The refutation of all philosophy

Is that people aren't primarily interested in the truth.

Aristotle said that the beginning of philosophy is a certain wonder. But he neglected to mention that the end is - frustration.

Socrates believed that truth dialogue one could reach the truth of things. Each side conceding a little bit as the other refuted their position, they would eventually reach the right conclusion.

Hegel, naively and forcefully, attempted to apply this dialectic to the whole history of mankind.

John Stuart Mill claimed that, in the free market of ideas, many opinions would compete against each other and the truth would eventually surface, as the many false opinions would be rejected by the rational subjects, unimpeded by coercion, just like defective goods are rejected by consumers.

And so on and so forth.

In reality however things are quite different. When someone is confronted with overwhelming evidence of the falsehood of his beliefs, instead of conceding those points which are evidently false, he will go at lengths to discredit the person who objects to him, or shamelessly resort to every sort of fallacy in order to win the argument, or, as a last resort - and I've seen this tactic employed too often -, he will call into question the very possibility of rational argument so as to say "well if I'm not correct, then ar least no one is" (but then on the very next phrase he will assume that rational argument is indeed possible in favor of his position).

All this goes to show that people are not interested in the truth, only when it suits them, and therefore the whole project of philosophy, which presupposes a dialectic, is pointless and vain.

But animeposter, we should strive to fulfill our intellectual pursuits no matter how vain they may be.

>trust me guys, all philosophies are wrong, except for my one

Philosophy doesn't have to be about truth.

We humans are not in state to know all truth. Talk about couple reincarnations later and perhaps we'll be ready.

Much of what you are saying comes from flawed discourse. The struggle to enlighten people into engaging in a higher level of discourse is arguably just as significant an endeavor as the struggle to ascertain truth.

>metaphysically illiterate

>All this goes to show that people are not interested in the truth, only when it suits them, and therefore the whole project of philosophy, which presupposes a dialectic, is pointless and vain.
>All this goes to show that people are not interested in the truth, only when it suits them
> implying that desires have to separate from philosophy
> implying that religion doesn't fundamentally believe that the desire to seek safety in truth is sacred.

>In reality however things are quite different. When someone is confronted with overwhelming evidence of the falsehood of his beliefs, instead of conceding those points which are evidently false, he will go at lengths to discredit the person who objects to him, or shamelessly resort to every sort of fallacy in order to win the argument, or, as a last resort - and I've seen this tactic employed too often -, he will call into question the very possibility of rational argument so as to say "well if I'm not correct, then ar least no one is" (but then on the very next phrase he will assume that rational argument is indeed possible in favor of his position).

who said finding the absolute truth would be easy?

Suppose two people who are the peak of intellectual capabilities, situated in an environment free from any form of social coercion or ideology, having a debate as between between two agents, each of which has the only purpose to determine truth, each having the ability to propose arguments and make rebuttals. Let us call the sum of their exchange between them a "philosophy".

Why, according to you, would their philosophy fail to arrive at the truth?

Very interesting thoughts. You've neglected one thing however my friend. By arguing against philosophy, you are yourself engaged in it.

>truth
It's shit.

nietzsche already BTFO truth, you're about 150 years too late kiddo

>When someone is confronted with overwhelming evidence of the falsehood of his beliefs, instead of conceding those points which are evidently false, he will go at lengths to discredit the person who objects to him
Sometimes the only thing a person has is their lie.

But this is like asking suppose we get rid of the laws of thermodynamics, what's keeping us from building a perpetual motion machine? I guess nothing then, but can we? We can't. The same for men. It is as Schopenhauer said, men are not bodiless cherubim, pure intellects conversing with one another.

Yes. When you construct your whole existence around and idea that is eventually proven to be bullshit, it's impossible to admit the throw nice nature of your initial assumption because to do so would be to literally destroy your idea of yourself. Which is a form of suicide after a fashion

This is known as "Will" or "Desire".

For example, atheists *know* that evolution is a ridiculous monkey myth, but they continue to believe in it because the alternative is Biblical Christianity. They are trying to run away from God, accountability and consequences for their actions.

Truth and facts won't change their mind, they will continue to dogmatically believe in the Darwinian cult because it's their comfort zone. Someone posted an image showing real photographs of dinosaurs and depictions of dinosaurs by people that lived thousands of years ago, instead of addressing the arguments and stories presented - the atheists simply shitpost and try to bury the thread.

It's called cognitive dissonance, or your inner desire overriding reality. In other words, muh feelings are more important than facts.

Your error is in assuming philosophy is for the plebs in the first place.

So I guess then the argument is that since we are not perfect beings, don't bother with any form of higher thoughts.
I can't agree with that, it's a defeatist dead end.

>For example, atheists *know* that evolution is a ridiculous monkey myth,

pic related

I think you're just uncomfortable with being a spec in a sandbox of nothing

>For example, atheists *know* that evolution is a ridiculous monkey myth, but they continue to believe in it because the alternative is Biblical Christianity.

Do HIndus, Buddhists, Jews, Shintoists, and several sects of Christianity also know that?

this. If you think someone is wrong, you can't just tel them they are wrong, you first have to make them want the to know the truth. But why would anyone want to now the truth? ignorance is bliss as they say. If I am already content believing what I do, what's the point of trying to prove that wrong?

>I know that I cannot know
wow, it's fucking nothing