What if all philosophy is just plain wrong?

>What if all philosophy is just plain wrong?
Well, that is actually EXACTLY what we discovered in the last few years

if i could actually understand badiou i might have something resembling an interesting response for you here senpai

but i'm a brainlet who cannot into math

so idk

She's not a babe, she's one of the most repulsive narcissists i've seen online in a long time. Rotten to the core. Don't idolise women like this.

>holy quadriceps batman!

i think you meant tautology, but the answer is that we don't know. i think if something was a tautology in the sense you mean, like wittgenstein's explanation of language, then you could never step outside of it to know that it is a tautology.

>She's not a babe, she's one of the most repulsive narcissists i've seen online in a long time.
How?

[citations needed]

isnt anything that humans can think a tautology within the forms of thought?

What if truth is above human rationality? What if it's above human comprehension entirely, to the point that "truth" loses all known meaning of the word.

if words lose meaning do we still have experiences?

i believe that is what the transcendental thing in itself is

yes. probably a confuse experience. like some kind of dream.

A tautology? It depends:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

The concept of noumena (or any kind of unattainable truth or in-itselfness of reality) is itself a rational exercise.

fuck - that stuff doesnt really make sense to me - can you tldr it or give some good resources? im mildly familiar with godel's incompleteness theorem

Admittedly I did it for the (You)s.
However:
It should go without saying that Descartes was wrong.
Hobbes and Locke were wrong on their views of human nature.
Hume was actually right but I forgot about what (oops!).

contd. and godel's incompleteness theorem seems like exactly what wittgenstein is getting at - though i dont know publication dates and all that. i think that they were both looking into the foundations of math at the same time though. does godel take wittgenstein one way, carnap the other?

Sambo has an interview with him:

samharris.org/podcast/item/the-multiverse-you-you-you-you

you need to start with the greeks bud

nice link senpai cheers

It doesnt matter if its objectivly 'true' we will never be able to learn the objectiv truth in these matters
But the ideas are interesting to engage with
These are the greatest minds that thought about these last questions might as well read what they had to say
We might never know the full truth but we can at least try to get close

>In physics and cosmology, the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH)

when the memes get you

Best crime drama

Philosophy is about building and expanding the framework of past thinkers, so even though those guys may be 'wrong' in the common sense of the word, almost everyone after them is indebted to them.

...

this will be my first intro to sam harris. what am i in for? feel like im going to hate him, but that also he might be good to explain this shit to a lay person

He's good for this type of conversation since he's good at stating things clearly and provides a nice bridge between the expert and the listener and he has plenty of interesting science/expert people on.

Whenever he gets to talk politics or religion he become pretty annoying though, those are podcasts you can skip. His autism really kicks in when Islam or Trump is mentioned.

If you're interested in meditation the conversations with Joseph Goldstein are also very interesting because they get pretty deep into the technical stuff.

>>Disgusting legbeard uggo detected!

Implying "personality" matters to a woman who has a fertile and delicious body like this,all people are narcissistic cunts anyway,some just hide it better.

t.Narcissistic Cunt

Yes.

>you will never escape language
im gonna do it lads

Elaborate?

based basterd

what if you are plain wrong?

check mate man!

game over, game over, Man!

But OP, all philosophers have such different views and explanations, that for all of them to be wrong would be paradoxical.
I don't think God can exist as well as not-exist at the same time.

More importantly though, my dear friend, how can a question be wrong?
Questions don't pretend to answer.
(although they do contain presuppositions)

If it was all proven wrong, humanity would realize that all theories were mere serendipitous patterns found because of a desperate desire for meaning and order, of which there was none to be found.

>if
I have bad news for you.

You can desu by cultivating mental silence.

By lobotomy.

All philosophy is plain wrong. All it does is restructure a person's perspective so that their life and practices are meaningful for them.

This defeatist agnosticism is a consequence of Materialist thinking.

> whenever anyone questions the legitimacy of my field i'll just claim they are in my field! it can't lose!
> goes back to using public funds to spend time reading books filled with incomprehensible word games and pretending they are deep

"...as we are all in the same perplexity, why should one of us be preferred to another?"

Philosophy begins with thaumazein--wonder, amazement--and proceeds with inquiry. It's about asking questions rather than giving fixed answers. You could say it's wrong, but you probably haven't even read any philosophy.