Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:37 pm
If you make such an axiomatic assumption, surely you must have asked and answered the question "What is Philosophy useful for?"
In assuming what is useful as well as the nature of use...duh. Isnt that what logic does...give definition of use as a use unto itself?
Well, you know what they say - assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
And that is a bandwagon fallacy according to people who assume such fallacies. Fuck ups are assumed, much like problems. They exist, problems that is, fundamentally as assumptions.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:07 pm
And that is a bandwagon fallacy according to people who assume such fallacies. Fuck ups are assumed, much like problems. They exist, problems that is, fundamentally as assumptions.
Yeah.... tell that to people who die as a result of human errors.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:07 pm
And that is a bandwagon fallacy according to people who assume such fallacies. Fuck ups are assumed, much like problems. They exist, problems that is, fundamentally as assumptions.
Yeah.... tell that to people who die as a result of human errors.
You are assuming people never die or that no system has "no errors". You are also assuming people did not work themselves into poor health to avoid other people from dying, or that all those "systems" don't eventually die. You are assuming alot. I am strictly assuming "void".
To answer how many voids would be the voiding of void, thus we are left with a false answer of one and many with all answers having simultaneous true and false values.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2019 6:07 pm
To answer how many voids would be the voiding of void, thus we are left with a false answer of one and many with all answers having simultaneous true and false values.
Uhuh. Congratulations. You have arrived at nihilism.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2019 6:07 pm
To answer how many voids would be the voiding of void, thus we are left with a false answer of one and many with all answers having simultaneous true and false values.
Uhuh. Congratulations. You have arrived at nihilism.
Now what?
Nihilism is an empty context as well considering it voids itself. If all assumptions are true and false, then nihilism is false as well.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2019 6:21 pm
Nihilism is an empty context as well considering it voids itself. If all assumptions are true and false, then nihilism is false as well.
Notions of "true" and "false" are meaningless to a nihilist.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2019 6:21 pm
Nihilism is an empty context as well considering it voids itself. If all assumptions are true and false, then nihilism is false as well.
Notions of "true" and "false" are meaningless to a nihilist.
Nihilism is meaningless according to it's own definition, thus is false.
As an epistemological theory, coherentism opposes dogmatic foundationalism and also infinitism through its insistence on definitions. It also attempts to offer a solution to the regress argument that plagues correspondence theory. In an epistemological sense, it is a theory about how belief can be proof-theoretically justified.
Coherentism is a reaction to foundationalism (a.k.a dogmatism).
if there were no foundationalists - there would be no coherentists.
If there were no theists - there would be no atheists.
As an epistemological theory, coherentism opposes dogmatic foundationalism and also infinitism through its insistence on definitions. It also attempts to offer a solution to the regress argument that plagues correspondence theory. In an epistemological sense, it is a theory about how belief can be proof-theoretically justified.
Coherentism is a reaction to foundationalism (a.k.a dogmatism).
if there were no foundationalists - there would be no coherentists.
If there were no theists - there would be no atheists.
"Through its insistence on definition" is a foundation of the point of the observer which is assumptive by nature. The assumption of assumption is circular and linear "form" as the voiding of void. Form is definition and foundation.
Coherentism is a dogma. It is fractal foundationalism.