/lit/ - Literature

>Ya hafta choose

No, read science AND philosophy. Better yet, DO science AND philosophy.

That's what Nietzsche did, not to mention Goethe and a shitload of other people. Apart from this, remember that Metaphysics is the Queen of Science - and without a Queen, all you have is a reckless and cold-hearted King.

Also, avoid positivism/empiricism at all costs.

>have consciousness thread on /sci/
>told to come to /lit/
>you fuckers are actually more autistic
>mfw

The meme trilogy is the three lord of the rings book by tolkien.

>Pop Scientists

When will they learn?

>>8151343

I do use 'scientism' unironically, because STEM enthusiasts always shit on the Humanities; or make stupid claims to the effect of philosophy/etc being no longer relevant. I rarely see the opposite, outside of /lit/ anyway.

Make no mistake, there are PARTS of the 'Humanities' I'd love to do away with; 'Gender Studies' and all that shit.

In my world, Science involves the pursuit of knowledge, whilst the Humanities entail the pursuit of wisdom. Both compliment one another, and arguably cannot live without one another.

'Scientism', on the other hand, is the millennial approach you see on "I Fucking Love Science"-esque Facebook pages, and 'Pop Scientists'. Disgusting.

I had a mocking spurdo reaction pic, but I opted to extend the olive branch with this instead.

>>8144549

>>8142296
>>8142325
>>8142336

The humanities are useful enough to people that they buy thousands of non fiction books every year. Laymen are interested in these fields and are willing to buy books by experts. And guess what, these experts had to get a phd from a good school and read articles, and books, and write papers and pass exams, and defend their dissertations. It's been a long time since intellectuals without degrees have held professorships at universities. At the end of the day people are willing to pay for these degrees and pay for the more accessible products of these scholars, and it's their money and they can do what they want with it. Maybe I'm biased since I come from an affluent family, but the banks wouldn't lend art students money if it wasn't profitable.

I don't really see what is exciting or interesting about calculating the eccentricity of Pluto's orbit or whatever, but that doesn't mean I dismiss it as "masturbation." That's because I'm not an arrogant cunt. But maybe you're not an arrogant cunt, maybe you're just confused. I think you have a narrow view of usefulness, in your mind something is only useful if it a) is profitable, or b) solves, an immediate, physical problem, like a water pump or a power generator. It's both, pretty much, since if you design a useful thing and nobody wants to buy it, it's never leaving the lab and it's not going to help all those people you seem to care so much about.

In my view, if something is valuable or desirable to me, then it's useful. I'll pay money for it, and the person who produced it will keep working. Anders Zorn's paintings don't solve anything practical at all, but I would sure like to buy a nice hardback retrospective of his work. I'd argue that philosophical ideas have practical utility as well, considering that the entire Late Modern Period from the Bastille to the end of the Cold War has been jerked around by philosophical ideas like a kitten with ball of yarn.

>tl;dr: why must value depend on profitability?

Lmao

>>8096888
>Lawrence Krauss
>"intellectual"

turns out you can get a PhD in physics and still be a moron

>>8080750
He's a moron.

https://www.reddit.com/r/badphilosophy/comments/4h90qp/is_feminism_good_for_the_world_no_says_sargon_of/
https://www.reddit.com/r/badphilosophy/comments/4hw70e/in_which_sargon_of_akkad_googles_social_justice/

>inb4 badphilosophy isn't filled with educated philosophers

>>8080881
>agree with sargon
>ever
>putting harold bloom, zizek, and chomsky next to those people

i do agree with most of that image though.