GodDAMN where you when this motherfucker ended philosophy?

we're not talking about proof. shestov's entire philosophy is about the rejection of Necessity, of rational proofs and the accumulation of empirical knowledge. the eternal laws of logic are eternal and inviolable, sure, but since they are the supports of existence they are also responsible for all the horrors of existence, as well. "truth", "knowledge", "reason" is constricting and suffocating. it deprives man of his primordial freedom.

this is the wrong philosopher to play the "proof???" game with

>this is the wrong philosopher to play the "proof???" game with
Kek. Sounds like he is just taking the easy way out.

You can still prove that there is no truth. Saying that and saying it cannot be proven or disproved is the level of idiocracy a Christian has.

>you cannot disprove god therefore he exists

I am not talking about objective truth and empirical reasoning in a philosophical sense. I am saying you cannot end philosophy without first proving your philosophy correct, empirically. These idea's exist outside of the philosophical sense you think they do.

That is the point of philosophy, to find the truth to our reasoning and existence. Throwing your hands in the air saying there is no reasoning and you can't prove it therefore it's true is quite frankly childish.

You can justify it all you want, you bowed out of the game early. In short, a philosophy which gives up looking for the answer is not a philosophy, it's a way out.

Again, you cannot say there is no truth without first proving there is no truth, if you want people to objectively accept that point that is.

shestov's philosophy isn't systematic, its aphoristic. it's not about proving God rationally, it's about realizing is exactly that which transcends necessity.

I don't think you've read him or you'll understand this. he doesn't engage with philosophy on its own terms because that would inadvertently validate the same rationalistic paradigm he is trying to overcome

>That is the point of philosophy, to find the truth to our reasoning and existence. Throwing your hands in the air saying there is no reasoning and you can't prove it therefore it's true is quite frankly childish.

No, he doesn't say that, he says that the truth of existence is only something you can find for yourself, through yourself, by the rejection of all concepts that constrain, limit, and dilute the human experience.

>it's not about proving God rationally
>it's not about being rational
Why the fuck should we listen to you when you don't intend to give a rational argument?

Because I already said 3 times the man's philosophy is a rejection of rationality, or rather a rejection of the assumption that logic can deliver us to God/the supreme/the Truth. Come on man, read.

There's no logical argument or reverent philosophy in the world that can justify, say, the murder of an innocent by the appeal to "Necessity"

What else can you use? Intuition? My intuition says that you are wrong and a retarded faggot

God isn't found at the end of an argument, but in bottomless despair.

If you can't relate to that statement in any way at all, there's absolutely nothing I can do to convince you. Have a nice day.

>No, he doesn't say that, he says that the truth of existence is only something you can find for yourself, through yourself, by the rejection of all concepts that constrain, limit, and dilute the human experience.
You are fucking missing the point.

Even this can be proven empirically. There is nothing you have given which cannot be proven.

All you have said is it can't be proven, it exists outside that realm, that's fine, that's simple justification. But even that justification can be proven.

For instance. if you completely investigate the universe to 100%, it can be done, it's not infinite, the only problem is it's a huge undertaking and the time constraint o n the universe itself might not allow for enough time for us to find out, but I digress. If you investigate the universe to 100% and fail to find our reason and objective truth then it is safe to say that we exist for no reason or at least that reason exists outside our realm. We are not there yet, so you cannot claim that.

So you are arguing for a perspective, an opinion. Why does this perspective have more value than my own or any random idiot?

If you think that "every man is alone with himself and his suffering and must wrestle with the existence itself to learn the truth for himself, and not just sterile empirical truths that apply and restrict everyone equally" is just an 'opinion', lol.

I'm not arguing Stirner-style edgy 'le nothing matters lmao', I'm saying science can't give us this truth. It's a truth you can only find for yourself, in the depths of yourself.

>I'm saying science can't give us this truth. It's a truth you can only find for yourself, in the depths of yourself.
And I am telling you to prove it. Philosophy doesn't exist for subjective reasoning. Like modern philosophers think it does. It exists to answer the question why we are here, that question has an objective answer. One which your 'philosophy' doesn't even attempt to adress.

>all this try-hard empiricism
And the sad thing is this argument was had during Plato/Aristotle's time. It's still being argued about now. oh boy.

>can't provide a rational argument
>mocks others for calling his position an opinion

I specifically told you his philosophy is anti-rationalist. I don't need to "prove" you can only find truth in despair, it's something you only prove after you fucking do it. It isn't about proving shit, none of this is. It's about doing and living. Whatever the reason of existence, it is something that must be experienced and internalized, not argued and formalized.

Goddamn you autist.

Well I disagree. There is nothing you can use to argue against mine or for yours. This makes these ideas nothing more than opinions and feelings. It's roughly equivalent to Christians who say that everyone has internal proof of God's existence so there is no reason to provide an argument

I don't really care. This demeaning attitude of "heh muh feels, right?" is exactly what Shestov is reacting to. You're not the arbiter of my truth, so keep it to yourself.

>scientism BTFO
>reason BTFO
>knowledge BTFO
>idealism BTFO

user, none of these things are true simply because every last thing you own that makes your life easier and allows us to have this conversation even are the product of the above philosophies.

grats you understand each other. woohoo

>material benefits automatically validate a philosophical position

lol you have to be 18+ to post here

Nah, it's just dialetheist.

wtf I hate truth now

can you empirically prove it?