What is most retarded philosophy that could still be argued for being true and coherently followed?

>Solipsism
reminder that the lack of control on the world applies also to the whatever the solipsist (and realist) consider as the ''self''.

solipsism is the most retarded idea, because the idea of control of thoughts, emotions, desires is a fantasy.

Solipsism cannot claim its own truth, so it's false even within its own axioms.

Parmenides' philosophy was pretty fucking retarded. If we didn't have records of Zeno defending his position I would think he was asserting it ironically as a reduction ad absurdum argument.

While it is true that capitalism ad anarchism cannot be reconciled, much of ancap argumentation against the for free markets can recycled into mutalism and left-wing market anarchism.

Mad someone called something you hold dear a spook?

NO! THE RIGHTS OF MEN EXIST! THEY ARE AS REAL AS YOU AND ME!

all philosophy is equally valid
tempted to add "unless it makes wrong statements", but fact is just a social construct as well it's just that i'm socialized into believing facts are more valid

What is there to follow?

spooks

What about this:
there is an infinite number of possibilities to explain "what fuels consciousness"
materialism is one of this possibilities
therefore there is 1/infinite chance that materialism is true
the chance that materialism is true tends toward zero

Positivism. Refuted ad nauseam yet followed by the masses.

Just because you trust science doesn't mean yoy are a positivist. It just werks.

Semitic religions

This one

First or second line?
For first: All philosophy starts with an opinion, and then tries to make arguemts in favor of that. No opinion is more right than any other, so all philosophy is equally valid.

For second: This one is more tricky, because my instincts are to say that facts are more valid. I think it also kinda ties into logic, which is also a social contruct. It feels a bit weird to argue that logic isn't any more valid than feelings with logic, but I'll just let that pass and do it anyway.
Our society's obsession with the importance of fact isn't really an absolute truth. Let's say your philosophy says that anything can be split into smaller parts, and atoms don't really exist. Our modern society would say that's wrong, but how does that make your philosophy less valid? If it makes you feel better, isn't that just as valid of a philosophy as anything else? that fact>feelings, or other constituents, is just an opinion that's very ingrained into society. Modern society assumes an axiom that fact and logic should get more respect than anything else, but this is just as assumption based on certain other assumptions about goals of philosophy or other things.

Sorry, it's hard to explain, it wasn't that long since I realized this, so I haven't thought out the arguments properly yet, and also, I tend to distract myself from the thought processes with the meta-observation that I'm using logic to dispute logic, and that paradox tends to stop my thought process due to my insufficient intelligence.

>trusting science
>not logic

Nevermind, solipsism isn't opposed to materialism

Capitalism

The search for truth is universally found across cultures and societies. There is something in nature which drives us to seek out this thing called truth. It can't be dismissed as a merely an opinion because everyone, in all times, and in all places have valued truth over falsehood.

only subjective truth, not objective truth. If you have an objective truth, that's not more valid than someone's subjective truth that's objectively wrong.
And majority's agreement isn't an argument.

My point is that the value of truth as opposed to falsity is not a social construct, but something deeply ingrained in our nature. I agree largely about the impossiblity of a truly objective science, but that doesn't diminish the pursuit of knowledge or the body of knowledge generated by this pursuit. All it means is that the philosophers have worked us into a puzzle by setting up this ideal of objectivity.

strangling them would infringe on their blood property. Choking would be better

...

What's wrong with Libertarianism?

Sounds to me like the question to be asking isn't, "What is the truth?" but should instead be "Is there a truth?"

communism

This desu

Could you please explain the significance of this to me, because I honestly don't get it why it matters.

Yeah, everybodys truth is subjective so there can't really be an "objective truth" and all that, I get it. But it seems to me like all this Pomo stuff just ends up in moral relativism where nothing's really better or worse and you can't really make value judgments on ideas anymore.

Everything ends up a social construct or a spook, so why do we give a shit? A society still needs a clear set of ethics to keep everyone on the same page, whether it's arbitrary or not.

Making any claim already presumes the existence of truth, so there is no argument against it.

>refuted
not a positivist but how?