>no you are wrong your argument relies on axioms
>ok then show me why these axioms arent self-evident
>nah i just dont care about them and disregard them without presenting any argument or using any rationality or logic
Why do people worship this pseud again?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>self-evidence
>not the biggest spook of them all
"it's true because I said it's true"
>self-evident
literally not an argument
but that's exactly what stirnerists believe, if they even believe in truth at all
Can anyone redpill me on who is this guy?
First hour on Veeky Forums eh?
Or hell, the internet in general considering you don't know how to reverse image search
It's some annoying shit on Veeky Forums that people invoke to stop any real discussion.
i dont think you understand logic friendo
If I send you a letter that says "You are completely blind and the mail never gets delivered" it is self-evident I am wrong because obviously the mail did get delivered to you and you are obviously not blind because you are reading the letter
But then I might wake up from that dream, blind and without legal address.
The only axioms that are self-evident are those of basic logic and math, and only because I'm hardwired in such a way that I cannot conceive of any viable alternative.
But this isn't what Stirner cares about at all. He seemed to be pretty materialistic so he might not argue any of this. He would, however, argue that any argument that based itself moral precepts was hocus at it's core.
>But then I might wake up from that dream
What the fuck are you talking about
What do they teach you in American schools, I can't believe someone who isn't retarded just wrote that
Some edgelord who is completely forgotten in the annals of history except for Marx wrote a mean review of him and his crudely sketched 'portrait' is highly exploitable by internet shitheads.
>he still thinks logic works
Update yourself with 20th century philosophy, pleb.
What? It's a common attack on naive realism, or naive empiricism. Perception is faulty.
Any aspect of a dream seems real and evident for as long as you are in that dream, but it doesn't make it so. It's a tired argument, I know, but it's not like you brought your A-game either. If you want an axiom you can't argue against try "A is the same as A" or some other tautology.
Which passage are you quoting?
>self-evident
Holy shit.
Max Stirner, a Zionist
not an argument
Well this is what you're missing, OP. You're assuming a million things to begin with, like reliable observation and an external world. Just because an axiom seems true at first glance doesn't mean it necessarily is.
See
>reliable observation
Again,
>"You can't trust your senses"
Senses are the only tool we have available to us to construct arguments or counterarguments or even understand the arguments to begin with.
All arguments rely on the validity of the senses, thus, your argument that I'm "missing something" or that "there is no reliable observation" cannot be made without trusting the validity of the senses. Your argument is paradoxical.
If you would like to disprove the self-evidency of an axiom, then do so, but don't cry "b-but your senses might not be reliable" because that is irrational.
>don't cry "b-but your senses might not be reliable" because that is irrational
It's not irrational. A degree of skepticism is healthy, otherwise you won't be free of dellusions.
But why did you relate issue to Stirner? It doesn't seem like you actually know anything of his work.
You seem to like empiricism and that's neat, maybe read up on Hume?
Yeah, it is paradoxical. Welcome to contemporary philosophy 101. Logic is self defeating because it relies on circular reasoning to defend its validity, but it also condemns circular reasoning.. Even accepting inductive reasoning, Bacon empiricism like what you're using is self defeating. That's exactly what I'm trying to communicate.
Your post actually contains zero arguments
It's irrational to make an argument saying "You can't rely on your senses to make arguments" because that is paradoxical. You just used your senses to make that argument about how you can't use your senses to make arguments. You are self-evidently wrong
nothing in your post is an argument
Because it's edgy
paradoxfag here. No, nothing in my post is an argument, they were statements. This is all widely accepted though. I'm not here to bicker with you, you can look it up or read about it yourself.
not an argument
Wait, I posted: . Who are you? Are you role-playing as me? Or did I came between you and the other guy?
"Sensations may be misleading" isn't paradoxical. It doesn't attribute falibility to all sensations.
I'm the second guy he quoted.
You should take a break from Veeky Forums for a few months.
>I'm the second guy he quoted.
Oh right, he replied to both our posts with the "not an argument meme", that was the source of my confusion.
Right, from now on, if we're going to have Stirner threads, can at we at least quote the source material instead of greentexting what we *think* he said for cheap trolling?
not an argument
and here we have the Stirnerite blindly and irrationally denouncing all facts as untrue just so that he can still cling to his self-interest
This desu
>quoting molymeme, a fucking computer science major who decided to start making youtube videos in his basement and now thinks he's better than socrates
Kek.
>denouncing all facts as untrue
Where did you see that?
not an argument
bump
>show me why these axioms arent self-evident
it is self evident that they aren't lul
I only skimmed the book but I don't think you're even describing what he was talking about. consider sudoku.
>It's irrational to make an argument saying "You can't rely on your senses to make arguments" because that is paradoxical. You just used your senses to make that argument about how you can't use your senses to make arguments. You are self-evidently wrong
The idea that poster is getting at is that you cannot rely on your senses to provide a perfect and objective proof not so much that they cannot be used in an argument fullstop. Hence the fact that our senses and perceptions are imperfect means - which we deduce through reason and logic - is why this argument isnt silly
Heres an article that might help you understand the types of problems you hare having with that poster with respect to axioms and induction
en.wikipedia.org
>nah i just dont care about them and disregard them without presenting any argument or using any rationality or logic
Stirners whole book was calling out the inconsistency and hypocrisy of people selectively valuing spooks. Indeed he was actually calling others out for being illogical