Lol, yes and absolutely not. There is no certainty absent assumptions, but there is certainty within a given framework of axioms.

All we have been able to show is that belief, in something, is necessary. It can be that our memories are our own, or that formal logic gives valid results, or that God exists. But without faith in some axioms we cannot reason.

The lack of certainty can mean that we are trying to make sense of chaos or it can mean that faith is as fundamental as God said it is.

I could accept the former premise, but it is uninteresting, my coming and going as an accident of a chaotic interpretation of random states would be meaningless. Sure I could assign it my own meaning to feel better about existence but that too would be meaningless.

Maybe that is exactly what I am doing in accepting the latter premise. Maybe following Christ is as ephemeral and arbitrary as stacking sats or making shoes for orphans. Just another way to assign meaning to a temporary ordered structure in the ether.

If that is the case it is no worse that any other interpretation. If instead it is true... Then a gamble well made.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

lol I lost you probably two posts ago. But were you trying to tell me because something is uninteresting to you, therefore it must be false?

Get the fuck outa here!!!!

No. Not what I said. But if you lost me two posts ago, I might as well leave. Another time perhaps.

I think you are equating faith to only mean faith in god. And maybe even a specific god. To me, that sounds like less meaning, not more.

I specifically did not. I mentioned other types of faith. Like faith that our memories are our own. Faith in God is only one way to build a set of axioms, but whatever your set of axioms, you have to have faith in it or you cannot make use of it.

Then we have nothing to disagree on. Are you suggesting I lack faith? Or philosophers lack faith? Or lack a set of axioms?

None of the above. I assert that philosophy has failed to produced a concrete methodology for discerning truth. If axioms exist and are accepted then we should have access to rigorous tools to answer philosophical questions. We should be able to make wise choices. But near as I can tell (correct me if I am wrong) modern philosophy's only claim is that you cannot make moral claims. You might find a system that can guide your personal decisions but not one that can be used to instruct someone else.

You can't build a functional society that way.

Again I may be way off base. I lost interest in modern philosophy after Kant and Hume. I don't even disagree with them. Their critique was correct. But all we had to do to fix it was to agree on some axioms and then continue. We haven't done that near as I can tell.

What is the better methodology for discerning truth?

Don't stop, thinking.

Philosophy’s only claim is: think.

Modern philosophy's only claim.

Imagine telling an aspiring plumber "work" or repeating the injunction to think to an engineer.

You must be able to tell the plumber how to work and the engineer how to think.

All I see from current schools of thought is how to sound smart without accomplishing anything. The emperor has no clothes! Plumbers are better philosophers because at least they can tell you something.

What are the alternatives to proof of work and proof of thought?

Sometimes, it’s hard to simply think.