[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]

/b/ - Random

Name
Email
Message

*Text* => Text

**Text** => Text

***Text*** => Text

[spoiler]Text[/spoiler] => Text

Image
Direct Link
Options NSFW image
Sage (thread won't be bumped)

Janitor applications are open


Check the Catalog before making a new thread.
Do not respond to maleposters. See Rule 7.
Please read the rules! Last update: 04/27/2021

galaxy-cat-univers…

The universe Anonymous 71288

It is astounding to me how ignored the fact we cannot use the empirical system to discover the answers to any of the big questions such as how the universe came to exist etc

By observing the representation we can only ever discover how things appear and never why they appear at all.
A scientist is only concerned with figuring out the laws that govern matter and how it interacts within the universe but not concerned at all with why it functions in this way or any way at all on a deeper level.
Strangely though this is considered no concern at all.

The philosopher may be able to come up with ideas about the universe itself but largely is unable to test any metaphysical theories at all which may rest upon many abstractions that are also untestable so can only ever be uncertain.

Reason itself in my opinion has transcended its practical use and is obviously limited because it cannot explain the universe itself as it operates on a deeper level on its own sets of rules outside of the representation which we cannot cognize at all.
It is much like a dream where the rules governing that simulacrum are outside of practical reasoning.

So how do we figure out any of these big questions?
We may decide it is simply out of our hands and consider the goal a futile endeavour but there very well could be another system of thought yet to be discovered that will give us the answers.
Secular society has rebranded religion and fails to see it: this is certain.

Anonymous 71289

Your brain is too large to be posting here.
Escape while you can.

Anonymous 71291

>>71289
No no I have no idea of anything and frequently discover that my opinions I hold are incorrect after investigating them.
I am brainlet tier..

I just wanted to know what other peoples thoughts could be on this issue.
Sorry for not writing a better OP I would like to blame my brainfog but am just bad at english and it is my only language!!

Anonymous 71292

>>71291
>No no I have no idea of anything and frequently discover that my opinions I hold are incorrect after investigating them.
Knowing that you don't know everything and not instantly doubling down in the face of contradictory information is one of the major sign of not being a brainlet.

But to answer your thread, I think that it's impossible to find the answers to those big questions.
Sure the answer of "why" things the way they are is interesting, but I don't think you can ever get an answer to why that's not heavily opinionated

Anonymous 71294

>>71288
>Strangely though this is considered no concern at all.
Why would it be a concern?
>So how do we figure out any of these big questions?
>We may decide it is simply out of our hands and consider the goal a futile endeavour but there very well could be another system of thought yet to be discovered that will give us the answers.
The system of thought you are looking for is faith and intuition based.
<but that's not reasonable or falsifiable!
You're the one making the assertion that reason can't explore these topics, by definition, this must mean the actual way to answer these questions must be unreasonable. If they weren't, they would be reasonable, and thus based in reason.
>Secular society has rebranded religion and fails to see it: this is certain.
Secular society has not rebranded religion, it never fully escaped the religious connotations that contained it. Take a look at the average atheists understanding of morality and you'll find it's either repackaged Christianity or maybe Buddhism if you're in the East. The only people who believe science replaced religion are the same brainlets who don't understand how epistemological philosophy works. People don't worship science these days the same way they worship the church.

Anonymous 71297

>>71292
It does seem to be a waste of time to even bother trying to find out unless it brings a distraction and is a way to cope since that is the only reason we do anything at all.
Some things may truly be unknowable whethere we like it or not…

>>71294
>Why would it be a concern?
It is a concern because we are told by conventional authorities we can discover the truth by using science when this is not the case for all things as I mentioned.
I understand that even suggesting science may not provide answers results in a kneejerk reaction and has pejorative connotations that someone is stuck in the past controlled by mystic thinking.
The global consciousness for the most part is like a zoomer rebelling against the boomers.
>The system of thought you are looking for is faith and intuition based.
I did not mention theology yet this has the same problems as I mentioned already regaridng philosophy since it really is one in the same in many ways.

Why must the only way to explain that which cannot be explained using reason alone be theistic theories?
There could be an alternative system of thought as I mentioned yet to claim it is provable is unknown.

>Secular society has not rebranded religion, it never fully escaped the religious connotations that contained it.

Well yes I should have phrased myself better 100%
It does seem obvious though that too much faith has been put in empiricism though.


Do you disagree that empirical thought is limited at truly explaining everything though? if so I would be curious to hear why.

Anonymous 71300

>>71297
>It is a concern because we are told by conventional authorities we can discover the truth by using science when this is not the case for all things as I mentioned.
1. Why do you care what conventional authorities think?
2. Even if you did care about what conventional authorities think, those same conventional authorities will, for the most part, never claim that science can give you those answers. See vid related at the 14:53 minute mark. Feynman being an incredibly noteworthy individual in Quantum Mechanics, breaks down why reasoning doesn't present new presmises, it can only test existing ones against each other. Welcome to fundamental epistemology.

Fuck, it requires a leap of faith to even believe other minds exist. Go read a critique of pure reason by the Kant goblin. Reasoning can not take anything A-priori which is what you are looking for.
>Why must the only way to explain that which cannot be explained using reason alone be theistic theories?
Because you are unable to see the forest for the trees. Theological theory is the end result of a different thought system, not the thought system in and of itself. Your argument is tantamount to saying the Theory of Relativity encapsulates all of reasoning as opposed to being a result from it.
>There could be an alternative system of thought as I mentioned yet to claim it is provable is unknown.
It's contradictory on a epistemological to derive a rational system to a non-rational system as they have a-priori standards for evidence and abstraction. If you just want to argue that something exists outside of reason (outside of observation or experience), then that already exists. I believe Kant would call it "Judgement", others would call it "Faith". It can not prove anything because it does not prove things in the way reasoning does, because by it's nature it is irrational. To want a system that can prove things, but is itself not rational, thus you are requesting something contradictory. Something that is not rational, but follows rational rules.

Now, if you are instead trying to explore the possibility of something that exists simultaneously outside rational reasoning and judgement/faith based methods of thought. Sure I guess, maybe it exists, but by the base principles you yourself have asserted, it will not be rational and thus can NOT prove things in a rational sense. You can't have your reasoning and eat it too.
>Do you disagree that empirical thought is limited at truly explaining everything though? if so I would be curious to hear why.
I don't disagree, I agree to the point it's a settled issue. Anyone worth talking to about the subject is pretty clear about the limitations of reason. Hence me mentioning epistemological reasoning. Go read David Hume if you want clarification on how shaky human inference even is.

Anonymous 71309

>>71300
Yes you make some good points and essentially it leaves everything uncertain.
I am familiar with Kant.
bah I know a lot of people are aware of these limitations but have found in personal experience they are not.
Thanks for author recommendation may be good to read something other than pessimistic stuff for a change.
le brainfog hope my reply does not seem rude for being rather limited bahh

Anonymous ## Cleanup crew 79657

Moved to >>>/x/2686.



[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]