[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 155 KB, 900x1600, IMG_0025.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12851821 No.12851821 [Reply] [Original]

Friend says this proves God... Thoughts?

>> No.12852709

>>12851821
haha you realise like no-one here has done any academic philosophy bro, besides not lit related ;)

>> No.12852712

>>12851821
analytic philosophy is for retards

>> No.12852720

>>12851821
Can't even read it, but let me guess, he doesn't just mean A deity, he means THE Judeo-Christian one? The one apparently spoken of in the Old and New Testaments? Okay, well, let's see if he can now connect his statements of universal abstract reasoning to that specific cultural theology and the concepts therein. Otherwise I could just take his reasoning and say it proves Brahma, Vishnu, Zeus or any other deity.

If he wasn't, my mistake. It's typically Christians who attempt such proofs, and this place especially is filled with them, hence why I thought he might be one.

>> No.12852759

>>12851821
Symbolic logic doesn't correspond to reality just as mathematics doesn't(unless you're a dipshit Platonist). It can never prove the existence of the Abrahamic God.

>> No.12852806

>>12851821
> a separate proof for an alternative time line

Wouldn’t god be the thing that created all timelines? Why would there be a difference proof? Unless they prove different gods. Polytheism proven? Has this become a christians btfo thread?

>> No.12853927

>>12851821
You have to define these variables retard. Or did you just tip Godel's proof off Wikipedia?

>> No.12853935

Your number 10 looks like a 20 and don't get me started on your 19

>> No.12854036

>>12853935
>>12853927
>>12852720
>>12852759
this is from my friend's cousin who my friend says wows his professors with his theories, helps them solve 10-year problems, and gets too bored with his philosophy class to show up. My friend (who has no philosophy or literature background) raves about this kid incessantly but I've never met the kid, and I should know better but pride is getting to me that I have to get an outsider's view. I did get the kid's number and asked him his three favorite philosophers and he said Aristotle, Russell, Plantinga. From my limited analytical point of view I kept the conversation going by saying, "You analytic bastard--but I love Aristotle. Russel over Wittgenstein? Blasphemy." I then said, "Thoughts on Kant?" but he hasn't responded.

>> No.12854039
File: 217 KB, 680x778, 1553572293562.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12854039

>>12854036
*whom

>> No.12854044

>>12854036
christ man this is probably just Gödels ontological proof, look it up

>> No.12854045

>>12854036
asking a analytical philosopher about kant......you do realize Kant is on the complete opposite spectrum from what your friend is interested in? Ask him about kripke.

>> No.12854048

>>12854036
>I then said, "Thoughts on Kant?" but he hasn't responded.
he recognized you as a pleb

>> No.12854050

>>12854044
i'm convinced Gödel was only successful because he was insane

>> No.12854052

>>12854050
insanity breeds success

>> No.12854090

>>12854045
I was wondering if he'd ever read him. I actually know a little something about Kant, and either that justifies my wariness or indeed outs me as a pleb, but nevertheless it would have helped bridge the gap in conversation. As of now I can only semi-relate to him through the little I've gleaned from the Tractatus, but the stories of this dude are too good to be true. I want to message him (RIGHT NOW /lit/) with a letter in the style of maybe Spinoza's or even Nietzsche's letters where they're arguably overly eloquent--but hell it was correspondence. I can plea for what he really is, sophist or analytic genius. Should I bust out a rough draft for you guys here?

>> No.12854110

>>12854090

Do it man

>> No.12854121

>>12851821
arbitrary axioms

>> No.12854174

>>12854090
How's this:
F-----!
I'm writing this partly for a desire for truth, partly because suspicion, partly on the account of a subsequent wily jealousy, and partly because it's fun to assume the position of a great thinker--those types of geniuses who with their foundation of judgment would rightly be skeptical about an analytical proof of God, at least in the beginning. Perhaps more importantly I'm writing this in the case that you may in fact be a genius, and if it were so, I may be one step further in achieving a type of correspondence I've only read about between people like Nietzsche, Spinoza, and even Seneca, if you will, and their followers, mentors, and friends (that is if I too am on this level). If, at any rate, what I hear from J--- is true and you've at the very least gleaned as I have from the masters, then surely you can detect in my shoddy, desperate prose, a poor imitation and an acolyte's inability to move past Nietzsche in terms of thought and style. I don't have much to say beyond this than that if you're very well-read, and, better yet, a clear and concise thinker, then there is no reason for J--- nor your family to worry--that is, of course, you prove me (more than them) wrong by actually writing something that will turn heads and get published. And yet if you are one of those common yet select geniuses who does not get recognized until after his day is gone, then you and I should be even the more impressed, and my writing to you will not be a complete waste of time. For then--and I'm sure you can relate--I will perhaps find someone with whom I can swap papers and, stars being really aligned, feel a type of resurgence through friendship known only to the Romantics, Goethe, and very few others. I look forward to your response to this mishmash disguised as a plea, whatever that response be.

>> No.12854180

>>12854110
>>12854090
>>12854174
sent to wrong person. Here's a re-route post

>> No.12854195

>>12854174
Well, I can tell you if I had this sent to me there's no way I wouldn't laugh my ass off and subsequently want to speak to you for that reason. Just in case though, make it more ironic and over the top while preserving the underlying sincere message. And change a few of the words such as "fun" or "mishmash" to more academic ones. Nonetheless, it's going to be a social gamble. Also, wait until he responds to your earlier texts.

>> No.12854202

>>12854195
very good advice. thx

>> No.12854240

>>12854174
youre like 17-19, right

>> No.12854367

>>12851821
Haha modal logic is horseshit and there will never be enough rules to accurately represent reasoning in natural language

>> No.12854433

There are symbols here which dont have universal meanings (such as the diamond). Backwards E is always "there exists" but diamond and square can mean various things in various contexts.

The undefined variables make it very difficult if not impossible to decipher (what does Ex or Ox mean in line 1?)

Without some more context I cannot make head or tail of it for sure.

The lack of proofing techniques suggests this is a string of obvious facts (tautologies or circular definitions, or renaming assignments) rendered needlessly in symbols.

I strongly suspect it is amateur nonsense written by an undergraduate philosophy student.

>> No.12854437

>>12851821
looks like something langan would come up with

>> No.12854452

>>12854433
Lines 7-9 confirm this is a bunch of doodling by a student.

>Therefore A and B
>Therefore A
>Therefore B

>> No.12854679

>>12854036
Your response is cringe. Name dropping to COPE. Name dropping the philosophy you know little about and acting as if it is the be all end all. See, “Blasphemy”. Maybe you should just humble yourself and ask him legit questions instead of trying to prove you’re worthy of his time through statements of your own worth veiled as questions

>> No.12854698
File: 63 KB, 600x377, 1551938123118-sci.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12854698

>> No.12854703

infinite regression and special pleading

>> No.12854721

>>12854679
I've already explained this .>>12854090. I have experience with Kant. His antimonies are what come to my mind when I think of trying to prove or disprove god. On the other hand the analytic proof is so far from my understanding and seems like a blunder especially after what Kant went through to try and solve the problem. If the kid was actually interested in having a conversation and was someone who liked philosophy then there's really not much stopping him from replying, even if it takes days. Even the busiest people, and especially the busiest people, find room for texts and messages. See Norpois in vol. II of Proust, who's someone who is always quick to reply with letters, which makes him a very great diplomat and a beloved politician. See Mme. Swann on the other hand who is late on purpose to parties, and sometimes doesn't even show, simply to attract attention--something people who are liked do not do, have to do, or feel compelled to do. Damn, man.

>> No.12854725

>>12854698
what a load of horse-shit. you can use this to define any one thing containing every positive characteristic, but said thing cannot logically exist because it would have positive characteristics equivalent to negations, meaning that this logical system is not able to properly deal with a being that contains all properties therein and thus cannot prove or disprove such a being.

>> No.12854739
File: 2.83 MB, 4032x3024, IMG_4648.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12854739

>>12854174
Dude. This is terrible. What is your goal here? Your interest reads oddly desperate, reekingly insecure, and vaguely perverse. It's masturbatory.
Ask him if he wants to talk over coffee or something face to face if you really care about what he has to say or if you really believe you have something worthwhile to contribute.
Don't get caught up in formalities like this. Relax and be a person, not whatever this is.

>> No.12854747

>>12854739
OP, look at the pic this person posted. They are obviously malevolent, intentionally giving bad advice. Do the opposite of what he says.

>> No.12854869

>>12854747
Might not be the most appropriate picture, but do you disagree with what I'm saying here or just the image?
This is genuine and well intentioned advice.

>> No.12855465

>>12854698
>proving god exists without defining what existing means
Was Gödel a retard?

>> No.12855468

>>12854698
>>12855465
Oh shit and don't get me started on using "positive" without defining it

>> No.12855479

>>12854698
How is this not subject to the same "ideal island" critique?

>> No.12855487

>>12854036
>this is from my friend's cousin who my friend says wows his professors with his theories, helps them solve 10-year problems, and gets too bored with his philosophy class to show up.
This applies to me and I'm just a regular dude, although I do attend all my classes. Literally just email any professor if they have time to discuss some philosophical ideas that've been going through your head recently and provide literally anything of novelty and they'll be "wow"'d; they genuinely want to encourage you. And "helping them solve 10-year problems" means nothing if you don't explain what problem they're talking about. Would you be impressed by somebody helping their prof solve some philosophical paradox postulated by the prof's predecessor, unheard of outside that particular university?
Like, seriously. That description applies to me and I'm just a retard on /lit/.

>> No.12857168

>>12851821
shit

>> No.12857235

>>12851821
>alternative timeline
No thanks

>> No.12857254

>>12851821
Modal logic is a game of fake diamonds and empty boxes.

>> No.12857259

undefined variables mean nothing retard

>> No.12857264

>>12854036
based pasta

>> No.12857714

>>12851821
No.

>> No.12858631

>>12857254
crass consumerist

>> No.12859413

>>12851821
>a bunch of symbols to which I myself ascribe meaning and then autistically constrain myself to play along a bunch of rules that I declare are the essence of reasoning will suffice to encompass the greatness of God