In epistemology...

> In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics.
> If it is asked how any knowledge is known to be true, proof may be provided.
> Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof.
> The Münchhausen trilemma is that there are only three options when providing proof in this situation:

>The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other
> The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
>The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts
Is pragmatism the only answer to this? Which axioms should we pragmatically accept?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#Criticisms
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

bump. c'mon Sup Forums, this is serious; pragmatism is opposite of ideological and political absolutism

Sup Forums literally cannot answer this. Taking this seriously means that we should be developing/cultivating our presuppositions and axioms, with the aim of selecting axioms which are conducive to human flourishment
> Mind-independent reality exists (Time/Space/Matter/Energy)
> History has happened
> Human consciousness exists
> A = B and A != B cannot be both true at the same time

Whatever this is its communist. Plz go.

Why should I accepted any of those axiomatically
Get more basic and I might start accepting some stuff.

Faggot post modern chumps.

Because they are useful, aka pragmatism. How much more basic do you want to get?
> legit curious

As basic as possible. It doesnt matter anyway because Godel.

>which axiom should we pragmatically accept
Whichever fits the objective. The problem is when the objective is somehow corrupted by emotion, confusion, sabotage etc. Or when it is not well defined/non existent.

Is it possible to teach pragmatism. Words are mostly references to culture and even eloquent explanations are interpreted subjectively. Ultimately every truth has to be realised by the subject alone.

Yeah, Godel fucks us all over in terms of absolute knowledge, but a pragmatic perspective would be that we don't have to have absolute certainty to get the outcomes we want. We didn't need to understand quantum physics (or whatever will replace it) in order to make a fire

True, selecting a goal is the most difficult part, because how do you decide what is important/not important? However, if you haven't committed suicide yet, I would say that you are acting out the presupposition that surviving and thriving is preferable to not-surviving and not-thriving, which is a good place to start, and is really in line with a lot of Darwinian thinking. I'm not really sure how to dissuade someone from committing suicide though, because they could just reject that presupposition out of hand and kill themselves :S

Don't let this thread die, damnit, this problem is at the bottom/foundation of my worldview, and I am trying to stress test it with your help

you cannot fully formalize many of the things you argue about, the complexity is just too huge
you'll have to live with the fact that in any discussion people will argue with different prepositions and the discussion may spiral into arguing about the prepositions for those prepositions

you do not necessarily need both consistency and completeness in a formal system that is supposed to accurately model reality or a subset of it
not being able to prove a certain statement may be perfectly fine and intuitive

In practice this is useless wankery. In theory we can define axioms that are pretty reasonable. For example in mathematics numbers and basic operations can be treated as axioms

TL;DR kys

Right, hence the need for pragmatism. There is nothing to be gained by believing you are a brain in a vat, or that the world popped into existence five minutes ago, that gravity is just a social construct, or any of the other philosophical thought experiments/wankery that push people towards post-modernism.
Right, but we can also create interesting and useful math by trying out other axioms, such as the axioms which underlie non-Euclidean geometry (which underlie modern GPS systems, amongst other things). The fact that some mathematics appears to correspond to our existence is both exciting and fascinating, because other mathematics clearly does not (such as the p-adic numbers)

Easy, an infinitely small thing is nothing.
Saying ''you can't prove it'' is an infinite thing. However, it's smaller with every step.....infinitely small is 0. nothing.

so therefore, you can't prove it is an infinitely small argument.

It is also possible to see different perspectives and have them both be useful.

I can assume that I am here for a purpose as there is enough evidence to support that. It may help me to through hardships and for strife. I can also legitimately assume that I am without purpose. I have no meaning to the greater cosmos and searching for guidance will have me searching in vain. Purpose as such is created by man and it is myself that find meaning.

>Right, but we can also create interesting and useful math by trying out other axioms, such as the axioms which underlie non-Euclidean geometry (which underlie modern GPS systems, amongst other things). The fact that some mathematics appears to correspond to our existence is both exciting and fascinating, because other mathematics clearly does not (such as the p-adic numbers)
Yes? What of it? The answer to your question is axioms, what do you still want m80? You can build different thought constructs under different axioms, if that gets you off then knock yourself out

Right, but to believe that, you have to first believe in the concept of infinity, or pragmatically accept the concept of infinity as an axiom, which most mathematicians do, but some don't, and those that don't try to pass off the belief in infinity as an example of white men oppressing stronk womyn of color, which is endlessly frustrating because they are completely ignoring the pragmatic argument.
Interesting. I would say that believing A and not-A would be a violation of the law of non-contradiction, unless you are also dispensing with that axiom in order to make your point? What is the utility in believing your life has no purpose?
I'm trying to articulate the axioms which underlie my life, and attempt to discern whether or not any of those axioms need changing/updating. My meta-goal is to create a perspective on life that is conducive to iterable individual and collective flourishment, and I am curious to see what axioms it would be necessary to accept in order to achieve that goal. Some obvious ones seem to be
> I exist
> Other minds exist
> Mind independent reality exists
> History has happened
But I am unsure about what other axioms would be necessary to achieve this goal, hence the thread

yes, arguing about statements that you know you cannot prove is pointless

>The fact that some mathematics appears to correspond to our existence is both exciting and fascinating
it isn't exciting because asking "why" for that statement is pointless
>because other mathematics clearly does not
debatable
most axiomatic systems we come up with are intended to simplify certain branches of maths because defining everything in terms of zfc or category theory is hard and may feel unintuitive
this includes p adic numbers, they have useful applications

>infinitely small thing
undefined in any sensible context

the rest of your post is gibberish

You know that those solipsistic hyper-empiricist philosophies are really typical of anglo tradition and you find them with people like Popper, who is then used by economists to say things in the vein of "Can't know nothing so let's just make some cash"

>But I am unsure about what other axioms would be necessary to achieve this goal, hence the thread
Well obviously that varies argument by argument. So have fun listing all the arguments that tickle your anus and feel free to come up with axioms to support those. Or alternatively get your autism cured

>Which axioms should we pragmatically accept?
Jesus died on the cross for your sins, past, present and future. Solves the problem, as it enables one to be wrong and try again

r/ing more information about how p-adic numbers are used.
Not an argument.
Yeah, to believe that requires a fucking lot of other axioms tho, and I am unconvinced that adopting axioms about Christian metaphysics is helpful.

assuming infinity leads to many unintuitive problems

>I would say that believing A and not-A would be a violation of the law of non-contradiction
any sufficiently complex consistent axiomatic system cannot prove its own consistency

>I'm trying to articulate the axioms which underlie my life
you're trying to formalize things that are both imprecise and extremely complex

>r/ing more information about how p-adic numbers are used.
consult wikipedia
like anything related to primes, it's interesting in number theory and thus in crypto

My take on it is that I'll worry about the axioms when I cross that bridge. If you want to construct some kind of all-encompassing set of axioms then maybe a finite set of axioms will do. Or maybe not. In any case I doubt that you can ever be sure that you have a conclusive set of axioms for everything

Actually, I've been more interested in people like Roy Baskar and the critical realists, who seem to strike the correct balance between postmodern wankery and dogmatic empiricism.
I should point out however that i do think one can reasonably be an agnostic theist, (agnostic from the sense of epistemology, and theistic from a pragmatic perspective) I find it hard to believe that the beginning of the existence of the universe can be ignored, though I am skeptical about the Bible and organized religion/Jewry
Alright, fair enough Godel, but that doesn't change the fact that it is more helpful to have a consistent map of the world by which to operate compared to an inconsistent map of the world. While one can philosophically argue a la Hume that we shouldn't expect the laws of the universe to be constant and thus should be frenetically preparing for the possibility that gravity is going to reverse itself, or the strong nuclear force is going to wink out of existence, to do so is completely unhelpful.
Right, hence the need for continual dialogue and 'rescuing your father from the underworld' as JBP would put it. I interpret that statement as exhorting us to critically examine the presuppositions which underlie out worldviews/institutions etc., see what is working and what is not, and to be open to changing those presuppositions if it is merited, which I would guess 99% of the time it isn't, and 99% of proposed changes will likely make things worse by almost any metric you care to name.

>JBP
JBP is a wanker. None of his tirades ever really go anywhere

God take the fucking dick out of your ass moron, why do you need so many posts to say "lel, im gonna do what i think is right"

You are just really small of mind

many interesting axiomatic systems actually are not finite

>have a consistent map of the world by which to operate compared to an inconsistent map of the world
i do not understand what this means

>JBP
JBP is a snake oil merchant

>see what is working and what is not
zfc or maybe category theory work pretty well
for practical applications we also have a bunch of type systems and a few axiomatic systems that are essentially part of zfc that we use so we don't need to come up with ugly definitions within zfc

pic related

In any case, if you're looking to fix institutions, then I suppose you'll necessarily have to dip into pragmatism. I'm not sure what you had in mind exactly but I if institutions are shitty then I doubt their problem is epistemology

Sure I'll just pretend it's deep and meaningful

I guess my point is that a concept can have multiple meanings. Also, as per your original post, ultimately any contradictions are indiscernible because the proof involved is not definitive.

Understanding that you have no purpose, as in a preconceived ambition, might force you to create that purpose you where meant to find. Also you might get lost in scripture looking for signs of it or get high headed and legitimise your selfish desires.

By being aware of the bigger picture you get more complex problems but more tools and a better adapted solution.

A lot of concepts are contradictory in nature. But only their logical meaning and not the underlying reality to which they are referencing. Such as duality and non-duality.

You overthinking mate. The believe in a theist being is a psychological reassurance to not fear what comes after dying. The axiom of Christianity that we are already saved through the messiah Jesus Christ is an extra plus to be able to even think about axioms and the meanings of life. Then no matter how wrong you may be, Jesus teaches to better ourself, try again, think about different ways and be aware if you are wrong if you understood, that one was wrong.

The scriptures are merely marketing and a way to give a glimpse at, in which context the teachings were developed, for the church first is also true, but unfortunatelly, like every thing man made it can fail, where it is in the hands of humans to think about why it is wrong and better it.

> consistent map of the world by which to operate
Okay, let me see if I can explain a bit better.
When you go to the store to get something because you are having friends over and wanted to make a cool recipe you found on the internet, you don't stop halfway to the store and think:
"Gosh, my belief that the store is going to be the same place it was last week is predicated on unprovable assumptions that might be wrong- maybe I should check and see if gravity is still in effect"
You just go to the store and spend way too much money on some bullshit ingredients. Most of the time, you have a certain amount of faith in your fundamental presuppositions which allow you to simplify the world enough to live in it and do whatever bullshit you are planning to do that day like go to work, pay rent etc.

>zfc
Axiom of choice
Axiom of infinity

Do these work pretty well?

>deep and meaningful

lol, no, its self-evident and practical

the lads ideas all flow around his central idea on how the psyche succesfuly reintegrates chaotic experiences

>I interpret that statement as exhorting us to critically examine the presuppositions which underlie out worldviews/institutions etc., see what is working and what is not,

lol, no its not, its exhorting you to clean your room

>the lads ideas all flow around his central idea on how the psyche succesfuly reintegrates chaotic experiences
This is exactly what I mean. Useless wankery that has no connection to reality. But he uses a lot of big words so retards think it's deep

it actually does connect to reality, you are just dumb as shit

this whole thread suffers from unkempt rooms

I was asking about the utility in believing that you have no purpose, and you said that if you believe that you have no purpose you might create that purpose you were 'meant' to find. Doesn't that statement implying teleology? How can you be 'meant' to do anything if there is no purpose in life? We can certainly disagree about what we think our purpose IS, but I am hard pressed to understand how it is helpful to dispense of the notion of purpose entirely.
Mickey pls go.
Ah, so you are proposing a different understanding of the Christian religion compared to the more literal interpretation of a god-man dying and being resurrected? If you accept the presupposition that history has happened, I don't find it unreasonable to believe that someone named Jesus of Nazareth lived and died in 33BC. I suppose I am more skeptical of the traditional metaphysics, however.
Yeah, cleaning your room comes first, and cleaning your room and sorting yourself out almost invariably means that you will reject leftist presuppositions, but that doesn't mean that we can't engage in critical discussion about our society and institutions. Hell, this board does it all the time when we criticize our society for not being right-wing enough.

>demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth
that's easy as fuck to disprove though:

I think therefore I am. I able to think therefore I know at the very least I exist and this is an absolute truth.

yes
unless you're looking to use computer assisted proofs, zfc is pretty useful, otherwise one of the many more limited type theories are useful

Ok prove it. Prove that psyche reintegrates chaotic experiences

Prove that you think

With regards to metaphysical outlooks, different ideologies subscribe to each of these answers in one form or another.

For example:
Circular = metaphysical answer used by egoism, most forms of materialism
Regressive = metaphysical answer used by Buddhism, pantheism, Stoicism, Hinduism, some forms of materialism
Axiomatic = metaphysical answer used by theism and panentheism. God is the fundamental, transcendent precept from which all existence, being, logic, truth, etc. come from.

The axiomatic metaphysical answer is the most satisfying as it is the only one which has a beginning and thus may have an end. It is the most innately logical as well: all mathematical or logical proofs begin with a list of axioms from which to reason, recursive and circular reasoning have always been condemned as unsatisfactory methodology.

tl;dr - God is the metaphysical axiom upon which the universe is based. The decadence and open denial of clear and present truth we see today is a consequence of our society's abandonment of the way of the metaphysical axiom, and instead choosing to follow circular or recursive proofs

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#Criticisms
Sorry breh, brainlets need not apply
Is there anywhere that I can read about calculus/linear algebra/other math theories in terms of ZFC?

>Prove that you think
lmao, you're asking me to disprove my own argument using thought and ideas, therefore proving that I am able to think

how fucking stupid are you?

you proved a single absolute truth (not both consistency and completeness) given a single axiom in a severely limited axiomatic system insted
how can you mess up so badly

>but that doesn't mean that we can't engage in critical discussion about our society and institutions

Yes it does, it literally means that, you are simply parroting progressivenes now. You don't need to engage in critical discussions about society and institutions, its a void of shit, you are wasting your time losing yourself in a maze of words, meddling with control freaks and impotent wannabe tyrants whose life is so devoid of everything that they think if only they artificially altered the natural course of human societal interaction they might not cry when they go to sleep every night


You need to slay the dragon of modernity and impregnate a virgin

??? Its everywhere friend
But if you want a dramatic example of chaos reintegration look at Germany during the last century. It reintegrated three times.

Also, you don't always reintegrate successfully, thats why he studies the process, to help those who are stuck

New, barely. Not according to the Protestant church, sure heretics lost themselves in the books, like the Mohamedanians; and the catholics and orthodox church are to hard into worldly matter.
>Not believing in a god-man dying and being resurrected?
Wouldn't say so. for first, we are all made after God, so was Jesus. Him getting "resurrected", whatever that should mean, I believe, as I can't prove otherwise. It may mean he had an insider who helped him, mad luck surviving and being a badass who survived and a small earthquake or his guys moving the stone, or just an analogy for him being remembered unless other crucified. It doesn't change anything about the essence, the narrative, I would even go so far to say the meme. He died for our sins, past, present and future, if we believe and be aware, trying to make it better and develop ourselves and our next.

Thoughts faggots?

I'm asking you to prove the statement you made. Prove that you think (you didn't even understand the op, did you?)

>hurr hurr Germany durr
None of that has any tangible connection to JBP's bullshit

sounds lyk modern socialism/leftism

> We currently do A, B and C
> We should instead do X, Y, and Z
That's literally all i'm saying. If you're afraid of someone using the word 'critical discussion' you are the perfect example of a thoughtlet right-winger. Unless you're a radical egoist/solipsist, whenever you are trying to convince someone who is currently doing A to do X, you are engaging in critical discussion/persuasion, but instead of faggy 'power analyses' like the deconstructionists, I am arguing that we should primarily be concerned with pragmatic outcomes which are concerned with human flourishment, which is very different.
Yeah, axioms are the patrician's choice, what are you trying to say? I already have accepted the deist/theist/panentheist axiom, but I am highly skeptical of organized religion.

>human flourishment
easy there pal, you will get stuck simply trying to define this entity

first prove that the munchhausen trilemma is true

Im not convincing anyone of anything, im just saying your shit is all retarded and explaining why, i don't really care if you listen to me or not

>we should primarily be concerned with pragmatic outcomes which are concerned with human flourishment, which is very different.
No, its the fucking same, those other people just have a different view than you have of what human flourishment is and what is needed for, the end result is the same, whoever has more people wins and then turns everything into a fucking nightmare to the rest of us who have tidy rooms and aren't out there trying to control humanity

You are all faggots with unkempt rooms, thats the most pragmatic truth

Yes it does brainlet

there's a bunch of papers exploring different definitions, but not a single collected source afaik

>believing that you have no purpose
>dispense of the notion of purpose entirely
Not the same thing. I guess my point reads a bit between the lines.

Any concept, such as purpose, can have different meanings. Asking wether it exists or not is not be a definitive question but you are expecting a definitive answer. The question, does god exist, can not be answered as god is not a defined concept. Yet it does convey meaning in a subjective sense if you oversee the fundamental error.

Does my toothbrush have a purpose? Yes.
Does the sun have a purpose?

Why did anyone post after this?

Teaching anons about how Jesus Christ saved them

>My dick reintegrates chaotic experiences. It reintegrated Germany 3 times in the last century
Wow I am now a philosopher king on the level of the mighty JBP. Give me all your neetbux

Yeah, and we can argue endlessly about what is good for humans (we already do) but I'm trying to think of a viable alternative to the postmodernist power analysts
You're being a faggot is what you're doing, all politics is arguing over what is good for society. I'm of the opinion that paleolibertarianism is the best way to pragmatically ensure human flourishment, but the leftists are behaving in such a way that we'll have to resort to fascism for a time in order to purge our societies of their influence. Are you going to tell me that this is somehow a leftist progressive perspective too?

pls no bully ;_;

> thoughtlets unable to discuss anything beyond literal memes
meant for and

Why are we accepting the assumption that requesting proof of the proof is a valid counterargument to the validity of a proof?

> in episthemology
You see,the problem relies on this precept in wich the reasoning has no values, as it is based on a private experience,is wrong at a subjective level as it is measured objectivly but percived and send subjectevely. And its knowledge also contingent primarly.
Episthemology is the SJW of science.
Even onthology beats it.
Realism measurement,Espinoza or Kirkegard views are the thing for me.
Also, regard my get

you are just stupid

1 - I didn't say leftist progressive, i said progressive
2 - Yes
3 - All politics is faggotry
4 -
>I'm of the opinion that paleolibertarianism is the best way to pragmatically ensure human flourishment
Whats your plan if paleolibertarianism becomes outlawed? Gonna stop flourishing yourself and let the state degenerate you?

> mfw another leaf ITT
I actually liked your point. I think there is a formal proof (somewhere) that all axiomatic systems are incomplete and/or self-referencing, but I can't think of it off-hand. It's a good point though, and similar to the point that the post-modernists are self-defeating when they dogmatically claim that there is no such thing as truth

My theory is as solid as JBP's. Now suck my dick bitch before I reintegrate your chaotic experiences with my dick

Foundationalism, you dumbo

Are you some kind of anarcho-primitivist who doesn't believe that anything can or should get any better than it is? If so, enjoy getting anal raped by literally everyone who isn't a brainlet.
> all politics is faggotry
Yeah, probably tbqhwy, but it doesn't change the fact that it shapes a lot of our daily lives.
> whats your plan if paleolibertarianism becomes outlawed
That's what the guns are for, Santiago.
Explain yourself, Vicente

Your theory is just a failed attempt at being edgy smart

Yeah just like JBP

i thought a bit on how to disprove this, but i think it's valid
defining god as an initial system of axioms is fairly unintuitive though (and does not necessarily imply a 'creator'), and i think it doesn't really line up with most of theism, which defines god in a much more limited way

>The decadence and open denial of clear and present truth we see today is a consequence of our society's abandonment of the way of the metaphysical axiom
i don't see how this is a direct logical conclusion

because if A is always false, A => B is always true.
if we assume something that is wrong, we can show anything, thus we need to prove A to be true for A => B to be meaningful.

>That's what the guns are for, Santiago.
So you don't give a shit about politics, you only care about yourself and your shitty opinions, you are not out there to play a fair game of critical discussion and agreement, you are not willing to switch around if proved wrong, you are there to shill for yourself to gain power by pushing your own way of life into the state, and in case of being severely outnumbered, you plan to go out with a bang

You wouldnt be in a such a stressful place if you focused on your proximity instead of abstract global bullshit

Nope, kind of the complete opposite

Violence is always the last resort when arguments and discussions fail, that is a truism borne out by history. Why are you trying to pretend you have the moral high ground again? Fact of the matter is that other people's actions affect my life, and not having an opinion because I have stuck my head in the sand is not an argument. Also, having a goal and direction in my proximate life usual requires having some values and goals and beliefs, which (coincidentally enough) is exactly what we are talking about. I agree with JBP though, if you are trying to control other people's lives while your own life is in complete shambles, that is retarded, which is (one of) the many things wrong about college activism/leftist progressives. They want to tell everyone how society should be organized while they can't even hold down a job.

Based on observation. Ever see a living dead man?

Tadaaa we have a law of non-contradiction. Now build logic.

Fucking faggots, Git gud and read Kant.

Belief and faith play a large role in our worldview. This approach denies both for a purely logical point of view. Accept the neccessity of belief (the sun will rise tomorrow) as part of our experience and the trilemma goes away

it is impossible for any sufficiently complex consistent axiomatic system to prove itself consistent

?? The Munchhausen trilemma literally demonstrates that faith in unprovable axioms is an absolutely essential part of our worldview, what are you talking about?

Then leave it a faith. You can't rationaly or logically explain or even understand faith. You're overthinking this.

>Why are you trying to pretend you have the moral high ground again?


If you are just like me then why say all this shit about critical discussion and human flourishment? You don't give a shit about critical discussion, you care about your own survival and are willing to turn full murder if they stick their finger too far up your ass.

Why the need to engage then? Its like you are willfully torturing yourself engaging in senseless uncritical discussion with other people who are also scared it might go the other way and they would have to go full murder

If you just tune out you can be happy and still have your gun ready for when shit hits the fan and the happening really starts, but stress free

claiming that you cannot project from a well defined formal system to reality is just as pointless as claiming that you can project from a well defined formal system to reality
OP assumes that we can, you assume that we can't. we cannot prove this statement to be either true or false, and thus the münchhausen trilemma will remain impossible to prove.

I'm saying that faith is necessary, yes, but faith in what? That's what is essentially at issue here. You can believe all kinds of shit, you can believe that the earth is flat, that fairies help you digest your food, and that ice cream sandwiches aren't fucking delicious, but the question is to attempt to figure out what we should believe, and why. I've attempted to argue that in light of the (apparent) fact that our worldviews are ultimately predicated upon one or more unprovable axioms, we should think pragmatically, and adopt those axioms/presuppositions which are maximally conducive to iterable human flourishment individually, and collectively.
Well, I would rather avoid a SHTF scenario if at all possible, and you have provided zero reasons for why I should believe anything differently/how I am wrong. Are you just saying to give up trying to engage people to your point of view?

>I would rather avoid a SHTF scenario if at all possible
exactly my point

>you have provided zero reasons for why I should believe anything differently
im not trying to convince you of shit im just explaining why politics are retarded and its only use is a way to pretend to be in control of your sense of impending doom and everybody's very real sensation that the behemoth we call civilized society can turn into a nightmarish predator at any moment, which is not only stressfull as fuck but is also a form of escapism

Okay, fair enough, politics can be retarded and often is a form of escapism/psychological coping, but I fail to see why that means we should give up on it. Or are you ITT to offer black pills? Even if you ignore politics, the Munchhausen trilemma is still relevant for your own life/beliefs

>Or are you ITT to offer black pills?
Ah shit, hahah, yeah i was kind of trying to spike everyones drink

But when this black pill wears off it leaves behind an afterglow of personal focus and infinite potential, when you stop worrying about the configuration of society you start noticing all the shit around you you can actually affect

>the Munchhausen trilemma is still relevant for your own life/beliefs
I dunno, i tend to try to shut of the part of my brain that tries to form bigger narratives out of shit and operate on things based on desired outcome

Well I was under the assumption that the whole point of Sup Forums is that we dispute many of the fundamental assumptions of modern life, and achieve a modicum of freedom from the prison-like modern system as a result, even if only in our minds. A ruthless pragmatism is helpful, yes, but it doesn't change the fact that bigger narratives can and do affect your daily life, and knowing how to critique them/offer a different perspective is (~usually~) helpful, even if you don't attempt to take action on that different perspective.

My main problem now is that I don't know what goals to set. I like the idea of flourishment because it encapsulates a lot of what I would describe as desirable, but I haven't yet decided what that exactly looks like. It is also somewhat unstable, because it relies on the assumption that life is preferable to death (aka not killing yourself) and that axiom can get called into question in moments of despair/existential despair, necessitating courage and existential courage, but I think you can make a pretty good case for not killing yourself because you are cutting off the possibility that things could get better. Idk. Do you ever feel like killing yourself?

>The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other
You have to love philosophy, where you can circle-jerk yourself into asking if everything is a figment of your imagination...right up until you get hungry again or need to use the toilet.

This is why WORKING PEOPLE laugh at philosophers.

*shrug* Ideas shape the world, m8. Working people are simply making manifest the ideas and goals of other people.

>doesn't change the fact that bigger narratives can and do affect your daily life
The thing with bigger narratives is they are all ephemeral and tied to the present moment, even science, Kuhn and shit, you are under no security that all the stuff you think is real is just a small part of a bigger more complex stuff that gracefuly explain the seeming paradoxes of your current model.

Of course they affect, but in the same way a psychotic can affect you, they are irrational shit flying around stabbing people, can't logic with them

>knowing how to critique them/offer a different perspective is (~usually~) helpful, even if you don't attempt to take action on that different perspective
Yeah i can't argue with this but i would say this is mostly achieved by rhetoric

>My main problem now is that I don't know what goals to set. I like the idea of flourishment because it encapsulates a lot of what I would describe as desirable, but I haven't yet decided what that exactly looks like.
I would look near you.
Also flourishement is an idea in itself, its growth, development, tends to happen naturally when you "water" stuff

>Do you ever feel like killing yourself?

Not anymore, that is fagottry too, at some point i figured if im alive is cause i chose to, so talking and thinking about killing oneself is nothing but a way to bullshit oneself into exchanging the emotions connected with guilt for betraying oneself into those connected to an existential victim position, its an easy cope out of taking full responsibility, not only for your fuckups, but for the fact you free willingly chosing to exist

Pragmatism is for dead men and the soon to be dead.

Yeah, I mostly agree. I guess the main questions I have been wrestling with have been whether or not I should get married, whether or not I should have children, what to study in school, what jobs/industries to go for, whether to be self-employed, or an employee, all that normie shit. I was going to school, but after an intense period of 'questioning everything' my resolve basically melted, I moved back home, took a low-skill job to pay the bills, and I'm just in the process of sorting myself out.

ever hear of ockams razor? We in the scientific community use it to prove truth

The Greeks figured this shit out 2,500 years ago. Why is it being debated again?

Ah well i dunno man im in a similar situation but i don't have existential angst anymore since i figured i can literally nope out any sec i want so im in full control

I just have issues dealing with self control and substance abuse

You should prolly try to learn a lot of varied shit and generate passive incomes, besides any other shit you decide, thats a good advice i think