How could anyone ever argue against causality and determinism?
I don't know or care.
>>8222255
Go ahead and prove causality, I dare ya
>>8222255
How could anybody ever argue that something came from nothing? Whether you're a physicist or a christian you presuppose a miracle and then explain from there. Nobody knows what's going on.
>>8222274
>Hume is an asshole
How do you guys like my synthetic a posteriori judgement?
>>8222255
DAVID HUME
A
V
I
D
>>8222280
>Implying that existence was created
When will this meme end?
>>8222281
Can somebody in very simple terms explain what a "synthetic a posteriori judgement" means
>>8222280
Space and time are merely intuitions, not concepts.
We cannot possibly know anything beyond their laws.
>>8222283
Saying someone's name is not an argument
>>8222288
Synthetic: The predicate (quality/attribute being claimed or asserted) is not contained within the subject.
A posteriori: We must have a (sensory) experience of the subject to determine the truth of the subject, due to the judgement being synthetic in nature.
'Hume' is the subject. 'Asshole' is the predicate.
>>8222286
>implying i'm implying.
No. I just implied that whether you're an advocate of the big bang, the nth dimensional field, the christian god, the akasha, or the logos, you presuppose that time as a linear progression of cause to effect is not the way that it always was. There is nowhere to go from here but theoretical grounds. Whether you attach a mathematical vocabulary to it and call yourself an expert or you just point at some book and say the answers are in there, you're probably wrong either way.
>>8222305
*to determine the truth of the judgement
>>8222305
Wittgenstein was right to point out that most of our problems were merely linguistic.
Quine expanded on this.
>>8222255
Not sure about causality, but determinism assumes a completely materialistic world and looks away at the huge problems in the materialistic account of the mind.
>>8222293
I'm saying his name so OP can Google it and stop being an incultured swine.
>>8222286
>Implying the big bang isn't a creation myth.
>>8222315
You better not be that guy who claims that the mind or its functions are in any way immaterial.
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/researchers/francois/RESEARCH/RESEARCH_NOTES/SCIENTIFIC_NOTES/a-case-for-indeterminism-by-Karl-Popper.html
>>8222315
>the huge problems in the materialistic account of the mind
such as?
>>8222305
>due to the judgement being synthetic in nature
Whoa there, partner.
Synthetic judgements don't necessarily entail a need for experience to assess.
Otherwise we'd have no synthetic a priori judgements, which is what Kant is all about.
>>8222305
So Hume is not an asshole because we don't have experience of him being an asshole, is that it?
>>8222327
>synthetic a priori judgements
>>8222324
Account of qualia and zombies.
The ability to solve the problem with materialism is nowhere in sight.
>>8222321
It's mostly likely the case as materialism is just digging the hole deeper.
Cartesian dualism is also far from the solution too, it can't ground the mind in the body and properly connect them.
>>8222255
>Implying a mathematical vocabulary could ever explain a universe in which the only constant is change
>>8222331
It depends on the conclusion of your experience.
You may determine he's an asshole. Take this:
>The bachelor is 24 years old.
This is synthetic a posteriori. 'Bachelor' is the subject, '24 years old' is the predicate.
There is nothing about the the term bachelor to necessarily imply '24 years old' - whereas if we'd said "The bachelor is male", this would be an analytic a priori judgement. Why? Because 'male' is contained in 'bachelor', and thus the judgement tells us nothing new.
Since there is nothing in the term 'bachelor' to imply '24 years old' (the 'P' is not contained within the 'S'), we must experience the bachelor in question to determine if the judgement ('The bachelor is 24 years old') is true.
>>8222334
>Account of qualia and zombies.
Can you elaborate on these problems?
>>8222334
>Cartesian dualism is also far from the solution too
Spinoze solved these problems a long time ago
>>8222346
Instead of pointless arguments on the internet I can recommend you a great book on the subject, Philosophy of the Mind by Edward Feser. It covers 30 or so theories on the origin of the mind, most of which are materialistic and some being strange mixes of idealism and scepticism like Russels'.
>>8222352
Spinoza is completely forgotten in modern philosophy of the mind as far as I know.
>>8222331
No, don't let these anons fool you.'Hume is an asshole' is an a priori analysis.
>>8222363
wasn't looking to argue, moreso to understand your viewpoint
>>8222344
Wouldn't it only be synthetic if the bachelor weren't 24, if you're asserting that he is? Since "the predicate is not contained within the subject"?
Because there's no clear reason they should be true, OP.
Quantom Theory
What is it about this thread?
>>8222391
'Synthetic' refers specifically to whether or not the predicate is contained within the subject, rather than the truth of the judgement.
By contrast, all analytic judgements are either true or false, a priori. There is no such thing as an 'analytic a posteriori' argument - as analytic arguments specifically have the predicate ('P') contained within the subject ('S').
They are either true or false *by definition*.
So for example:
>The bachelor is married.
This is analytic and false a priori (by definition/prior to experience) - as in you do not need to experience any bachelor to determine this judgement is false. It is false by definition - all bachelors are unmarried.
Conversely:
>The bachelor is 24 years old
The predicate (24 years old) is not contained within the subject (bachelor). You cannot determine the judgement's verity from the subject's definition alone; therefore you have to experience the specific individual in question.
The verity of the judgement can only be determined a posteriori - that is, with experience.
>>8222450
Metaphysics is such a fucking pedantic bore.
>>8222459
Yes I agree. This is because it finds its origin in Plato who was also a bore.
>>8222459
>>8222461
The truth is boring, and metaphysics is the Queen of science. Deal with it.
>>8222450
Oh I see, so the subject isn't the person who is a bachelor, but rather just the noun "bachelor" in this case, since being a bachelor has nothing to do with how old you are even though the actual person who is a bachelor may be that age, right?
If that's correct, then (just for my own sake of making sure I understand this) something like
>My cat is orange
is synthetic a posteriori because being a cat does not necessitate being orange, and you would have to experience him to see that he's orange.
>>8222459
>implying Kant did not agree with this
>>8222459
None of this is metaphyics yet ya doofus
How to language games correspond to universal physical principles?
>>8222461
shhh, you're showing how little you know.
t. Philosophy Quotes: from Socrates to Foucault, 2nd edition
>>8222450
Just to add:
What Kant considered was the possibility of 'synthetic a priori' arguments. That is, arguments:
>Whose predicate ('P') is not contained within the subject ('S')
>Whose verity can be determined prior to (sensory) experience
The examples he gives are chiefly mathematical, and to understand them would require you to understand Kant's tricky understanding of space and time - which are not concepts as we think of them, but rather the 'prime' individuals/intuitions, on/from which all others are borne. Space and time are like a canvas, without which we can have no painting. We are like characters in that painting, borne of it, who can imagine nothing else beyond the canvas - which necessarily provides the contours (and limits) of our experience. We could imagine a blank canvas, but we can't imagine no canvas.
We know this 'a priori', without (sensory) experience. Just try to imagine 'no space' or 'no time' - it can't be done. We can imagine empty space, or units of time (moments/seconds/hours/etc), but anything we imagine will necessarily be within the limits of space and time. Kant claims that mathematics (chiefly geometry) describe the laws of space and time; and since we know space and time a priori, we can then determine the verity of any laws ascribed.
Anyway, why did he consider the possibility of 'synthetic a priori' arguments? Because they are both informative, and yet true/factual. One of the non-mathematical examples is:
>"All events are caused"
Which requires you to essentially adopt a subtly determinist philosophy, which Kant explains, but it's too late where I am to be putting off more sleep to explain.
>>8222450
>>8222530
Oh my god, what a stupid fucking subject.
This is navel-gazing at its finest.
>>8222530
Good night anon, thank you for the information
>>8222537
>I don't get it, so it's pointless
Ah, the rallying cry of every idiot.
>>8222537
>Hurr durr stop using big thoughts
I wouldn't expect any less from a frog poster. I bet you frequent/r9k/
>>8222544
I can get it, if I studied it and memorized it, but what is the use? What does this tell us? Nothing can happen because some asshole defined the categories?
>>8222537
this is some simple epistemology. the navel-gazers are found amongst the continentals.
>>8222557
>but what is the use? What does this tell us? Nothing can happen because some asshole defined the categories?
Metaphysics asks at least one question: "What can we know?"
Science asks: "What do we know?"
This is why metaphysics has traditionally been seen as the 'Queen' of science. You could call science the 'King', as they compliment one another.
>>8222563
>He couldn't understand Hegel
>>8222450
>>8222530
Dayum, anon knows his shit.
Teach me your ways, metaphysician.
>>8222459
>i hate real philosophy so let me read the worthless ramblings of mystics without having to do any of the work required to understand it
Sounds about right for a dumb cuck
>>8222576
He was just scratching the surface. The first part of Critique is basically an exposition on his terminology. The second, much larger part then puts it into action.
>>8222255
Determinism is a silly human idea, but chance is God.
>>8222593
>Muh platitudes
The lowest tier of philosophy.
>>8222597
Most of what this board thinks of as 'philosophy' is merely glorified opinions.
>>8222327
no, but synthetic a posteriori judgements do. Learn to read
>>8222376
no, you were looking to be spoonfed wiki bytes of info. Do the fucking work and read the book
>>8222605
/lit/ does not really study the Christian philosophers, or fucking anything else that qualifies as philosophy desu.
The /lit/ philosophy guide goes
Nietzsche
Schopenhauer
Stirner
Hume (maybe)
Hobbes (maybe)
Post-moderns
No wonder they are all batshit
>>8222626
Schopenhauer has a proper philosophy, in fairness - but people only read the aphorisms.
In fact, I think what the 'meme philosophers' have in common is their propensity to aphorisms, which are just opinions and don't actually require any work.
Schopenhauer has had the misfortune of writing a whole book of them. Nietzsche wrote a couple. Etc.
>>8222618
>make claim
>someone questions claim
>HAHA I DON'T HAVE TO DEFEND MY CLAIMS OR DEMONSTRATE A SLIVER OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ARGUMENTS I'M CITING
sure
>>8222626
>christian "philosophers"
Kierkegaard is shit desu.
>>8222636
you were provided with a book title. It's not my job to explain jargon to the uneducated
>>8222566
Thanks for that.
So if I want to know whether something can be known I need to postulate a sentence expressing my query, identify the predicate as analytic or synthetic, and determine if I have sensory experience of the subject or just a priori reasoning of it, to judge the truth of my claim?
This makes it true? ok, ok...
>>8222646
>jargon
No pumpkin, I want to see if you actually understand the argument well enough to replicate it.
>>8222643
>Augustine
>Aquinas
those are a start, and they are pretty philosophical.
>>8222651
I think he meant "What can we know?" in a grand way, rather than in regards to that very specific instance of Kantian thought.
Look up Metaphysics on Wikipedia.
>>8222658
Both of them are apologists, at least Kierkegaard somewhat admits how irrational the belief in Christianity is. Aquinas approach to god in particular is absolutely ridiculous. To enjoy, truly understand and appreciate these two you pretty much have to be christian already. They have minimal philosophical value compared to the commonly recommended writers on /lit/ like the "start with the greeks" meme.
>>8222626
I tried to give it a go and read some Schelling, Ayer, Gramsci, Quine, etc. Holy fuck is it ever dry and pointless. I mean, maybe if you are realllyy into logical analysis you might dig it, but all I've ever found interesting about philosophy are the novel ideas, of which some of the philosophers you listed have the best. I love Kant for his transformation of the mind-body problem and the objectivity-subjectivity debate, but his books are so fucking nauseatingly boring I can't even. Same goes for Heidegger, though Poetry, Language, Thought was actually enjoyable for me. To be honest most actual philosophy books are so dreadfully dull that only true autists must be able to actually enjoy themselves reading it
>>8222255
Feels over reals, famalam
>>8222653
Ohhhh so this is all a test of my intellect and you're just doing me the favor of judging whether I 'get it right'? I fucking swear, the lengths some people go to in order to remain stupid and worthless
>>8222417
>Quantom
Nice contributiun.
>>8222681
surprisingly poignant
>>8222681
This tbqh, no one likes to admit that their lives were determined from the start. Being a puppet on strings abhors most everyone.
>>8222675
You ever consider some of these guys clothe their philosophy in obscure ideas, rigid formalism, and the fetishism of authoritative opinion because they are full of shit, rather than their genius is just to profound for us mortals?
>>8222712
maybe.. I always assumed that most of them had things to say, but I just wasn't willing to do the work of picking apart their syntax and rigid predicate logic to get at what that was. I have too many novels and history books to read to waste on poopy fake-math
>>8222728
Me too. Interested, but not that interested really.
lit is more fun anyways
>>8222683
>I can't be asked to write 2 simple sentences to clarify my position, but I can wast any amount of time telling other people they're lazy
I think you're pretty clearly demonstrating that your purpose in the original comment was to feel good about yourself, rather than to advance the discussion or increase the thread's understanding any way.
You're that person who goes into an interview and answers every question with "well you can read about that in my book"
>>8222750
rad.
>>8222681
this to be honest femme
>>8222352
I don't know what Spinoza thinks about anything but I am pretty sure he hasn't solved the "hard problem"
>>8222796
he hasn't solved anything don't listen to that charlatan. Spinoza just created a pantheistic monism based on faulty premises where he called everything an extension of the single substance of God
>>8222669
>Both of them are apologists
Only Augustine is and only a minor part of his body of work is apologetic.
Aquinas has no apologetic works at all.
>at least Kierkegaard somewhat admits how irrational the belief in Christianity is.
He is a protestant with a very twisted view on the whole thing coming from faulty epistemology.
>Aquinas approach to god in particular is absolutely ridiculous.
That's not how you spell I don't understand or have ever even read Aquinas.
>To enjoy, truly understand and appreciate these two you pretty much have to be christian already.
That's untrue from a simple empirical testing. Plenty of Aristotelians are not Christian but love Aquinas.
>They have minimal philosophical value compared to the commonly recommended writers on /lit/ like the "start with the greeks" meme.
They are extremely important, and have a massive body of subjects dealt with, from law to ontology to mysticism.
You've read none of it.
Aquinas is even relevant in fucking tax law.
