[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 6 KB, 201x250, download (4).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19147703 No.19147703 [Reply] [Original]

>Plato: humans are patterned on an intelligible, ideal Form of Man
BTFO by Darwin
>Aristotle: trees, animals and humans have an inherent telos
BTFO by Darwin
>Augustine and Aquinas: God created human beings
BTFO by Darwin
>Descartes:
>Kant: human rationality is universal
BTFO by Darwin

What's the point in reading all of this pre-20th century philosophy when all of their abstract speculations about "Man = X" has been BTFO by the neo-Darwinian synthesis that actually explains how nature works?

>> No.19147711

>>19147703
Theory of evolution

How come peacocks have such big useless tales that do nothing but make them inefficient?

>> No.19147718

>>19147711
Tails*

>> No.19147734

>>19147703
>The existence of a greedy algorithm in nature disproves how the conscious perceives reality
That's a huge assumption, do you have any writing to back that up?

>> No.19147782

>>19147734
What the conscious perceives is a random efflorescence of that algorithm. It might perceive accurately according to it, or it might not.

>> No.19147812

>>19147711
Explained by female selection. Thus, also BTFO'd by Darwin.

>> No.19147826

>>19147711
What's the evolutionary purpose of this post?

>> No.19147830

Nietzsche destroyed Darwin

>> No.19147839

>>19147830
useless human, telegraphing that he has left the gene pool lmao

>> No.19147877

>>19147830
Nietzsche was a Darwinian lmao

>> No.19148018

>>19147703
He doesn't know. Check out Darwin's last thoughts on Christianity.

>> No.19148067

>>19147703
BASED

>> No.19148291

>>19148018
Difference between science and religion. No one cares what Darwin's last thoughts were because science isn't a cult of personality like religion. If Darwin hadn't come up with evolution someone else would have within several years. Science aims at the truth not at the opinions of the founder of a theory

>> No.19148301

>>19147711
Are you pretending to be retarded or do you genuinely not know? I swear, the average intelligence on /lit/ is the lowest of all boards

>> No.19148335

Neo-darwinianism is accepted as truth by Aristotelian-Thomists.
http://morec.com/nature/evol.html

>> No.19148336

>>19148018
Christianity is based on fear, shame, and guilt. It's literally an expression of the worst aspects of humanity, and individuals near death are more likely to succumb to it, sad as that is.

>> No.19148351

>>19148291
>If Darwin hadn't come up with evolution someone else would have within several years.
Wallace literally submitted his research in the same year as Darwin

>> No.19148356
File: 57 KB, 850x400, quote-the-study-of-philosophy-is-not-that-we-may-know-what-men-have-thought-but-what-the-truth-thomas-aquinas-39-10-85.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19148356

>>19148291

>> No.19148385

>>19147703
This is sadly the wrong board for this, anon. People here don't like it when science and measurements show their circlejerks to be imprecise.
Wait until they learn that the theory of relativity destroys Kant.

>> No.19148392
File: 70 KB, 719x539, img014.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19148392

>>19147703
there is no point outside of posturing on anime imageboards or humanities departments. 95% of philosophy is worthless and you would be better reading something else to avoid becoming this retard >>19147711

>> No.19148402

>>19147711
Is this the fabled /lit/ high IQ that I heard of?
Kek.
Look up fisherian runaway, you retard. The theory of evolution didn't stop progressing after the literal first book.

>> No.19148403

>>19147703
>what is man
>a broad flat genetic continuum
>dabs on plato

>> No.19148405

>>19148385
>This is sadly the wrong board for this, anon. People here don't like it when science and measurements show their circlejerks to be imprecise.
No, we don't like it because in 9 out of 10 cases these threads are made by people who misunderstood either the science or the philosophy
>Wait until they learn that the theory of relativity destroys Kant.
nigger we have threads about this every month just type "kant relativity" in the warosu.org archive

>> No.19148406

Darwin thinks a ball rolls because it is round.
But the ball is round so that it may roll.

>> No.19148409
File: 126 KB, 1125x908, 9k=.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19148409

>>19148336
Yeah, thank Jupiter we live in a shameless society

>> No.19148426

>>19148356
Yeah, that's what he thought. What OP posted is the truth of things.

>> No.19148435

>>19147703
I'm coming to this conclusion myself. Wasted so many years on continental rubbish and tradLARP shit.

>> No.19148441

>>19148406
You haven't read the Origin of Species, have you?
It could be more accurately described as:
Darwin things there's a bunch of rounded stones, some of which roll better than some other ones.

>> No.19148449

>>19147703
What's the point of anything?

>> No.19148459

>>19148392
>a theory that explains the thing exists, meaning it's automatically correct
into the trash

>> No.19148467
File: 50 KB, 550x543, Christcucks.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19148467

>>19148409
Right, because there isn't any degeneracy in the Christian church at all. Yep, no small children getting violently raped and then the power structure of the church shielding the pedophile rapists from justice. Certainly not! But random mentally ill people dressing as the other sex is the real problem with society! Thanks for clearing that up, Christcuck!

>> No.19148476
File: 3 KB, 235x325, bergson.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19148476

It appears all of you are wrong. In this moment I am euphoric, not because of some phony telos organizing matter, but by my own élan vital. *tips chapeau melon*

>> No.19148504

>>19148441
You are describing to what degree they are successful at rolling.

Any stone that approaches roundness does so to fulfill the desire to roll.

>> No.19148507

>>19148467
>Yep, no small children getting violently raped and then the power structure of the church shielding the pedophile rapists from justice.

Pretty shameless and guiltless behavior, don't you think? Good thing we got rid of "the worst aspects of humanity". Oh and I'm not Christian fyi.

>> No.19148508

>>19148504
The fact you believe stones to have desires doesn't make your position any more palatable to a thinking person.

>> No.19148521

>>19148459
What's your proposal, then?

>> No.19148524

>>19148521
to be more open about criticism of evolution

>> No.19148526

>>19148441
Look anon, let me make it simple for you:

The brain works like a computer.
Computers are designed.
We call these designers "electrical engineers".
What do we call the being that designed the brain?
God.

>> No.19148537

>>19148526
based and teleologypilled

>> No.19148540

>>19148526
ATHEISTS BTFO KEK

>> No.19148546

>>19148508
That is the whole point...
Darwin sees this concept from the tail end.
Can you disprove the original intent of the stone? Of plants? Of man?

The will to grasp demands a hand be formed.
The will to see demands eyes.
Etc.

>> No.19148547

>>19148526
>It's unintuitive to me that nature could create things stochastically.
>If it's unintuitive it means it's wrong.
You will never have IQ above 100.

>> No.19148554

Darwin is a mason.
BTFO by satan

>> No.19148557

>>19148526
>What do we call the being that designed the brain?
Evolution, but it's not a being, it's a process. There are no beings, only processes.

>> No.19148558

>>19148526
How do we determine if something is designed? We contrast it with nature, and nature produced the human brain.

>> No.19148565

>>19148546
It's a circular argument. If the stone rolls off a hill and shatters, you'll say it had the desire to shatter. If someone came and shot you and cut your testicles off with rounded scissors, you'd say that's the desire of your body. (Although in reality by that point you'd probably stop your larp)

Darwin doesn't need to assume there is any additional "will" variable. It both results in a simpler theory, and it avoids circular arguments.

>> No.19148568

>>19148526
>The brain works like a computer.
the absolute state of theist cucks

>> No.19148573

>>19148524
Such as?

>> No.19148589

>>19148526
absolutely based
>>19148547
using big words doesn't make you sound smart

>> No.19148595

>>19147703
>>Plato: humans are patterned on an intelligible, ideal Form of Man
>BTFO by Darwin
>>Aristotle: trees, animals and humans have an inherent telos
>BTFO by Darwin
>>Augustine and Aquinas: God created human beings
>BTFO by Darwin
>>Descartes:
>>Kant: human rationality is universal
>BTFO by Darwin
But he btfos none of these.

>> No.19148601

>>19148526
So was water an artist when it sculpted the grand canyon? Poetry is not an answer to philosophical questions.

>> No.19148602

>>19148573
don't know any, i am just telling you to be less dogmatic

>> No.19148607

>>19148565
Idk. The best i can do for you is tell you Darwin had a a slightly larger than average perspective.
It might work for you, but it doesnt mean he "BTFOs" all others.
It's actually quite a dead end.
Not wrong, but not the most right.

>> No.19148625

>>19148607
>evolution, which states that we are all CHANGING and can BECOME something else without any pesky moral imperative getting in the way, is a dead end

>> No.19148627

>>19148546
>The will to grasp demands a hand be formed.
>The will to see demands eyes.
>Etc.
Dawkins mentions this in Selfish Gene, he will often say that "genes act as if the wanted to X", but always clarifying that they do not "want" anything in the sense we use normally, but that he use these words for text readability

>> No.19148630

>>19147703
The evidence favors Wallace more than it favors Darwin.

>> No.19148633

>>19148625
>omg things are the way they are because they become the way they are.

What a revelation.

>> No.19148636

>>19148627
This Dawkins sounds like a pretty smart guy

>> No.19148643

>>19148627
Thanks that's cool to know.
I actually know nothing about Darwin except that blacks came from monkeys.

>> No.19148650

>>19148633
>missing the point this hard
UberKunt more like

>> No.19148656

>>19147703
>>Augustine and Aquinas: God created human beings
>BTFO by Darwin
How? Even Darwin was as Christian.

>> No.19148660

>>19148650
The OP point is that Darwon is a BTFOer,
and I disagree with that statement.
He is good, but not better than some others listed in the OP.
For a thinking man, he is a dead end compared to where other thinkers will lead you.

>> No.19148708

>>19148660
You don't understand evolution, obviously, so your disagreement means very little

>> No.19148719

Friendly reminder evolution has never been proven. I've yet to see a fish turn into a monkey turn into a human. Therefore it does not exist. Simple as..

>> No.19148720

someone will fall for it

>> No.19148723

>>19147703
Because there's more to it than that, fag.

>> No.19148727

>>19148719
Oh fuck erosion bros we're next!

>> No.19148737

>>19148602
Wouldn't accepting the limitations of a theory and successively improving the theories we use, by definition, not be dogmatic? That's fundamentally what biologists do when they come up with stuff like Fischerian Runaway.

>> No.19148738

>>19148656
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars

https://youtu.be/YYJpNLWlp8U?t=221

>> No.19148746

>>19148737
>and successively improving the theories we use, by definition, not be dogmatic
when it comes to the fischerian runaway it looks more like a forced thing which makes no sense but was made to fit into the main idea of evolution than a genuine explanation
it's like they went from the conclusion that evolution is correct and then built fischerian runaway around it

>> No.19148750

>>19148459
You are free to propose alternate hypothesis or point flaws. Also it doesnt explain that "the thing" exists, but rather how and why

>> No.19148768

>>19148738
Show me where in the Bible it says god is benevolent.

>> No.19148774

>>19147703
What do the last two points have to do with the theory of evolution?

>> No.19148777

>>19147703
What's wrong with Descartes? Why isn't he talking?

>> No.19148791

>>19148746
>a forced thing
How so? Surely some genes, although locally optimal, could result in adaptations that are disastrous from a macro scale. The entire system is mediated through imperfect signals anyways, so it's not like the female peacock "knows" that the male is more fit according to some scale or something, he's just trying to trigger her signals (and she his)

>> No.19148794

>>19148768
>Chronicles 16:34. "O give thanks to the LORD, for He is good; For His loving kindness is everlasting.
>"And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone."
>Oh give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever!

>> No.19148795

>>19148291
>science isn't a cult of personality
Lmao

>> No.19148803

>>19148795
Science is not synonym with academia. Academia has plenty of cult of personality, but it also has science.

>> No.19148811

>>19147826
>>19148301
>>19148402
>complaining about iq
>got b8ed this hard
I WHIP MY HAIR BACK AND FORTH

>> No.19148813

>>19148768
The Lord is compassionate and gracious,
slow to anger, abounding in love.

The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness.

The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness.

>l-love does not mean benevolence!

>> No.19148815

>>19148727
I've seen erosion.

>> No.19148828

>>19148746
I know a girl who is about 5 ft tall, her breasts are so big that at age 15 she was already considering breast reduction because they are so heavy she gets back pain. Sure, it's impractical - but you'd love her tits if you saw her

>> No.19148832

>>19148813
Oops, little mistake here

7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

>> No.19148834

>>19148813
you have to go back

>> No.19148840

>>19148834
???

>> No.19148848

>>19147877
Darwinian with no kids haha

>> No.19148852

>>19148848
>believing in evolution means you need to father childrens

>> No.19148854

>>19147703
This is why stemfags and other hylics need to be kept as far away from philosophy as possible. Let the thinkers do the thinking and just stay to your code and button pressing.

>> No.19148861

>>19148848
His hyperboreans are his kids

>> No.19148864

>>19148794
>>19148813
>>19148832

Go preach somewhere else

>> No.19148870

>>19148854
kek

>> No.19148873
File: 148 KB, 800x789, science man.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19148873

>>19148467
>Yep, no small children getting violently raped and then the power structure of the church shielding the pedophile rapists from justice.
the average age of the "victim" was 13, retard. I doubt there were ANY "small children" getting so called raped aka consensually fondled. The same "I fucking love science" retard parrots media fabrications about the sex scandal. And you want us to think you are some truth seeker?

>> No.19148881

Evolution has also made so that a human society with no hardcoded morals and higher beliefs will crash horribly in a very short time.
A very large amount of godless human beings in this liberated world of rationality now need to numb themselves with psychoactive medication to not kill themselves, which AFAIK is as unnatural as it gets.
I don't believe in God but religion seems to have a very specific purpose in the human mind and once stripped of it, the individual's stability, and that of his society as a consequence, suffer and collapse.

>> No.19148888

>>19148526
>um God is like an IT-engineer you see
Onions overdose

>> No.19148891
File: 622 KB, 1536x1846, 1562535145108.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19148891

>>19148881
Religion is a cope that destabilizes nations with its inclination towards multi-racial inclusion. The correct conclusion after Darwin is national socialism, but the world just doesn't get it.

>> No.19148901

>>19148864
I answered a question, what's your problem, exactly?
I fucking hate ch*istianity btw, it literally means "cretin cult"

>> No.19148907

>>19148873
>doesn't know what "average" means
>makes fun of people who love science
kek

>> No.19148908

>>19148873
>t. was abused by a priest as a kid.

>> No.19148928

>>19148873
>Defends pedophile rapists
>Admits there were child victims but also claims that the sex scandal was a media fabrication
At this point you should look at yourself in the mirror and realize something has gone deeply wrong. Post less, have more introspection.

>> No.19149006
File: 22 KB, 331x500, Lazarus_and_Joannes_Baptista_Colloredo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19149006

>>19148928
I mean, in a sense they're victims, too. Their mental illness made them think that an invisible jewish protograndpa gets angered if you are "fruitful and multiply", so they voluntarily locked themselves out of fucking - except that lack of sex creates even more mental illness and desire for sex, which at some points just needs to get out, usually on someone helpless (a child in this case). I really think we should lock all priests in an institution and either humanely cull them, or study/care for them while also making them in the condition of not harming anybody.

It's a sad story, really, like those twins were one is normal and the other is a misshapen tumor growing out of a random place

>> No.19149013

>>19147703
Schopenhauer's 'Will" is a sort of rough philosophical precursor to Darwinism. His philosophy probably maintains its relevance if you see "fitness" as a manifestation of will.

>> No.19149036

>>19148891
wrong
>>19148881
Religion could be part of the phenotype of a kind of meta-organism made up of individuals of the species.

>> No.19149048

>>19147703
read Hegel
>>19148385
>this retard again

>> No.19149132
File: 46 KB, 900x328, DNS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19149132

>>19149013
Who can stop them?

>> No.19149190

Perhaps the same could be said of all religions.

>> No.19149217

>>19147703
>BTFO by Darwin
>Aristotle: it takes a fully generated man to generate a man
OP is on /lit/ but clearly doesn't read

>> No.19149316
File: 164 KB, 960x540, Galatians 3-28.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19149316

>>19149036
>wrong

>> No.19149325

>>19147703
what is the semiotic reading of evolution?

>> No.19149337

>>19149013
Nietzsche improves on both these ideas

>> No.19149359
File: 261 KB, 2048x1396, 1620202852555.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19149359

>>19148526
>The brain works like a computer.
>Computers are designed.
>But we have free will

>> No.19149361

>>19149132
Guénon

>> No.19149488

>>19149359
Free will doesn't even make any sense. Does your life previous to a decision determine that decision? Then you're a robot. Does your life previous to a decision have no effect on that decision? Then you're a coin flip. Neither one seems like free will. Combining the two doesn't help either. A computer with a random number generator doesn't have free will.

>> No.19149506

>>19149488
Any absolute concepts break down when analyzed. That's why relativity is king. "Free will" makes no sense, but relative free will (i.e., that an organism is "free" only in relation to other "less free" organisms) makes sense.

>> No.19149538

>>19147711
to attract a mate, they figured this out a long time ago, are you even marginally conversant with evolutionary theories?

>> No.19149840

lol /lit/ is useless. None have you have benefited from a single encounter in this thread. Go fucking read faggots.

>> No.19150246

>>19148467
Are children actually being raped that's so f'd up that isn't godly at all to hirt others

>> No.19150477
File: 282 KB, 1600x900, cover4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19150477

>>19147711
This is actually an excellent question. Why must the peacock have large cumbersome tails to attract a mate? Many other animals measure suitable mating partners by other much more efficient metrics. You could argue that the tail doubles as a defense mechanism for scaring away predators, but this doubtedly outweighs the benefit of simply being more nimble and less visible.

When the population fares well and the females can safely afford to be selective, each iterative generation of peacocks will have more beautiful and grander tails. This is a reproductive strategy that seems less about survival and more about art. There seems to be a caste of animals that share this progression towards higher aesthetic ends, such as fireflies, which selectively mate to glow brighter despite the obvious downfalls of that mechanism. And what about humans? It is in a way difficult to and costly to survive as humans. We are physically weaker and need to adapt through technology and through science. The amoeba on the other hand expends little to no effort to reproduce and survive, and there are more amoeba than humans on an unimaginable scale. If the metric is survival, why did nature progress past the ultimate reproductive model?

It is because we do not survive simply for survival's sake. We survive in order to be complex. We survive in order to understand both the universe and ourselves. The biological mechanisms Darwin observes are not strictly for survival in our case, but for the perpetuation of a self-aware being that interprets experience intelligently.

I think its apparent that there is more to our existence, and the existence of almost all creatures, than mere reproduction. The reproductive strategies themselves are more often than not conducive to something greater than mere survival. There is real purpose and intent behind the composition of many organisms that exceeds the general principle of evolution. Thus, I find it only fair to make the case for using darwin as a buttress, not a cornerstone, for understanding our existence.

>> No.19150523

>>19150477
This has already been answered several times lookup Fisherian runaway. Feedback loop with both the preference and the display leads to bigger and bigger tails. Having a lot of energy to spend on making a nice shiny tail probably means you're a fit specimen as as well.

>> No.19150527

>>19148738
Would it be right to let the wasp larvae starve or to let the caterpillars eat all the leaves? Who are you to judge God's reasoning behind parasitic wasps?

>> No.19150536

>>19149132
Jung

>> No.19150596
File: 607 KB, 2000x3090, 5a960455-f1f4-472c-a801-9d0d630d9ab5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19150596

A L F R E D
W A L L A C E

>> No.19150669

>>19150477
>There is real purpose and intent behind the composition of many organisms that exceeds the general principle of evolution.
I'm sorry, but this is false.

>> No.19150691

>>19150669
The banana is shaped to fit into the human hand.
It comes with a protective, non-slip surface to hold, which is also biodegradable and sits "gracefully" over the human hand.
It is curved towards the face for ease of consumption and does not squirt in one's face during the act.
There is a "pull tab" at the "top" for easy access.
It has a simple "colour code" to show ripeness: Green, too early. Yellow, just right. Black, too late.

The banana is an atheist's nightmare. It was clearly made with the purpose of human's eating it.

>> No.19150763

>>19150523
Fisherian runaway sort of speaks to my point actually. Something beyond primary indicators of fitness motivates the peacock to select its mate, and it unfounded to assume the peacocks that existed before the runaway associated the tailspan with fitness.

per the wiki:

"Fisherian runaway has been difficult to demonstrate empirically, because it has been difficult to detect both an underlying genetic mechanism and a process by which it is initiated"

So it isn't a complete retort to my point.

>> No.19150792

>>19150669
>>19150691
This is a strawman of my position, but I'm willing to append it to my compendium of evidence against fedorafags because its likely true anyways.

>> No.19150808
File: 27 KB, 530x297, wild banana.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19150808

>>19150691

>> No.19150840

>>19148719
Birds that nest near roads are evolving shorter wings at this very moment because the ones with longer wings are more likely to be hit by cars. DOI:10.1016/j.cub.2013.02.023

>> No.19150866

>>19150808
Never seen a wild one before, it looks cool.
Around the world in 80 days has a cute bit where they come onto a small island which has plenty of wild bananas; it's amusing, they treat them like such curiosities.

>> No.19150913

>>19149840
80% of lit are brainlets who have intellectual egos and identify as a 'read' person and want to engage in idéas to feed their egos.

>> No.19150914

>>19150913
but don't read

>> No.19150932

>>19149316
> I can only read and interpret holy tests in an exoteric manner
Reddit moment.
"IN Jesus Christ" is a state of consciousness in the "Son" in the holy trinity which is itself a state of transcendence in God. It has nothing to do with physical reality

>> No.19150940

>>19150932
texts*

>> No.19150944
File: 41 KB, 290x290, 1626213197251.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19150944

>>19147703
Schopenhauer still stands side by side with Darwin.

>> No.19150952

>>19150527
>Would it be right to let the wasp larvae starve or to let the caterpillars eat all the leaves?
It's almost as if the food chain was a complex homeostasis system with no underlying "benevolent designer" moral behind it...

>>19150691
and don't get me started on noses and reading glasses

>> No.19150959

>>19147703
darwin wasn't a determinist

>> No.19150960

>>19150913
>80% of lit are...
pseuds. save your words
there's nothing wrong with that, btw

>> No.19151195

>>19148385
>Wait until they learn that the theory of relativity destroys Kant.
Wait until you learn it wasn't

>> No.19151204

>>19149132
Take Nietzsche out of that pic

>> No.19151216

>>19148409
2nd from the right gets me every time

>> No.19151219

>>19150691
>The banana is shaped to fit into the human hand.
Correction: humans shaped it to fit into the human hand.

>> No.19151272

>>19148476
BASED

>> No.19151326

>>19150792
>I directly quote your post
>"That's a strawman!"
????????????

>> No.19151363

>>19147703
>You say enough things, some of it is going to be wrong
I think your mindset is contributing to this current trend amongst zoomers to have an irrational fear to say anything genuine at all, lest it be made a mockery of and disproven. Philosophy isn't meant to be correct, it's there to drive scientific innovation. Hegel also was not entirely true because the theory of atoms kinda btfo a lot of his analogies.

I wish we could go back to the old philosophy, the modern shit is failing to keep any kinds of checks at all on society at all, let alone science.

>> No.19151614

>>19150763
>Something beyond primary indicators
No, it is literally just primary indicators. That's the entire point. The female peacock doesn't have some kind of measurement of "fitness" by which she can determine if a male is fit or not, she just has numerous signals, and the males are trying to blare them all higher than the others. That's the entire fucking point of Fisherian Runaway: the animal starts evolving in such a manner to game the signalling indicators and as such focuses on primary indicators of fitness to the point where they actually lose fitness.

Yes, this definition is murky, and that is because it's we humans imposing out views of survivability and fitness onto fucking peacocks. A woman finds a peacock tail preposterous, yet a peahen loves it; a peahen finds a man that is 10' tall who requires forearm braces to walk comical, but a human female loves it

>> No.19151629

>>19147711
Sexual selection. A male with a larger display that still survives must be able to secure enough resources to grow the display, it also must be fit since it has survived predation despite cumbersome tail feathers.

>> No.19151752

>according to evolution, godless white people are willingly dying out to make room for shamanistic africans and muslims

>> No.19151822

>>19147703
I read Origin of Species and the Republic. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater re Plato. We need ideals which can guide evolution, since natural selection alone doesn't always favour the wise, intelligent, able -- it can give and it can take. This is what can distinguish us from other animals, but we need to first accept Darwin to do that, becoming self aware.

>> No.19151823

>>19151204
no

>> No.19151892

>>19148573

Time not being linear.

>> No.19151976

>>19147703
>What's the point in reading all of this pre-20th century philosophy

Because the things that are true whether or not we believe them matter less than the things that are true because we believe them.

>> No.19153463

>>19147711
that's not how evolution works its not purposeful so an animal can have useless bullshit mutations as long as its capable of survival it can exist.

>> No.19153567

>>19151752
meds

>> No.19153601

>>19147703
>God created human beings
>BTFO by Darwin
You clearly haven’t read On The Origin which makes direct reference to a Creator. Darwin demonstrated evolution by natural selection beyond a reasonable doubt, he did not believe in abiogenesis.

Besides, there is much to reality beyond man and our current perceptions, metaphysics are still vital to understanding the nature of reality, even if the understanding of behaviour is best explored through biology (and NOT the pseudoscience of psychology)
>>19148351
Darwin had been sitting on his theory for years prior to Wallace starting to publish, science is competitive and Darwin was not going to let himself be beaten to the discovery.
>>19148630
Can you explain what their fundamental difference is? Or is Wallace what Lamarck was in years past; a figure for contrarians to act smart over knowing about despite the fact that Darwin embraced Lamarckian trait arisal and that Wallace and Darwin’s theories are the same theory?
>>19151629
This is a very good and brief explanation of why sexual traits are an important indicator of fitness

>>19147711
Sexual selection already selectels for extreme and pronounced morphologies (my penis doesn’t NEED to be 7” long to inseminate a woman and it gives me no significant advantages my life other than impressing a mate by being larger than average) in an ecosystem which lacks strong pressures that would cause those extreme sexual display characteristics to be more detrimental for survival than they are advantageous for attracting a mate. Sexual selection acts on feedback loops whereby traits become more extreme because the more extreme they are the more attractive females find them.

>> No.19153606

>>19147703
Why is life programmed to die?

>> No.19153673

>>19148291
> If Darwin hadn't come up with evolution someone else would have within several years
Completely delusional beyond belief.

>> No.19153683

>>19153673
See >>19148351. Science is true revelation isn't

>> No.19153710

>>19153601
>On The Origin which makes direct reference to a Creator.
He was forced to change it in second edition. There was no such reference in first edition.

>> No.19153728

>>19153606
>Why is life programmed to die?
is it?what about reproduction?

>> No.19153786

>>19147711
Because even in the animal kingdom women are superficial.

>> No.19153879

>>19147703
Genuinely curious as to how a biologist refuted platonic epistemology. That is, how is the paradigm of man not intelligibly real?

>> No.19153889

>>19147877
You should try reading Nietzsche not to come out as a retard. Nietzsche attacks darwinianism harshly, especially the instinct for preservation meme.

>> No.19153894

>>19153710
How was he forced? I’m truly curious concerning the reasons and such, I mean, forced by whom and how?

>> No.19153899

>>19153879
>intelligibly real
Does that mean it's a concept it people's minds? Evolution BTFO of the idea of species as qualitatively distinct categories. A quantitative amount of mutations can change a fish into a monkey.

>> No.19153906

>>19153894
On the last page of the first edition, published in November 1859, where Darwin speculated on the origin of the earliest forms of life from which all other species have descended, no reference to “the Creator” is made. In order to conciliate angry clerics and hence to tame the erupted furor theologicus, Darwin included the phrase “by the Creator” in the second edition of 1860 and in all subsequent versions of his book (sixth ed. 1872). However, in a letter of 1863, Darwin distanced himself from this Bible-based statement and wrote that by creation he means “appeared by some wholly unknown process.” In 1871, Darwin proposed a naturalistic origin-of-life-concept but did not dare to mention his “warm little pond hypothesis” in the sixth definitive edition of the Origin (1872).

>> No.19153909

>>19153889
He was still a Darwinian in the sense that the body reigns supreme, psychology / our thoughts and feelings are derived from more subtle processes in the body brought about by genetics and physiology. His notion of will and multiplicity of will are rooted in evolutionary, thermodynamic bodily processes.

>> No.19153910

>>19153889
He attacks Darwin from a Darwinian standpoint. The will to power is explicitly inspired by evolutionary thought.

>> No.19154105

>>19153909
Nietzsche posits the body and other organic organs as the expression of deeper inorganic impulses, that is, quanta of will to power. The definition of a darwinian is not someone who subscribes to a doctrine of the body or the organic (materialism? Will you say materialism and darwianism are the same one doctrine)?

>>19153910
Read above.

>> No.19154124

>>19153899
I mean the condition of apprehension of anything as a thing and that specific thing. Husserl will also address this phenomenologically. There is likewise the argument from readon. Biology has its own scope but does not/cannot address more fundamental issues that are ontology’s and epistemology’s competence.

>> No.19154127
File: 85 KB, 306x306, 591.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19154127

>>19148811
What is the evolutionary function of having this much autism?

>> No.19154139

>>19154105
Nietzsche is anti-"inorganic" impulses in the most thorough sense possible.

>> No.19154142

>>19154105
>he thinks vitalism is inorganic
Kek

>> No.19154196

>>19154142
Try understanding first. The natural impulses are expressions of inorganic force (this is the will to power, the will to power is not a natural influence, but natural influences are just its expressions). Also Nietzsche condemns vitalism.

>> No.19154204

>>19154139
Read >>19154196

>> No.19154220

>>19154196
Where are you getting this from? Is there a passage in particular that supports this?

>> No.19154312

>>19154220
>My theory would be: that the will to power is the primitive form of afect, that all other afects are only developments of it [...] that all driving force is will to power, that there is no other physical, dynamic or psychic force except this.
>My proposition is: that the will of psychology hitherto is an unjustified generalization, that this will does not eixst at all, that instead of grasping the idea of the development of one definite will into many forms, one has eliminated the character of the will by subtracting from it its content, its ''whither?''—this is in the highest degree the case with Schopenhauer: what he calls ''will'' is a mere empty word. It is even less a question of a ''will to live''; for life is merely a special case of the will to power;—it is quite arbitrary to assert that everything strives to enter ino this form of the will to power.
KSA Vol 13 pp 300-2 14[121-2], Spring 1888 = WP

>Just as organs develop in multiple ways from a single organ [...] so it was necessary for all feeling, represnting, and thinking to have been one at the beginning: sensation is thus an isolated late phenomenon. This unity must exist in the inorganic: for the organic begins by separation. The reciprocal action between the inorganic and the organic still needs to be studied—it is always a question of an action at a distance, hence a knowing is necessary prior to all acting: what is distant must be perceived. The tactile and muscular sense must have its analogue.
KSA, Vol. 10, pp. 404-5, 12 [27] Summer 1883.

There are more but yeah you get it now.

>> No.19154338

>>19149006
>>19148928
13 isn't a child, nitwits.

>> No.19154348
File: 63 KB, 680x478, natalie-portman-leon-the-professional.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19154348

>>19154338
Based hebephile

>> No.19154354

>>19154312
>that all driving force is will to power, that there is no other physical, dynamic or psychic force except this.
He's saying here that will to power is a physical / dynamic / psychic force and the only one that there is. So what is the inorganic if the will to power is physical, dynamic, and psychic? Considering he says "it is always a question of an action at a distance," I'm inclined to think that his idea of the inorganic here is "the organic other," if you know what I mean.

>> No.19154402

>>19147703
Letterman let himself go man

>> No.19154411

>>19154354
Anon, he is clear there: all feeling, all sensation, all representing, everything was one thing at the beginning, this means: the physical and the psychic impulses are mere expressions of this more primordial impulse/force: will to power.

The will to power AS physical, dynamic, psychic means it is something different, otherwise you are conflating the physical, dynamic and psychical with one another and making the physical psychological and the psychical physiological.
See:
''instead of grasping the idea of the development of one definite will into many forms.''
Many forms: psychical, physical, dynamic.

>So what is the inorganic if the will to power is physical, dunamic and physcihc?
''This unity must exist in the inorganic: for the organic begins by separation''

You literally came up with a contestation pointing to vitalism. You just don't want to understand what Nietzsche is saying.

>> No.19154423

Nietzsche also btfo Darwin in the sense that one should be an anti-Darwinist if it helps you live

>> No.19154448

>>19154411
>Many forms: psychical, physical, dynamic.
What is the original form then, if will to power is neither physical, nor psychical, nor dynamic (whatever "dynamic" means)?
It appears that once again Nietzsche has been shown to be a pseud, and you are no less the pseud.

>> No.19154463

>>19154448
This is something materialists to this day struggle with. What is power, energy, will?

>> No.19154470

>>19154463
Based physics retard. The scientific definitions of power and energy are garbage

>> No.19154485

>>19154470
Their ''definitions'' define nothing.

>> No.19154490

>>19154411
I see now.

Just to be clear, I'm not disputing that will to power is a primordial and unchanging force for him, but rather the implication that will to power means that evolution is refuted. Evolution is constantly being brought about from this primordial unity. What Nietzsche argued about Darwin wasn't evolution per se, but how it was being modeled as a byproduct of a survival instinct. This is a surface level understanding of evolution, because it only acknowledges the current state of affairs, the affairs of the "organic." Will to power is endlessly casting new dice, so to speak, each evolutionary step being one of these dice-casts.

>> No.19154498

Biology/science/physics/dualism/idealisms are just elaborate metaphors we use to make sense of a chaotic world

What undergirds those metaphors is TRIEB

See Heidegger’s ”question of Being” on this as well, the biologistic/darwinistic understanding of the world/humans is just an ontic interpretation of being

>> No.19154524

>>19148601
Poetry is Answer

>> No.19154544

>>19154490
I didn't say Nietzsche refuted Darwin or evolution or anything, just that he wasn't a darwinian.

>but how it was being modeled as a byproduct of a survival instinct.
Yes, Nietzsche attacked a lot this ''survival instinct'', which, indeed, is fictitious (for even conceding some reality to it, in the end it is just an expression of will to power, again).
As for evolutionism, it is more difficult. I cannot ignore the positive progression, the vitalism and teleology implied in it, without which the theory would make no sense. But basically you got it: every natural phenomenon is a product of a pre-natural (hidden) activity: will to power.

>> No.19154577

>>19154470
>>19154485
Causal closure is a fact. Cope.

>> No.19154617

>>19154577
>the dogmatic physicalist reveals himself
at last!

>> No.19154661

>>19154577
>he doesn't know the difference between efficient and material causes

>> No.19154666

>>19154661
>he thinks Aristotelianism is bullshit

>> No.19154692

>>19154577
Psychical closure is a fact. Cope.

>> No.19154710

>>19154692
I punch you in the face and you fall down crying. Did that physical punch induce a psychical state?

>> No.19154773

>>19154710
>le Samuel Johnson retort
lmao

>Did that physical punch induce a psychical state?
Yes, without an abstractive faculty I would not be able to intelligibilize the punch and its effects.

>> No.19154815

>>19154773
>Did that physical punch induce a psychical state?
>Yes
So psychical closure isn't a fact. Unless you think you go full idealism and think the physical world exists in the mind.

>> No.19154842

>>19154815
>>19154815
>Unless you think you go full idealism and think the physical world exists in the mind.
dogmas for dogmas in the end proving the openness and determining factor of the only principle: the will to power.

>> No.19154849

>>19154666
Correct. It's empirically observable that there are 47-55 uncreated deities governing our fundamentally polytheistic pluralist universe. These deities are the Olympians as promulgated by Homer and Hesiod.

>> No.19155575

>>19154338
>doesn't know what average means
>calls other nitwits
kyss

>> No.19155756

>>19153906
Thinking that the last page is where the reference to God is further proves that you haven’t read the book.
However the God he has in mind I do not think is the Christian God, the context feels almost deist or pantheist

>> No.19155790

>>19155756
>pantheist
Read Feuerbach, Essence of Religion

>> No.19155844

>>19155790
>Read Feuerbach
hahahahahahahahahahhahaha

>> No.19156086

>>19154338
I'm becoming convinced that the majority of /lit/'s userbase is functionally retarded. "AVERAGE" indicates there is a range, some being younger and some older you absolute ignoramus.

>> No.19157190

>>19148335
>accepted as truth by retards who are wrong

alright.

>> No.19157487

How do darwinians cope with the fact that evolutionism was already presented by Saint Augustine?

>> No.19157497

>>19147703
>Augustine and Aquinas: God created human beings
>BTFO by Darwin
Also Augustine: "God created the universe just like a tree is created from a seed"
If anything Darwin prooved Augustines ideas about the creation of the universe, evolution for Augustine is "seed-like"

>> No.19157506

>>19147703
>Plato: humans are patterned on an intelligible, ideal Form of Man
>Aristotle: trees, animals and humans have an inherent telos
>Augustine and Aquinas: God created human beings
i just love this
pre-christian philosophy attempting to explain the world without a religious lens and then post-christian "philosophy"/theology that just claims god created everything

the fucking drop in intellectual quality is astounding

>> No.19157513

>>19148526
t. electrical engineer

>> No.19157575

>>19157506
The difference is in the dumb simplification of each of them, but they all hold the same Principle of creation as God. Augustine employs a lot of platonic methodology in his writings, Aquinas the same with Aristotle. Plato says the World was created by the “Artificer”, etc.
You should read books, anon.

>> No.19157609

>>19157506
>without religious lens
Holy shit read a single platonic dialogue lmao, it is not because Plato employs rationalistic methodology that he does not literally lauds priests, orphic mysteries, the gods, the One/Good, the Demiurge (literally Creator). As is the same case with Parmenides, establishing the traditional metaphysical axiom Being and Thinking (which will be addressed by the classical tradition of metaphysics from Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus passing through AQUINAS to people like Heidegger, Husserl), while at the same time writing literally that this was revealed to him by a Goddess.
Seriously what is it with people on a literature board who don’t open a book to read?

>> No.19157934

>>19155844
>no argument
WHOA...

>> No.19158010

>>19157934
Read this >>19154124
It’s enough to discard and not waste time with any crass materialist’s fantasy.

>> No.19158016

>>19158010
>Feuerbach is a fantasy because...it just is
Fantastic

>> No.19158167

>>19157506
They're all referring to the same thing there. The drop in intellectual quality comes when people continue to uphold these ancient titans as flawless, non-dogmatic thinkers in the midst of modern sciences and who refuse to make the connection between the modern anti-aristocratic revolution and their philosophies (which paved the way for it).

>> No.19158183

>>19158016
there is literally an explanation why it is fantasy in the post I quoted, but yeah it is clear reading is not your thing

>> No.19158624

Yes yes but he did have a lovely beard.

>> No.19158658

>>19158183
>e-epistemology!
Cope

>> No.19158723

>>19158658
>materialist is averse to knowledge
Fitting

>> No.19159016

>>19148601
language as mere information hinders us. read heidegger

>> No.19159050

>>19147703
You're pathetic. Your free will endows you with the ability to be a supreme retard and you're taking full advantage of it.