/lit/ - Literature

>>11982759
BEHOLD

>>11982759
big if true

>>11982759
This has to have been a shitpost, imagine being this deluded.

>prove it
>wanting evidence
laughingfatscot.jpg

>>11982814
Not an argument.

>>11982759
Prove the need to prove it

>>11982814
prove it

It's mildly amusing how btfo philosophers have been for the past century
>scientist: I have a theory!
>can you prove it
>s: why yes, I can
>*invents modern technology and medicine*

meanwhile
>philosopher: I have a theory
>can you prove it?
>p: reeeeeee, *obfuscates hysterically* Kant, save me Kant! Post-structural object oriented ontologyyyyyyy
hmmm, reminds of another very similar scenario

who is it that also can't prove their big "end all be all" theories of existence? oh that's right: theists

>>11982850
That’s a philosophical statement

>>11982850
>scientist: I have a theory!
>socrates: can you prove it
>scientist: why yes I can, with science
>socrates: okay but then you need to prove your science
>scientist: why yes I can, with science
>socrates: no that's circular
>scientist: well science is self-evident anyway
>socrates: you could say that about the gods or anything else tho what makes science special
>scientist: cause it works retard
>socrates: you're trying to prove science by appealing to evidence, which is the scientific method, which is what you're trying to prove
>scientist: but facts
>socrates: if only you had any

>>11982887
So scientists accomplish things and philosophers win autistic semantic arguments? Probably about right

>>11982887
Are platonic dialogues the earliest example of a strawman?

>>11982887
lel

philosophy is literally reduced to screaming: "you cant know nuthin" to the people who actually know things and apply what they know to the real world

laughinggoldenface.png

>>11982894
Yes, that's exactly my point. Science does things. It does not know things. It cannot know things.
>>11982898
>>11982900
>believing this hard in the lie that you know things
o i am laffin

>>11982759
>>11982830
>>11982835
>>11982850
>>11982894
>>11982898
>>11982900
>>>/sci/
Leave bugmen

>>11982907
implying i dont have soil

>>11982905
>incel: you might be having sex, b-but do you know what LOVE is???
>rest of the world: lmao fuck off dude

>>11982761
powerful

>>11982759
>>11982761
>proof
You can' even prove you exist anon, what makes you think that anything else isn't up for debate? science is constantly disproving itself half the time and when you look at quantum science it has as much fuckery as philosophy.

>>11982909
>stemtard thinking he can fool anyone into thinking he's made it with a woman
I kid. Doing things is important. I love science for this. It's when it oversteps its bounds that philosophy has to shoot it down, like that girl at the bar would shoot you down if you ever tried to ask.

Y’all are fucking idiots. Science came out of philosophy. Anything that philosophy covers enough turns into a field of study. So whatever is left can be up to philosophy to figure out to the point of it becoming another scientific field.

>>11982759
Can you lads imagine philosophers back in the hunter gatherer days?

>it seems that if I put this stone against this other one it gets better at going through hides
>great discovery my friend let us-
>But what is sharpness? ANd how can we know if the the sharpness is what is causing the hide to be pierced and not some other property imbued in the stone by our actions? And futhermore should we be hunting animals at all?

>>11982955
Can you imagine having a complex organ that allows you to think about your actions and to think about your thoughts, then getting mad when people actually use that organ, stammering, "n-no, we shouldn't investigate things, only live in a utilitarian shithole where anything that requires abstract thought is banished!"

>>11982955
Can you lads imagine bio-chemists or computer scientists or car mechanics or tv repairmen or milkmen back in the hunter gatherer days?

>>11982970
i can imagine a milkman desu

>>11982969
heh yeah, because stem graduates never use their brains...

>>11982887

science is obviously useful, but all it can prove is that you have an explanation of events that is repeatable. it doesn't mean that you're explanation is correct. do you think the scientists making AI or researching quantum theory have any idea of what the fuck they're actually doing?

>>11982981
Wow, it's not like a fucking computer can't do math. You know what computers can't do though? They can't create art, or contemplate existence.

>>11982993
exactly, it's useful but doesn't have anything to do with truth

>>11982995
a computer generated this. of it was on the sistine chapel ceiling you'd be creaming yourself over it

and contemplating existence = reviewing sensory input data from external world which computers not only do but do far better than we ever could

posting in a bait thread
also this >>11982948

>>11982976
I don't know if hunting for milk is an effective stratergy

>>11982759
>>11982761
...but that's literally what philosophy is, proving your claims via deductive logic, inductive evidence, and strong argumentation
The only people who don't understand this are low IQ pseudo intellectual STEM virgins who think Empiricism is the only "valid" epistemology.

All analysis of entities as present-at-hand is subsequent to the existential analytic of Dasein, which is incomplete. Because we don't even grasp the truth of Dasein's Being-in-the-world, we cannot grasp the truth of Dasein's goings about.

Come on, where my Heideggerians at?

>>11983015
Art involves originality, and copy pasting a spiral over and over again isn't original
also your thought on what contemplating existence is like is a very far stretch. Humans are the only creature that are aware of their own mortality, and this gives way to alot of insight.

>>11982759
>philosophy is about being "right"
STEMfags are the new cancer shitting up this board

>>11982850

>successful application implies that your theses are true

You have so much to learn

It's literally just Empiricists not understand that their epistemology isnt as strong as Rationalism and getting really angry when told this fact.

>>11983015
>a computer generated this. of it was on the sistine chapel ceiling you'd be creaming yourself over it

It's a fractal pattern, they're everywhere in nature. I might be impressed at a human being's skill in reproducing it in tempera, but that doesn't give it artistic merit. You've misunderstood why people subjectively value art. It is a medium produced entirely subjectively and appreciated entirely subjectively. The computer didn't subjectively produce that, it generated it from mathematics (which passes for objectivity in our current understanding of reality). As such, that pattern has no subject, no affect, no artistic merit. Because art is a feeling, and machines are not yet capable of their own set of moods, understandings, traits, modes of finding, or any other distinctly subjective mode of being, they cannot produce Art as it is understood.

>>11982759
>>11982759
Prove this.

>>11983075
kek. this delusion

cogito ergo sum is more valid than scientific formulas responsible for the modern fucking world and therefore PROVEN through successful implementation

give me a fucking break

>>11983092
Lol exactly as was said would happen.
>cogito ergo sum is more valid than scientific formulas responsible for the modern fucking world and therefore PROVEN through successful implementation
Yes.

Empiricism isn't as valid or strong an epistemology as rationalism, virgin. All of science is built on it's Queen, mathematics, which is not Empiricist, but rationalist.
The proof follows directly from the definitions and is left as an exercise for the reader :^)

>>11983092
>cogito ergo sum

Nobody who's anybody still holds Cartesian rationalism.

>>11983015
>external world
Never gonna make it.
>which computers not only do but do far better than we ever could
Wrong. Go talk to Cleverbot and see how blind the Chinese room truly is.

>>11983128
Not the whole of it. Though you (the exister) can't doubt your existence.

>>11983015

You might be having sex, but do you know what LOVE is???

Is there any way we can meddle with the brains of STEM people to turn them into the philosophical zombies they so obviously want to be. I am absolutely one hundred and ten percent serious about this. It really is worth considering that we should look into some method of removing all the functions of the brain which allow STEMfags to do anything other than whatever they need for their autistic little field. Honestly. Give me a mathematician and an ice cream scoop and half an hour. Love and passion, nope not using it, you don't need it (*SCOOOP*). Desire for meaning and authenticity, don't think you even knew you had this (*SCOOOOOOP*). Basic ethical and aesthetic sensibilities, well known to any well-adjusted three your old, you certainly won't miss this (*SCOOOOOOOOOOP*). Then we screw the top of his head back on and marvel at our creation: the ideal STEMfag, reduced to his essential part, a human calculator in the case of our mathematician. And I genuinely believe that he would thank me if he could. This is all STEMfags want to be, this is all they're really capable of being.

Give them all to me and with an ice cream scoop I'll fix all their problems. They won't have to worry about any of the dastardly, irritating aspects of life, such as beauty, or religious hope, or virtue, or even sensuality (which will be merely sense-data once I'm done with my scoop).

You really do have to understand, noble reader, that this isn't even in the slightest a cruel thing to do. It's removing from them those things which would do nothing but bother and irritate them till the end of their days. They don't want these things which are so valuable to you and I, noble reader. In fact, their every utterance is a plea to the universe to "reduce" and "eliminate" and simplify and I, and my trusted associates at the clinic, with our scoops would do nothing more than give them that freedom from unnecessaries that they so desire.

It's a perfect solution, which frees us from having to listen to their opinions on things outside of objectively measurable phenomena pertaining to their field and their field alone, and it frees them from the distractions, such as moral intuitions and human consciousness, which they are so disturbed by that they need to deny the very existence of these things.

Just picture it, thousands upon thousands of STEMfags walking out the clinic back towards their test tubes or whatever they do. Imagine the grotesque rictus smiles on their chinless anglo faces. "I'm finally free", they would think, were they not indeed finally free from that thing which they felt most keenly to be a burden on them, qualia, human consciousness, and all the beauty, passion, love, emotion, all the duty, the sense of virtues, the religious hunger, the ups and downs and bends and curves of being *human*, all that aesthetic, moral, spiritual... noise, which plagued them like tinnitus until my act of kindness.

>>11983208
>noble reader
cringe, didn't even read

>>11983194
ok given the context this is funny

>>11983242
>doesn't recognize the pasta
get out, brainlet

>>11983281
baited af
*dabs*

>>11983286
it's not a pasta though idiot

>>11982759
>>11982761
i was in that thread. i was the guy who replied "retard"

feels good btfoing STEM apes

>>11983353
he cute

>>11983353

>>11982759
>philosophy textbooks
why would you read philosophy textbooks instead of the actual things?

>>11983092
I've got a fat fuck scotsman for you to read anon

>>11982995
Who do you think designs, produces and programs the computers?

>>11982759
philosophy: *invents science*
science: "philosophy never produces anything good"

this thread gave me triple AIDS and double cancer

>>11983208
not bad
but you're on 4chan
and stemchad is fucking your gf, if you have one

>>11983925
Based and redpilled

>>11983884
Philosophy hhas null to do with science you piece of shit

>>11982929
>You can' even prove you exist anon
you picked literally the only thing you can prove as an example
idior
godaam idior

>>11982827
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4fHre-yRPY

>>11985619
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn2F2BWLZ0Q

>blue background
>this wasn't from /pol/
Won't it be funny in 5 years when Peterson has no legacy because all of his fans are no longer teenagers