/lit/ - Literature

Ever noticed that the greatest scientists read and contribute to philosophy, while bottom of the barrel slop scientists deride philosophy?

>>22030372
If you don't understand the purpose of philosophy, your education is fake, and, also, you have a female brain >>22031377. There's a reason your degree title starts with "x of philosophy."
Nothing in your gay little field is as profound as a single passage from a true philosopher. Here have one
>Consciousness is the feeling of negation: in the perception of 'the stone as grey,' such feeling is in barest germ; in the perception of 'the stone as not grey,' such feeling is full development. Thus the negative perception
is the triumph of consciousness. (578) A. N. Whitehead
>>22031528
Here have another one
>“The people told me, however, that the big ear was not only a man, but a great man, a genius. But I never believed in the people when they spake of great men - and I hold to my belief that it was a reversed cripple, who had too little of everything, and too much of one thing.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

>>21242224
>t. stem undergrad who will never make a contribution to his field
Nearly all great scientists were philosophers as well, but it would be unreasonable to expect a pseud who hates marx to actively engage with his science instead of trying to sound "smart" and "objective".

>>18133553

>>17892464

>>17240540
Take a look at your comrades.

>>17165704
>>17165647
An opinion, as it turns out, not shared by the most esteemed scientists of all time.

As a former atheist, I started reading philosophy and I am a math major and I can say I was so blue pilled .What's your opinion on it?Btw i don't believe in any religion whatsoever just in a higher power/

>>17138676

>>16982458
All scientific advancements have been guided and aided by philosophy. Indeed, the natural sciences more often than not simply verify what philosophers had theorised in the past.

>>16869439
>Can Dawkins get any more based? Not likely
Dawkins is just a modern pseud

>>16352617
Because people act like science is the only way to find truth.

>>16262547
>thread is about the mind, consciousness, determinism, dualism and monism
>not a single mention of quantum mechanics
You all are a bunch of retards pseuds.

>>14273369
>legitimate scientists
Such as?

>>14208674

>>14010011
the problem is that you mention nihilism, existential nihilism, and whatever science fact that further supports claims of the meaninglessness of existence. you need to unpack each of these before you can get a cogent answer, as each of these comes with their own assumptions and history that when properly reviewed, wouldn't lead you to the same questions. philosophy wouldn't be much at all if it had no discipline. it really isn't the stuff of wiki articles, cliffnotes, and undisciplined discussion in threads that span two days.

suffice it to say, my equally loaded response is below.

0.) i accept the form of your argument that nihilism is a present condition. but i reject your placement of the subject and subjective experience as lower than the pedestal you've placed science and objectivism. i also eschew your conflation of nihilism as a conclusion of science. you will see the irony in confusing the two later.

>How can anyone dispute this
1.) the same reasoning that comes to the conclusion of nihilism cannot be used to find a way out.
>that human life was the result of a genetic algorithm running itself over billions of years is something you've taken as an answer, whereas others would find it as another question.

2.) moreover, science can only speak _about_ nature, it is not Nature itself.
>it can bear no decree, any more than it can put blood into a fist. by definition, it cannot explain a thing that causes itself, and so by that same definition, it cannot provide a decision - that which can only be made by things that will themselves. science can inform, not decide. facts themselves are by definition, immovable. they make no difference to us except that we must decide what to do in the face of nihilism (which is itself not an objective fact).
>there is no object (the Darwinian science you're referring to as the objective conditions of our existence) without a subject (a thing that could perceive this object, and thus think it. and only then, choose what to do with it)

3.) nihilism isn't "disputed", as if to be treated as a fact that is either accepted or denied.
>this is because nihilism isn't a conclusion from objective knowledge, but is itself a conclusion from subjective knowledge of the objective world.
>to explain further, how is it that you get from point A to point B? how does point A (your references to Darwinism and abiogenesis) lead to point B (a meaningless existence)? Darwin and science cannot experimentally validate the question of meaning because it is an unfalsifiable question. nihilism is therefore, not the conclusion of science but of man.

tl;dr - there is a shorter and more competent answer to this loaded question that could be found from those better read in subject-object relationships and how those relate to truth.

i feel that i've done my best given what i know so far. please, give me your best in turn.

>>13888844

>>13860463
Feynman was a god among scientific men of his era. Let me show you the shoulders he stood on, and the shit heaps that fell off of his.

What are some books that explain why people is so incredibly stupid nowadays?