/lit/ - Literature

What? Accepting everything at face value and thinking on exactly one plane?

>>11345805
>Accepting everything at face value
nah, not everything
>thinking on exactly one plane
The guys in lab coats are physicists.

>>11345795
ontology is baby tier. Should have asked, what is it about the tree which makes it the tree?

>>11345825
Our human categorization

>>11345819
They don't act like it. Nice cartoon, anon.

>>11345825
Fits into a certain category of plants based on its physical qualities. You may keep splitting hairs until you get to the point where you can postulate some tree ''essence'', but that would be missing the point of language, and you'd be acting like the dorks in this comic.
>>11345835
How do you know I act like that?

>>11345819
>>11345845
Jeez what a brainlet you are. I'm sorry, anon.

>>11345845
>>11345834
yes but what is it about the tree (and ourselves) that makes it such that the tree is the way it is. Further, by what principle are we able to observe and understand the world around us? How does Perception work?

>>11345845
>>11345933
essentially my question is: How is it that we are able to interact with the world, and obtain information about it? The sense provide external information, but how is it that this external information is able to be processed and understood? By what mechanism is reality being understood by us? (not the theory of reality, but rather, the mechanism underlying ourselves and the world which makes it perceivable, and thereby understandable?)

I'm not being very clear. Forgive me.

>>11345914
I forgive you.
>>11345949
nah I gotchu man. That's a tough question though. Maybe science will provide the answer someday, or perhaps we'll never learn.

Anybody else realize both philosophers and physicists are dorks and Zen Masters pwn them both?

>>11345967
Zen masters are the brainlest of them most

>>11345967
Science gave us computers and vaccines and stuff tho. What did hermit zen monks give us?

>>11345966
No, you miserable fuck. You still aren't coming close to the point. Jesus christ.

>>11345974
peace

>>11345973

I think you are referring to Japanese Buddhists, not Zen Masters from China.

>>11345977
>No, you miserable fuck
I'm not miserable, you're miserable.
>You still aren't coming close to the point
I think you're the one who's off the mark.

>>11345974
is your life better by having vaccines and computers?

>>11345982
not really

>>11345992
Yes. Is yours?

>>11345994
>t. never had a mystical experience of the One

Why do people equal qualia (which I think is where >>11345977 is going) with transcendence or a soul?

>>11345997
I can't tell.
Why would vaccines make my life better? By letting me live longer? How do I know it's better that I live longer?
Why would computers make my life better? By giving me access to information I wouldn't have otherwise? How do I know that knowing more will make my life better?

>>11345999
oh you mean individual peace? The other anon listed some achievements at society level that's why I said not really

>>11346009
ah. Yes I meant individual peace.

>>11346006
if you've ever been sick it's pretty obvious that not having a disease is better than having one. You would have to be extremely obtuse to argue against that.

Philosophy supersedes mathematics which supersedes empiricism. Physics/"science" is the least fundamental.

>>11346023
I don't see how. I don't see the connection between living being better than dying, or not suffering being better than suffering. Surely suffering and dying isn't pleasant, but that doesn't mean they aren't better.

>>11346023
Life is not necessarily better than death.

>>11346006
>I can't tell.
If you don't feel too strongly one way or the other, you could try moving to a country where they don't have vaccines or computers. You've clearly opted to use a computer/phone/tablet, so you must have some of your own thoughts about it.
>>11346050
The thing about that is that even if you're vaccinated, you're free to end your life right here and now. Unless you have a kink for dying of measles or something.

>>11345795

>>11346058
No killing yourself is bad by allmost all standards.

>>11345795
Sam Harris

>>11346132
What did he write about epistemology?

Try Robert Anton Wilson

>>11346059
very nice

>>11345949
Philosophers don't have an answer for this question either, so what's the point of philosophy?

>>11346058
my thoughts are that I'd be better without it. Yet where I am in my life it seems necessary. No one lets you apply for jobs in person anymore, you have to do it online.

>>11346238
I don't think 4chan is the best place to look for a job.

>>11346235
to try to find the answer. and it's not strictly correct to say they have no answers. There are plenty of Philosophers who have attempted to formulate an answer.

>>11345795
Please stop posting these comics. They're so unfunny it hurts.

>>11346244
dubs of truth. of course it isn't, just killing time ("KILLING TIME!" screamed the watchdog in horror)

>>11346006
>haha dude fuck vaccines lmao
this is what “philosophy” has been reduced to

>>11345795
Any books or other media which (rightly) argues against materialism and positivism.

>>11346262
>implying I was asserting the negative
this is what "comprehension" has been reduced to.

>>11346263
So, academic wordsalad? Nice.

>>11346275
Not sure what you are referring to.

>>11346279
LOGIC and REASON and FACTS
reals > feels, numale.

>>11346250
You just don't have the intellect to appreciate them

>>11346268
>I’ve been btfo so hard by science that I have to retreat into empty sophistry to justify my imagined intellectual superiority
I comprehend perfectly famalam

>>11346263
Here you go

>>11346284
I'm not sure you know what anti-materialism or anti-positivism is

>>11346290
>asking a question
>sophistry
nice bait desu

Any time you have someone make this argument you just have to point out that scientists can't account for Gravitons in particle physics without inventing 7 more dimensions to run their math in.
Science is objectively not able to explain everything given our current model of the Universe, and we necessarily have to think beyond observable reality to make up the difference.

>>11346284
Okay I figured you were baiting. Anyways for anyone else interested there was a Tedx talk by Rupert Sheldrake where he went over the dogmas of the current scientific orthodoxy (in his words) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

He goes over all the baseless assumptions and shortcuts made by scientists today, mainly dismantling their materialistic foundation and by extension debasing their positivism. I'm aware Sheldrake has many reaching theories but I think he nails the dogmatic assumptions of "science".

>>11345795
This comic strip is good, too bad the author is a commie cuck.

>>11346302
Do you know what sophistry is? It is the most willing mode of philosophy for asking questions.

>>11346313
>I think he nails the dogmatic assumptions of "science"
You would think that if you knew nothing about it.
Positivism was attacked and dismissed by practicing scientists decades ago. Ironically, mainly by those who didn't give a shit about philosophical doctrine and just did whatever worked.

>>11345795
>>11346059
The field of quantum physics deals precisely with the nature of observation, measurement and uncertainty.

>>11345795
The tree is a separate entity from me because it has hidden information from me and I from it.

For example if I look away it might fall over in the wind and so I know that something "external" to me happened in some sense.

>>11345825
>>11345933
>>11345949
>literal 0 iq man

>>11348480
>knowing nothing

>>11348189
>Do you know what sophistry is
You bet i do

>>11346059
No physicist would say that, our eyes are shit, just try to measure a pencil with the same rule more than 10 times you would be amazed by the difference between the measures

>>11348597
Dawkins is actually correct, and both Nye and Tyson have perfectly valid philosophical positions. Even Krauss is correct about the issue that much of philosophy of science have next to nothing to do about how scientific work is actually done or carried.

>>11345834
where does that come from

>>11345974
science also gave us social media and subprime mortgages

>>11349983

>both Nye and Tyson have perfectly valid philosophical positions

That's the point. They have to enter philosophical realms, not regardless of their beliefs but because of them.

There are no books that explore this conflict because it's one philosophers are desperate to ignore.

If you want a "real" philosophical proof for anything then philosophy is a waste of time because you won't find any.

If you just want proof enough to live the life you want to live, with things like cars that start when you turn the key - practical proofs - then you don't need philosophy because technical questions are answered by engineers and moral questions just come down to opinions.

They'd rather bitch about Marx and for good reason - this conflict is the end of philosophy.

>>11346305
>if we can't find the answer RIGHT NOW that's free license to just make shit up
t. philosophers

>>11345795

I like that he drew the STEMlords' faggy body language and conceded that the best they can come up with is a stupid quip. At least it's not pointless Diogenes stories again. Maybe this is self-aware.

>>11350868
nah, he just shit at drawing and gives everyone the same expressions

>>11348400
No, it doesn't "precisely" deal with the nature of any of those things. Those are certainly important conceptual issues that arise at the foundations of the field, but those are philosophical issues concerning a physical theory, not questions necessarily dealt with by physicists themselves.

Philosophy is great fuck off.

>>11350597
You're not forced to use instagram, and you're not forced to take risky loans.

>>11345825
wow, imagine being this dumb