/lit/ - Literature

The only legitimate use of 'scientism' I can think of would be to ridicule transhumanism.

Define 'scientism.'

>>1706004

Why would you ridicule transhumanism? If you take the long view on technology and the exponential rate of its growth, as well as the exponential growth of scientific understanding it becomes perfectly clear that transhumanism is the future. Maybe not even the distant future.

>>1706025

Sure thing, bro.

Why dont you go read some steampunk or something.

>>1706031

And why don't you actually take a look at the world around you and notice the growth of technology and human understanding?

>>1706025
>>1706033
Don't fucking derail this thread, I want to know what scientism is.

>>1706037

It's a nonsense word that religionists use to try to make fun of rationalists who understand the world through reason and scientific understanding, instead of their antiquated books written in the dawn of civilization.

>>1706033
growth of technology has reduced human understanding, not increased it.

>>1706044

Uh...huh.

Go tell that to an African school child who now has a lap top computer to aid in his education which cost all of one dollar to manufacture and give to him. Or, hell, tell that to entire African villages who are now able to drink fresh, clean water due to purifiers that work far more efficiently than ever before.

Do you have any idea how ignorant that statement is? I really doubt you do.

>>1706041
>rationalism
lol as if that hasn't been debunked a million times over

>>1706055

Don't just state things, explain yourself. If you think that you can debunk rationalism, do it. Don't just stand there and say something that you aren't even going to attempt to back up.

>>1706048
You're being ignorant.

The introduction of computers in rural areas has been about 1 million. In those cases, this has resulted in the depreciation of teachers.

Accodring to unicef, the amount spent in the US on OLPC is the same as the amount needed to bring 100% literacy to Brazil.

http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/iwp87.pdf

But keep name-calling, keep using technology as your religion. Increases in technology result in decreases in human interaction, which then reduces human understanding.

Keep calling me ignorant while you refuse to check any data.

>>1706048
>>1706044

that guy is probably an irrational colonial apologist or something.

Transhumanism is a nonsensical attempt to find some spiritual safety in the sanctification of science. I suppose as religion continues to decay and fade from existence in progressive civilisation there will be an inertia of people who still feel like they NEED some hope that death can be conquered.

That too will fade in time, people will evolve, become more intelligent and forget about that primal, destructive desire for objective meaning will disappear into history too.

>>1706064
>I suppose as religion continues to decay and fade from existence in progressive civilisation there will be an inertia of people who still feel like they NEED some hope that death can be conquered.

>That too will fade in time, people will evolve, become more intelligent and forget about that primal, destructive desire for objective meaning will disappear into history too.

Jesus tapdancing Christ, and I thought you were a decent tripfag

Technology hasn't lent you any human understanding, that's for goddamn sure.

>>1706064
Wait why do you sound so convinced that immortality is impossible? We don't have a full understanding of reality. You don't know what may be discovered across thousands and thousands of years.

>>1706063

Do you have any idea, the amount of irony that's at display in your talking down of technology while debating it on the internet? You're as bad as a Creationist with a pace maker.

Not to mention that you're bemoaning the lack of human interaction in modern society while you lurk on 4chan. Do you have any shame?

While the growth of technology has hurt humanity in small ways, its constant and continual expanse will continue to help all of us in the long run. A rising tide lifts all boats.

>>1706064

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. Exponential growth in computers alone will have a marked effect on civilization and on the human species at large within our life time. Are you aware of the effect that the creation of the internet has had on us? A computer literate ten year old has more knowledge at his finger tips than Newton did. Extrapolate that out a good twenty years and try to argue that we aren't heading into amazing and extravagant areas of existence.

>>1706076

Or even within the next eighty years, when we start integrating advanced computational technology into our brains. Once we start doing that, we will be capable of things that we can't even imagine right now.

>>1706063
That paper doesn't even mention One Laptop per Child, aside from being ten years old.

science promotes good religion, just in case you guys are fighting.

>>1706092

Science promotes the eventual death of religion.

>>1706069

i'm really sorry about my poor sentencing tonight.
I just got back from Ireland and i'm tired and sick as hell. I hope you can extract some meaning from my ramblings.

>>1706076

Because it's very unlikely and it's dogmatic enthusiasm to idealise science as the inevitable saviour of human civilisation reminds me of communism and other invariably poisonous totalitarian ideologies.

>>1706092

>good
>religion

Contradiction of terms.

>>1706099

>bad mouthing science on the internet, while using a computer

fullretard.jpg

>>1706099
But science is the inevitable savior of human civilization. Without science the sun will end life on earth eventually. I can see the problem with idealizing it, or blindly following it though.

>>1706105

I'm not bad mouthing science, I'm just reluctant to worship it.

>Bash science
>Not be a retard

You can only pick one.

>>1706114

The concept of worshiping science is still out and out idiotic.

Within our life time, cancer is going to be eliminated, AIDS will be a distant memory, and that's not even approaching computational science and its eventual integration with humanity.

None of this involves 'worship' or any other such terms of ridicule which really do make me understand why the serious sciences make fun of the liberal arts with the gusto that they do.

Just as planned.

>>1706105
some such acts need a religious pedestal, such as the seeking of truth, sincerity, information maximization and love. but mostly love.

>>1706137

Why does any of that need religious connotations? They're all perfectly fine without attaching religion to it.

>>1706125

But when you start to idealise science as the ultimate 'cure' for the neurological, social and ultimately political issues of humanity, and you disregard other important things such as philosophy and art, that our perception of science as an idea is twisted into becoming a totality rather than an instrument of freedom and equality.

>>1706131

fuck you i'm enjoying this.

>>1706141
you don't understand religion. it's ok, there are many like you

in fact...

>>1706143

Who said anything about science doing any of those things? The arts will always be present with us. It's one of the great things that separate us from the beasts, and gives light to life. We will always have art, no matter where science takes us.

And, I'm sorry, but science really is the cure to most of what ails us. I don't know how you can consider that it doesn't.

>>1706147

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. - Marx explaining religion perfectly.

>>1706151

Because once you eradicate disease, drought and famine, what ails us makes us.

The idea of immortality is inherently corrosive to individualism.

i feel like i should be able to bring myself to care, in light of how many words have been expended itt

like some kind of weak force of caring akin to gravity almost

but nah

>>1706143
kc?

>>1706162
But you honestly think as people evolve (lol progress) they will cease looking for objective meaning in their lives

>>1706162

Oh, okay. So we should just toss our hands up and give up, allow suffering and horror to persist for...philosophical reasons.

Wow.

>>1706178

>allow suffering and horror to persist for...philosophical reasons.

I am not a fatalist, however I see progress as a justified yet ceaseless struggle rather than a perfect fix, which history has shown are invariably far from perfect.

>>1706178

Yes I think so. But I think by that point humanity will have to change much in other ways to allow that change to come about.

>>1706178

Aw. Isn't that cute? He thinks that there's an objective meaning to life aside from survival. Isn't that adorable?

>>1706206
I think a good part of humanity has progressed beyond the point where survival is a pressing, daily concern. That's why we have time for useless (in the use-for-survival sense) stuff like philosophy

>>1706209

Exactly. Hence there is no objective purpose or meaning to life.

Survival isn't our objective purpose, it's our biological inclination.

Biology itself is meaningless.

>>1706230
people have been confounding purpose and function since plato

>>1706230

There's nothing other than biology. If there isn't, then you need to prove it in objective terms and scientifically verifiable ways.

>>1706272
not only does that not contradict what was said, it's demonstrably untrue unless you want to give the clause 'there is nothing other than biology' some context