Skepticism and the Criterion

Рет қаралды 5,196

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 81

@KaneB 2 жыл бұрын

Introduction to the problem of the criterion: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ppqtmqVmirJrrac Hume's skepticism about reason: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aGLUiaN_n8mXZqM Meta-skepticism: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYevgY2Mmc6ebqs

@Lojak-exe 2 жыл бұрын

Let's go, love these conversations. I haven't gotten into the problem of the criterian much but after hearing more about it, in ur other video I gotta learn more. Can't wait to watch!!!!!!!

@jordanh1635 2 жыл бұрын

Thank you both for covering this subject so well. I think not enough attention is given to this problem and epistemologists are to focused on Gettier cases, internalism/externalism and other problems to really notice this issue. Well done

@KaneB 2 жыл бұрын

Thanks dawg, glad to hear you enjoyed the conversation.

@philosphorus 2 жыл бұрын

It is anti-Plato

@СергейМакеев-ж2н 2 жыл бұрын

The circularity of coherence that you mentioned ("but what counts as coherent?") reminds me of the circularity of Kantian-like Moral Rationalism, specifically the system based on universalizability. Outsider: "But what counts as a universalization? If I have multiple ways of universalizing something, I can come up with mutually contradictory answers! Therefore, Rationalism can be used to prove anything!" Rationalist: "If you have multiple competing ways of universalization, just try universalizing *those.* The most universalized one wins!" So therefore, it is impossible for the Rationalist to convince an outsider to become a Rationalist, because any doubts about the "efficacy" of universalizing are met with more application of the very method in question.

@joelturnbull4038 2 жыл бұрын

I’d be interested to see how this plays out in a discipline outside of philosophy, such as history. What things happened in the past? How do we know what happened in the past?

@jamessorrel 2 жыл бұрын

For all we know the universe in the past could edit itself to conform to present expectations xD

@philosphorus 2 жыл бұрын

Κριτηρίων, αταραξία, εποχή This is the most important philosophy to understand

@tartarus1478 2 жыл бұрын

What is the problem of the criteria How do we know it’s a problem

@johnmanno2052 2 жыл бұрын

Interesting. Dr Kane sir, I ask my philosopher friend about the points you and your philosopher friends discuss on your channel. Then I see comments like Mr Ubermensch's. And this is my takeaway: For whatever reason, people in general, and philosophers in particular, HATE scepticism. I mean, they HAAAAAAAAAATE scepticism. My chair-of-the-philosophy-department philosophy teacher at a major private university friend turns red and rolls their eyes so violently whenever I try to discuss sceptical arguments, and they start to talk in High Disdain so pointedly, that it's truly a marvel of nature. My Communist friends accuse me of "Anglo Enlightenment liberal thought" and become rather, shall we say strident, whenever I bring up sceptical arguments. And my Chicago School/Austrian School economist friends simply refuse to engage. In fact, another friend of mine who dropped out of two highly prestigious universities, thrice, told me that when they objected to the dubious assertions voiced by his economics teacher, said teacher calmly told them that such were the basic assumptions of economic theory, and if they couldn't accept them, then they needed to study something else! As for my scientist friends, given some comments they let fly randomly hither and thither, I dare not even breathe a word about these arguments. I do not fully understand the intense emotional(?) charge that I seem to perceive that these arguments seem to evoke in almost everyone I talk to. Indeed, instead of an argument, per se, I tend to get insults or dismissal, or both Apparently, given my perception of my direct experience, we're supposed to accept the "fact" that we DO know things, goddamn it. And that's the end of any further inquiry.

@rath60 2 жыл бұрын

I think Hume has to prove that the probability does in fact tends to zero, or diverges rather than converges. After all me 'know' infinitely many convergent series. Take the Mandel blot set each point of the set is a value for which an infinite regression converges. Similarly the apparent existence of truth like events suggest that that the probabilities converge. As for the criterion argument I don't really care. I'm curious about the derivations of my assumptions. Of the infinite number of propositions choose a set assume it's true, from infinite number of criterions choose a set assume it's true. Figure out what a universe with those criterions looks like have fun. Oh look we found criterions and true proposition that match how the world seems to me what fun. (I guess I'm choosing the criterion of pleasure) but be careful I still don't care if I know anything. Including whether or not I'm having fun (although I'm pretty sure I can tell if my instantaneous state is fun).

@relational7832 11 ай бұрын

I.E. you take the pragmatic position noted in the paper that they were talking about in the video. Well, he called it pragmatic fictionalism which better emphasizes that the emphasis on practical utility but also on the intentionally creative endeavor.

@rath60 2 жыл бұрын

Idk if I'm using the term right but I suspect I would call my point of view compatibilist. Lets take the point of view that we can' 'know' things. Well to the best of my perception there are facts and there are methods for finding facts, empiricism for instance. Well I'm going to live with a commitment to treating 'facts' and 'methods' as truths and contingencies. Namely I'm going to have the fun of imagining existence through the lens of physics, biology, and chemistry as well as psychology, humanity, and other domains of what was once called knowledge. A concept compatible with what humans experience as knowledge and knowledge. I could call it knowledge' (prime). Similar prime properties can be talked about for concepts that do not map on to our experience ideally. (Which anti-realist and anti-dualist would hate) I would like to take it further I would like to say that primed concepts cand be spoken about as though they replace unprimed objects. If determinism implies humans lack free will the perhaps free-will'(D) might be that although every action a person enacts is pre determined free-will' will be indistinguishable from free will. They will still act as though they are not bound by determinism,.

@marsglorious 2 жыл бұрын

There's more true bromance in this video than in Brokeback Mountain. ❤️❤️❤️😍👌

@jordanh1635 2 жыл бұрын

It's a homiemance at this point

@bo6686 2 жыл бұрын

I feel like you missed a great opportunity to bring up the epistemic penis when the subject of filling up holes came up near the end.

@shannon8111 2 жыл бұрын

Pragmatism just seems like a weird way to address the problem. You both raised a good point that it is not just in a vacuum that the pragmatists is arguing in, there exists competition from other pragmatists. But putting that critique aside, it seems like when they say that believing x is better then y pragmatically, it seems their is also a truth claim of pragmatically better, that it actually is the case that it is better.

@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 2 жыл бұрын

We were just talking about appeals to "practicality" that could be made, not to be confused with the more philosophically specialized definitions of pragmatism. But also, I'm not sure why practicality would need to invoke a truth claim, especially for the fictionalist, where the claim about practicality is more akin to a story. But also, we don't need to cash things out at all in pragmatics/practically, we could instead have a method which tries to maximize being impracticality or being oblique as a methodology, it was also addressed in the video that by running the Problem of the Criterion enough times we'd find out that we don't even know what it means to be pragmatic, since to run the POC enough times in a row is to basically realize you don't even know the meaning of anything that constitutes your system.

@shannon8111 2 жыл бұрын

@@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 let me go through my thinking of why practicality inherently is a truth claim. I could say, "It is more practical to just start washing potatoes when you want washed potatoes, rather then evaluating each potato, estimating its dirt to potato ratio, and identifying areas of high amounts of dirt." The only way this statement makes sense is that it actually is true that it is more practical to just start washing potatoes rather then writing out the relationships between dirt and potato. Practically if one wants washed potatoes to cook, the best way is to just start washing them. . If I was not making a truth claim (whatever a truth claim means), it does not seem that I would be saying anything. Perhaps this is a bad example but I have been doing some cooking so food is on the mind. I would be interested what your thoughts are on that and where you would disagree.

@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 2 жыл бұрын

@@shannon8111 I don't see at all why this couldn't just be a story about why that's the better way to handle potatoes that relates to another story about what successful cooking is or successful managing of ingredients is. These are two stories that relate and support each other, but can be stories none the less. A spin off fiction can fill in details to some larger fiction, but it's all still fiction, not a truth claim. I think you're assuming that our larger ideas about what constitutes success can't themselves be stories (cooking might be the larger context) and washing potatoes might be a smaller story within that, but so what, can all just be fiction.

@shannon8111 2 жыл бұрын

@@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 On one level I would at least not disagree with you, I am undecided if idealism is false or if objects actually exist as we talk about them (for example potatoes could just be some useful story, a social construct, we limit potatoes to the individual potato, rather then the dirt around it, as that is the part that is useful to humans). I think where I got off the train is you would say that this is all stories all the way down. On your last sentence on my assumptions, I am not sure if it is an assumption, rather then two hands, I have one dirty and one clean potato in front of me. It just hits me as the case that if I work out the dirt to potato ratios of one, and the other just start cleaning it, the latter will be clean before the former. Assumptions to me seem more intellectual, though perhaps it could be argued this actually is a type of assumption as I don't actually have two potato's in front of me. It just seems to strike me in a way that does not feel intellectual, it seems to just be drawn on my experience of the world. I would have a few more questions. What do you mean by better if it is without truth content? Would you say there is localized truth in fictions? I don't even understand what you mean when you say fiction, because to me fiction is counter to some truth. When I see a car, that seems like a very different thing from reading about a car. I understand one could kill me the other can't, it is not just some story but an actual thing that would kill me. This is very rambling and all over the place, I don't mean it as an argument as parts would be fallacious if it was (though if fictionalism is true at least that would be false). I am just trying to think through what you actually even mean in my comment, which perhaps is my error, as I imagine you would view that as a search for truth, which would be a faulty endeavor. Which that in part makes me interested to try and understand what the hell you mean, as I feel ideologically trapped in a world of truth and cannot even understand what it means for a world without it.

@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 2 жыл бұрын

I don't take it that the concept truth even need arise to talk about potatoes or tell a story about them. The concept truth only arises when we get uptight about some account not conforming to a type of story we're already deeply committed to, and this story is often about something in the past (and the past is always underdetermined with being generated in full right this moment, in the now). So we have a story called "the past" we have a story called "conformity with the past" and from this we get a story called "deviations from the story about the past" and only at that point does an idea like truth or falsehood come online, otherwise why care about it, another way the truth story can appear is by saying "This is my definitional story" and then you have another story called "Things that resist my definitional story" and then the idea of "truth" is given meaning via the conjunction of stories of these types. But these stories need not arise at all. There are wildly more creative and flexible stories you can tell. Only habituation and indoctrination make these concepts seem insurmountable and thus they ensnare intelligent people, who have a lot of mental horsepower but have poor mental flexibility.

@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 2 жыл бұрын

I'd like to thank my boyfriend Kane for the wonderful romance we share.

@jordanh1635 2 жыл бұрын

Great to know Unknown Knowns. Love both your content

@robinsarchiz 2 жыл бұрын

You can view language through function rather than description as its primary feature. Therefore it is reasonable to accept common definitions, or invent new usages and try to convince others of their functionality, because the end goal is facilitating communication. Saying that we need to narrow down language to one set of definitions etched in stone is like saying there should only be one set of religious myths. It’s not the language itself that is of substantial interest, but what people say using it. So it’s best if people can just agree to whatever definitions so they can get on with saying what they think. Now naturally some sets of definition are more useful for delineating different thoughts than others, so we’re better off using them. But it doesn’t seem like there’s any teleology to this, meaning no foreseeable end goal, since lingual function to humanity changes, in a way that a fixed 1:1 correspondence descriptive view of language doesn’t. So I would say, no, we can’t know anything at all, in terms of language anyway, because that’s not what language does. It simply helps us navigate the world and coordinate with others (and have fun conversations).

@OveRaDaMaNt 2 жыл бұрын

My friend linked this to me for some reason but i'm still sticking with thinking philosophy is stupid.

@real_pattern 2 жыл бұрын

lol i adore your comment. why do you think that?

@KaneB 2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, that's Jacques's view too.

@appearances9250 2 жыл бұрын

Would have been great if you gave a quick intro Kane. And I know about the links.

@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 2 жыл бұрын

Weirdest comment haha. Too lazy to click a link? Like just click the link. Was your clicking finger severed in a horrible accident? We didn't want to bloat the running time of the video and for this video it's actually best if you watch Kane's entire original video to completely follow all the points that are made here.

@RefinedQualia 2 жыл бұрын

"It is interesting to note that Agrippa’s trilemma is perfectly general; in particular, it applies to philosophical positions as well as to ordinary propositions. In fact, when Agrippa’s trilemma is applied to epistemological theories themselves, the result is what has been called “the problem of the criterion” " From the SEP article on skepticism. Why does Jaques think this is a unique problem, does he read anything?

@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 2 жыл бұрын

I said it was "my favorite" skeptical challenge. Did I really harp on its uniqueness? We also talked about how great Hume's skepticism against reason was later in the video. But also I'm not sure why you'd accuse me of "not reading" while you are citing an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia articles basically give you the most general synopsis of a problem possible and yet this is the source you cite. I guess my problem is reading actual academic papers and books related to the problem, if only I had read encyclopedia entries instead then I wouldn't be hit with questions like "Does Jacques actually read anything?" - What would it matter if the problem was unique? Not sure why that would matter, what is interesting is the pretense that the problem is addressed in anyway what-so-ever when it's obvious it isn't addressed in any way at all, and the problem is endlessly arising and being ignored constantly, that's what's interesting, not sweeping the problem under the rug because an encyclopedia article reassured you it was okay to go back to sleep.

@RefinedQualia 2 жыл бұрын

@@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 "Encyclopedia articles basically give you the most general synopsis of a problem possible and yet this is the source you cite. I guess my problem is reading actual academic papers and books related to the problem, if only I had read encyclopedia entries" Oh Im sorry, can you point out the paper or book you cited in this whole 90 minute discussion? Oh thats right, you didn't, you only referenced the IEP article. Don't try to portend to anyone here that you spend your time on something more stimulating than perusing amazon for whacky flavors of funions in between bong hits

@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 2 жыл бұрын

@@RefinedQualia First, don't portend to anyone that "portend" is a regular part of your daily vocabulary and not just you being incredibly pretentious. Secondly, a paper is cited by me and is listed in the description. Thirdly why would recording a casual conversation with my friend about a philosophical problem we both enjoy need to be thoroughly sourced? And also where is your substantive reply to even a single thing said in the video?

@RefinedQualia 2 жыл бұрын

@@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 My God, don't tell me the "paper" you're referencing is the unpublished, un-named "Essay" posted in the video description? The same one that cites YOU as a source 🤣🤣 What was the last paper you published again Jaques? Do you even have any formal education in philosophy to speak of? You're a clown, Jaques. A greasy haired clown. You spend your days shit-talkin credentialed intellectuals on twitter. No wonder you didn't push back against Richard Brown when he exposed you as a self-defeated imbecile.

@noah5291 2 жыл бұрын

Question about memory skepticism. A friend brought up the idea that using memory, remembering a memory and then realizing it is unreliable

@СергейМакеев-ж2н 2 жыл бұрын

Consider this: your memory seems somewhat reliable, but that seeming didn't _have to_ be what it is. There is a possible world where you remember that all your rememberings so far ended up being reliable. There is also a possible world where you remember that 95% of your past rememberings ended up being wrong. Therefore, there must be at least _some_ kind of difference between these possible worlds. So your current seeming "my memory is somewhat reliable, but not all the time" is surely evidence for _something,_ but it's hard to articulate exactly what it is evidence for.

@KaneB 2 жыл бұрын

>> that whole process relies on that memory of the unreliable memory being reliable I'm not so sure. I think the reasoning would be something like this: If memory is reliable, then I have reason to believe that there are at least some cases where my memories is misleading, because I can remember cases where my memories were unreliable. But these cases of unreliable memories can be used to raise doubt about whether memory in general is reliable, contrary to the antecedent of the conditional. On the other hand, if memory is unreliable... well, then we already have memory skepticism. So whether we start with the assumption that memory is reliable or memory is unreliable, we can build a case against believing that memory is reliable.

@WalterHassell 2 жыл бұрын

If you truly believe that memory is generally unreliable, how do you explain the countless performative contradictions you engage in daily (by relying on your memories as if they were reliable)?

@noah5291 2 жыл бұрын

@@KaneB i see what you mean. If unreliability is deemed at any point then asking if the reliability of the memory that recognizes unreliability still leads to the same conclusion really. Is there a name for this kind of thinking where a single instance leads to disqualification or skepticism of all instances? Or does memory present a unique case where a single instance disqualifies all memory, is this just a disposition or is there an actual argument for that. Maybe i missed it in the original video.

@noah5291 2 жыл бұрын

@@WalterHassell couldn't we just say it seems like memory is unreliable (regardless of if it is or not) and the say we are operating pragmatically? For instance maybe there is an evil demon fixing all current instances to reflect our false memories. So we could have a false memory, then things are fixed in the present to reflect that. It would also have to be the case that all memories from a certain point onward would have to exist in this situation, or only some false memories are fixed by the evil demon.

@worldsalvatony5801 2 жыл бұрын

Hello sorry I am not a native english speaker. I would love to ask you what your opinion is about scholastic metaphysics. Theists have been justifying the existence of God using Aquinas’ work for a long time and I would like to know your opinion on this branch of metaphysics. I would also like to ask you, what is better? The naturalized metaphysics (the naturalistic alternative) or the scholastic metaphysics?

@benayakoren5045 2 жыл бұрын

Also observation: the almost certainly is not a simple method that if assumed will recreate the rest of our Knowledge. If there was any, we could probably translate it to a few-lines-of-code artificial general intelligence - which seem unlikely.

@benayakoren5045 2 жыл бұрын

And human brains would probably evolve to be much simpler if they only had to implement some simple method

@dominiks5068 2 жыл бұрын

why is Jacques banned from your discord server? lmao

@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 2 жыл бұрын

I was too hot for TV. - Actually Kane told me the official reason listed for the ban was for "being an ass" - Kane's discord isn't run by him, but rather is democratically run by little kids who don't know anything about philosophy. So I was banned by them real quick for brining up actual philosophical topics. Kane and I think it's hilarious that I'm banned.

@СергейМакеев-ж2н 2 жыл бұрын

@KaneB If Coherentism and all the other solutions are variants of Methodism, then isn't Particularism also a Methodism? It seems to me that you've just stretched the concept of Methodism so much that _everything_ counts as Methodism. Including Particularism and even Skepticism. Coherentism assumes a non-revisable criterion "believe only those things which result from the process of reflective revision, starting from whatever initial beliefs and methods you happen to have". Particularism assumes a non-revisable criterion "believe only those things that fit the first criterion you can come up with which accounts for all of your axiomatic beliefs". Skepticism assumes a non-revisable criterion "believe nothing at all; if you can name it, then it's unjustified".

@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 2 жыл бұрын

I think you can make the case that methodism is a type of particularism, you can also make the case that particularism is a type of a methodism. So there is some sense where we could have said all of them were a type of particularism. But look, there is a problem of the criterion here too. What properly counts as an instance of methodism, what is the criteria for sorting what counts as a proper instance of methodism. Same can be done for particularism. The point is it seems extremely easy to talk about this stuff using only the 3 Roderick Chisholm originally laid out (where it's obvious academic skepticism is a form of particularism) (and with the exception of his conflation of Academic and Pyrrhonian skepticism)

@KaneB 2 жыл бұрын

I honestly don't think we're "stretching" the concept of methodism at all. It just seems obvious to me that, on a standard reading of what methodism is, coherentism counts as methodism. I dunno, maybe there are other proposed solutions that aren't so clearly forms of methodism. But bear in mind that when Chisholm first presented the POC, he took it that there were only three responses -- particularism, methodism, and (academic) skepticism. Presumably, he would have agreed that coherentism is methodism. And as far as I know, he was the one who introduced the term "methodism". So we're using the concept in line with its original usage. But yeah, it may be that particularism ends up being just another form of methodism. The particularist is going to appeal to some sort of method for forming further beliefs on the basis of the initial beliefs they accept. I also agree with Jacques that we could just as well take any methodism to be a form of particularism -- the methodist could be taken as endorsing the particular proposition: "criterion C is a reliable method for belief-formation" or something along those lines.

@DeadEndFrog Жыл бұрын

Sceptical challanges are Great as challanges to other truth claims. But i dont see what can be done with it besides that. You cant assert them without being subject to questioning itself, and nothing can be built upon it. But there are other ways to undermine other peoples views, Psychological arguments, evolutionary arguments, pragmatical arguments, all forms of power ect. All are counters, its just that sceptical arguments are meant to be the same "attack on the foundations" but on a general basis. While alle these "games" we play have diffrent counters depending on the game. But challanges themselves arent foundations. So one ends up with having to pick one game over another, or switching games depending on the context.

@suzettedarrow8739 2 жыл бұрын

Let's translate the problem of the criterion ("Which propositions are true" & "What are the criteria for truth") into the problem of meaning. I'll use a concrete example. 1. Which propositions mean that snow is white? 2. What are the criteria for determining which propositions mean that snow is white? Without an answer to (1), we can't answer (2). Without an answer to (2), we can't answer (1). However, these questions are not about truth. They are about which propositions mean what. Do you think this problem of meaning is the same problem as the problem of the criterion?

@ubermensch4304 2 жыл бұрын

Just read the Meno. Plato dealt with this problem via the doctrine of recollection and you just keep refusing to address it. Here, I’ll even quote the relevant passage for you: Socrates: … Nonetheless, I want to investigate it with you and search out what on earth it is. Meno: How will you search for it, Socrates, when you have no idea what it is? What kind of thing from among those you are ignorant of will you set before yourself to look for? And even if you happened exactly upon it, how would you recognize that this is what you didn't know? So: I understand what you want to say, Meno. Do you see how sophistical this argument is that you're dragging up, that a person cannot search either for what he knows or what he doesn't know? For he cannot search for what he knows-he knows it, and there is no need to search for such a thing-nor for what he doesn't know-since he doesn't know what he's searching for. M: Well, doesn't this argument seem to be a finely stated, Socrates? So: Not to me. M: Can you say how? So: I can, since I have heard wise men and women, about divine affairs ... M: Uttering what speech? So: A true and beautiful one, it seems to me. M: What is it, and who is saying it? So: Those saying it are some of the priests and priestesses whose business it is to be able to give an account of their practices. And Pindar says it too and many others of the poets, those who are divinely inspired. And what they say is the following; see if you think they speak the truth. They say that the soul of man is immortal. At one time it comes to an end-which people call dying-and at another it is reborn, but it is never destroyed and so, one must live life as piously as possible… When the soul is immortal and has been born many times, and has seen the things here and the things in Hades-everything, in fact-there is nothing that it has not learned, and so it's no surprise that it can recollect about virtue and other things that it knew before. And because all of nature is of the same kind and the soul has learned everything, nothing prevents a soul that has recollected just one thing-which people call learning-from rediscovering everything for itself, so long as it is brave and doesn't give up the search. For searching and learning are, as a whole, recollection. Therefore, we must not be persuaded by this sophistical account, since that one would make us lazy and is pleasant for faint-hearted men to hear, whereas this one makes them energetic and eager to search. Believing this one to be true, I want to search with you for what virtue is.

@WalterHassell 2 жыл бұрын

Beautifully put. I wonder how Kane or KnownUnknowns would address it?

@KaneB 2 жыл бұрын

>> I’ll even quote the relevant passage for you lol plato sucks, i'm not reading all that

@WalterHassell 2 жыл бұрын

“Therefore, we must not be persuaded by this sophistical account, since that one would make us **lazy** and is pleasant for faint-hearted men to hear, whereas this one makes them energetic and eager to search.” Socrates - 1 Kane B - 0

@KaneB 2 жыл бұрын

@@WalterHassell did you think i was trying to persuade anyone of anything in my response?

@WalterHassell 2 жыл бұрын

No, and that’s the point: you didn’t even try to engage with Ubermensch.

@naturalisted1714 2 жыл бұрын

I know these three things: • I exist: whatever I may actually be. • Everything comes down to luck, because contra-causal free will cannot occur. • Only experience is what's experienced.

@RefinedQualia 2 жыл бұрын

>only experience is experienced Thats trivial and vacuous. What is the content of experience? What are the causes? How about classes of experience?

@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 2 жыл бұрын

@@RefinedQualia What a trivial and vacuous reply. Why should experience be taken to have content at all? Why take causality to exist when the arguments for it existing are absolutely terrible? Why bother classing things and how does one know that the imposition of classes isn't further from reality than something unmediated and prior to theory laden-ness, why assume post theory laden-ness is closer to the truth than prior to it?

@RefinedQualia 2 жыл бұрын

@@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 Why, why, why?? Jaques the Grand-wizard of patchy beards and early-oughts emo-hippie aesthetics, through years of marijuana abuse and unemployment, has figured out the ONE question that no philosopher can answer!

@unknownknownsphilosophy7888 2 жыл бұрын

@@RefinedQualia Where is the substantive critique of anything in this reply? Even the personal attacks and quality of your jokes are insubstantial. My beard is quite full, I was born in the 80s, I've never smoked marijuana ever, I hold multiple issued software patents and live off of royalties from said patents. You provide absolutely zero when it comes to why causality should be taken seriously, why classing things shifts us closer to rather farther away from reality, you don't say why the problem of the criterion can be safely ignored so we can move on with your posturing. Absolutely nothing has been said.