings, we can still attempt to make our feelings consistent with each other. If a person's feelings imply his other feelings to be wrong, he is wrong according to himself, which has all the usefulness of universalism but without all the sophistry and wrongness. And that's why it works better to appeal to a person's values when you are attempting to persuade them rather than using intimidation.

What do you mean?

Is absurdism philosophical agnosticism

What portion of my reply do you want me to elaborate?

Everything past "However, you are missing a amall part of the puzzle." Explain like I'm an idiot, if youcan.

Mathematical axioms are different from what is talking about. Any old bullshit can be an axiom in math because mathematical statements are only about symbols, not reality. You don't have to worry about whether it's "wrong" or not because that's up to you. However, we choose to base our systems on axioms that will give them some application to reality so that math is actually useful.

So logical axioms aren't just assumptions?

isn't agnosticism philosophical agnosticism