"Fake News" is a meaningless term-

Nothing exists outside of your mind- and thus "fake news" is simply one's subjective opinion.

Other urls found in this thread:

logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging-the-Question
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

indeed

IMO people need to stop with this 'fake news' bs.
What's true for CNN may not be true for you- stop being so self-centered, the truth does not revolve around you.

>Nothing exists outside of your mind
I hope to God for your sake that you have no psychological illnesses.

awesome complete misinterpretation of Kant!

I kant trust the cunt

Do you want Hoppe's interpertation of Kant?...

>A rationalist

Kant attempted and failed miserably at defining morality without God. Just because something has a desired outcome if universalized does not make it morally okay. It would not be morally acceptable to eat black babies just because some sick fuck is into that, even if they feel that it would have a positive outcome if everyone did the same.

>misrepresentation of Kantian ethics by user who never read Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals or Critique Of Practical Reason

According to Kant there is definitely a thing-in-itself but we can't have true knowledge about it because we are as subjects separated from the world of objects.
But on another note, would you object if someone were to put a bullet in your head, or would the bullet only be an opinion and not really harm you?

Truth is not subjective

Actually read both of those, was a phil major in college. In what way am I misrepresenting?

I'm sure immanuel kan if he just tries hard enough

What about contradictory truths that depend on individual insight and perspective?

>What about contradictory truths that depend on individual insight and perspective?
Truths cannot be contradictatory.

Everything "is" and "isn't" at the same time, all truths are but half truths and every truth is half false, there are two sides to everything, opposites are identical in nature, yet different in degree, extremes meet, and all paradoxes may be reconciled.

Prove it

>all is nothing, muh zero-theorem
Everything is nothing, got it.

>Show me the existence of non-existence.

logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging-the-Question

I don't know how you guys fuck with this. It's pretty well known the CNN logo and heavy exposure to it causes brain tumors. It was the first population control strategy that was used in the 90s

What the fuck? Kill yourself shill

Obvious shill thread

Sage

You don't understand his categorical imperative, nigger

As above, so below.

>The truth is unprovable but it is still true, this is not a contradiction

Fuck off with your your noumenonical bullshit back to the realm of forms, the only provably true truths are experiential and contradictory

The categorical imperative should not be what he remembered for as a philosopher anymore than aristotle for the dumb shit he said about a million things. Besides, it was notoriously destroyed by Schopenhauer. only people who read cliff notes on him think like this read his books. he is known for his so-called copernican revolution.

>"fake news" is simply one's subjective opinion.
Bullshit. Lying is lying you dumb syrup nigger. Stfu with your stupid double speak, only Jews do that shit.

...

>the only provably true truths are experiential and contradictory
A truth does not depend upon our ability to recognize it.

Lol'd at the amount of people here absolutely having no clue about the Kantian philosophy at all.

Philosophy is pseudo intellectualism. Science and effective action are true intellectualism. Stop over analysing, start taking part.

The copernican revolution was over about 100 years before Kant.

>stop thinking, just do what seems to work
Fucking Jews in every thread.

>The copernican revolution was over about 100 years before Kant.
Nice historical revisionism, bong.

Principia Mathematica, and with it the universal law of gravitation, was published in 1687 and has traditionally been seen as the end of the copernican revolution, there's nothing revisionist there.

Kants ethics is deontological. So why is your argument based on "outcome", something that is utilitaristic and does not have anything to do with Kant at all? You failed miserably here.

Also, your example is actually forbidden by the categorical imperative, whether it had a positive outcome or not. (As I said, deontological).

Kants ethics is also based on "Duty" (including discipline and work), something that leftists and SJWs have no clue about.

Does it involve physical removal, so to speak?

>Does Hoppe's understanding of Kant include physical removal?

Not necessarily, although it does seem to allow it.

>Kant
>Caring about outcome

The point of the first formulation of the categorical imperative isn't that you think wheter the world would be a better place if everyone did what you're doing, it's wheter or not it makes sense for you to WILL such a thing in the first place. If everyone lies all the time, truth and lie lose all meaning and it would not serve no purpose to lie. It's about wheter your will is consistent, not consequences. Also, KYS.

How do you go about proving that statement scientifically?

"Science" isn't some magical entity outside of humanity, it's a tool we thought up to describe the world. To do science you must have an understanding of knowledge and how one can obtain it. How do you know tests tell you anything? How do you design your tests? There is no science without epistemology and methodology. To claim "SCIENCE!"(tm) is finished and now we only need to use it to figure out everything is just more religious dogma. There is no such thing as philosophy free science, there is only science that doesn't acknowledge its philosophy.

Fuck this whole thread is bad philosophy, just nuke it.

Nope.

Science cannot prove itself empirically. Al fields ultimately have a philosophical basis. In fact it's an open question whether or not the scientific method can prove anything at all.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

Remember that wikipedia game about clicking to philosophy? That's because ultimately all knowledge is derived from it

This is either a lie or you suffered from traumatic brain injury after leaving college.

fox isn't mainstream news. Eric Boiling and Hannity told me so.

>How do you go about proving that statement scientifically?
"Proof" is "showing empirical evidence" of something...which can be done, but does not prove ANYTHING beyond our interpretation of reality.

Then how can it be known to be a truth, if it cannot be proven true or it's existence even recognized?

Truths are not "definate facts," but rather "facts according to human understanding."

>He doesn't experience reality unfiltered

Telling lies is fake news. Nothing subjective about it, if it's not true = fake news

That is to say, how can the thing that you describe, which does not exist and is unknowable, unrelated to the material world, even be called a truth in any meaningful sense of the world?

/thread, OP is confusing Kant with Descartes

If truths are "facts according to human understanding." then they are subjective as per individual perspective and thus contradictory.

"Gay is a meaningless term"

"Nothing exists outside of your mind- and thus "homosexuality" is simply one's subjective opinion."

"Now take my dick."

This what you sound like

So then if everyone believes something to be true in their understanding it is true?

>even be called a truth in any meaningful sense of the world
Truth is, and always will be, truth according to human understanding.

low quality leafposting

>So then if everyone believes something to be true in their understanding it is true?
Not necessarily.

That was my original point.

>was my original post
I understood "contradictatory truths" as "X is not necessarily X," not "people's understanding of X may differ." That said, I agree with your original post if you meant it differently.

Second one, two truths can coexist and be simultaneously true.

Aren't semantics a bitch?

>Aren't semantics a bitch?
Yeah, kind of...cannot argue without first agreeing upon definitions- which was my fault here.
You're alright, bong.

But, that's not what Kant's saying old chap.

That's not what Kant said, you cunt.

>Nothing exists outside of your mind- and thus "fake news" is simply one's subjective opinion

So the sentence : "Nothing exists outside of your mind- and thus "fake news" is simply one's subjective opinion" is your subjective opinion too

Kant's -entire fucking stated purpose- in writing Critique was to "make room for faith." He wasn't attempting to craft morality without God--he was attempting to cripple reason to save God.

>one's subjective opinion" is your subjective opinion too
muh infinite regress
muh objective facts

You retarded leaf, Kant was literally saying the opposite.

Duh

Some news is closer to truth than others but in the end they are all pretty far from the truth. CNN is much closer to lie than the other news stations and needs to end soon.

but it is completely nonsense. If Kant thinks everything is subjective, then why doesn't he shut up

Kant uses reason to achieve the notion that experience is subjective.

Kant was a lutheran and he was raised in the belief that interpreting Bible should be subjective. If you reach the conclusion that experience is subjective, then it's an objective opinion, isn't it, which makes your conclusion a complete bullshit. Such philosophy is just a waste of time

It's not an objective opinion though, an opinion is inherently subjective and true unbias is impossible.
I find the term objective opinion to be oxymoronic.

...

BEWARE OF THE JEW KANT IS

PIC RELATED

MUST READ

KANT IS THE ORIGINAL SJW

HIS WORK IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL

Cunt was a jew like Mopez Marx

>I find the term objective opinion to be oxymoronic
then change opinion to statement/observation/conclusion

Relativism = absurds. It's always a double edged sword

You must admit the ideas are very compelling though.
Hating Kantianism isn't enough to move past postmodernism, only superior ideas will prevail and in lieu of those ideas we must use what we have.
I believe in the right hands the tools of the postmodernist can be used against him.

embrace nature, order and classical aesthetics.

This approach will deliver the future we were promised

...the future we deserve.

A statement is made by a subject and is influenced by their experience, how can this statement then be objective?

An observation is made by a subject and is influenced by their experience, how can this observation then be objective?

A conclusion is made by a subject and is influenced by their experience, how can this conclusion then be objective?

I agree with your pic- and should make known that Hoppe, in his agreement with Mises, is in agreement with Kant- and as such, is propagating non-objectivivity as a way for conservatives to protect their children...that is, Hoppe suggests that one protects future generations by acting as though only propositional truths exist...

It already advanced standards of living tenfold once embraced

So regression is the path forward?

After the adoption of neoclassical aesthetics, a new paradigm will emerge called neomoderism and from that neopostmoderism. Let's not retread the beaten path.

>I believe in the right hands the tools of the postmodernist can be used against him.
Such tools can be used to justify anything- so long as the victim agrees...but at some point the victims will have more to gain by not agreeing...but until that point, the parasites will continue to feast.

Kant is a genius but this misinterpretation of him is cringe.

He was a cognitive relativist, however, and Sup Forums probably doesn't agree with cognitive relativism.

this isnt european per se it's faustian, the sentiments expressed in this picture are very 16th/17th /18th century enlightenment

what people often forget is that there are 1000 years of medieval and religious history that are as european yet diametrically opposed

Regression? Is degeneracy not the opposite of progress? Did traditionalism not keep an entire continent stable for 1000 years? Did embracing nature not deliver Von Braun and countless other German scientists who are responsible for most of modern technology?

>A statement is made by a subject and is influenced by their experience
there you go, this is an objective statement. You objectively claim that experience is important for instance

if everything is influenced by subjective experience, and we have different experiences, then why the hell would I even listen to you?

Stop wasting your life and abandon your absurd views asap. Turn to normal philosophy, not some speculative nonsense

>Rewinding the tape because you don't like the ending.

>hasn't read epistemology even once

Where is this from...or is it meta?

stick around newfag, lots of good posts will be made in one of the upcoming redpill generals

Merely an opinion, my proudly nonobjective claims are borne out of experience.

You don't have to listen to me as what I'm saying is only true to me and those who share similar experiences, but you would be wise to do so as I to you as this is how we attempt to obtain something near to objectivity, even if the ideal is impossible.

Classicism and traditionalism were defeated in the intellectual arena by modernism and it's spawn, what would stop that from happening again?

None of you neoreactionaries can answer me that.

Perhaps you can tell me, from where did the notion that "gov't does not own their land" come from..it seems to be a common notion, but not contradictory to common property ownerships supported by ancaps/libertarians...

Kant was hijacked by people like Rawls and contorted into a form he never intended. The autonomy of the individual easily leads to selfishness and the idea of humans as ends in themselves can justify a large number of degenerate acts, as humans no longer have a higher end above themselves. I think you're underestimating how much of SJW is actually based on (an interpretation of) Kant.

Virtue ethics all the way.

LOOK AT THIS POST I TYPED

IT'S IN ALL CAPS TO SIGNAL URGENCY AND POSSIBLY LUNACY

YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE READING IF IT IN ALL CAPS

BELIEVE WHAT I WANT YOU TO BELIEVE INSTEAD OF THEM REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>and those who share similar experiences
ha. So there are some objective things connecting humans and to which we can all relate. You're making first steps towards a sane philosophy

>my proudly nonobjective claims are borne out of experience.
but this is only your experience, I don't believe that

This is protestantism in action. Protestantism is really emanationism. To protestants there's no human nature/substance, only accidents. You're a British, raised in a protestant country, no wonder you put so much emphasis on experience and subjectivity, as you're raised there to believe only in accidents. Stop thinking Britain is like other countries

>defeated in the intellectual arena

When you mix morals with reason, bringing Kant's bullshit to a whole new level, it's easy to silence your opponents and make them powerless through ridicule and subversion. Marxist professors are a majority in the United States today, because the very freedom of thought that allowed them to push their degenerate ideas in the 50s prevented sane men from beheading them in public.