How the fuck can philosophy be taken so seriously when we unironically cannot know nuthin? The Munchhausen trilemma shows this clearly.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Look at the wiki article from the age of autistic philosophy. They're sperging out over their inability to know anything.
Why do people ignore the fact that knowledge is impossible? They are fucking pseudo intellectual degenerates that can only make appeals to authority
Other urls found in this thread:
plato.stanford.edu
twitter.com
I don't really understand the point you are making. This trilemma seems to be a fairly trivial point and it's as relevant to most fields of philosophy as it is to most academic fields.
because it provides you with a framework of terminology with which to discuss and verse yourself with issues. Sure, we cannot know nuffin. But if we didn't act on certain pretenses like that i'm here and you're there and time is linear, we'd never get anything done. So we try to agree within certain parameters.
I'm simply saying that it is impossible to know anything. So philosophers make up all sorts of shit based on wildly varying axioms and pretend that everything outside of mainstream institutions is shit (even though nobody knows the criteria used to compare different schools of thought)
AXIOM AUTIST BACK AT IT AGAIN THE THE WIKIPEDIA KNOWLEDGE!!!!
OP, you reading wrong philosophers. They all are worthless, i agree with you. Their so-calles philosophy is merely a metal masturbation.
Read the right philosophers, such as Marx.
>mental masturbation
Yay the daily troll thread with Munchhausen trilemma at the forefront which no one in the academia pays attention to is here!!!!!
Woooooo
>calls people from degenerates
>claims nobody can have a strong position on something because axioms
Let me guess, you think that whatever it is you believe is "natural" and the way things have somehow always been without anyone thinking anything up.
You're right.
Where would that get us though? Should we stop everything because we can't know something for sure? Should scientists just give up because nothing is 100% certain
I don't understand your point
Well I'm being recognised.
Firstly, you're right that we cannot know anything and the trolls in this topic are appealing to authority like I predicted. They can't refute shit.
I don't really care if anyone wants to philosophise within the infinite space of unfalsifiable statements or with their own wacky axioms. I just want philosophical institutions and pseudo intellectual hangers on to stop saying that they are the only ones who have good axioms.
"Murder is wrong because the sky is blue."
If you think that statement is bad or stupid or not reasonable then you don't know shit about philosophy
>solipsism
>in 375bc + 2391
For the love of God, will you please call it the Agrippan Trilemma? And will you please do a little research and find out that philosophers have been talking about it for literally thousands of years?
Here are two recommendations: take a look at All or Nothing by Paul Franks, and Descartes' method of Doubt by Janet Broughton, They discuss approaches to the Agrippan Trilemma in Kant and post-Kantian German philosophy and in Descartes, respectively. You can also look at contemporary literature, but this will at least inform you that you are not the first person to think about this.
>somebody told me I was wrong once and now I'm very very angry
You're simply appealing to authority rather than making any points.
It is plainly obvious that the choice of axioms (or unfalsifiable claims) is subjective and comparisons are subjective. Why don't you admit this?
"Murder is wrong because the sky is blue."
What do you think of that statement and why?
I really want to know if you are a troll. I mean, I don't think anyone would keep this insanity up, but you aren't serious, are you?
Look at your level of pretentiousness. You won't even admit any subjectivity or answer my questions. Why not do that if they're so dumb and obvious?
But nobody is denying that there is subjectivity. They're just confused that you think pointing this out is a game-changer.
So you agree that we can't know anything. Well done.
So why did you tell me to go and read other sources if we have no way of comparing unfalsifiable ideas (it would fall for the same subjectivity trap)? Clearly it is a game changer for you.
Are you capable of not trying to appeal to authority every single post?
Because you have your own subjectivity and might as well expose it to the writings of some other people to see what you think so you can see how you react to those.
Or just go hang yourself, you ankle-biter.
Oh, so you're just a pseudointellectual degenerate like I mentioned in my OP
>(1) believes that we can't know anything
>(2) thinks his belief is justified
>from (1) and (2), knows that we can't know anything
>fails to register that knowing that we can't know anything is knowing something and thus falling into the pit of blatant contradiction
Logic of Steel.
See
Kek what "good axiom" did you get shut down on that made you so butthurt at the existence of philosophers?
...
Is it just me or have Munchausen trilemma threads increased in frequency in recent weeks?
unfortunately noone can know :(
>How the fuck can philosophy be taken so seriously when we unironically cannot know nuthin?
Because Aristotle refuted this centuries ago
As The Philosopher says, ...
>The Munchhausen trilemma
This is a result of philosophy.
There are philosophies that reject logic, you know.
Philosophy is about coming to grips with your delusion.
Pyrrho would like you to stay quiet, OP.
Have a read of plato.stanford.edu
a great deal of the confusion these days arises from the fact that in rejecting the Final cause we removed a central pillar of our understanding. Accordingly most of our confusion results from us having broken our ability to analyse
jesus christ is this phil 102?
everything that mattered branched out of philosophy and became it's own field of study, e.g. physocs. pretty all thats left is these cant know nuffin types and pomos.