this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
377 points (91.2% liked)

AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND

759 readers
1106 users here now

This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

♦ ♦ ♦

RULES

① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.

② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.

④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.

⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.

Please also abide by the instance rules.

♦ ♦ ♦

Can't get enough? Visit my blog.

♦ ♦ ♦

Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.

$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.

 

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Is the statement that there is no objective truth objectively true? If so, there is some objective truth, and the statement is false. Like I said, it's a self-defeating claim.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We solved this a century ago with set theory.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What does set theory have to do with absolute truth? And if there is no absolute truth, how can any aspect of set theory be valid?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Might wanna brush up on your epistemology. These are middle school tier arguments.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's a simple question. Can you explain? I'm not gonna go and substantiate your argument for you.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I can, but I won't. This is no longer an entertaining use of my time. I'm not going to explain the implications of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem to someone with such a shaky grasp of epistemology. Pearls before swine.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's odd that you won't explain your epistemology to someone, but you will claim moral/intellectual superiority in not explaining an actually important point after debating them on the hypothetical sentience of the sun for over a day. You can throw all the names of theorems you want at a conversation. but the simple fact is that "there is no absolute truth" is a self-contradictory statement. Any philosophy you build on such a fragile foundation is a non-starter.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Which is precisely why I'm not going to explain epistemology to someone who has repeatedly demonstrated poor logical methodology.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

I can't control what you believe at the end of the day, but I will encourage you not to believe in claims that are fundamental logical contradictions. You deserve better than that from yourself. In any case, have a good rest of the week.