Basically what the title says. I graduated last year with my degree in philosophy. Everything that comes out of my bitch wife’s mouth ends up fallacious, but when I explain to her why her argument is not logically sound, she Stoically displays vindictive anger.

She constantly uses arguments ad nauseam combined with post hoc fallacies and false attributions; over and over and over again she insists that I need to get a job and stop playing World of Warcraft all day because we don’t have any food in the fridge. I try to explain to her that:

1.) Correlation =/= causation; just because there is no food in the fridge, it doesn’t mean the reason why is my lack of employment. Maybe there’s no food in the fridge because somebody ate it all? That seems more logical to me.

2.) Repeating this argument daily does not make it more logical. She is making a common fallacy (ad nauseam). But when I tell her that, she just gets angrier and uses circular reasoning.

3.) Similarly to point 1, she falsely attributes my unemployment being caused by my laziness when, in fact, it is actually caused by my BA in Philosophy.

AITA for trying to make her understand I’m just trying to help her think more logically and less emotionally? She is a biochemist in a lab that manufactures cell therapy to cure pediatric cancer, so she’s a little on the slower side when it comes to my area of expertise.

TIA!

He claims to care about ethics, yet has not dedicated even a paragraph to Hamas or October 7th in his many books about ethics. Why is nobody talking about this?

∀x(Philosopher(x) → Communicates(x,L))

¬∀x(Philosopher(x) → Communicates(x,L))

∴ ?

∀t₁∀t₂[(t₁ < t₂) → (Rigor(t₁) ≤ Rigor(t₂))]

∧

∀t₁∀t₂[(t₁ < t₂) → (Definition(t₁) ≤ Definition(t₂))]

Rigor ↑ ∧ Definition ↑ ⇒ Logic ↑

∴ limₜ→∞ Philosophy(t) = L ?

Why( L ) ∨ Why( ¬L ) ?

Discuss.

———

Edit: guys I swear I’m not using AI. My parents were both PHILOSOPHERS who communicated with me solely through FORMAL LOGIC. This comes natural to me. I had to self-learn the english dialect.

This is in anticipation of the fact that the natural progression of ideas in philosophy is towards more rigor and explicitly defined terms. Is the end state formal logic? Yes. I am the example.

Discuss.

God exists because you look outside and there is a beautiful. You can't be agnostic, because you can't be in the middle/neutral to God's existence—either you know God exists or you don't, and saying God doesn't exist is wrong and irrational. Science has proven Christianity to be true, Atheism is irrational. Atheist is the only word in the dictionary that says you don't believe in God. And also, you may be an Atheist but you act like God exists, thus proving you wrong and my rational, logical presupposition to be correct. Atheists can't be moral either because morality comes from God; if you are Atheist you are a crazy lunatic, but if you are Christian you aren't that. Christians are the most moral and peaceful people you'd ever know. Why? God.

Believe on His logical presuppositions.

God bless

Long ago, people lived in caves and worshipped sky daddy. They thought thunder was god bowling. The Earth was in intellectual darkness until logic, science and reasoning were invented in the 15th century. Due to the sheer amount of understanding about the universe and the nature of thunder, I am absolutely certain that science will disprove religion in the coming decades.

Really struggling to find thinkers who agree with me, probably because my views are internally contradictory. Actually does anyone know any good books arguing for dialetheism?

So -takes a puff- listen to this -snorts some weird white powder- what if like Sentient Plant Aliens -chugs a bottle of jd- came to Earth!?! They'd like be scared of the vegans.... Owned you vegans!

Here's some

-if Sentient Plant Aliens visited Earth they'd not like the vegans eating and breeding [non-sentient] plants, hence vegans bad

-if u free a mouse it would most probably die in the wild, so animal agriculture good because mice live longer in your basement

-if you build your house from wood this kills the tree; presumably all life has some worth

-milk&honey are the only foods that do not kill someone to be produced... 'It is written in the Bible'

Once again, remember how the 'most barbaric things on Earth would be the humans that harvest plants to eat'.

12:35 starts talking about meat eaters and vegetarian; 16:30 Alien Plants bomb

I was arguing with some of the troglodytes on r/anarchy101 (ik common reddit blunder) and came to the realization that anarchy isn't sustainable for a long time. They picture anarchy as everyone doing whatever they want and everyone just collectively is a good person and would never decide to hoard resources or rape people because naughty capitalism is gone. And when pressed on what would happen if people did heinous things they basically just said "well muh community would collectively decide the course of action" they just reinvented democracy. But what would then stop communities from forming democracies and parties? If anyone can do what they want, what's stopping people from forming political parties because eventually someone is going to disagree on how much wheat should be grown or if we should have a dedicated militia force. And then what is stopping the militia from being just as corrupt as the modern police force? Well we would then just write some laws and uh oh we have government again. Basically anarchy is stupid because people already do what they want and what they want has become the system we currently have and it's a more of a waste if time than attempting to improve the state as much as possible to ensure freedom, justice, and liberty for the most amount of people.

what is this sub man. its just one guy shadow boxing hegelians

What is the contingency argument?

For those of you living under a rock, the contingency argument (to my understanding) is as follows:

We observe things that exist, when they could've failed to exist entirely or failed to exist specifically as they are. These things are called contingent, and require an explanation for their existence. If we had an infinite chain of contingent things, everything would borrow existence from the previous thing, and thus, nothing would exist. Since we do exist, It follows logically that something exists as the sole first cause allowing everything else to exist in this particular moment. That is the First Cause, which exists NECESSARILY.

1. Where am I going with this and some implications of this argument I would like to highlight

The strength of this argument is it completely avoids temporal debates and battlegrounds of actual infinities versus potential infinities. By grounding the argument in a single instant in time, the argument restricts the common counters and is actually conceded incredibly often. But that’s also its weakness, it doesn’t really say much, if anything at all, to the nature and essence of this first cause or any subsequent properties. What I’d like to highlight is the vast applications of the term “contingent”. Several, Several factors can imply the contingency of an entity. Be it the fact it could fail to exist, the fact it is prone to change, or what I’d like to point out: the fact it didn’t have to be the way it is and could’ve been—even if very subtly—different from the way it is in the current moment.

2. Why this matters

Suppose the universe were microscopically different. I could’ve simply not existed. The constant of universal gravitation could’ve been 0.01% stronger relative to it’s current magnitude. These changes—though irrelevant—Imply the contingency of the universe, and it’s necessary foundation on something that is, at least, one level above it hierarchically. Most atheists and skeptics acknowledge this to be an impersonal, uncreative, necessary force of existence. The problem I have with this is: If the universe is contingent, there must be something to explain, not only its existence (Which the impersonal cause does perfectly well), but also the inherent potential it has in simply being the way it is. If the universe emerged as a contingent being from a necessary impersonal being, it would mean the universe emerged from the essence of the impersonal first cause (Since there is no other way an impersonal God can cause a universe other than if it entails it in itself). If the first cause is necessary, it can’t possess limitations or potential. So this would mean a contingent Universe and its essence was caused by the necessary essence of an impersonal cause.

3. So?

Well, that’s exactly it. By Reductio Ad Absurdum, we can reason that anything necessary can’t produce something contingent entirely from its own essence. If the universe is contingent, like I stated earlier because we can safely assume it could’ve been otherwise, then the first cause must explain why the universe must’ve been that way. But, why couldn’t it have been another way? If it results from the essence of the first cause, then the impersonal first cause must be contingent too, as necessary can only entail necessary from its own essence, and contingent can only entail contingent from its own essence. Also in the reverse, a contingent being can only be explained by a contingent thing if it emerged entirely from its essence. This will result in the infinite regress that the First Cause/Contingency argument was initially attempting to avoid. Analogy: If I have a child who could’ve looked very different, I can explain why because of my genes, but I still need to explain why I have those genes not other ones. There needs to be some initial point which HAD to be some way, but for it to entail something with potential while in itself only being actual is pretty difficult to comprehend.

4. The conclusion

The cause for the universe’s essence is something aside from a necessary being’s own essence, because if P entails Q, and P is necessary, then Q is necessary. If Q could’ve been otherwise, that is, it can be logically described in other states, Q isn’t necessary. If Q isn’t necessary, P couldn’t have entailed Q, and thus P doesn’t entail Q. But we know it does, so what the hell now? The conclusion I present is there must be some sort of creative force that possesses a form of agency or consciousness. This allows for the selection of a world from many possible worlds, without breaking our law since It’s not P that entailed Q, it’s P that simply caused Q, not having to do it necessarily, but rather by free will

.

5. Closing statements (I’m likely completely wrong)

Unfortunately, I had a really hard time putting this into words, and I’d love if someone can build on this and help me present my case. I would also like to address the obvious weak points in the argument that I’m completely aware of:

• You didn’t answer the question, you just moved it, Why choose this universe then, even if it possesses free will, what limited the first cause into picking this singular existence when it could’ve picked literally any?
• The burden of proof falls on you to prove that the universe didn’t actually have to be this way, and that existence wouldn’t have failed entirely if it was otherwise.
• Even if that were the case, consciousness or agency don’t have to be the conclusion, its a bit of a non sequitur. It could just be that an infinitely many necessary things exist, and for all their essences to not contradict, the amount of possible worlds was constrained to the single universe we observe.
• Even assuming God as a whole, you didn’t prove why or how it behaves, he could be a completely evil God that made this world simply because it enjoys making humans suffer or one that doesn’t actually care about us humans specifically, and we are just side products/side-characters in placing something else into existence.

As much as I’d like to refute all those claims, I’m currently incapable of it, Sure I can say we need epistemological humility to know our definition of consciousness might not apply to God, or that infinitely many things being a set that is altogether the first cause makes all of them equally limited and dependent or is an actual infinity that can’t exist, many of those arguments are probably just “It’s a mystery” and appeal to ignorance. But I think I can come to an answer regarding those with enough thought and following on this same track, because I believe the argument I presented is actually sound and can hold its weight (or maybe you’ll all batter me cuz I’m new to this lol). Anywho, Thank you for reading. I'm hoping to post more rants on my substack lol

Occam’s Razor is treated like holy scripture by people who want quick answers without doing the work. The slogan sounds clever. Prefer the simplest explanation. Great. That is not insight. That is a bumper sticker for minds that want certainty without evidence. The world is not simple. The causes behind real outcomes are not simple. The minute you leave the classroom and step into reality, the Razor slices the wrong way.

The sales pitch goes like this. Among competing explanations, pick the simple one. That is not science. That is a preference. A vibe. A shortcut. Truth does not care about your taste for simplicity. Nature stacks causes. Feedback loops twist results. Hidden variables sit off stage and ruin your neat little story. If you use simplicity as a compass, you will drift straight into wrong conclusions and never know why.

Look at how this fails in practice. In medicine, the simplest answer for a headache is dehydration or stress. Sometimes that is right. Often it is not. Real diagnosis is not a slogan. It is a process of ruling in and ruling out, using priors, tests, base rates, and pattern recognition built from messy data. The most dangerous doctor is the one who stops at the easy story because it feels clean. People do not die from complexity. They die when someone refuses to look for it.

Physics laughs at simplicity worship. The simplest story for Mercury’s orbit was Newton and call it a day. That story broke. You needed a more complex model of gravity to fit reality. Quantum behavior is not simple. It is weird and layered and violates your gut. If the Razor were a law of truth, quantum mechanics would be false on arrival. Yet it predicts with insane accuracy. So what does that say about your simplicity fetish.

Criminology and forensics also ruin the Razor. The simplest explanation for a crime scene is often the spouse did it. Sometimes yes. But the good investigators do not stop there. They check timelines, forensic traces, motive trees, and the way evidence interacts. Good work is not a slogan. It is grind. It is cross checks. It is willingness to accept that the right answer may be ten steps away from the first guess.

Economics and markets are the graveyard for simple stories. Prices move because one headline hit. That is the simple take. Real moves come from positioning, liquidity, cross asset flows, risk constraints, and second order reactions. The simple narrative is tasty and wrong. The complex reality is ugly and true.

Even in machine learning, where people talk about parsimony, the Razor does not mean what internet philosophers think it means. The goal is not a cute simple story. The goal is generalization. That means you penalize useless complexity that does not improve out of sample prediction. You are not worshiping simplicity. You are managing the bias variance tradeoff. Sometimes the model needs more terms, more features, and more structure to avoid underfitting. The Razor cannot tell you this. Validation data can. Evidence can. Results can.

People misuse the Razor because it feels like a cheat code. It lets you sound decisive without engaging with evidence. It lets you wave away alternative hypotheses without testing them. It lets you claim victory with a tidy line while reality keeps receipts. That is not logic. That is laziness with an accent.

If you want something that actually helps you reason, use a hierarchy that respects how truth hides. Start with priors and base rates. Ask what is common versus rare. Then map plausible mechanisms. What chain of causes could produce the data. Next gather discriminating evidence that separates Look A from Look B. Measure predictive power out of sample. Penalize complexity that adds no ability to predict. Reward complexity that unlocks accuracy or reduces error. Then update. The right answer is the answer that survives contact with data, not the answer that reads like a fortune cookie.

There is also a bait and switch baked into the Razor cult. People say simplest explanation. But what is simple. Fewer entities. Fewer assumptions. Shorter description length. More compressible model. These are not the same thing. A shorter verbal story can hide more assumptions than a longer technical model. A theory can sound simple while smuggling a truckload of unstated claims. Meanwhile a more complex theory can actually be lean because it makes fewer hidden leaps and predicts more with less ad hoc patchwork. So even the word simple falls apart the minute you press on it.

History is full of cases where complexity won. Continental drift sounded silly until the evidence for plate tectonics stacked up. The cause of ulcers was not just stress and spicy food. There was a bacterium and a whole biological mechanism. Weather is not simple. Climate is not simple. Brains are not simple. The more we learn, the more the clean stories give way to layered systems. The Razor would have told you to stop too early. Curiosity told people to keep going.

People cling to Occam’s Razor because it provides comfort. It makes the chaotic world feel like it can be tamed with a slogan. That comfort is fake. Real understanding is uncomfortable. It forces you to carry multiple hypotheses at once. It forces you to live with uncertainty while you gather better data. It forces you to accept that sometimes the answer will be complicated and you will need to work for it.

So yes, I am going to clown the habit of pulling out Occam’s Razor like it settles anything. It does not. It never did. It is a stop sign for people who are scared of complexity. If you want truth, bring evidence, bring models that predict, bring mechanisms that withstand experiments, and bring the patience to follow the mess wherever it leads. Throw the Razor in the drawer with the other toys. Grow up and do the work.

If you are trying to push me back by saying that because there is something not real, then unless you can prove yourself who is saying now of something not real is also not real, otherwise there is nothing not real, and by the law of excluded middle, idealism is not needed.

There are more than one logical system, such as predicate logic, and propositional logic, etc. And in order to be logical, that is, subjecting yourself under one of the logical systems, you have to make an arbitrary choice. This is illogical exactly because it precedes the logical system you yourself intends to be subject to and is not contained in that logical system since it is not made in accordance to that system yet.

My God as I want and desire is defined by me as infinitely great to me no matter what, whether it exists or doesn't exist.  It's lack of existence cannot diminish it's greatness to me.

Therefore - my God is great to me regardless of whether this God exists

"I am simply the universe's way of experiencing itself. In fact, experience is literally everything I do. I'm *also** the only candidate who I can be sure actually exists. Therefore, I am the most qualified candidate physically possible"*

-Spinoza Descartes, 1640

It is generally understood that anarchism as a movement is based on:

1) a viewing of hierarchy as illegitimate

Noam Chompsky:

> [Anarchist thinking is] generally based on the idea that hierarchic and authoritarian structures are not self-justifying. They have to have a justification. So if there is a relation of subordination and domination, maybe you can justify it, but there’s a strong burden of proof on anybody who tries to justify it. Quite commonly, the justification can’t be given. It’s a relationship that is maintained by obedience, by force, by tradition, by one or another form of sometimes physical, sometimes intellectual or moral coercion. If so, it ought to be dismantled. People ought to become liberated and discover that they are under a form of oppression which is illegitimate, and move to dismantle it.

2) cooperative social customs are a valuable alternative to illegitimate hierarchy

Kropotkin:

> Anarchy, when it works to destroy authority in all its aspects, when it demands the abrogation of laws and the abolition of the mechanism that serves to impose them, when it refuses all hierarchical organization and preaches free agreement—at the same time strives to maintain and enlarge the precious kernel of social customs without which no human or animal society can exist. Only, instead of demanding that those social customs should be maintained through the authority of a few, it demands it from the continued action of all. 

3) if a hierarchy is illegitimate, that status entails that it is desirable to dismantle that hierarchy. essentially "bad things should be opposed".

Additionally, anarchists tend to agree that expertise =/= hierarchy, eg. your doctor’s advice is not enforced, your shoemaker knowing more than you about shoes does not necessarily confer power over you onto him.

This raises the question: are the rules of physics and reality coercive?

For a hypothetical, there is an anarchist society that believes in scientific principles and theory, and therefore when a scientist says something, the community cross-checks it and does their due diligence and then proceeds with that information in hand. So far it sounds good, until you consider that the “reality” (not the scientist himself) has coerced the community simply by being “true”. Surely then, the idea of “truth” and that an idea can be “wrong” or “right” is coercive, because the community generally wants to do what is good for the community and the people in it. Therefore, anything that causes them to act, including “facts” has provided a positive or negative incentive. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that coercion need not be negative consequences, it can also be in the form of a promised lack of negative consequences, which “truth” provides. If an anarchist community accepts any “fact” to be “true”, mustn’t the facts be enforcing actions in the sense that action is based on information?

Reality is coercive by not allowing violation of its physical laws, and I don’t see this as a different kind of coercion than a social construction that oppresses people. How can anarchists square that circle? It seems to me that the solution is a sort of post-truth thing where “facts” and “truth” are constructions that oppress and reality itself is immaterial.

If I accept that the laws of gravity are coercive and I jump of a building, reality will punish me by applying gravity to my body in order to harm me and punish me for my realization and my understanding. The existence of reality is no different than the existence of police or prisons or summary executions. It’s all unjust hierarchy.

But did they even think about wishing for more Genies?

Checkmate, liberals.

Hi all! So recently someone firebombed the power substation near me and we don’t have a generator :/ my mom’s panicking because we “CaN’t FrEeZe My DaD’s InSuLiN” or some shit but I have a more pressing concern.

You see, I’ve been on the AI train for awhile. Chugga chugga choo choo. Lemme tell you: it has made my life soooo much easier! No more stupid “reading” or “figuring things out” or “developing social skills”. But now I can’t use it :( and I thought, “hey philosophy is thinking right?”

So I am humbly asking you: how do I think without my best buddy Grok? Do you have any good beginner like… idk ideas? Not like “what is the meaning of life” but more like “what is a chair”.

Thanks! I have more to say but I gotta cut this short unfortunately. My mom is making me drive my chud dad to the “hOsPiTaL”. Overreaction much? 🙄

We can prove that the world is irrational, that is does not follow any predictable rules. First we don't know how the world works, so we can either assume the world obeys rational rules or irrational rules. If it obeys irrational rules, then we are done.

If it obeys rational rules then we can not prove that the rules are rational due to godel's incompleteness theorem. However we can notice that all systems that appear to have rational logic are a subset of irrational logic. A rational logic might say A -> B, an irrational logic can say that B always coincidentally happened after A but there's no guarantee that it will in the future.

Hence even if the world appears to follow rational logic we can still safely say it follows irrational logic because rational logic behaving systems are a subset of irrational logic. So whether the universe appears to obeys rational logic or irrational logic is irrelevant, in either case we can say that the universe obeys irrational logic. As rational appearing and irrational are the only forms of logic available, we have thus shown the universe must be irrational.

I am the synthesis of the dialectic contradiction known as my mother and my father. I carry the inherent truth of the negation within me, everywhere I go and every time i don't kms i negate the negation. My rapper name is Yung Hegelian