/lit/ - Literature

>>14387911
Let's say something we call “reality” exists. “Biology, chemistry, physics, etc.” are all man-made, from their names to every object they describe. They are mental constructs.

To operate with most “evident” object (e.g. an apple on a table), you still need a mental cast that defines that object, cuts it in some way from everything that isn't it. You just don't think about it. (Dialectics can be used to take those “evident” oppositions and unite them by returning to the process that created them.) The same is true for scientific objects. Using a materialist language — which is in no way “better suited” to describe “nature”, just much more complex than usual, — we have some region of space in which countless atoms or particles interact wildly, and need to make sense of what is happening. Now, compulsory education doesn't include philosophy, and, effectively, mostly everyone is simply indoctrinated to believe that Universal Observer that can grasp everything that happens in that region of space can exist, and science is something that strives to approach that position. This isn't true. Any way we perceive the world, be it through human senses, or seeing familiar things, or science, is an arbitrary sketch that turns the unbelievably complex mess into a human-processable model by discarding everything that is considered “residual”. (“Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed.”) Universal Observer (“the scientists”, in vernacular language) works with models, more complex models, and even more complex models, not “reality”, but everyone talks AS IF we could really take an instant snapshot and study it. If we could, we wouldn't need to simplify.

Hoping to find “true meaning” of some high-level concept by consulting “true sciences” (who should define it though their concepts) is the same as asking John about something, then asking Bob what he thinks about John's answer. Bob might be great, but he isn't all-knowing god. Intersex conditions are a great example because they show (to anyone who cares to see, of course) that “nature” doesn't fit into “natural” model, and make those who expect to find something that “obviously should” map to sex on the “low level” (falsely believed to be more “real” than “high level”) scratch their heads. Posters above, for example, don't understand that sex has no definition at arbitrary time point, because it's a lasting condition of a living organism.

Butler has simply asked a couple of core philosophical questions (What exists? How do I name it?) near the “evident” “natural” figures of a man and a woman to watch them wobble and transform.

BTW, “X is a spectrum” is a stupid simplification that is not that different from “X is either this or that”, as it tells you nothing about the underlying phenomena, and doesn't help to understand.

>>13896996
Delete that jaypeg abomination from your hard drive now. If you need a small size file, use this.

A poster who can't bother to find good images is a shit poster.

>>13223528
At least take your time to find non-shitty version of the image, fucker.

>>13034445
> app use statistics from google
Monkeys with rulers. Monkeys with computers.
> I can press buttons and get the results! Lots of results! Lots of calculations! BIG DATA! I don't even have to think once what any of it means, or why do I believe that metrics that are suitable for marketers to sell shit are suitable for everything else!

This image is always at hand.

>>12856377
Also, monochrome text will never be crisp on JPEG image, even if you blow the quality up to make the file almost the same size as original 2 MB PNG.

Here's a proper smaller lossy version (pngquant does wonders).