Low key this man completed the project over 2000 years ago. What are the implications of the fact that we can never prove anything on politics?
To catch you ignorant niggers up. Dude established the following trilemma (dillemma but with 3 alternatives): any time you make an argument you are either
1. Relying on a premise (axiom) that you can't defend and demand people believe on faith
2. Arguing in a circle where you justify your ultimate premise just by looping back around to it over and over
3. Constructing an infinite regress where you can always make a new argument when people demand on but can never provide an ultimate argument.
This means you cant prove anything. This critique has never been answered in the history if philosophy. Now that I ruined your pretense of certainty what do you faggots have to say?
Then who creates the circumstances where a new decision has to be made?
Anthony Flores
Maybe youre misunderstanding? This is not an argument, as if you get to choose to reject this. There has been no response to this that im aware of, anyone serious admits we never know anything for sure.
So all decision making processes are responding to this, the question is whats the best way? And how do we know its the best if we cant prove it? More radically you cant prove any decisions are ever made at all.
Samuel Ward
It is still possible to make 1) but based on facts
Nolan Bennett
Sounds less like a problem of politics than ideology. This becomes a lot easier when you start basing politics around self-interest and personal preference. Rather than ought and ought not. The latter indeed results in infinite regression when you attempt to justify it.
Ayden Howard
So how do you know what your interest is?
Henry Garcia
Socrates hated this fucker.
Julian Hill
Whatever fleeting desire occupies my mind, or whatever I say it is.
William Rodriguez
Is that Kaneko Fumiko?
Lucas Hughes
Okay, now prove it.
Caleb Cooper
Scorates low-key sucks ass
Colton Nelson
Its accounted for, Pyrrho doesnt claim to be able to prove this. We should suspend judgment in all matters including this one (and whether to suspend judgment).
Sorry but I'm not thrilled by circular logic that I'm supposed to take on faith.
On a less shitposting note, I personally think Kant did it better with his Critique of Pure Reason, and all that without becoming one of the world's first radical centrists.
Adam Reyes
I don't get how is this supposed to justify the status quo, because there's no way to know if the status quo is true as well, so it doesn't matter is we change system or not. I think that in the end what we cab do is simply take the axioms for granted and develop our arguments around that, for example we would measure what system is more efficient, makes people happier, etc. Using approximations to those ideas (what we understand for efficient, happier) without needing to answer what these things really are.
William Baker
so nazism, genocide and other things are acceptable? fuck off you moron
Jace Kelly
You think pyrrho is a centrist? Centrism relies on consensus and is the appeal to popularity fallacy.
The alternatives are to simply accept one of the horns. Circular args= compatibilism (things are true when they correspond to how reality is. Reality is what it is), axiom= foundationalism (communism will win accept it), infinite regress= infinitism (I can always make a new argument when its necessary and thats good enough).
Last, theres fallibilism, which is that we indeed cant prove stuff but we can disprove stuff and try to so we can provisionally hold beliefs based on their not being falsified yet. This is like science.
So were left being able to disprove our opponents arguments and showing that our positions have not been falsified. This is relevant e.g. many believe communism has been shown to fail, we can try to disprove this to show that its possible for communism to work. Then if we disprove all other possibilities then our own position is the most likely and "should" be adopted.
Knowing that there is no certain knowledge bears on politics in that we must be open to criticism of all of our beliefs and be willing to discard them. We should also preemptively seek out all the ways in which our arguments could be wrong so were not surprised when others point out that they're not certain knowledge.
In the end criticism must eat itself and we must have no pretension of proving anything. The strongest form of argument will be to work from beliefs that everyone holds and that we can show not to be falsified. We must also accept that our success will lead to its own dissolution- human freedom destroys itself since we will one day no longer be human; communism will dissolve itself by detroying its reference point, private property. Knowing that no principle is true forever, we then bring it back to now- this principle cannot hold now either.
If no politics is possible without principles, then so much worse for politics. This post-rationalism is the fertile ground of our future action. It allows us to see that the project is not to insist on the truth of any statement, but rather to deepen the mystery of our existence. We oppose our enemies because they wish to arbitrilarily constrict possibilities, when in reality we want everyone to be able to exlore the mystery and write their own destiny.
This trilemma is relevant for thinking through what the ideal world would look like- it cant be that everyone will believe the same thing, so what will define the good society (post communism) and how will it operate? We win by solving this and bringing it forward into today's world demonstrating its possibility and desirability.
Duh
Caleb Howard
bump
Matthew Wood
academics and sophists btfo
Justin Perry
lol you still can't prove shit faggot
Asher White
pleb tier red herring
Charles Thomas
Good! Do you have any texts or thoughts on post knowledge communism?
Ryder Collins
10/10 I'm waiting for Bo to delete board.
Gavin Morgan
The fact that skepticism eats itself doesn't prove it's weak, it shows it's strong. Pyrrhonism is characterized by skepticism about skepticism. This is the ground I'm currently exploring.
I mean, can you prove a single claim? Otherwise why you hating? Go ahead and give one and I'll show you why it's an unproved axiom, circular argument, or infinite regress.
William Baker
Hey. You didn't read Kant (or Descartes), did you? There's the simple fact that you are right now, and you can experience things. There are some prerequisites to experiencing things. This is a base that can be built upon.
I don't mean to dump on Pyrrho, it took a couple of centuries of philosophy to figure it out. But please stop being dishonest.
Brandon Ortiz
...
Oliver Johnson
I do still need to read kant you got me.
Still, I think we dont know what the basis of experience is and this is a philosophical problem. Descartes solution for example is evidently reasoning in a circle, he assumes that he is thinking smuggling the conclusion into the premises. It begs the question "how do you know you are thinking?" Also he assumes a benevolent god so that his clear and distinct experiences can be trusted. An atheist can only rely on a completed science for this, which doesnt exist now and possibly never will.
Like I said I havent read critique of pure reason so im ignorant on this score, only knowing zizeks take- what are the conditions of possibility of our experiences? Yet im not sure we can find a ground for this which does not negate what we are trying to defend- the us and the experiences which will be left are not the ones we go into it wanting to protect. If we complete science and find out free will is determinism, or time is not really passing, we will not be able to say "I am choosing x" or "in the future I want x" in the way we want to say it now. This is obviously conjecture, but in the end for science to master the object it must master the subject. Then it is not a tool for the modern subject but its very undoing.
Where im seeing your point is that pyrrhonists usually allow knowledge of appearances. Yet im left wondering if this should encourage a certain detachment from whatever principles we decide on. Then, the question is how to meaningfully be communist given the inability to prove matters of fact.
I think we have to indeed yearn for the completion of the scientific project, but also accept that this means that our conventional understanding of ourselves will be undone as well. The unmediated (by god/atheism as well as private property/communism) experience of nature Marx posits as the goal in 1844 manus is the right one, but at this point we define ourselves in relation to private property so our current understanding cannot join us there (like moses rofl).
Im thinking through the implication of the double meaning of property- owned objects as well as characteristic. My hunch is that just as the monopoly relation of property cannot exist under communism, neither can the individual or group monopoly on any property. Thus we are confronted by our own desire to be special or more wise than others as the limiting factor on our ability to build communism.
My hunch is that something like the holographic universe is true, and everything is in everything as anaxagoras said. Communism would then be something like a universal communion, yet we are stuck here by the negation of the principle that people should be able to act out their natural powers in its very success. We master tools, then industry, then science, only to arrive at the dissolution of the cultural and qualitative particulars we take up communism to advance. We must accept that in a way communism is indedled the negation of the individual and the group (defined as monopoly relations of properties/characteristics), but only in the sense of revealing them for the illusions they always were.
