/philosophy/ - Philosophy

Neither. Rationalism is not objective.

Btw why the fuck would anyone want to be empiricist

>>5123

To discern that which is true by repeatable, independently verifiable, non-ideological means of testing. How else would you determine the properties of the universe?

>>5150

But nothing is true (other than that some sort of phenomena must exist). Cogito Ergo Sum.

All of science is based on an axiom of causality. Axioms like cause and effect cannot be proven to be true, they are assumptions.

Empiricism might be more objective than Rationalism, but there is always something more objective. Why not just aspire to be as objective as possible?

You determine properties of the universe using the scientific method. If you want to call that empiricism sure, but empiricism would just be a sort of ideology within another greater all encompassing ideology (which appears to not have yet been discovered, probably because no one smart enough to figure it out bothered to share it properly I guess)

God man why is everyone so bad at philosophy

>>5152

>calls others bad at philosophy

>is also bad at philosophy

By starting at "nothing is true" you become unable to judge anything.

>>5152

Tell me, do you think essence precedes existence?

>>5171

Did you read the rest of the sentence? Did you just read half the first line and the last line? if you fail to comprehend, accept your humility and ask what is meant by what was said.

Nothing is true OTHER THAN...

I suppose I should clarify, that when I said nothing is true, I mean in the objective sense. There is only one thing true in the objective sense, but there are many true things that can be said about subjective phenomena. this should go without saying, considering the subsequent context that I provided, but that seems to have flown over your head.

>>5172

essence is subjective. the context in which you use the term 'precedes' is illogical

existence? what exists is what is true. So same as I said before. But for your special needs I can extrapolate

there is only one thing that objectively exists, it is the one true thing in the objective sense. many things exist subjectively, and many true things can be inferred from these subjective phenomena. But these true things about subjective phenomena do not "exist" except in the subjective conceptual sense. Thanks for making me repeat what is essentially the same thing twice now

Tell me how I'm bad in philosophy? You say and ask these things but I already gave you the answer two days ago. maybe you are retarded in your subjective understandings of what it means to be good or bad in philosophy. Yes, believe it or not but some subjective understandings are more substantial than others.

>>5171

once you can comprehend these fundamentals can we talk about the subjective phenomena of "judging things"

"Why not just aspire to be as objective as possible?

You determine properties of the universe using the scientific method. If you want to call that empiricism sure, but empiricism would just be a sort of ideology within another greater all encompassing ideology (which appears to not have yet been discovered, probably because no one smart enough to figure it out bothered to share it properly I guess)"

I agree with the question and yes, science seems to be the leading contender, but empiricism and rationalism can be categorised as ideology but ideology is its own moving machine. It creates its own values and principles and meaning ad hoc whenever needed to fuel its teleology. Hell, even Nietzsche's Will-to-power is only one stance of the pragmatic creating logic (this is only if we accept the abductive triad logic) albeit it itself being of a different nature (it self-knowingly adds/re-evaluate/negate values).

>>5207

> ideology is its own moving machine. It creates its own values and principles and meaning ad hoc whenever needed to fuel its teleology. Hell, even Nietzsche's Will-to-power is only one stance of the pragmatic creating logic (this is only if we accept the abductive triad logic) albeit it itself being of a different nature (it self-knowingly adds/re-evaluate/negate values).

I completely entirely resolutely emphatically disagree. What you say is so far removed from how I think and from what I know is to be the truth, actually I showed the logic of this truth in my previous posts in this thread but the actual explanation of what is substantially objective I (only implied but) omitted and explained elsewhere. I will copy paste that here.

>There is nothing truly objective, except only a single substantial objective phenomena. It is simply that phenomena exists. Nothing else can be proven. This comes from cogito ergo sum being further broken down by it's critiques: It's not I think therefore I am, it's I think therefore SOMETHING IS, and that is all I can ever be sure of. one cannot be sure of anything else in the substantial objective sense.

Damn what you said made me feel a bit conflicted but I got over it and have come out with two distinct responses, which I will respond with.

Anyways... I cannot speak for all ideologies, but if you are (impossibly) right (about ALL ideologies) then that means there is absolutely no fundamental or essential objectivity in the nature of reality. Which means everything is meaningless in every sense of the word and nothing can be substantive. Or at least I want to say that but actually, now that I think about it, I don't even think that's true. It's just incredibly disturbing to think that nothing is essentially objective. Fortunately that's not true but regardless, I guess it doesn't even matter.

I will explain why I say this. So in actuality, I greatly digress. As it turns out, the following is all I really needed to post.

Okay so your point that

>It creates its own values and principles and meaning ad hoc whenever needed to fuel its teleology.

I am not entirely familiar with the concept of teleology, but I don't think you are using it wrong. How can concepts have an intrinsic telos? Philosophies (that don't have an agenda and are an honest effort in development from an objective use of logic) do tend to create their own axioms but these axioms are meant to be as substantially meaningful as possible.

If you think there is no substantial meaning in a particular philosophy, then we can discuss/debate regarding that philosophy; but to make a blanket conclusion like that, very presumptive of you.

By the by, I can understand that making conclusions based on teleology and the presumptive telos of something is bad, but then what is good? If philosophy is not meant to be based on teleology, what is it meant to be based on? Logic?

>the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes.

>postulated causes

what is this called... sounds like reasoning and logic to me

Anyways... I cannot speak for all ideologies, but if you are (impossibly) right (about ALL ideologies) then that means there is absolutely no fundamental or essential objectivity in the nature of reality. Which means everything is meaningless in every sense of the word and nothing can be substantive...

First of all, all ideologies (in theory) develop from the idea that although nothing is substantially objective other than that "phenomena exists" it is this single substantially objectively true fact of "phenomena existing" that we are able to have philosophical discourse. For if you deny that phenomena exists, then there is no perception which means that there is no way to have a perspective to even allow subjectivity! To deny that phenomena exists, is to deny all that is. If you deny absolutely everything, what even is there to talk about?

Very interesting; I was a little concerned before I came to this conclusion. I felt something like this was true but when I failed to articulate it, I made the previous response and went back to pondering the irrelevance of this single substantially objective fact. No! Lo! it is not irrelevant!

I wouldn't consider my position one that negates phenomenon, but rather considers its possible states from that which is ontologically speaking. We could get on to discussions of if there is a difference and what should that difference be between ontology and metaphysics; nonetheless I am agreeing with your statement "There is nothing truly objective, except only a single substantial objective phenomena... I think therefore SOMETHING IS, and that is all I can ever be sure of. one cannot be sure of anything else in the substantial objective sense". We can take by analogy quantum physics epistemology as what reality is in its core. But even by the same understanding Pierce had of his methods of enquiry we can see that the noumena is not lost. Even in his scientific enquiry method which predicts fallibility as well.

>>5174

You're essentially promoting post modernist thought. There's nothing wrong with having that discussion, but don't go spouting off about being "good at philosophy."

>>5225

Dude post modernism says NOTHING IS OBJECTIVE NO SUCH THING AS TRUTH WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT REEEE

watch some jordan peterson

when did I say we shouldn't have discussion on something?

you are also shit at philosophy good job

>>5225

btw it looked like this board time travelled but someone just needed to post for board to fix. I was freaking out when my posts disappeared. I had to do a lot of critical thinking and am so glad these posts are back.

I imagine they weren't there when you made your post since you literally fixed the board. read rest of this thread it should show you why I would hate post modernism.

It's funny because my first reaction was to call this guy a post modernist and start attacking him but that isn't rational let alone logical. he really made me do a double take

>>5207

and his second post I can't even wrap my mind around until I get a good nights sleep

>>5152

>true

I'm curious. How would you define 'truth' in the sense you are using it? As that which is objective? As that which cannot be denied? By whom?

I'm not asking rhetorically. I'm wondering because, to me, it seems superfluous to assume a *truly* objective capital-t truth, when what we can reasonably ascertain as that serves the same basic function.

Everything beyond that is an additional premise, and one that is interesting to ponder about but certainly not substantive enough to proclaim it is extant by necessity.

>>5229

>How would you define 'truth' in the sense you are using it? As that which is objective? As that which cannot be denied? By whom?

well it depends on the context but in this case yes it's used in the most absolute objective sense. it cannot be denied by logic. it cannot be invalidated

>what we can reasonably ascertain

well we can logically ascertain, with logical reasoning, that there is at least a single truly objective capital truth (that phenomena exists). this was the whole point of cogito ergo sum, to determine any semblance of objectivity when faced with the most extreme scrutiny and skepticism of reality

anyways, it seems you are agreeing with me over all. everything beyond is an additional premise, as I said these premises are the axioms that all our understanding of science is built upon. but these axioms are not necessary, except only to provide perspective to develop our human understanding that is academia

Reason works empirically.

Experiment is reasonable.

The philosophical conflict is made up by a couple tribes who wanted to have a go at each other.

>>5246

Seems legi..

>The philosophical conflict is made up by a couple tribes who wanted to have a go at each other.

da fuq

>>5106

Both are self-refuting failed Enlightenment epistemologies. Biblical Christianity is the only consistent worldview.

>>5249

Look up the robber's cave experiment. Humans like fighting so much simply having different names is enough excuse. They then characterize themselves in opposite ways, and diverge as they attempt to live up to their made-up identities.

Once upon a time, a folk calling themselves empricists met some folk calling themselves rationalists...

Since philosophers are a bit smarter than random boys, they have to think up some justification for their pointless fight beyond silly names, so now we have a bunch of sophistry claiming that empiricism and rationalism are opposed. The point is the urge to fight came first, the philosophastic rationalizations second.

>>5253

>claiming that empiricism and rationalism are opposed

They're not, they're united in dethroning God and replacing His epistemological role as truth-definer with human beings, whether through human reason or human perception. The logical end of this is Postmodernism, since when man is God, what he says goes.

>>5257

I was ready to say you were going to be the worst poster but then this post's stupidity seemed a bit intentional.

>>5260

>Voluntarism

opinion discarded

>>5260

>post's stupidity seemed a bit intentional.

That's my impression too.

Anyone who's still poisoned enough by postmodernism to believe the second-above post-modernism countersignalling should go read about what Al-Ghazali did to Islam, then read about Robert Grosseteste for comparison.

>>5263

>Al-Ghazali did to Islam

What'd he do? Seems legit to me

does googling oh god wtf ty for red pill Muslims are even moire ignorant that I had ever imagined, coming to this realization yet again I still think islam is great, before ghazali was it's golden period or rather only good period I guess