Materialists BTFO

In the name of logic. When you say that nothing is certain, there's by definition no exception.

If everything is chemicals on the other hand, then you have a starting point, but it doesn't allow you to go everywhere.

Arguments like this demonstrate why philosophy is useless waste of time.

>muh logic
why should i trust the chemicals in my brain telling me what is logic?

Prove to me that you aren't currently living in a simulation with no physical body.

If nothing is objectively true(except for maybe math and basic logic), then we cannot objectively prove this to be the case. The contradiction between asserting relativism is mute if you do not force this view onto others and instead keep it as an internal morality.

>not trusting your external senses
>but trusting the rules of logic
I know it's conterintuitive, but if you think about it we have no proof logic is true.

as far as objective truths(at least from a human perspective) go though, they are fallible and near universally agreed to be true. they rely on the implicit intrinsic meaning given to "2","+" etc, but i am yet to see anyone argue against "2+2=4", and that is the only type of proof we will ever be able to comprehend regarding the true nature of truth

Wrong. The vast majority of epistemologists accept fallibilism. The idea that absolute certainty is needed for knowledge is untenable and ultimately self-defeating.

is that a truth or is that merey a tautology? Two is a word and one is another, and by there definition one plus one equal two, but how is that a truth?

A square can not be a circle because the definition of the word square exclude any kind of circle, but again at the end of the day isn't that just sementics?

Not everything is equally fallible. If you honestly believed everything were equally fallible then you'd be fine with letting the opinion of any random alleged witness have full authority in convicting you for a crime. In actuality, we recognize the opinion of one witness is way more fallible than objective evidence that can be examined by multiple parties independent of any one person's feelings on the matter.
The burden of proof is on you to establish why we should believe in something, not on everyone else to establish why we shouldn't.
In any event we already have a good working example of what a world that doesn't adhere to physics or objective continuity looks like. It's called a dream, and they tend to be pretty radically different from waking reality on account of they aren't under any obligation to be logically consistent from moment to moment. Regardless of your own opinions, we can check to see that the moon is still moving consistently with physics. Regardless of your own opinions, a computer can be built successfully using sound electronic principles, and a computer someone attempts to construct purely through willpower with no understanding of electronics will not be successful. Regardless of your own opinions, antibiotics can be administered and bacteria can be killed. We literally have all the evidence in the world for something there more substantial and consistent than the pure subjectivity of a dream. Is it possible to create a simulation that effectively replicates all this evidence of consistency? Sure, but at that point the scenario you're positing would require an elaborate conspiracy more convoluted than any other conspiracy theory that still operates with the starting premise of us being in physical reality has ever posited. So not only is the burden of proof on you to provide evidence for this, but the additional burden is on you to provide the most extraordinary of evidence for this most extraordinary of conspiracies.

The modern prominence of Postmodernism is irrelevent, friendo
>If you honestly believed everything were equally fallible then you'd be fine with letting the opinion of any random alleged witness have full authority in convicting you for a crime
I recognize all fallible sources as equally capable of being wrong.

Analytic philosophy has nothing to do with postmodernism, you brainlet

The rejection of both the possibility and desirability of certainty is Postmodernism by definition.

Absolute certainty is impossible in virtually all domains, brainlet. Nothing to do with postmodernism

>I recognize all fallible sources as equally capable of being wrong.
Water and arsenic are both "equally capable" of killing you. Saying you're going to drink a glass of arsenic because water's "equally capable" of killing you would be retarded though because they're not equally *likely* to kill you.

t. Postmodernist
The way I can tell when something fallible is more or less likely to be errant is by measuring it according to an infallible source. If there is no universal, infallible and objective standard against which we can measure fallible sources, we have no basis for any belief that we can tell when a fallible source is right or wrong.

t. epistemologically illiterate brainlet

>The way I can tell when something fallible is more or less likely to be errant is by measuring it according to an infallible source. If there is no universal, infallible and objective standard against which we can measure fallible sources, we have no basis for any belief that we can tell when a fallible source is right or wrong.
Why did you choose to type that message on a computer with an internet connection instead of just willing it into our minds with telepathy? Both approaches are "equally errant" by your standards and telepathy would take less effort. It might be because you're fully aware they aren't "equally errant" and you went with the one approach that's much less likely to be "errant" than the other approach.

You just want to excuse believing in dumb bullshit. Quit wasting other people's time with your paper thin justifications.

I fucking hate this line of reasoning. A word is a pointer to an abstract idea that is supposed to sum it up with an agreed upon symbol. "One" exists independent of the word one. "Squares" exist independent of the word square.

You should probably learn what Epistemology is before you shitpost

This guy knows what he's talking about.

You should probably try making an argument because that isn't.

Materialists officially BTFO

/ig/ Idealism General

QUICK RUNDOWN
>Dr. Godehard Bruentrup: What Is Idealism?
youtube.com/watch?v=JDR5i6z4L8c

>In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial.

ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRIES
>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/
>Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/idealism/v-1

ACADEMIC ARTICLES
>Eliminating the Physical
philpapers.org/rec/ELLETP-2
>A New Epistemic Argument for Idealism
philpapers.org/rec/SMIANE-2
>How To Avoid Solipsism While Remaining An Idealist
philpapers.org/rec/HENHTA

BOOKS
>George Berkeley-Principles of Human Knowledge
gutenberg.org/files/4723/4723-h/4723-h.htm
>George Berkeley-Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous
gutenberg.org/files/4724/4724-h/4724-h.htm
>John Foster-A World For Us: The Case for Phenomenalistic Idealism
gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=0DB12BBA4A197862E272211B7A059880

YOUTUBE
>The Introspective Argument:
Part 1: youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw
Part 2: youtube.com/watch?v=i4DyfIsj8FU
>Dr. David Chalmers explains why materialism is false
youtube.com/watch?v=kdbs-HUAxC8
>Why substance dualism is roundly rejected in contemporary philosophy of mind
youtube.com/watch?v=iVbG90kr1B0

Why do you think I'm going to put intellectual effort into rebutting a shitpost that fundamentally does not even understand the topic itself?

I never got the whole deal with GR#3. That rule doesn't even mention /pol/ first off and secondly it's such a broad rule that covers basically everything that was pissing m00t off at the time he made it. Furthermore, GR#3 bans dubs-posting so I really don't think it's a good idea at all