So if language is broken
and truth can't be obtained, only perspectives
How does one tackle a philosophical problem /his/?
nihilism general
>>828612
>nihilists attempting to come to positive conclusions from nihilism
wew
>>828612
My friend, you are commiting the common error of equivocating the failure of the 'enlightenment' project with the failure of, thinking? In general.
Naturally they were doomed from the start due to autistic standards of evidence that make knowledge appear impossible (which the mid twentieth century post-moderns, while posing themselves as 'overturning' the enlightenment project, ironically retained their same standards of evidence, which they used in a selective, tactical manner to dismiss things which hurt their feels, but never turned on their own conceits).
If you can grok the phrase: ' the exception that proves the rule', you are on the way to recovery.
>>828612
>>827856
>>827510
>>828612
You cant m8 its all subjective.
Nihilism is about cleansing the life on earth from its obsolete virtues and build up new ones.
>>828648
What standard of knowledge would you propose? Let me guess, you're a Christposter who wants us to acknowledge your feels.
>>828612
By attacking it with your perspective.
Those who address problems in a strongly prejudiced manner are philosophically pure and not false. Those who attempt to address problems in what they feel is "objective" logic are just as prejudiced, but are impure as well. aka they have worse self awareness than someone who is prejudiced.
>>828687
Kantian thinking/catagorical imperatives are shit m8, you dont have a leg to stand on.
>lol what is this 'trend' you speak of? Who cares about more or less accurate predictions lol a single exception to any proposition means i cant no nufin.
In reality, it is simply the formalization of their own inabillity to perceive any more essential factors at play in reality, appearing to them as a disjointed procession of atomized and unrelated instances. Such is their superficiality.
>>828717
nigga I can't understand you
>>828736
Well if you distill it all down, im basically saying that for example if a handful of women or nignogs manage to scrape by the minimum standard on an entry exam into an ivy league, that does not imply that women or nignogs in general are like that and should not be in the kitchen or back in africa respectively.
>>828824
so we can't no nuffin, but beliefs shouldn't be dismissed.
why do I feel like this is new stuff when a third grader could've come up with that
>>828612
1. Science
2. Logic
pic unrelated
>>828927
Well there are several factors that can reliably lead to intellectual malpractice.
The first and most obvious is when untermenschen have 'skin in the game', ie, a self interest, for philosophies that would result in higher advancement or enrichment for themselves than might be otherwise possible. They are essentially the slower runners looking for 'shortcuts' around the swifter runners instead of being consigned to oblivion as god intended, which so often means somehow suckering the swift runners into agreeing to this farce in some way.
Which then leads us to the second and less obvious factor, which is status competition, false holiness. Status signaling is a largely memetic operation, and hence does *not* necessarily result in the improvement of ones own interests (and indeed, they can often run *counter* to a groups interests). Within this space called discourse, the selection method is popularity, and so they must adapt to the lowest common denominators.
At its root false holiness involves autists confusing *proxies* for virtue that often exist as terms in discourse, with 'the good' itself. They then zero in on and inflate these proxies, upon which they can proclaim they are 'holier than thou', and claim moral superiority (and thus higher social status and a band aid over the existential void in their empty souls). Which in turn leads other to engage in similat bouts of inflation, and in isolation they will reflect off of each other in the echo chamber more and more untill all adaptive nuance is cast away, and only the 'proxy' remains in its most simplistic and banal form.
>>829187
There any many things such signaling singularities can theoretically revolve around (consider for instance the [d]evolution of 'bushido' amongst the samurai during times of peace), but in practice the most memetically adaptive ones tend to, naturally, appear the most accomodatng while appealing to ones conceits (like the first type). Various doctrines of 'universal succor' have often been the 'path of least resistance' for those wishing to appear holy with a minimum of cognitive horsepower required, and thus by far have been the greatest sources of evil throughout human history.
>>829196
The third and most subtle factor of all is rather something on a more meta level: beings are most prone to philosophizing about topics in which they have the most difficulty.
Recall if you will heideggers phenominological analysis of tool use; when a tool is in good working order, it tends to pass out of mind as a concrete 'thing', and more as an extension of yourself, operating in smooth unconscious unity. When a tool starts to malfunction this 'extension' becomes rudely interrupted, and it once again becomes a concrete 'thing' in the consciousness, to divine its malfunction.
So consider then the irony inherent in the scenario, where the 'thing' in question involves thinking itself, and you presume to ameliorate it by... thinking? Hahah!
Natural adepts naturally pay little mind to wheels that do not squeak, and thus naturally feel little motivation to spill ink or blow air on the subject. To even think of the thing in question as an 'issue' instead of just one unremarkable backdrop of life out of many others rarely intrudes in their consciousness or consumes their waking hours in neuroticism. And so philosophies of things which are adaptive tend to appear mostly after theyve already gotten lost.
The halls of humanities and philosophy in general are haunted by beings who are also uniquely unqalified to pronounce upon them. That certainly puts the history of academics in a new light, does it not?
bunpo
>>828612
Read your Nietzche a little better ya dingus.
Truth IS perspective. There is no hidden thing in-it-self or platonic form 'outside perspective'.
I'll give you an extreme example. Whether or not 'you' are a seperate item from your surroundings and exist as an independent being depends on your perspective. We look at a tree and don't think a particular bark of wood constitutes an individual. But we look at the planet think a particular clump of organs constitutes an individual. The very idea of existence, of categories, is a perspective.
>>828612
Neither of those are nihilists. The N man is an anti-nihilist. According to him everything matters, while nihilism says nothing matters.
>>828948
Can't bro. That's what Wittgenstein showed us. All forms of communication are wrapped in subjectivity. Words do not have meanings in themself but we assing them meaning.
Positivism cannot work for a number of reasons, one of them is the very nature of how communication works.
Math is the only objective truth. Prove me wrong. Protip you can't
>>831456
Math is a human invention, we made it up. The math system we use now is not the same we always used, for instance Pythegerian math is a system where decimals do not exist. In some forms of math zero isn't even a number. There is no one universal math system but multiple ones.
We also learned from the Goddel that any math system is going to have certain imperfections and oddities.
The only way math can be objective is if Platonic numbers actually exist, which would require a proof.
>>831493
Nigga read more texbooks and stop watching numberphile.
>>831456
Math contains the number zero which does not exist in the universe. It is a hypothetical man-made model of analysis, not objective truth.
>>831557
Kronecker pls
>>828612
>How does one tackle a philosophical problem /his/?
You don't. Actually tackling the philosophical problem will offer no benefit to you, and ultimately represents a pointless, Sisyphean exercise. Absolute truth is impossible, but the vague approximation we make do with is good enough and capable of ever continual improvement (though never conclusively perfected).
>implying there are philosophical problems, instead of simply linguistic problems
>>831545
Who watches numberphile for any reason asides for going to sleep? The guy who films it hardly lets them write fucking formulas for god's sake.
>>831577
Yea this, most of the difficulty in solving philosophy is that you are asuming shit about the language you use.
>>831604
>What about truth? Is that a linguistic problem?
yes.
>>831437
but reality is a thing, at least in a physical way, and it must be aranged in a certain way (let's not go into quantum physics yet) to exist. Even outside a perspective.
as for 'dependance' , 'individuality', 'existence', 'justice' , 'morality', etc. they're philosophical problems cuz language is shiet and they're not properly defined.
>>828824
>Ameritrash
>Racist and misoginist manchild
>>828612
I'm going to say what many already have (e.g., >>831437) but: The idea that there are "only perspectives" doesn't necessarily undo any conception of truth; and it certainly doesn't doom it to the point that we can't tackle philosophical problems, though it might inform certain methods or means of inquiry and truth acquisition. Nietzsche himself (and I mention him given that OP included his picture) said that our conception of objectivity needs to be changed and altered in the light of perspectivism, not that there is no such thing (see, among other passages, *The Genealogy of Morals, Essay III, section 12, which mentions objectivity rather than truth, but the point still stands).
>>831557
I've got to agree with (>>831456) at least on the idea that mathematical truths are objective (though I don't think that math is the "only objective truth").
Part of the issue here is how we mean "objective truth," but if what's meant by that is something like "true independent of human cognizers," or something like that, mathematical truths certainly seem to fit the bill. 1+1=2 seems true regardless of whether I exist or not, or regardless of whether our universe has sentience in it or not. If I'm in the woods and I pick up a rock, walk a little ways, and pick up another, I have two rocks, plain and simple. To anticipate a potential objection, it won't do to say, "Well, you're working with a certain concept, rock, and without that you wouldn't be able to identify and individuate the rocks you're picking up." That's all well and good, but that's a question of the concepts and categories I'm applying to the world, not the mathematics. A universe in which 1+1=/=2 is utterly and completely inconceivable.
The same also seems true of logical truths (I won't get into the relation between math and logic). Take modus ponens (If A then B; A; therefore B). Given the premises ("If A then B" and "A") the conclusion ("B") necessarily follows. Again, it's not just that it's hard for me to imagine a universe in which this doesn't hold, it's downright inconceivable.
If you'd like to deny this claim, then it's very likely you'll be using modus ponens to establish yours. I don't know how one could make an argument without relying on certain fundamental logical truths.
>>831604
>>831657
Is truth a linguistic problem? Well, certainly the articulation and expression of it is. And the way that we individually assess, assert, and accept (or deny) has at the very least a heavily linguistic component.
But the fact that something is or is not the case doesn't seem to be linguistic.
That said, there are of course countless theories of truth. There's the standard correspondence theory of truth, which holds that my belief "X is true" is in fact true if X is the case--there has to be a correspondence between my belief or representation and reality. Then there are coherence theories of truth, which are a bit more complicated, but where the basic idea is that a particular belief of mine is true if it coheres with the rest of my beliefs. (And then there are the other countless varieties of theories of truth).
Whether or not and to what degree linguistic considerations enter the picture will depend on the specific theory of truth that's being assumed, as well as the specific sort of truth claim that's being assessed.
>>831657
No it's not.Truth is binary.
However, it's possible you are evaluating non-binary problems as binary.
>>831657
No it's not; truth is binary
However it's possible to try to evaluate non-binary problems as binary thus giving the illusion that truth is not binary.
>>831982
What you're actually doing is using complex conditional logic in your brain to determine an action or further line thought.
My question: How does a philosopher sort out language games from each other?
t. Beginning self-taught philosopher
>>831987
I mean, of course, the truth of philosophical statements. You're right to call me out for not being clear on the matter, as looking back that wasn't really what the question was. My apologies.
>>828612
>Nihilism thread
>Posts picture of one of the biggest opposers of nihilism in any form.
>mfw
>>831453
CAN'T
>>832410
KNOW
"Truth outside of perspective" is basically the secular version of God. It can't be proven, it can't even be perceived by it's very definition but it runs the universe and is present in all things.
>>831854
>cuz language is shiet and they're not properly defined
We already went over this with positivism which Witty destroyed, the only way things can be defined is by relating it something else. Definitions are never fixed, only subjecitve.
>but reality is a thing, at least in a physical way, and it must be aranged in a certain way... Even outside a perspective.
Do you really think an animal that is blind such as a bat is going to see a distinction between say your 4chan post and mine? Sense perception and the rationalizations of it basically are reality as far as we are concerned. There is no understanding that is not contained in perspective.
>>831987
Truth is only binary in the world of programming. When someone says something is true, what they really mean it is true for them. The Boolean system is itself their own perspective.
Look we already had a movement to try to form language into binaries, in the form of postivism and it imploded in failure.
There is a cute story which illustrates how this works. Supposedly Wittengenstein was argueing with a friend about the meaning of words, he asserted positivism and claimed all ideas can be broken down into atomic facts. His friend supposedly flipped him off and said "what's this mean"
The point is that words and phrases can be undefined by we know exactly what they mean.
>>831957
What is there to stop one to believe that 1+1 =/= 2? I remember binary and hexadecimal work differently than decimal. Let's an ayy lmao species developed a crazy numeral system (maybe because their hand fingers are not ten), but then encountered human numeral symbols. Will it still be valid to say 1+1=2, independent of semantic interpretation?
This was discussed on /g/ (and it turned into a smug fest by /lit/ who didn't have anything better to do than invade and trolling some neckbeards). I'm inclined to still believe that Math is still being qua being, but how exactly if it's devoid of meaning?
>>828612
Language isn't broken you just misunderstand it.
Can't we just do what we did to Descartes' demon hypothesis and just ignore it because wondering whether reality is an illusion won't get us anywhere? Philosophy has wasted enough time circle-jerking over the inherent contradictions of the universe, we need to get over it, go back to Hegel, and start synthesizing religion and science tbqh familia
No surprise people like OP slander and make basic misunderstandings of Nietzsche when it seems all the "great" 20th century philosophers did the exact same, if they didn't merely ignore him. Pic related.
It almost seems like a kind of mass cognitive dissonance. A collective unconscious attempt to handwave away the last big Hellenic challenge to modernity/egalitarianism.
>>828612
>le ebin child beating autism man
>>828612
I don't think the whole lack of belief in communication thing is exclusive to nihilism, and I don't think nihilists would believe there to be a solution.
>>831957
>mathematical truths are objective
Objective with respect to language, which is a subjective creation given that words, numbers, etc, are merely given definitions rather than observed to have them.
>>832147
I mean he is pretty relevant though. That's like saying "why post a dragonslayer in a thread about dragons?"
>>832479
>"Truth outside of perspective" is basically the secular version of God. It can't be proven, it can't even be perceived
That greatly depends on what you mean by "perceived" (which is rather ironic since we're talking about the problem of communication). Perceived without subjective bias, etc? In that sense no, it can't be truly perceived. In a more general sense however, it's also always being perceived through many different lenses.
>>832605
Hellenic wasn't egalitarian?
Tell me, anon: How was it not?
Genuinely want to learn.
A friend of mine made a video game boss that illustrated this problem quite nicely.
What he'd do partway through the fight is start announcing that he'd changed your definitions, by which he meant you keybinds. After enough time had passed, he's say something like "Up is down and down is up!" and your up and down keys would be flipped to make the point that the definition associated with up is completely independent of the symbol it's tied to (in this case the W key). Worse still, when it started changing keys it had already been switched, it would use the new words it had assigned rather than the originals; if he switched left and right, then said he switched right with up, he'd actually be switching "true left" with up (WASD to wDsA to DWsa) to remove the symbols from their definitions as much as possible.
This illustrated quite well
A) the concept of truth existing in the sense that there was still a "true" up, down, left, and right, as you can still move in each direction
B) the concept of prescribed terminology being completely subjective, as any key can be bound to any direction
C) the fact that labels themselves are necessary, as you'd have no way to actually move "true left" if there wasn't a key bound to it
It's pretty fun even if it sounds like an extension of the can't know nuffin problem because you actually can understand the controls and beat the boss. So, how do you do this in real life?
>>832761
The problem with your example is it in that context the letters of the keys are acting as a sort of Platonic form or absolute truth that trasciends the game word. This works fine on local problems, with local interpersonal relationships. But once you approach the big picture of language there can be nothing transcendent because you are dealing with the totality of the system. Anything related to the system is by definition part of the system, so nothing can trasnciend it.
Also your friend sounds like he hasn't figured out how to make a decent game.
>>832781
What I am trying to say is that the video game character is referncing something outside the game environment.
Our game environment is the whole universe so there is nothing outside of it reference.
>>832781
>>832802
It was less of an actual game (it was written in some software that reminded me of lego mindstorms) and more of a means of making a point (which I'm likely pulling farther than originally intended). The base concept was annoying, but the WASD to wDsA to DWsa part was rather fun to figure out on the fly though.
>This works fine on local problems, with local interpersonal relationships. But once you approach the big picture of language there can be nothing transcendent because you are dealing with the totality of the system. Anything related to the system is by definition part of the system, so nothing can trasnciend it.
>What I am trying to say is that the video game character is referencing something outside the game environment.
But those directions exist within the game environment. The system itself is merely a local concept by self-association. you could argue that subjectivity is inescapable (as suggested by B and C), but there has to be something which the reference system is actually referencing.
Say we're playing catch. I've got a ball in each hand, and I throw one to you. I say "the thrown ball was moving at 10mph in the northward direction" only for you to say "no, it was the held ball moving 10mph south". While that's subjective as it's based upon the reference point, the change in distance between them is the same regardless of where you're looking from.
Of course, this is just an analogy; there are plenty of other factors at play here. You could very easialy say "but what if they're measuring in different units or define the concept of distance itself differently?" but my point still stands; if you can say something is true in spite of the paradigm its communicated through, then it's an ultimate truth ...assuming you define ultimate truth that way.
Take another example; in decimal, we have 1+1=2, but in binary we have 1+1=10. The statements themselves are equal, as they're getting at the same thing.
>>831957
>but if what's meant by that is something like "true independent of human cognizers," or something like that, mathematical truths certainly seem to fit the bill.
They don't though. Any kind of analysis "independent of human cognition" does not exist, you cannot find any such thing in the world. I'm sorry, but it's ignorance of the self to assert otherwise. All analysis we are capable of is purely a HUMAN analysis, the reality we see is within the confines of HUMAN analysis, no matter how "undeniable" 1+1=2 may seem.
>A universe in which 1+1=/=2 is utterly and completely inconceivable.
I can conceive of it, because we are all one.
>>832864
Ultimate truth is a snipe hunt.
The only truth that ever mattered in any situation as the local one. If we are playing catch the only truth I care about is how the ball moves from my own perspective. I don't care how it moved relative to say...when you factor in the rotation of the earth. I probably don't even care about how the curvature of the earth affects the gravitational pull, a flat earth is just as good if not better at that moment.
If I am playing a video game I don't care about how the algorithm works, all I key about is my own keybindings: this truth will be unique to me as I may have changed the bindings or be using an unusual keyboard.
Likewise in math, when adding numbers I only care about the relative truth of a base 10 counting system. The base 2, base 20, or any hypothetical alien languages are not even on the radar.
Since all truth is contained in a perspective we select the perspective best for any given situation, one can entertain multiple ideas without committing to one, or to switch between them based on the needs. Attempting to ask what the "one ultimate truth is" is a snipe hunt.
>>832909
I'm wondering if these typos are because you're in a hurry or because you're changing the you're paradigm to make a point.
>Ultimate truth is a snipe hunt.
You're right, but that doesn't mean there isn't a snipe.
>Likewise in math, when adding numbers I only care about the relative truth of a base 10 counting system. The base 2, base 20, or any hypothetical alien languages are not even on the radar.
But that's just willful shortsightedness. The existence of ignorance does not disprove the existence of truth, regardless of how rational that ignorance may be.
>>832939
>you're changing the you're paradigm to make a point.
Wow, a problem of communication indeed.
>>832755
Most societies had an order of rank before the advent of late christian states. Slaves, serfs, castes.
>>831858
>"What is this comedy you speak of?"
>>832939
>you're changing the you're paradigm to make a point
Nope
>You're right, but that doesn't mean there isn't a snipe
There is no snipe.
The problem with virtually all epistemological linguistics before Nietzche is that they fail to account for the observer (with perhaps the exception of the Sophists and other pre-socratic philosophies. Platonic ideas of words have meaning beyond the subject is just cancer) I'll explain while refuting this
>But that's just willful shortsightedness
On the contrary, the method of trying eschew perspective and subjectivity leads to worthless ideas.
The world begins at the self, Stirner sort of spells this out pretty well, the observer or Ego creates the world by observing and interpreting it. At the very small qunatam level and the very large macro-cosmic scale things lose their distinction and all reality can be seen as a type of monoism. The subject creates a livable world for himself separating 'me' from 'not me' 'comfort' from 'discomfort' 'singular' from 'plural'. It is precisely the subjectivity that makes things meaningful and understandable.
Any linguistic epistemology that tries to discard the observer is going to end in nihilism and meaningless. So ironically subjectivity is the very thing that is necessary for destroying nihilism and meaninglessness.
>>833505
>Nope
I didn't mean that seriously, and my secondary post was joking at my own typos.
>On the contrary, the method of trying eschew perspective and subjectivity leads to worthless ideas.
But this suggests you're operating based on worth rather than truth, simply because you're choosing to not believe any truth exists. A system which is purely self referential isn't logically possible.
>Any linguistic epistemology that tries to discard the observer is going to end in nihilism and meaningless. So ironically subjectivity is the very thing that is necessary for destroying nihilism and meaninglessness.
I'd say that's correct; subjectivity is inescapable for people and values may as well be imposed. That doesn't mean nothing suggests the existence of truth.
>>833573
>But this suggests you're operating based on worth rather than truth, simply because you're choosing to not believe any truth exists. A system which is purely self referential isn't logically possible.
I'll give you an idea. A great deal of ancient astronomy was based on false ideas, geo-centralism, incorrect number of days in a rotation, incorrect number of planets. But a great deal of worthy information was obtained from it. Likewise Aristotlian and Newtonian physics are 'false' but collected useful information.
Alex Kirkegard said something interesting
>A thing that "makes sense" is a useful thing
So using the old models of astronomy and physics we see that there is no conflict between truth and worth. They are one in the same same. Einstein physics and modern astronomy are more aligned with the truth because they have greater worth.
>>833624
> Einstein physics and modern astronomy are more aligned with the truth because they have greater worth.
What would not suggest it isn't the reverse? It's not that The truth is the truth because it's useful, but that what is useful is useful because it is closer to the truth. I'm not claiming you shouldn't pursue worth even at the cost of truth, but to call it truth itself is a stretch.
>>833633
>I'm not claiming you shouldn't pursue worth even at the cost of truth, but to call it truth itself is a stretch.
Can't I make that stretch for the sake of worth, given that I can pursue worth at the cost of truth?
>>833633
Ancient astronomy operated on things like geocentralism because they got more worth out of it than other models. It wasn't until advanced telescopes and math came about that they could make us of the more complicated heleiocentric model.
Even if one of these ancient people tried to do a heliocentric model it wouldn't be very good with their primitive instruments.
Or think of the ancient superstition that mixing 6 different herbs together and saying a special magic word has healing power. Today when we look them with our perspectives we see 1 or 2 of the herbs is useful for the aliment, the rest are not, and the magic words are bunk. But to the ancients it's the only deliver system for medicine they can actually work with. The primitive person cannot be told about antibiotics but if you tell him the medicine is related to spirits he can understand it.
Perhaps we will find that core beleifs we have are 'false' when we develop new scientific instruments. But until than we operate with our current truth because it creates worthy things...including the future scientific instruments.
So you can say that truth is worth or that worth is truth. It's reversible. Something is true because it leads to worthy things and they are worthy if they are true. And the subjectivity helps decide what things are worthy...astronomy started out as worthy because it helped us understand crop cycles and create a time keeping system, now our new subjectivity gives it a new worth.
>>832479
>Sense perception and the rationalizations of it basically are reality as far as we are concerned.
We are not just concerned by our experience of the world but by the reality of the world. Even if you are asking yourself about the experience, it's pretty useful to know what world you are experiencing and what truths lie in it.
To be clear, I use "thuths" as in facts about the world, not outside of it.
