What's the best book about pic related?

5.1

Man don't care bout all that.

CONCLUSION: JME = Stirner.

>quick read

Because it reads quickly or?

There's an unread copy in my living room (not mine) and it's pretty hefty judging by the size of the spine.

1.1 gets BTFO'd by neuronetwork theory, 4.X get BTFO'd by applying it to societies

about what? about anti-country shit or about the difference between reality and the abstractions we use to read it?

The errors you point out are most certainly there - I wished not to write a wittgenstenian closed-loop philosophy book on the subject. This is 4 chan.

But you're a smart guy, which one seldom finds here, so I will do my best to debate with you in a most polite and cheerful fashion.

1: You are correct, what lies under CONTRADICTIONS is not a contradiction. A contradiction can occur only when when A is A and not-A (under aristotelian excluded-middle systems of logic). I should have stated this under PROBLEM - since the issue at hand, or what I was trying to express, is that, since only MAN can know things, and no MEN (which I use in an analogous form with People, All Men, and ultimately, Nation) can know things, no nation can exist as MEN because no MEN can know anything, so MEN cannot know themselves - the Nation cannot know the Nation. This is obvious from 3.1, which is not a CONTRADICTION, as you pointed out, but it is the gist of the problem. Since MEN cannot know MEN (because MEN are not man, and lack a central processing unit of unified consciousness), then the only other possibility is for MAN to know MEN.

This leads us to your next interdiction:
>Since people cannot know people, there can be no Nation
>You haven't defined what "nation" even means, so it's meaningless.

I haven't defined any other term in my argument, and, ultimately, definitions are impossible, since at the end one must define "define". Words arise co-dependently and define each other in terms of each other, so that each definition is in turn defined by the definition of the terms in their definition, etc. This infinite regress cannot be defined, because it is infinite, and dictionaries make an awful and appalling service to it. However, since I take you to be a man learnt in the basics of analytic philosophy, for the sake of our debate I will define NATION as all MEN under certain geographical limits.

MAN can know his friends, so that his friends are not an abstract entity - they are a holistic thing that fragments into many MEN. It would be nonsensical to think that MAN has a friendship that is different with every friend he shares with his friends, because MAN himself is the friend of his friends, who, individually, are MAN. Since MAN can know MEN - in this case, a particular circumstance of MEN, i.e.: friends - and friends are not MAN, it is plausible to say that MAN knows what FREINDSHIP is, but that FRIENDSHIP cannot know what is MAN. This derives from the first axiom.

Now, let's polarize this example with NATION. Like FRIENDS, a NATION is a particular circumstance of MEN - what we have already defined as the cumulative measure of MEN within certain geographical limits.

A NATION cannot know itself, and no MAN can know a NATION, because a NATION is not a holistic group of MAN defined by their intrinsic relationships. It is in this sense that it makes sense to consider that a NATION is only a NATION if one MAN knows all MEN (within the geographic limits set).

You have noted that it is a bizzare notion, that a NATION can only exist if one MAN knows every MEN within it - and that is the contradiction. Not in my analysis, but in your assuming that something can exist without having anywhere to exist in. Certainly, Nature knows no Nations (and it couldn't according to the Axiom 1.1). Where does the Nation exist then? It must exist in the mind of a Man. But, does this MAN know all the MEN in the NATION, just like he knows his friends? He cannot. And FRIENDSHIP itself is an abstraction - what is it about NATION, that, being also an abstraction, it is impossible to know it? To be friends with someone, you must know him; but to be a fellow citizen, you may not. Don't you see the contradiction here, where absence of knowledge proves knowledge? NATION is a false term, because it constructs nothing but ignorance. The first Axiom presupposes Man can Know Things - not that Man can know things that are Not.

Lastly, you are correct in that, without referring to any procedure, or "inference rules", there is no way to derive all this from the first axiom. I should remind you that;
1.1 this is Veeky Forums
and
1.2 in a fair discussion, some things can be taken for granted - such as the unnecessary value of stating in every post the laws of inference.

I wished to make not so much a statement about politics, but to remind you that only the things that an individual can know can be counted as knowledge.

>1.1 gets BTFO'd by neuronetwork theory

are you sure? are you telling me that man cannot know? so you are sure that you cannot know? so that you know that you know?

Contradictions, man. Try to hold them.

>MEN cannot know MEN (because MEN are not man, and lack a central processing unit of unified consciousness)
> it is the gist of the problem
Which is exactly what I was denying. Your interpretation of "men" connotes something abstract, like a group or a collection or a set, whereas I take it to mean something concrete: in fact, I interpret the statement that men cannot know men simply as a 2-fold universal quantifier statement which explicates your quandary about men "lack[ing] a central processing unit of unified consciousness"; instead of applying "a central processing unit of unified consciousness" to a group, which I agree is dubious (though there are analytic philosophers that argue for such things: conscious nations, conscious financial markets, etc.), it applies it to all individuals, one by one, in the domain of mankind and solves the issue. On this picture, the statement that all men know all men is nevertheless false for obvious reasons.

>I haven't defined any other term in my argument
I should have been more clear: by "it" in "it's meaningless" I was referring to the statement as a whole, not to the notion "nation".

>definitions are impossible, since at the end one must define "define".
The entire enterprise of mathematics beginning from antiquity to this very day thrives on the notion of 'primitive notions' and axioms in order to define further terms in an exact, non-circular manner. You only have to agree with the 'primitive notions and axioms' (among other things) starter-pack by consulting your ontological and metaphysical intuitions. But things can just as easily be defined ostensibly if you are so paranoid about stipulative or lexical definitions. It's a pseudo-problem: one need not necessarily "at the end" define "define".

>MAN can know his friends, so that his friends are not an abstract entity - they are a holistic thing that fragments into many MEN.
I had to stop here.

It does look like you have some ideas but please take your time and articulate them formally otherwise you risk of being misunderstood. Natural language is just not meant for this kind of concept-explication that analytic philosophers are so fond of.

>implying death is real

The Invention of Tradition, Imagined Communities, etc.

They are and aren't a thing. It's not that easy.

Why is this upside down.

To move away from analytic philosophy, which is arduous to debate, let's make it clearer. You believe that knowledge can exist outside a central processing unit of unified consciousness. I believe it cannot.

Please elaborate what is a Nation.

P.S.: To define "define" may be a pseudo-problem in it's own recursivity (since it talks about itself), and may be bypassed by using other words to construct it's meaning. But the infinite recursivity of the word is not a pseudo-problem: it is THE PROBLEM of (analytic) philosophy. In the words of Wittgenstein, "we understand a word when we can replace it for another string of words that mean the same". This is the endless recursivity I am talking about, and the co-dependant entanglement of language.

Also, your studies in analytic philosophy have been in vain, my friend, if you fail to understand this, and give, as the seed of all knowledge, the possibility to consult "your ontological and metaphysical intuitions".

I am not saying that I lack them - I am saying that they are untranslatable, and hence the problem persists. This has been Wittgenstein's life endeavor.

1/2

>your studies in analytic philosophy have been in vain, my friend, if you fail to understand this, and give, as the seed of all knowledge, the possibility to consult "your ontological and metaphysical intuitions"
Congratulations on your astonishing arrogance. As to your hinting at the impossibility of consulting one's ontological and metaphysical intuitions made me chuckle heartily: I mean, how incredibly seduced and deluded and mindlessly contrarian do you have to be to not agree that (among many, many other examples), say, the conjunction operator of elementary logic fails to correspond with the way world operates? Perhaps you're just confused about what is meant by "ontological" or "metaphysical" or "intuitions" in the contemporary realm of analytic philosophy. At any rate, if you publicly espoused something like that in a Philosophy conference you'd be laughed out of the room. In my previous post, I purposefully wrote "I had to stop here" seeing how confused the ensuing paragraphs were and even though it is now tempting for me to go back and pinpoint exactly how and why you are wrong in most of your reasoning I am not going to do it since I value my time far too much to engage with, what is by now evident to me, an inconsistent, amateur internet-Wittgensteinian: I mean, as a academic species (not that you're one), you're nearly extinct and there are good reasons for this; one of them being -- unwilling to catch up with the 20th century logico-mathematical developments of Mathematical Logic and sincerely believing that you can "show the beetle out of the box" by playing vague language games and instructing OTHERS -- scientists among them -- on how to use their nomenclature, when your whole shtick and "methods" are just as vague as the vague misuses of language you so love to criticise in others.

>This has been Wittgenstein's life endeavor.
Nobody cares. Wittgenstein has its moments but at the end of the day his ideas are either heavily criticised and in some cases, beyond repair, or are no longer the driving force of analytic philosophy; there are far more exciting things going on these days. Either catch up or perish.

2/2

Last remarks:

>Please elaborate what is a Nation.
I'm not the one arguing here, nor do I care what "nation" means.

>You believe that knowledge can exist outside a central processing unit of unified consciousness
Do I? Extract an explicit passage or a statement where I express such a belief. The fact that I was doubting your reasoning doesn't necessarily mean I don't believe it: I just think your writing is vague and shows many signs of confusion. Nor have you gone on to formalise at least a significant fraction of it. Do you want to be understood? Formalise something. Do you want to derp endlessly? Keep doing what you're doing.

> To define "define" may be a pseudo-problem in it's own recursivity (since it talks about itself)
It is not clear to me what you mean by "it" in the parentheses. I am also doubtful that you are familiar with the formal definition of, say, primitive recursive function and in turn I doubt that you are licensed to use the word "recursive" and to talk about recursive things. If you're taking a technical notion out of a technical area of mathematics and informally applying it to make some slapdash point, you're now getting closer to the post-modernists. Moreover, it's quite ironic that you would anthropomorphise a sentence and think of it as talking to itself: not at all in the spirit of Wittgenstein.

>"we understand a word when we can replace it for another string of words that mean the same"
>Empirical evidence: 404 not found

I am in my early 20's and I look like I'm 12 but I full on rail legit whores and they love it.
I look for the oldest, cheapest ones and just fucking dive in.
It's fantastic.

>legit whores
>they love it
user...

All Quiet On the Western Front. It's a great book and the exact same argument as pictured in your post actually comes up in the book.

and here.

Made a crucial typo:

>...do you have to be to not agree that (among many, many other examples), say, the conjunction operator of elementary logic fails to correspond with the way world operates?

should read as:

>...do you have to be to not agree that (among many, many other examples), say, the conjunction operator of elementary logic CORRESPONDS with the way world operates?

I'm a Continental fag and I understood him just fine. I've never seen someone so pleb-tier that even analytic whining was too difficult to grasp.

I appreciate what you're trying to do, and it would be funny to see on a place like /pol/, but I disagree with your definition of Nation. I would contend that the nation is defined by its geopolitical borders, its particular state apparatuses, and its economic mode of production + the relations of production peculiar to it. The citizens, or MEN themselves (I disagree with this term for sloppily truncating half the population), are not the base constituent elements of the Nation, and the Nation does not depend on anyone's individual knowledge of it to exist.

I'm a Continental fag and I understood him just fine. I've never seen someone so pleb-tier that even analytic whining was too difficult to grasp.
Translation: you understood him in the sense that you ALSO have no background standards for judging the logical consistency and coherence of somebody's writing. That it takes one muddled thinker to attract a flock of other like-minded thinkers is of no surprise to me.

Though one only have to highlight
>fag
>pleb-tier
>/pol/
to get a comprehensive picture of what kind of continental "philosopher" we're dealing here.

This fucking board man, Jesus Christ.

>on Veeky Forums
>not altering one's language accordingly
>not even greentexting correctly

Lmao do you even codeswitch bro

Not using the terms "pleb" or "fag" on Veeky Forums is just as autistic as using them in actual conversation at a university.

Don't respond to me again I'm trying to discuss Big Ideas I don't need some triggered insect buzzing around my posts.

You have not won this argument. Nobody has won here - for I have lost my time.

You know nothing of philosophy, and even less about how to argue.

i've never seen a bigger psued on Veeky Forums before in the nine years i've been here.

this is appalling

What film is this from?