Can somebody explain this philosophical argument...

Can somebody explain this philosophical argument? I'm afraid I only have a bachelor's in philosophy and haven't studied arguements this advanced.

If everything we perceive in life is nothing but an illusion, then we can do nothing and life is pointless. However, if we assume what our mind shows us is the truth, then we can find meaning in life. If we perceive something to be fun, then it can't be anything other than fun.

>maxresdefault

Statements like this is what people do their phd dissertations in and you think it can explained by a bunch of teenagers on an anime board?

And Yui said, Let there be fun, and there was fun.

>K-On was a cognitive relativist mouthpiece the entire time

Sup Forums's average IQ is around 179

IDK if you have fun doing horrible things it would cause others to be miserable
What's fun to some could not be to someone else, like getting high or listening to rap
She's a fucking moe high school anime character voiced by a grown woman, with a script written by a pervert

this is a pervert

I'm confused as to how this statement is cognitive relativism. It seems to me to be more of a existential idealism. While they're closely related ideas, I don't think that the position that our reality is inherently mentally constructed, and this self-construction provides our reality meaning, is identical to the position that facts used as the basis for reasoning about the world are not absolute. It seems plausible to me that the reality could be fundamentally mentally constructed, but facts about that reality could still have absolute truth value.

fun fact
99 percent of K-ON viewers wouldn't watch a series about an all boy band so you're right

Pic related gives an in-depth answer to your question

>psychological projection

who do browsers do this? it triggers me so hard

>I'm confused
it just means fun things are fun, you ridiculous aspie

Youtube does.

Out of curiosity, are there any good, or any, animes at all about all boy bands?

It's a tautology. An a=a statement used to emphasize what should be a self evident truth. I enjoy the thing I enjoy because they are enjoyable. It's a beautifully simple statement to reflect the subtle simplicity of everyday life. Not all things need a deeper purpose or meaning and shallow pleasures are pleasures nonetheless.
A profound statement who's form lends meaning and context to it's message. Truly a masterfully formed argument.

I find that statement of fun to be fun.

Well first you should learn what "cognitive relativism" means

idolmaster side m

I think Yui is mentally disabled. I still love her.

She said fun things are fun though, not fun is fun? That is, things that have the property of being fun are fun itself. It is a priori at least. Maybe. Been so long since I studied these kinds of stuff.

Yui believes that Fun is an intrinsic quality that not all matters possess.

...

I mean that's sort of what I'm asking. From what I understand it means truth is relative, but the comment that it was replying to didn't imply anything about the relativity of facts.

>If we perceive something to be fun, then it can't be anything other than fun.
This is a very phenomenologically relativist statement.

Isn't Kant pretty foundational? Would a bachelor's have covered it?

No, it's an idealist statement. It's saying that the reality of something is mentally constructed, but that says nothing about the nature of facts. Within the schema of a world in which reality is mentally constructed there can still be objective facts.

user, it's a joke image.
Yui doesn't later on expand upon Frege's notion of analyticity the issue by asking whether "Fun things" can be called "Funs".

OPs kidding around but it does depend on your professor and school as to what you will learn in philosophy courses. Kant is a little more than foundational, he's the last man to significantly advance the field in any kind of non-inductive way. This doesn't fit with everyone's agendas, though. And it's not as though there's no reason to explore inductive philosophy, I find much of the phenomenologist's work interesting and a good description of my experiences. He just pretty much nailed everything you are able to determine without pretending.

>but that says nothing about the nature of facts.
First you should understand what "cognitive relativism" means.

I would like you to explain what you mean when you say "cognitive relativism" then. From my understanding it asserts that that the truth is fundamentally relative, but you seem to have a different idea than I do, so I would like to understand what you mean when you use it.

>The concept of a fact is fundamentally relative
>This says nothing about the nature of facts
This is where you are at the moment

Turns out if the truth value of something is relative to your perception of it that makes facts relative. I get it now user, sorry I'm retarded and thanks for humoring me.

Can you contrive a single example wherein a fun thing is not fun?

Video games

My taste is objectively > your taste
My fun > Your fun
My fun = true
Yours = Not
--->Fun is not Fun

Manime

...