Thread 24644864

Is all of philosophy just sophistry?

KAREN: Is "Is all of philosophy just sophistry?" type-post just sophistry ? Is every statement just a form of sophistry. Is language just a self-replicating parasite type post ? Any books for this feel ?

>>24644870
I guess the philosophical investigations will enlighten you and give you a crystal clear understanding of everything philosophy and language are. After this you won’t have any questions left, because Wittgenstein will have answered everything

>>24644864 (OP)
They are called philoSOPHISTs

>>24644864 (OP)
>Is all of philosophy just sophistry?
Not all of it, apologetics is all sophistry as is retarded takes like the OP. Good philosophy exists though, and it is entirely intuitive and common sensical, eg determinism.

>>24644864 (OP)
Language works because it's imperfect and philosophy is being so autistic that you don't see this imperfection as perfection but keep nitpicking

>>24644870
Blindsight. It's mediocre scifi, but it deals with language, chinese rooms etc.

>>24644864 (OP)
Sophistry is arguing to win a debate; it’s not philosophy but Protagoras did have his own philosophical thoughts

I never had the intuition that there is an essence to man made objects.

>>24644864 (OP)
I am sure to a sophist philosophy would seem like sophistry.

>>24645677
People kept misunderstanding me because language is imperfect. Philosophy has helped iron out some wrinkles.

>>24644864 (OP)
Rhetoric is the best kind of philosophy

Platonists are the modern day sophists. God damn those fags are insufferable.

>>24646363
>t. sophist

>>24644864 (OP)
>Is all of philosophy just sophistry?
Yes, but philosophy helps one reach this conclusion.

>>24644942
Determinism isn't common sense though, believing we have free will is our default state of being.
>>24647473
I believe it. It's like how Bertrand Russell spent more than a decade creating Principia Mathematica trying to ground mathematics in pure logic then gets BTFO by Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem making all of his effort moot. Philosophy has seemed to fall in the same trap of trying to ground itself in pure logic when there are limits that simply cannot be overcome and the concepts it attempts to prove are way more nebulous compared to mathematical concepts.

>>24647452
True. And ill die on that hill.

>>24647632
Determinism is satanic

Chairs are the niggers of furniture and will fuck up your spine.

>>24647745
Based occidental floor-sitter.

>>24647632
>Determinism isn't common sense though, believing we have free will is our default state of being.
Wrong, retard.

>>24648163
Persuasive; so THIS is the power of philosophy?

>>24644864 (OP)
As you are well aware despite you stupid fucking retard bait post, yes, a large amount of effort in the field has been directed towards formally establishing voracity/validity. Go fuck yourself and die.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system

>>24648201
>However, in 1931 Kurt Gödel proved that any consistent formal system sufficiently powerful to express basic arithmetic cannot prove its own completeness. This effectively showed that Hilbert's program was impossible as stated.

>>24648213
Ah, so you're a speed reading illiterate hunting for something to satisfy your confirmation bias. Got it.

>>24648232
Yes, we are the same, only difference is I'm honest. Anyways, I find it amusing that philosophers believe that switching words with symbols and coopting mathematical terms will somehow make their field of study valid and nontrivial. It's like how psychology and sociology abuse the word "science" in "social sciences" to give themselves credibility.

>>24648246
>now he's projecting
brother you're in /lit/ fucking READ books nigga fucking READ. what you are saying is making you look really fucking retarded and you would know why if you just READ.

>>24644870
>Is language just a self-replicating parasite type post ?

>>24647632
>Determinism isn't common sense though
How do you know that? lol

This is empirical claim
How do you operationalize "common sense"? Who did you survey?

>>24648319
>How do you know that?
Because I feel it to be true

>>24648344
What does it feel like for determinism to not be the common sense view?

imo, talking to people, doing a survey or something. would be a better method of trying to figure out what most people think
rather than just feeling it

Most modern philosophy is lower than Sophistry desu. For the ancients philosophy was a way of life read Hadot and Uzdavinys if you’d like to know more

>>24644864 (OP)
read plato, there's a chapter about sophists in his dialogues, there would be your anwser

>>24648364
It feels like I have free will.
I am a human.
Therefore humans have the capability of free will.
Since the only experience I have is my own then I can only assume that others have the same free will that I have.
Therefore all humans have free will.

Anyways, I'm very aware of the limits of epistemology but I don't want to debate free will. My original point is that determinism isn't common sense and the fact that we are discussing it and philosophers and theologians across have debated it for centuries with no consensus means the answer is not obvious and therefore not common sense. Only statements we would consider trivial could be considered common sense but those would never be worth discussing like: "every living thing can die," "1 is equal to 1," or "a square can't be a circle."

>>24648397
Will do. I read some of Plato's dialogues, do you know which ones discuss sophists?

>>24648434
>do you know which ones discuss sophists?
it is literally called "... of sophists"

>>24648434
If you read philosophy your experience of the world is probably highly idiosyncratic.

>>24646229
What about swords?