The problem of induction is a form of superstition. Humefags BTFO
>>382267
ayer was scared of death and despised life so much, also called a nihilist, that he wished that there was no rebirth.
also, the induction is such a basic issue, along with solipsism, that the sterility of any rationalism to go beyond it shows how rationalism is pleb tier. Empiricism trumps anything and makes the rationalist faints before his lack of result to show why we should have more faith in our intellect than in our other five senses.
animals behave just as humans having faith in induction behaves: give a cat some food for two days, and you can be sure that he will show up at the exact same time and the exact same spot, to ask for food, on the third day.
induction shows up as soon as you have faith in your delirium called space and time. as soon as you make you intellect cease, you escape any abstraction/speculation/generalization/abstraction/delirium/fantasy and you lose faith since you reach knowledge. the rationalist despises this result and frustrated as he is from his inability to stop speculating, he prefers to come down to terrorism in calling any non rationalist, typically any empiricist, a pleb.
as soon as you tame your spirit/mind, and take your spirit for what it is (another sense), you become a semi-god.
>>382267
top kek - implying ayer's reductio doesn't attempt to reduce all metaphysical problems to pseudo-problems (e.g. knowing oneself requires sensory perception, but how does one know one has such a perception). there is nothing particularly perspicacious about the arguments either - see Strawson's ordinary language argument.
Here's the correct - vaguely Tarskian - solution: existential predicates regarding the objects of propositions that form predicates regarding existence cannot have a truth value that is evaluated on the same linguistic level, but a meta-linguistic one.
Its funny how science still advances while the humanities stay in their cesspool of political correctness.
>>382267
Ayer LITERALLY prevented Noami Campbell from getting raped by Mike Tyson.
That's the greatest achievement of any analytic philosopher, ever.
>>383027
KEK
Jewish
>>383071
> At a party that same year held by fashion designer Fernando Sanchez, Ayer, then 77, confronted Mike Tyson who was forcing himself upon the (then) little-known model Naomi Campbell. When Ayer demanded that Tyson stop, the boxer said: "Do you know who the fuck I am? I'm the heavyweight champion of the world," to which Ayer replied: "And I am the former Wykeham Professor of Logic. We are both pre-eminent in our field. I suggest that we talk about this like rational men". Ayer and Tyson then began to talk, while Naomi Campbell slipped out.
Autistic logic saves the day!
>>382366
>also, the induction is such a basic issue, along with solipsism,
Are there actually people retarded enough to take solipsism seriously
>>385835
it is not serious for anybody not a rationalist. solipsism is the problem of knowledge. so if you do not care about knowledge, then you do not care about solipsism. those who care about knowledge but not solipsism admit that they cannot go beyond solipsism and call other people retarded.
solipsism is destroyed by empiricism (which does not even care about solipsism since it does not even ask about going beyond empiricism) not by rationalism, since solipsism is an abstraction just as rationality/logic is and that the defeat of a speculation by another speculation is again a speculation.
>>386901
>solipsism is destroyed by empiricism (which does not even care about solipsism since it does not even ask about going beyond empiricism)
But empiricists go beyond empiricism all the time. If Empiricists actually believed what they spouted, they'd be solipsists.
>>386975
I think that you talk about rationalists who take what pleases them in empiricism, in saying ''if somebody (that I trust) verifies my predictions stemming from I call logic/theory, then my rationality/logic/theory is true, described the world''.
these rationalist call themselves empiricist precisely in he sole purpose to avoid being called (what we call today) metaphysics, religions or just delirium. For many rationalist, empiricism is nothing but a brand used as a shield.
the closest that we have to empiricism today is phenomenology and still many people approach this in a rationalist way (even husserl had to say explicitly that phenomenology is not .
solipsism scares many rationalist, because the have been disappointed in the sterility of their concept of objectivity and have been forced to capitulate (before themselves really) in positing inter-subjectivity, which is the last concept before subjectivity (a word by the rationalist to avoid solipsism).
solipsism is like a stratum separating empiricism and rationalism and the rationalist try to go as high as he can, but always fall back on solipsism; whereas the empiricist dot not really believe in solipsism since it does not even make sense, he just remains at the level of his senses.
rationalism
========
solipsism
====
empiricism
What is the solipsism ?
One individual is a solipsist when he thinks that he is more alive than the others, who could themselves be more alive than the animals, which could themselves be more alive than the plants, which could themselves be more alive than the stones.
So he controls nor the dead stuff, nor really himself, even though he thinks that there is a self. But then it is a self which is hardly controllable...
Is uncontrollable self worthy of being called a self ? no.
>>387075
A solipsist is already a realist: he thinks that there is him and some stuff that are not him, precisely since he cannot feel the other stuff like he feels, currently, whatever he believes is his self.
he can say that he has no recollection of him creating the dead stuff, but then he acknowledges that, using his mind, his deliriums, there is him-now plus some him-past who still influences the him-now in heavy ways through the dead stuff, whereas the him-now is clearly powerless to change the dead stuff which was created by the him-past....
For, Worse for him, he cannot control the dead stuff. of course, he notices too that he cannot control himself. His body changes and he cannot control his mind either. he has no idea why he thinks this way or another, why he has these tastes, why he said these words instead of others.... everything seems to change and the solipsist does not like him, for some guy who is supposed to be the most alive.
=>a real empiricism is narcissistic without, at the end, being egotistic.
>>385509
This amazing
>>387556
No it isn't
>>382267
90% of this thread is total fucking idiots who know nothing about philosophy.
I'm going back to /lit/, so long /his/ - I gave it a try.
>>382366
Empirically, synthesis/whole is always more than the sum of its parts. Why is this? [also known as 'emergent properties']
>*cricket sounds
>>386901
Solipsism should be a problem of knowledge, but it is actually theism in narcissistic form.
Why is this guy a big deal? His book sucks, it's literally just inadequate responses to strawmen for 200 pages.
>>388319
He was a seminal figure in the development of Analytic Philosophy and Logical Positivism. He's also the first to meticulously delineate the meta-ethical view of emotivism as traditionally conceived.
>>388443
I thought Wittgenstein came up with emotivism
>>388445
Wittgenstein was not an emotivist, but was skeptical of the meaningfulness of ethical discourse. Wittgenstein believed ethics, metaphysics, and aesthetics could not be spoken of meaningfully, and so were devoid of any value. Emotivism on the other hand reduces all normative (moral) propositions to expressions of emotion - this is quite different from the Wittgensteinian view in the Tractatus.
So tl;dr:
Wittgenstein - we cannot truly understand "ethics" as we describe it.
Ayer - ethics is just our emotional reactions.
>>388519
>>Ayer - ethics is just our emotional reactions.
the feminists must love it
>>390668
You must not have read much feminism.
>>382267
It's funny that Hume is still one of the best philosophers ever and Ayer is literally who tier.
>>390693
>2015
>reading what women say
![200[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/mgXyxtc.gif "200[1].gif")
>>390700
>Ayer is literally who tier.
Really now.
