By accepting that Hume was right

>>477067
In which sense ?

>>477070

In the sense that knowledge will never be able to account for unknowns, and certainly not unknown unknowns. It will always remain incomplete and fallible

>>477076
Then, in that sense, i had already agreed with that, that's what i was refering to with "stuck in the mud", that is, without any solid ground for knowledge.
It's really annoying, especially when you apply it to language, as you can't define words, and even define the rules with which you would define them.The result is that you can't ground the basis of your thoughts and not even view them as meaningful nor preferable to other modes of thinking.That's why i'm not fully content of stances such as "no knowledge is attainable", since they suppose a basis for logical reasoning, which can be broken too.
It recalls me of semantic satiation, except i experience it with almost every word

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_satiation

Truly a horrible sensation, like being stuck in the mud.
Help me anons

>>477050
By not demanding that knowledge be absolute. We accept the foundations of knowledge (logic, fundamental epistemology and the like) not because they have some magical self-affirming quality to them, but because they are necessary for us to use as tools. Through using them in practice we can see that they are useful.

>>477820
When you say that, you already admit absolute values , such as usefulness.
It's even worse since usefulness is not very clear nor evident as a concept.

File: 1450762490285.jpg (167 KB, 1001x502) Image search: [Google]

167 KB, 1001x502

>>477126
>>Truly a horrible sensation, like being stuck in the mud.
>Help me anons
become an empiricist [not the empircism à la rationalist which is a bastardized empiricism done only for its cachet]
a phenomenologist, a narcissist without being egotistic. meditate in establishing mindfulness.


>>477820
>but because they are necessary for us to use as tools. Through using them in practice we can see that they are useful.
there is nothing necessary so far. necessity is what somebody says when he refuses to admit that he is not able to think differently.

and they are not useful, since not a single abstraction has efficiency. at best, you notice that some concept is efficient in getting what you want, until the day it is no longer efficient wrt the same purpose.

this situation is the exact opposite of efficiency. Animals spend their lives having faith in imagination/reason and humans who do the same are animals too.

the day you stop having faith in abstraction/speculation/fantasies, you escape their sterility and gain certainties.

>>479460
if language contains proofs
if language is written

it's writing predicates it's use and its proofs

case 1: language is not written, trillemma does not exist, we are not arguing
case 2: language is written, abundant and perfect with values affirmed, by what medium do you want the answer? written? p=NP?

if language cannot confirm usefulness, for what purpose do you think on it.

if language is useful, then more so is the method by which it is transmitted
ergonomics and utility are vastly more useful to consider than the trillema, because they readily allow you to deliberate the trillema faster
If speed is no factor, then you should be fine dying peacefully without an answer to your question, in which case you won't argue
if you do argue, it's predicated by something you are in the midst of necessity.
necessity = value = utility

My point is, you can argue trillema at a speed, If you {Want} the answer, or any answer to anything for that matter, is the timeframe not important to you?

to make my point even less clear, I won't respond for 16 days

>>479460
How is usefulness an absolute value? Usefulness is a highly relative term because it varies so much according to context/

>>479583
Without some sort of epistemology, you are literally unable to draw conclusions of any kind whatsoever, so some basic rule set of logic and epistemology is indeed necessary for practical use.