/lit/ - Literature

Where are my fellow judgment SUSPOONDERS? Have you SUSPOONDED judgment on any matter recently?
Convictionists and other dogmatists are probably not welcome

how come nobody wants to be a skeptic anymore? (actual skeptic not internet skeptic)

books for this feel?

>destroys dialectics

1. Every scientific proof is burdened with the fallacy of regressus ad infinitum, i.e. going back to infinity. For in order to justify a proposition, we must start from certain premises, and these in turn will require proof, and so on.

2. Our judgments about objects depend on so many factors that we are unable to consider them - not only on the objects themselves, but also on their relation to us and the objects themselves to each other.

3. In order to avoid regressus ad infinitum in the previous trail, we must make certain assumptions, but here we have virtually complete freedom.

4. Attempt to avoid regressus ad infinitum by eliminating assumptions leads to a vicious circle.

>>20780644
Prove that proof exists.

>Imagine still thinking you can have knowledge after being disproven thousands of years ago

I read some of his work and is he actually the final stage of philosophy? I just can't see how skepticism can be disproven, even modern 'skeptics' grant some knowledge just so they can hide the fact that they've dedicated their lives to nothing

>>19508010
Debunked, along with everyone else. Sorry.

Dogmatists hate him!

"Those who claim for themselves to judge the truth are bound to possess a criterion of truth. This criterion, then, either is without a judge's approval or has been approved. But if it is without approval, whence comes it that it is truthworthy? For no matter of dispute is to be trusted without judging. And, if it has been approved, that which approves it, in turn, either has been approved or has not been approved, and so on ad infinitum."

Well, /lit/?

"Those who claim for themselves to judge the truth are bound to possess a criterion of truth. This criterion, then, either is without a judge's approval or has been approved. But if it is without approval, whence comes it that it is truthworthy? For no matter of dispute is to be trusted without judging. And, if it has been approved, that which approves it, in turn, either has been approved or has not been approved, and so on ad infinitum."

Well /lit/? What have you got to say for yourself?

>>17985756

All irony aside is this the end of philosophy? Why the fuck would you even bother with anything else once you've read the pyrrhonists? This is both definitive and liberating.

>>17209274
It’s nothing personnel

>It is reported, also, that some of the Thracians sit round the newborn babe and chant dirges. So, then, death should not be considered a thing naturally dreadful, just as life should not be considered a thing naturally good. Thus none of the things mentioned above is naturally of this character or of that, but all are matters of convention and relative.
—Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, III, XXIV

>>16947562
Not to diagnose you but that sounds like OCD anon. I have it and for a long time I had the same agonised yearning for complete certainty that you do. Being able to live comfortably with uncertainty entailed a slow and painful adjustment process. Look into Pyrrhonism. It maintains that by withholding our intellectual assent from all competing truth claims, about which we can never have any certainty, we gain ataraxia, or tranquility. They use the metaphor of a painter who, failing to achieve a particular effect, gave up and threw his sponge at the canvas in frustration, only to produce exactly the effect he had in mind.

>>16934032
Scepticism.

Dogmatists HATE him.

Inside: the book Stoics, Platonists and Epicureans DON'T want you to read.

The essence of a particular individual being exists eternally; death is not its end nor birth its beginning. Its eternal destiny is union with the One. Throughout the course of life, man is given tests with which to free him from the bonds of his lower will and focus the core of his being on his ultimate goal of re-achieving the primordial unity. Thus, the premature death of a child delays the process of deification. It is a truth universally admitted that a holy man is more virtuous than a holy child, for he has seen evil but rejected it, while the child is holy only from a lack of evil, not a triumphant affirmation of the good.

That's my take on it. I am not a theologian and probably have a different view than many Christians, but I still think that such a framework can exist within Christianity. Jesus has provided the path with which to climb, a path which no human would be able to create himself, but it is up to the individual to embark upon that path and choose to embrace it through living affirmation. While the process of deification and ultimate union with God could hypothetically take multiple lives in a purely metaphysical context, Christianity limits it to one maximally important life so as to stress the importance and ability within everyone at this very moment to become "perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect" and realize that "the Kingdom of Heaven is within you."

Once again, I reiterate that I shouldn't be seen as a representative of the typical modern Christian opinion on this topic, but I would input my opinion nonetheless

>>14294205
What if he dosen't have any positions?

>>14106341
Take the pyrrhonist pill and stop having philosophical beliefs

>>10869991
>decided that language as a whole was fucked
Is this one of the proclamations and denunciations they ruled that shouldn't be done?
>Godel's incompleteness theorem
But none of the French postmoderns would bother with analytic philosophy, save for Lyotard who did read Wittgenstein.
>art and philosophy becomes more about subjectivity
>"push the boundaries," asking what is art?
The great subjects of subjectivity were answering the question by abandoning urinals in galleries as early as 1917, your whole post reeks of a creation myth.
>Analytics takes a back seat for the next 60 years
Yeah, by conquering philosophy departments all over the place, and not just in Angloland at that. Cue the German-accented teacher's lamentations to his colleague's Italian students that sub-departments (or whatever the hell they'd be called in English) with teams of professors dedicated to German idealism (and I mean revivals of it, not mere curiosities for the "museum" of the history of philosophy) are getting rarer in Germany itself.
>we've given up on trying to craft rules about how things should be done or seen
With the postmodern obligatory forced mandatory "ought" of the day being to ask who the hell this "we" might be.
What do we even need postmoderns for, when we could be sceptics? How about we do something honest instead and go back and be pastmoderns?

>>10125430
>Those who claim for themselves to judge the truth are bound to possess a criterion of truth. This criterion, then, either is without a judge's approval or has been approved. But if it is without approval, whence comes it that it is truthworthy? For no matter of dispute is to be trusted without judging. And, if it has been approved, that which approves it, in turn, either has been approved or has not been approved, and so on ad infinitum.
Checkmate, non-skeptics.