Read Kant. The Why is the thing in itself and it can’t be known. But mathematical axioms are still valid even though we don’t know what makes them that way we can still know that they are
>All philosophical models are incompletable
Clearly you don’t have my brain
>But mathematical axioms are still valid even though we don’t know what makes them that way we can still know that they are
What do you mean by valid here? Axioms are axioms they can't be justified or else they wouldn't be axioms. The famous example of this in math is non-Euclidean geometry which was developed after Kant had died so he didn't know about it.
The axioms of non-euclidean geometry are also valid because they are a consistent logical system (they don’t lead to any contradictions) in fact you can construct any mathematical system you want and make up axioms that are totally meaningless as long as you cant deduce any contradictions from them. They just won’t say anything about the “real world”
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the axioms validate the logical system and the logical system validates the axioms
2 years ago
Anonymous
I get what you are trying to say, but non-euclidean geometry is a bad example for it, as it is closer to the actual geometry of the universe than euclidean geometry.
Kant pseuds are so funny. Since they haven't reached the level of actually questioning what they're reading, because all their effort is going into deciphering and interpreting what he is saying, they naively accept it all. Hence the resort to the "read Kant" instead of the outline of the proof of the claim.
Why would he write a book to explain a moron on IQfy what he thinks? Telling someone to read a previously made book is reasonable, and all you said is based on nothing but projecting.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>inb4 you can prove deep concepts with a few paragraphs
Not possible unless you take many arguments and assumptions as truths that don't require further investigation.
It also breaks mathematics and physics and fricking everything dude. Why do you think this is some kind of dis? People have known about this for two thousand years. People keep bringing it up from time to time to different crowds and when others stop reading about prior proofs, but this is pretty fundamental.
Infinite regress is just living, circular grounding is monism and axiomatic grounding is pragmatic, is also idealistic, is theological and so on.
And now there's the point of actually all of these can be true for one thing.
Let's say we have a circle so large we can't see its end (or beginng), a circle we think is one, but it doesn't have to be, a circle we nonetheless put a starting point on from where one is A or B as in the image you brought forward or otherwise just a section of a circle we could call idea and have it come to life and that life to spirit and that spirit to idea. Stuff like that, right.
With that I intend to say: you're a midwit anon, maybe even a dimwit. You're the kind of guy who'd if we didn't watch a particular video, have his opinion supported by sheer fact, would also question the theory of things because they're called theories, just theories.
A problem might be without harm and a dilemma without issue, where issue is more reason than just law or command, iussi*
The munchausens trilemma presupposes that only beliefs can justify beliefs, and hence cancel out arbitrarily the only possible method of grounding knowledge: by reference to reality itself, i.e. some non-belief.
Removing the arbitrary limitation actually adds a fourth option, call it "foundation". Whereas the infinite regress never has anything in the proof of the claim to give it validity, the circular grounding uses circular logic which is not adequate justification, and the axiomatic grounding essentially leaves the proof unfinished at an arbitrary point, the foundational option constitutes a complete proof founded in reality itself and thus is the only valid option.
But the "quadrillema" still isn't complete, because these aren't the first three options aren't the only ways of inadequately proving something, and on closer inspection the selection of these three options as representing proof failure is quite arbitrary, merely based on an "analytic method" of travelling backwards from claim to ground via repeated question-asking. Thus, they should be integrated into a singular category of proof failure, after which it becomes a trivial distinction like said, having distilled it from it's subtle methods of hiding alternatives and thus specifying sophistically.
Foundational truth is the same as axiomatic grounding. You're just trying to justify your own belief in what a foundation is, which is what all decent axiomatic foundations are.
Axiomatic grounding is arbitrary, whereas a foundation isn't. Therefore they are not the same.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Provide an example of a foundation if you would.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't need to. All I have to show is that they have arbitrarily excluded the category, which I have. You might as well reply to the infinite regress option, "provide an example of an infinite regress", which you can't do other than providing some algorithm for making one, which isn't equivalent to an actual infinite regress existing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>which you can't do other than providing some algorithm for making one, which isn't equivalent to an actual infinite regress existing
I'm not asking for you to prove foundation exists by example you autist. I'm asking for you to use a hypoothetical example to illustrate the distinction between an arbitrary and non arbitrary grounding that distinguishes axioms from foundation.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I will grant that everything you say is true. I will also, however, declare that there is literally nothing in the entire universe that your "foundation" option can be applied to.
Therefore you are correct but spouting irrelevant nonsense.
2 years ago
Anonymous
They're both equally arbitrary depending on one's perspective.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, they aren't. One is merely hypothetical. The other is based in reality. Reality isn't arbitrary, and the hypothetical is. Therefore, they aren't both equally arbitrary.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're arbitrarily asserting what "reality" is, which is a matter of perspective. That is why it's just a normal axiomatic grounding, but instead of "axiom" you've replaced it with the word "reality." Which is what all axiomatic groundings do by default. It's how Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, Scotus Eriugena, Plato and countless other philosophers justified their theories resulting in diverse outcomes, they all started from what "reality" is.
>by reference to reality itself
But you can't perform logic with "reality". Even when you count the number of apples on an apple tree you're imposing an arbitrary structure onto the scenario by assuming that apples can be converted into units which are then equivalent to each other.
For example, one apple might have a brown spot or be 20% lighter than another, but when you count them as "2 apples" their differences are arbitrarily ignored.
Axiomatic grounding is arbitrary, whereas a foundation isn't. Therefore they are not the same.
I don't need to. All I have to show is that they have arbitrarily excluded the category, which I have. You might as well reply to the infinite regress option, "provide an example of an infinite regress", which you can't do other than providing some algorithm for making one, which isn't equivalent to an actual infinite regress existing.
[...]
the munchausen trilemma doesn't have a truth value you fricking pseuds
it's a problem, a trilemma, a forking path between three possible outcomes, none of which is true
any yes, pse se nihil scire id unum scia.
>tell me that you have no idea what you're talking about without telling me that you have no idea what you're talking about
the only rational option is a metaepistemology ultimately grounded in the circular axiom of God. without God, no justification of knowledge is possible - the Trilemma is actually an argument for theism
There is absolutely no problem at all with axiomatic grounding. For something to be true or not means only that it corresponds to reality (an axiomatic statement can correspond to reality), not whether it can be justified or not (an axiomatic or foundational statement cannot be justified by others or else it ceases to be axiomatic/foundational).
The error is in assuming that justification is a necessary condition for knowledge. If you look at a bottle of water and form the belief that there is a bottle of water in front of you, you don't need any further justification, your true belief is knowledge. True beliefs can only fail to be knowledge in inferential reasoning, where the added requirement of the inference being valid is needed.
That's the conventional view I am disputing. I am saying that in the case of direct observation, true belief is knowledge, that the belief is not in need of further buttressing or support or justification (and to say that it is leads to the insoluble problems seen in the OP).
yes, i always ask smug scientism followers a myriad of questions until they break their moronation and smugness. nowadays the way my mind works is spiraling and breakdown or deconstructivism especially of language for better conceptual clarification
>The Munchhausen trilema itself falls into the trilema
All philosophical models are incompletable, anon. You either accept axioms or you become a "nothing is knowable" post-mordenist
Why?
I'm not going to play games
Why is the Munchausen trilemma true?
Based Munchausen chad
Funny enough, there's a similar idea in computer science called the "halting problem", and the answer is found by asking the same question that does.
The answer wasn't found. Alan Turing proved that an answer can never be found.
You know that's what I meant. We're on a literature board dammit, not IQfy
Actually I believe it was gödel that proved it.
Read Kant. The Why is the thing in itself and it can’t be known. But mathematical axioms are still valid even though we don’t know what makes them that way we can still know that they are
>All philosophical models are incompletable
Clearly you don’t have my brain
>mon dieu bouche-trou
>But mathematical axioms are still valid even though we don’t know what makes them that way we can still know that they are
What do you mean by valid here? Axioms are axioms they can't be justified or else they wouldn't be axioms. The famous example of this in math is non-Euclidean geometry which was developed after Kant had died so he didn't know about it.
The axioms of non-euclidean geometry are also valid because they are a consistent logical system (they don’t lead to any contradictions) in fact you can construct any mathematical system you want and make up axioms that are totally meaningless as long as you cant deduce any contradictions from them. They just won’t say anything about the “real world”
>the axioms validate the logical system and the logical system validates the axioms
I get what you are trying to say, but non-euclidean geometry is a bad example for it, as it is closer to the actual geometry of the universe than euclidean geometry.
Kant pseuds are so funny. Since they haven't reached the level of actually questioning what they're reading, because all their effort is going into deciphering and interpreting what he is saying, they naively accept it all. Hence the resort to the "read Kant" instead of the outline of the proof of the claim.
Why would he write a book to explain a moron on IQfy what he thinks? Telling someone to read a previously made book is reasonable, and all you said is based on nothing but projecting.
>inb4 you can prove deep concepts with a few paragraphs
Not possible unless you take many arguments and assumptions as truths that don't require further investigation.
This. Dogmatism was actually correct all along.
or you read hegel and subvert both
Hegel is circular, in other words a "nothing is knowable" proto-post-modernist. Hence why there are so many "interpretations"
>presuppose god
>posit god
Hegel is a coherentist. One of the few things I can say about Hegel.
the munchausen trilemma doesn't have a truth value you fricking pseuds
it's a problem, a trilemma, a forking path between three possible outcomes, none of which is true
any yes, pse se nihil scire id unum scia.
Are you really unable to parse the implicit claims behind the problem? And you are calling other people pseuds?
So you are forwarding the proposition that this is a problem and doesn't have a truth value. Is that true? Why?
>truth
Who are you quoting and is it true that you are quoting them?
>true
It also breaks mathematics and physics and fricking everything dude. Why do you think this is some kind of dis? People have known about this for two thousand years. People keep bringing it up from time to time to different crowds and when others stop reading about prior proofs, but this is pretty fundamental.
Infinite regress is just living, circular grounding is monism and axiomatic grounding is pragmatic, is also idealistic, is theological and so on.
And now there's the point of actually all of these can be true for one thing.
Let's say we have a circle so large we can't see its end (or beginng), a circle we think is one, but it doesn't have to be, a circle we nonetheless put a starting point on from where one is A or B as in the image you brought forward or otherwise just a section of a circle we could call idea and have it come to life and that life to spirit and that spirit to idea. Stuff like that, right.
With that I intend to say: you're a midwit anon, maybe even a dimwit. You're the kind of guy who'd if we didn't watch a particular video, have his opinion supported by sheer fact, would also question the theory of things because they're called theories, just theories.
A problem might be without harm and a dilemma without issue, where issue is more reason than just law or command, iussi*
*that's not the root of issue but a pun
Holy shit I actually learned something on IQfy. This is cause for celebration of some sort. Maybe I'll open a bottle of wine.
>If you keep asking why either you don't stop or you stop
wow profound and earth shattering, how will humans recover
The munchausens trilemma presupposes that only beliefs can justify beliefs, and hence cancel out arbitrarily the only possible method of grounding knowledge: by reference to reality itself, i.e. some non-belief.
Removing the arbitrary limitation actually adds a fourth option, call it "foundation". Whereas the infinite regress never has anything in the proof of the claim to give it validity, the circular grounding uses circular logic which is not adequate justification, and the axiomatic grounding essentially leaves the proof unfinished at an arbitrary point, the foundational option constitutes a complete proof founded in reality itself and thus is the only valid option.
But the "quadrillema" still isn't complete, because these aren't the first three options aren't the only ways of inadequately proving something, and on closer inspection the selection of these three options as representing proof failure is quite arbitrary, merely based on an "analytic method" of travelling backwards from claim to ground via repeated question-asking. Thus, they should be integrated into a singular category of proof failure, after which it becomes a trivial distinction like said, having distilled it from it's subtle methods of hiding alternatives and thus specifying sophistically.
Foundational truth is the same as axiomatic grounding. You're just trying to justify your own belief in what a foundation is, which is what all decent axiomatic foundations are.
Axiomatic grounding is arbitrary, whereas a foundation isn't. Therefore they are not the same.
Provide an example of a foundation if you would.
I don't need to. All I have to show is that they have arbitrarily excluded the category, which I have. You might as well reply to the infinite regress option, "provide an example of an infinite regress", which you can't do other than providing some algorithm for making one, which isn't equivalent to an actual infinite regress existing.
>which you can't do other than providing some algorithm for making one, which isn't equivalent to an actual infinite regress existing
I'm not asking for you to prove foundation exists by example you autist. I'm asking for you to use a hypoothetical example to illustrate the distinction between an arbitrary and non arbitrary grounding that distinguishes axioms from foundation.
I will grant that everything you say is true. I will also, however, declare that there is literally nothing in the entire universe that your "foundation" option can be applied to.
Therefore you are correct but spouting irrelevant nonsense.
They're both equally arbitrary depending on one's perspective.
No, they aren't. One is merely hypothetical. The other is based in reality. Reality isn't arbitrary, and the hypothetical is. Therefore, they aren't both equally arbitrary.
You're arbitrarily asserting what "reality" is, which is a matter of perspective. That is why it's just a normal axiomatic grounding, but instead of "axiom" you've replaced it with the word "reality." Which is what all axiomatic groundings do by default. It's how Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, Scotus Eriugena, Plato and countless other philosophers justified their theories resulting in diverse outcomes, they all started from what "reality" is.
>by reference to reality itself
But you can't perform logic with "reality". Even when you count the number of apples on an apple tree you're imposing an arbitrary structure onto the scenario by assuming that apples can be converted into units which are then equivalent to each other.
For example, one apple might have a brown spot or be 20% lighter than another, but when you count them as "2 apples" their differences are arbitrarily ignored.
>tell me that you have no idea what you're talking about without telling me that you have no idea what you're talking about
This is why Might is right is the best belief system
Nihilist bros... did we win?
What’s the difference between circular reasoning and self-evident knowledge?
>A is B because B is A
>A is A
>self-evident knowledge
There's no such thing as "self-evident".
the only rational option is a metaepistemology ultimately grounded in the circular axiom of God. without God, no justification of knowledge is possible - the Trilemma is actually an argument for theism
How is a lack of possible knowledge irrational?
So you chose the axiomatic grounding?
This has been solved since the ancient times by Aristotle, moron. Start with the Greeks.
Didnt read any olf this thread and i have ni clue what this image means but i think i would be the middle guy, just drew it
There is absolutely no problem at all with axiomatic grounding. For something to be true or not means only that it corresponds to reality (an axiomatic statement can correspond to reality), not whether it can be justified or not (an axiomatic or foundational statement cannot be justified by others or else it ceases to be axiomatic/foundational).
The error is in assuming that justification is a necessary condition for knowledge. If you look at a bottle of water and form the belief that there is a bottle of water in front of you, you don't need any further justification, your true belief is knowledge. True beliefs can only fail to be knowledge in inferential reasoning, where the added requirement of the inference being valid is needed.
You are wrong because I don’t need to justify my belief about your wrongness because it is wrong to me.
But not wrong to reality, oooo rekt
Plato deboonked this
Post-retroactively refuted by Nietzsche (PBUH)
I decree that neither you, nor your argument, exist. Q.E.D.
Huh? I can’t hear you. Speak up.
Then cope 🙂
>I post stirner, so that must mean I'm not spooked, Q.E.D.
>The error is in assuming that justification is a necessary condition for knowledge
In epistemological parameters, a belief has to be true and this truth has to be justified to be considered knowledge, or else it isn't knowledge
Knowledge is a set of beliefs that are true and also justified. There are beliefs there are true but are not justified, hence they're not knowledge.
That's the conventional view I am disputing. I am saying that in the case of direct observation, true belief is knowledge, that the belief is not in need of further buttressing or support or justification (and to say that it is leads to the insoluble problems seen in the OP).
God
*solves epistemology*
yes, i always ask smug scientism followers a myriad of questions until they break their moronation and smugness. nowadays the way my mind works is spiraling and breakdown or deconstructivism especially of language for better conceptual clarification
Magic believing midwit
you forgot to define magic
Bros... have you ever felt like there’s a ghost haunting the board and replying to your posts? Spooky.
It’s just a figment of your imagination. Kind of like how you’re just a figment of mine.