Objective knowledge is impossible

>objective knowledge is impossible
>people still dedicate their lives to math and science

>God is dead
>people still dedicate their lives to anything at all

>>objective knowledge is impossible

You are aware that Infinite Regress is actually considered a fallacy, right?

...Because it's both been demonstrably disproven via falsificationism and the fact it operates on a presupposition a'la argument from ignorance.

Nobody playing around in pure math gives a fuck about how it actually corresponds to the real world

>You are aware that Infinite Regress is actually considered a fallacy, right?
By whom?

>"""pure""" math
>requires belief in axioms
what a joke

Am I supposed to care? We just have fun with this stuff and people keep giving money

have fun, just as long as you know that you aren't doing anything useful, inventing laws, or uncovering truths

Not that guy.

Your first point is debatable. Your second point is true as mathematics is strictly not invented, but discovered. Your third point is false for the same reason just given about the second point. In one sense, you might therefore be said to be batting .500 so far, but the internal contradictions of the three things you've just bleated show more importantly that you haven't actually spent any time really thinking about what you're writing about.

Better than dedicating your life to flipping hamburgers as a philosophy major

>"""true""" mathematical statement
>requires blind faith in axioms

>ill just sit there and do nothing instead
you wouldn't exist if people didn't dedicate their lives to math and science.

Excyuuuuuze me?

This is bait, but whatever. Maths is absolutely useful and to claim otherwise is absurd, especially when the computer you are using to do so is founded on mathematical principles and could not exist without their discovery. Quibbling over maths being “objective” is boring and pointless. As user said, it’s not necessarily done to discover objective truths about reality

congratz, you're the first person in four of these stupid threads to bring that up

Your epistemology is self-defeating, you faggot brainlet

>I can't get 100% perfection, therefore 0.00% and 99.99% are the same.
???

The absolute state of Veeky Forums
Just don't post if you're going to make the correct viewpoint look retarded.

How is it retarded to point out 100% not being obtainable isn't the same as 0% and 99% being the same? That's the basic flaw in this thread's starting argument, it takes a lack of perfection and tries to extrapolate from that a lack of any sort of differentiation between better or worse.

Prove any concept you like. I'll wait.

OPs point still stands nonetheless..

Proving is the 100% part of that statement.
I'm not disagreeing that you can't get 100% proof.
I'm disagreeing that a lack of perfection means everything else is interchangeably bad.

lack of proof is lack of proof brainlet
any idea is just as valid as any other if you can't prove its validity or invalidity

>any idea is just as valid as any other if you can't prove its validity or invalidity
Can you prove this?

>>objective knowledge is impossible

wrong.

>>objective knowledge is impossible
Are you sure?

Yeah let's all stop making contributions to science & math and return back living like chimplet cave people

the only thing you're contributing to is the piss jugs in your mother's basement rofl

Poor wording, as even solipsism is founded on the know-ability of self-existence.

Regardless, operating as though everything is, or might be, illusory is asinine when their is pleasure to be had in playing the game.

Alas, the hedonist cannot spell or use basic grammar. It is probably a result of his degenerate lifestyle.

is wanting to know more about the universe and nature without any benefit such as good grades considered hedonism?

You must be over 18 to use this website.

nice ad hominem, faggot, guess you can't answer a simple question

Name one (1) thing you know about the universe and provide proof that you know it, and then leave until you are an adult.

what i know is not even related to the question, dumbass

>faggot
Why the homophobia?

why are you assuming it was used with malintent? i like faggots

Saying "is asinine when their [sic] is pleasure to be had in playing the game." is hedonism. Whether you are capable of understanding your own arguments, let alone mine, is debatable.

Defend your untenable premise or leave.

i'm not that person, i asked the next question after that

Define hedonism, knowledge, and benefit.

no point asking if you don't even know basic stuff like that, how can you even type?

If you can't even define your own terms how is anyone supposed to take you seriously?

they're not my terms, i stole them from our common culture, look up a dictionary

There are multiple definitions for each word, you'll have to specify if you want to contribute.

>caring about the fantasy of definitions like the scholars have taught you

>using language to convey ideas

>points out ideas are worthless without proof
>doesn’t provide proof

prove that that post constitutes an idea

...

>assuming falsificationism

That may be, however taking a pragmatic standpoint is far more fulfilling.
Look for usefulness, not truth.

>mathematics is strictly not invented, but discovered
Any non-platonist would disagree.

The concepts of mathematics exist as metaphysical axioms, whereas the language we use to carry out axiomatic operations, what we call mathematics, is invented to as best map to the metaphysical axioms as possible.

>metaphysical axioms
Kek

Nope these axioms are physical. Brick of length one on top of another brick of length one is equal to a length of two

Brainlet needs metaphysicality

Go on, prove reality is real, brainlet.

>belief in axioms
acceptance ≠ belief
retard

>axioms
>"exist"
As I said, do not assume everyone is a platonist.

Do you really think you understand enough about what it means to obtain knowledge, or what knowledge is, to even make this claim? People who are worlds above you in what knowledge they have encountered walls, but did they stop and say "this is useless"? if they did, you wouldn't have the computer you're shitposting on. You wouldn't even have motherfucking stainless steel for the fork and knife you use to eat your tendies. You have no clue how difficult and complex the world really is. you're so naive it hurts. If yoiu were to be exposed to the raw facts that prodigies had to confront to achieve results, you'd cry. try and mock that dedication when you have some actual skill to be self-aware.

I'm vegan

>objective knowledge is impossible
How so? Do I not objectively know that I am currently perceiving something? Please present proof,

>Objective knowledge is impossible
Prove it then, put a loaded gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. If there's no such thing as objective knowledge then you cant know for sure that it will kill you, right? Or are just too scared to actually "live" by your words.

Yup.
>If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.

>mathematics is strictly not invented, but discovered
>Any non-platonist would disagree.
This is some wishy-washy semantics about the meaning of "invented" and "discovered." I strongly prefer "discovered" to describe the process, which I have attempted myself over years. You don't "invent" axioms unless you've boiled the whole structure down to such primitives. Otherwise you're working some reasonably established objects and searching for the correct general patterns.

high horse, meet rock
simple is king

>Any non-platonist would disagree.
So since you're not referring to any one particular non-platonist, what you're really talking about is the Platonic Form of non-platonists?

Who killed God????

>implying I dedicate my life to math to discover The Objective Knowledge™

>belief
accepting axioms and working with them is what makes math 'pure'

stupid frogposter

not even clear who you're bating

gtfo

>not even clear who you're bating
look at the thread

>Objective knowledge is impossible
Christ I hate post-modernism. As much as I believe in relativism and subjectivity I have never believed in a lack of objective truth.