/lit/ - Literature

>>8440861
I am going to start with saying I know next to nothing about poetry. I've never been into it much, so I've pretty much read whatever we were given in school and the gymnasium( mainly Bulgarian poets). When I compare your poetry to theirs, it strikes me the way you rhyme.

I know how much you care
I know that you don't seem to care
Yet you never seem to care

I don't even know if this is considered rhyming since you rhyme care with care. I feel ( because I know nothing of poetry ) that you should switch care with an idiom having the same meaning.

On a side note, this could also be a cultural thing, because Bulgarian poetry almost always rhymes (we easily change the word order, without losing/changing sense) , and I'm not so sure about English. I remember when we were in school we used to rap every poem in a nigger way. Laughs were had.

Maybe if you want to practice, you could try writing a poem for me. Topic is lolis/ pedophelia

who writes youtube comments and if you are politically engaged in social media kill urself

How do you remain consistent with your writing?

Every time I stop and restart my mood and thoughts are slightly altered and the writing is just never the same. Also I have terrible memory and a short attention span - which I assume contributes

It's so goddamn frustrating

So now that radical empiricism, also known as Scientism, is becoming very popular, can we take a moment and talk about it again? (without this thread devolving into some stupid argument by idiots who believe in the false dichotomy of science and philosophy as completely incompatible entities). There seems to be a huge discrepancy between what those who abide by it think it is, and what it actually is.

From Wikipedia:
>Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.
First of all, Scientism is a belief, as in: it implies a moral priority of only using empirical method for the faculty of understanding. This means it is, much like a religion, a practice that teaches what someone ought to do in order to obtain "the truth".

It also implies that science requires a leap of faith, in that one must fully accept the observations and deductions of those who came before, and even deeper: one must have faith that the natural world can be fully observed and understood-- this previous statement must be held true if one is to call themselves a follower of Scientism, because if the statement is false, then empirical science loses its value and purpose. Scientism could make the claim that the universe can only be understood empirically ONLY IF we, as humans, had already possessed all possible knowledge about the universe. However, this claim has been made in the present day, in which we (again, referring to us humans) do not possess all possible knowledge, and therefore to make the induction that the scientific method is the key to all knowledge without possessing all knowledge is a contradicting claim. You cannot know which key (science, philosophy, religion, etc.) opens the lock (truth) without opening the lock, assuming there is no obvious outside entity to tell you which key is the correct one.

A radical empiricist will say: "Science is the path to all possible understanding." But how does he know this if all possible understanding is not presently understood? The empiricist says we ought to cast aside philosophy because it is useless. But this just further reinforces the fact that Scientism is much like a utilitarian moral belief system, rather than an actual doctrine of method. The word "useless" is ambiguous and problematic, because it does not mention what it is that is useful and also implies that usefulness exists in the first place. What is science useful for? For improving lives or finding the truth? The empiricist who answers "improving lives" is making a subjective claim, and the empiricist who answers "finding the truth" is falling into the contradictory trap that I explained in the last paragraph.

cont.