/lit/ - Literature

>>16039440
>privileged white males
Feels good. Seethe nigger

>>16039440
Who are you making this post for? Everyone here is a schizo, sexist racist, and proud of it. Me included

>>16039440
i can't wait for you p to eoplerealize most contemporary philosophers and academic accept and respects metaphysics to some degree and move out from it as it's no longer means being a contrarian

>>16039440
only privileged white males have the opportunity to speculate about such lofty things while we march the streets for BLM

>>16039497
>accept and respects metaphysics to some degree
Lul, no. It’s just pseuds equivalent to someone trying to coach a sport they don’t even understand the rules for. You might as well tell me about manifestation, at least then random chance would give you more credibility.

>>16039440
>>metaphysics bad
>>category theory bad
more like "baseless speculation that impedes legitimate scientific advancement"

but if you can prove the validity of metaphysics and universal categories, I'll consider changing my mind

>>16039560
What do you mean "no"?
Every single professor I studied under liked metaphysics (I study math)

literally repeating a watered-down dilated-diluted version of mister bad nazi Heidegger. Fuck you for that image btw OP that should be a bannable offense.

>>16039573
How does category theory impede legitimate scientific advancement? The majority of proof assistants are based on category theory.
I swear the none of you know what the fuck you're talking about.

>>16039573
>more like "baseless speculation that impedes legitimate scientific advancement"
Counterargument: Scientific advancement literally does not matter in the least.

>>16039560
Metaphyisics is more normiefriendly than people here would like to admit

>>16039440
ITT: People who need to read this book.
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789400744073
Proposes and illustrates a simple criterion for evaluating any philosophical doctrine: Does it help advance knowledge?
Clearly written, and avoids the use of obscure technical terms
Argues for an emergentist and non-reductionist view of materialism, as well as for a non-posivist version of scientism, and a systemic alternative to both individualism and holism.

The first part deals with philosophies that have had a significant input, positive or negative, on the search for truth; it suggests that scientific and technological are either stimulated or smothered by a philosophical matrix; and it outlines two ontological doctrines believed to have nurtured research in modern times: systemism (not to be mistaken for holism) and materialism (as an extension of physicalism). The second part discusses a few practical problems that are being actively discussed in the literature, from climatology and information science to economics and legal philosophy. This discussion is informed by the general principles analyzed in the first part of the book. Some of the conclusions are that standard economic theory is just as inadequate as Marxism; that law and order are weak without justice; and that the central equation of normative climatology is a tautology–which of course does not put climate change in doubt. The third and final part of the book tackles a set of key concepts, such as those of indicator, energy, and existence, that have been either taken for granted or neglected. For instance, it is argued that there is at least one existence predicate, and that it is unrelated to the so-called existential quantifier; that high level hypotheses cannot be put to the test unless conjoined with indicator hypotheses; and that induction cannot produce high level hypotheses because empirical data do not contain any transempirical concepts. Realism, materialism, and systemism are thus refined and vindicated.

>>16039620
"Knowledge" doesn't exist outside of your mind. I can already tell this is some form of positivist epistemological realist pseudo intellectualism. It belongs in the trash along with all positivist pseudo intellectualism.

>>16039620
>Mario Bunge
nah

>>16039573
>impedes legitimate scientific advancement
Imagine unironically writing this

>>16039631
What's your problem with him?

>>16039585
it's just a bunch of kids arguing about god and ghosts etc. pretty boring. i'm out

>>16039673
That is not what category theory is you fucking idiot.
Yes, get the fuck out, you're not intelligent nor educated.

>>16039658
i don't like his appearance. He looks like a lizard man

>>16039699
Well, so do I. What's wrong with lizard-men?

>>16039680
where did i say anything about category theory.

>>16039713
they don't look good

>>16039440
Hegel's a goddamn pseud

>>16039440
How the fuck did category theory get stuck in there? It's a field of math not that made up shit like the rest

>>16039995
Pretty sure he meant Aristotle and Kant's categories

>>16039602
Proof?

If you don't like philosophy, you are not intelligent.

>>16040002
No it's a framework that goes with type theory or set theory for logic

>Anon is fighting libtards in his brain again

>>16040064
Not him but sure but I'll argue it does matter but literally in the least.
If truth is hierarchized from universal to particular, we can see by the tenets of accepting a purely material world, one that even further can only be understood by empiricism, we can see this hole digging that leads to more and more particular truths. I don't know how understandable that was to you, if it isn't clear here's a great example of the particularness of science. Math isn't understood empirically. I can't hold empirical observations or studied to find whether 1+1=2. This is analytic and it is reasoned by laws of logic. Of course science uses math but math does not use science. So you can't say fundamentally the tenets of science are universal.