Philosophy Now Forum

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 7:22 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 4:27 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2024 1:56 pm What fsk did you base that on?

.. on the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom which is based on the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom based on FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom and ....

And so what fsk did you base that decision on?

ChatGPT said:
To resolve the infinite regress invoked by your interlocutor, you can adopt a foundationalist approach or a coherentist approach, depending on your philosophical stance:
________________________________________
1. Foundationalist Approach
•Propose a Self-Evident Foundation: You can argue that the foundational FSK of rationality, critical thinking, and wisdom does not require further justification because it is axiomatic or self-evident. It serves as the necessary groundwork for any rational discourse, much like axioms in mathematics or the basic laws of logic.
•Example Analogy: In science, certain principles (e.g., conservation of energy) are not endlessly questioned but accepted as foundational because they are universally applicable and empirically validated.
•Resolution of Regress: The regress stops at this foundational FSK because it provides the criteria for evaluating all other FSKs.

________________________________________
2. Coherentist Approach
•Argue for Mutual Coherence: Instead of seeking an ultimate foundation, you can claim that the FSK of rationality, critical thinking, and wisdom is justified by its coherence with other elements of human cognition and knowledge. This FSK is validated by its ability to produce consistent, reliable, and effective results across diverse domains.
•Example Analogy: Scientific theories are often accepted because of their coherence with existing evidence and theories, rather than their derivation from some ultimate ground.
•Resolution of Regress: The infinite regress dissolves because justification is not linear but web-like, with the FSK being an integral part of the coherent whole.
________________________________________

Addressing Your Interlocutor's Intellectual Limitations:
If your interlocutor questions the meta-FSK or seeks an ultimate justification. You can point out the following:
1.Pragmatic Acceptance in Science:
o Mature scientists accept the Big Bang as a tentative explanatory boundary within the cosmological framework. Similarly, the FSK of rationality, critical thinking, and wisdom can be accepted as the pragmatic boundary for evaluating frameworks.
o Scientists do not reject the Big Bang because it aligns with available evidence and provides a coherent framework for understanding cosmic origins.

2. Meta-FSK as a Practical Finality:
o You can argue that questioning beyond the FSK of rationality, critical thinking, and wisdom does not yield practical or meaningful results because such questioning lacks the criteria for evaluation.
o For instance, questioning "what's beyond the Big Bang" within science is constrained by the lack of empirical access, making it speculative rather than scientific.
________________________________________
Suggested Response to Infinite Regress
You could frame your response as follows:

"The FSK of rationality, critical thinking, and wisdom serves as a pragmatic and functional boundary for evaluating frameworks and systems of knowledge.
While it is possible to endlessly question its basis, such questioning does not lead to meaningful or actionable insights.
Much like science accepts the Big Bang as a tentative explanatory boundary, the FSK of rationality and wisdom is accepted because it demonstrably works as the most effective tool for advancing human understanding and resolving disputes.
To demand a further FSK leads to an infinite regress that is practically unproductive and logically unnecessary."

This response avoids undermining your thesis while showing that the regress is not an intellectual limitation but a misplaced demand for justification beyond what is practically or logically necessary.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:11 am Whenever I present the FSK as the basis of Knowledge, I am always countered with the question of infinite regress to it.
I believe it is very philosophical immature in not being able to accept a reasonable limit instead of persisting towards a paralysis of knowledge.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 12:12 pm this FSK thing is just unwanted clutter.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 1:34 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 12:12 pm this FSK thing is just unwanted clutter.

Couldn't agree more. I oppose literring the english language with some bullshit phrase a person who doesn't even know english well came up with.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 2:23 pmSimilarly, asking us not to doubt it because we need FSKs to understand our own beliefs about the world and ourselves which appears to be the purpose of the coherentist approach, is also worthless. Nobody but VA is permitted to play the FSK game, we aren't even allowed to know the rules. The point of it is for him to play king of the castle with regard to all knowledge, and for VA to set the terms of "credibility" for everything using VA provided hallucinated numbers to measure everything.

It's astonishing that he can maintain this Mad Hatter's Tea Party game for a decade, yet still seem affronted that nobody but he is playing it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:12 am Notes:

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 6:54 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 2:23 pmSimilarly, asking us not to doubt it because we need FSKs to understand our own beliefs about the world and ourselves which appears to be the purpose of the coherentist approach, is also worthless. Nobody but VA is permitted to play the FSK game, we aren't even allowed to know the rules. The point of it is for him to play king of the castle with regard to all knowledge, and for VA to set the terms of "credibility" for everything using VA provided hallucinated numbers to measure everything.

It's astonishing that he can maintain this Mad Hatter's Tea Party game for a decade, yet still seem affronted that nobody but he is playing it.

In Big Daddy the kid makes the foster dad play a game called "I win". The rules are this: whatever happens, the kid wins.

You aren't the first to notice that that's VA's game, and he doesn't just do it with his FSK langauge. He also does it when he talks to AIs. When he talks to an AI and he gets it to agree with him, he gets to say "I win". And when I ask an AI a question about something he was talking about, and the AI agrees with me, he says "You were not asking the questions deeply enough, your questions were very shallow and immature, so I win".

He's so fucking stupid. VA, you reading this? You're fucking stupid dude.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 1:33 pm If we're talking about immature, it's pretty immature of VA to insist that someone can't just say "water is made of h2o molecules", it's immature to insist that they have to say "... as conditioned upon the chemistry FSK"

If we were all being mature here, VA, we wouldn't have to have this discussion. You would allow people to talk about scientific truths without railing on about fsks. And if you had doubts about some supposed scientific truth, you could present those doubts, again, without railing on about scientific FSKs.

If you doubt that water is composed of H2O molecule, you can express that doubt without saying "FSK" even once.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 10:50 am VA, if you have an ounce of grey matter, you'll drop all the fsk bullshit.