/lit/ - Literature

>>21324144
I used to read Deleuze and make memes of it despite not knowing what it meant. I also can’t do math but this meme gives me an ego boost.

>>21324144
Shit bait. Lurk more.

>>21324144
Richard Dawkins here
I suck bbc and love getting fucked by dogs
Trans btw

>>21324144

>>21324170
Uh, in spirit maybe?

>>21324193
>>21324170
>>21324144
The more I read his tweets the more I realise how much of a pre-pubescent faggot he sounds like. He is based in the most cringe way possible, the intellectual equivalent of Eric Cartman.

>>21324193
Is this real lol?

>>21324144
Who?

>>21324170
>"Spiritual presence" cop out
Insufferable. I need some anon to explain to me how this is a cop out.

>>21324211
He didn't even mention spiritual presence. He only gave physical and symbolic as options. He doesn't believe in spirit or even the soul.

>>21324202
Positive feed back loop reinforced a fortiori with money results in stuff like this. You just have to accept it as a fact of life, realising that no one is immune to being guided by the nose, knowingly or not.

>>21324144

I like the one where he's angry because he doesn't get Kafka

>>21324223
LOL

>>21324144
The continental/analytic dichotomy is an anglo creation in the first place. Also this is in no way an attack towards philosophy.

>>21324170
Best part is that it's an edit and no one can tell

>>21324202
The funny thing is Dawkins is actually intelligent. The selfish gene and especially the Extended Phenotype could not be written by anyone below 120iq and I would guess hes higher than that. Yet when he talks about anything other than evolution its like he turns his brain off. Seriously if you read those books and the level of nuance and fairness and sophistication with which he deals with the subject matter it is baffling to see how he behaves when it comes to religion, philosophy, politics, etc.

>>21324265
That’s because religion, philosophy, and politics are for the obscurantists. He’s dealing with positive science in his evolution and biology books.

>>21324275
>t. Scientism
Kek.

>>21324170
>why does it still look like bread
Dawkins twitter is the funniest social media page ive ever come across

>>21324289
Describe what scientism is. I bet you’re not going to deny the existence of electricity if you’re using it now to communicate to me. Nor would you deny gravity. There are some laws that cannot be denied. It’s not any sort of -ism.

>>21324170
Not that I like encouraging Christcucks, but his premise that the explanation needs to be in the Bible is retarded, and his calling "spiritual presence" a copout is lazy (convenient that he relegates the primary Christian explanation to the end as some kind of minor afterthought).

>>21324275
The type of thought you need to use to think about evolution is actually quite similar to the type of thought you need for metaphysics, because in both cases there is a ton of recursive structures which undergo alterations while retaining some persistent identity. Evolution as a system bears certain similarities to a mind, though it is also radically different.

>>21324300
Evolution doesn't occur through random mutations. How could you randomly mutate 4 different organs that all rely on each other to function over multi-generations?

>>21324193
>>21324222

>>21324304
Emergent synthetic functionality

>>21324193
This is the most pussy-drying tweet I've ever seen

>>21324222
I don't get it

CRAWLING BACK TO YOU

>>21324235
What are the Freudian and feminist interpretations of Metamorphosis?

>>21324304
Evolution is genetic change over time. Its not any random mutation, but one that is slightly beneficial or in some cases unavoidable as in bottlenecking.

>>21324217
my guy... its literally the verbage in the tweet... in quotes... right before the word copout... I know lit doesnt read but... come on.

>>21324352
Oops lol

>>21324324
Holy small hand

>>21324360
Small hands are an aristocratic feature

>>21324341
Ya but you still can't make certain jumps with selective pressure because there are no configurations of 1/23rd of a set of lungs, and 2/50 of a functioning heart, and many different fractions of a number of other organs than all have to work deoendently upon one another to produce massive complex species' like human beings. Evolution through preferred traits of random mutations is literally the most insane theory for out creation because it's the only one that's totally impossible.

>>21324289
>>21324300
The whole anti-scientism wave, like most 4chan fads, can be reduced to edgy pseudo intellectuals who are convinced there is superiority in dissidence. Their disdain and longing to feel intellectually higher than what they consider reddit types has caused them to attack science as a whole, while hiding it behind the term Scientism. Its gay and retarded

>>21324380

>>21324304
Genetic mutation is random. Evolution as a theory is not because it has a built in selector of what is advantageous to the survival of the species. So a gene randomly mutates, most of the time that mutation is detrimental, so the offspring carrying that mutation dies before it can reach breading age (or splitting age or what ever the case may be), neutrally effecting mutations get passed on middlingly, extra shit like the taste of cilantro or some shit, and then there are the survival beneficial traits which, naturally over time, dominate the species simply because the population with those mutations are better at living and passing on their jeans.
>how do you mutate multiple organs reliant on each other?
over very long periods of time with one of those organs being prime and probably started as a basic thing that can barely be seen as the thing as it is now.

>>21324366
You are thinking about this in far too broad terms. Selection pressure doesnt affect 1/23 of the lungs or whatever. Its not a constant or directed force. More accurate would be to say if an environment changed, maybe there is a massive volcanic eruption and increased a specific toxin in the air. Suppose certain people carry a mutation that allows the aeoli of their lungs to filter this toxin more efficiently that was benign in the old environment but post eruption has become advantageous. If the toxin remains in the air for several generations, it will become fixed and the aeoli of the human lung will have evolved to fit the environment. There is no fractional pressure on specific organs that selection acts on

>>21324406
Time can't allow for things that are impossible

Riddle me this science atheist, you exist as a conscious being right now, right? You didn't exist and now you do, so it's objectively possible for you to come into existence from your pre-existing state as nothing, right? If that's so, and there's a non zero percent chance of that happening wouldn't it follow there's a non zero percent chance of it happening forever, for all of time?

>>21324366
You can with prime links, that are produced by organic chemistry (largely dominated by magnetic and electric traits of particles and, to a larger scale extent, molecules).

>>21324415
There is fractional pressure. Eg larger liver, metabolize some thing better, grow larger, win fights, get females

>>21324415
But you can't spontaneously mutate a full pair of lungs, they would have to be the result of continuous "random" (lol) mutations over thousands of generations, each time adding some sort of preferential benefit to ensure their survival and progression. Factor in the fact that you need the lungs to come with another entire functioning packet of support organs and you've totally lost the plot. Instead of a thousand monkeys accidentally writing Shakespeare you're asking an ant colony that might, through intense random ingenuity, cause one key of a typewriter to make a single letter to write every single possible work in every single language in, first chronological order of all written texts with no blemishes and then, like I said, everything not written but built coherent. Give the ants infinities of infinities and they won't succeed.

>>21324417
You are made up of matter. Where the matter came from is the mystery, but your identity is just a pattern of the matter

>>21324406
>most of the time that mutation is detrimental
No, most of the time the mutation is completely benign or unnoticed, as Kimura discovered. Deleterious mutations almost always get filtered out within a generation unless there is a bottleneck event or the extremely rare circumstance where the environment changes significantly enough that the deleterious allele provides a benefit that outweighs the cost compared to outcomes for those who lack it (warfarin resistance in rats for ex)

>>21324417
In order to answer your question I would have to know what consciousness is exactly, which I don't. That doesn't mean that our physical forms couldn't have come to be through evolution. I am not against the idea that spirit or just consciousness was formed some other way (at least not any more than I am the idea that spirit or consciousness was formed through evolution) but it does seem to be a decent explanation for the way that our physical form came about. I never claimed that science held the all the answers. Only that what you said in your post about multiple organs was possible through evolution.

>>21324435
> they would have to be the result of continuous "random" (lol) mutations over thousands of generations, each time adding some sort of preferential benefit to ensure their survival and progression
What are you even arguing? Thats the basic gist of what actually happens, lol

>>21324450
I'm saying that can't work as stated in making certain enormous transitions. These transitions have never been observed to take place either. It's a theory and a totally wrong one.

>>21324435
If lungs were the only method for a body to collect and store oxygen this argument would be damning. But their are plenty of living things that do not have lungs that rely on oxygen to live. Ants for example just have cracks in their body for air to flow in and out and they manage (up to a certain size).

>>21324447
Consciousness here can just be your sense of you. The experience you have of existence. It's occurring right now and will, even logically and mathematically, be certain to occur again, after the fact of your death.

>>21324435
>Instead of a thousand monkeys accidentally writing Shakespeare
Assuming “accidental” or “causation” are moot terms in evolution or any science for that matter. There is no accidents because there is no intention in evolution. Its a natural force innate to living things in a stochastic environment.

>>21324439
way to add nothing to the argument. Im happy to concede on this point to you. give yourself a pat on the back for being right (maybe. I dont know. I didnt fact check you because the distinction doesnt matter).

>>21324460
There is no certainty about which states of matter will be reached in the overall shape of the universe.

>>21324464
That's just a semantic argument. If we assume the finished works of not just Shakespeare, but every author, every hand, and every pen, through all of history is equivalent to a fully rendered human being then regardless of whether an intent was ever there (in both cases, it clearly was) we stil have to reckon with the fact that something which can not happen through these means, did, in fact happen. It shows the theory is wrong. The ants who have to randomly work together to extreme lengths to form even a letter will never accomplish this task though you should give them all of times expanse, and neither did a human being come about this way.

>>21324456
>These transitions have never been observed to take place either
What kind of nonsense is this lol. Weve seen it happen hundreds of times in less complex organisms, for example AZT resistance being pushed to fixation in the HIV viral cell. But more complex organisms take an extremely long time to show visible change outside of bottleneck events, far longer than is possible for the human mind to contemplate given the finitude of our lives. I dont know if your trolling or just dumb, but saying things cant evolve bexuase they afe complex is idiotic

>>21324477
Isn't there a certainty that something which provably can happen will occur again given a limitless amount of time? Like really limitless amounts of time, wouldn't every single form of matter that can possibly exist do so an unlimited number of times?

>>21324493
>in less complex organisms
>saying things can't evolve because they are complex is idiotic
They can't evolve through random chance in the timeframe we supposedly have for these changes.

>>21324460
I agree with you here. It has no bearing on my previous comment. What I meant is what causes the phenomena of consciousness (which I know is dumb sounding because we would just call that consciousness but you know what I mean). Scientists can't put their finger on it (it is the hard problem after all). Theists claim to know but it requires that you experience it before you can know it which varies over samples so its hard to put any credence there. Either way it has very little to do with the formation of organs over time through random mutation and survival based selection.

>>21324476
I think you are completely missing the understanding of what a random mutation actually means, and instead applying it to the individual and environment as a whole. Mutations occur at random, but they occer within an individual in a STOCHASTIC environment.

>>21324507
Evolution does not happen through random chance, you cant aeem to understand this

>>21324497
No I dont think so. You could just have eternities of other stuff

>>21324512
>>21324518
>It's not random
Okay then what's the scientific process behind a mutation? So far as I know the theory is
>mutations happen at random
>favorable mutations are more likely to result in more offspring
>thus evolution

>>21324528
But the eternities never run out. You think the permutations of matter are larger than amount of time in eternity?

>>21324497
Yes. If you pull from a large finite number of things an infinite number of times (and replace them) you will pull the same thing again eventually and you will do it an infinite number of times. The question is is what we draw from finite or infinite. if it is infinite then you may not see repetition.

>>21324535
Ya true. I'm still aboard the belief that time outlasts variety of forms eventually and inevitably though.

>>21324529
Evolution doesnt happen randomly. It is selected by environment. Mutation however does happen randomly, then the environment selects what is best for survival. The whole process is called evolution.

>>21324529
“Favourable” is not used in evolutionary biology, instead the term is “advantageous”. Many things about us are certainly not favourable, for example that our throat uses the same tube for breathing as eating thus giving us the risk to choke to death while eating. But its something we are stuck with because at some point for some reason this was hooked onto advantageous individuals

>>21324541
I also lean this way. Largely because quantized states exist along side effective ranges for life.

>>21324543
And that's exactly what I said. And that's not what caused human beings to exist from nothing. That's completely impossible and literally any other theory is more likely. Just like all atheist fantasy stories they are impossible within their own rules.

>>21324534
No, I just dont see the link between these two things. Like if there is a heat death scenario then I assume many eventualities will never play out.

>>21324300
>Describe what scientism is
Scientism is an ideology and isn't to be confused with scientific activity, or the validity of such, as you just did. Basically, it unjustifiably asserts that ""scientific"" reasoning has a monopoly over all avenues of human activity and is very similar to the logical positivism/atomism programme as described by philosophers like Carnap. However, people who subscribe to this view are usually ignorant when it comes to the history of science and fail to recognize that paradigms have been continuously overturned as the rule and not the exception. Concepts such as Kuhn-loss and underdetermination are relevant here.
>>21324380
New Atheism was a 4chan fad and it was rooted in asserting a cheap and unearned intellectual superiority over strawmen. The basis of such, aside from a very pathetic pride, was scientism.

>>21324471
Im just pointing out an incorrect statement that actual negates much of tour argument. Maybe dont be so sensitive when you are criticized for making a false statement

>>21324551
I dont even know what that means anon ^.^ could you dumb it down for me
>>21324549
Okay so I used a synonym that has virtually the exact same meaning in this discussion. You all took issue with my describing the mutations a random and then admit that's what there are. The environmental pressure doesn't exist that would make ?/100 fractions of 12 organs at the same time all ADVANTAGEOUS for the organisms survival and progeny. This theory is simply wrong and ridiculous.

>>21324557
>heat death of universe
>nothing can exist
>but obviously before anything existed there was nothing
Such a state of nothingness that can no longer produce anything is provably wrong by the fact that before there was anything, there was nothing.

>>21324552
Did you not know that there is an evolutionary starting point? I thought we were talking about what made people from single celled organisms. of course evolution does not explain single celled organisms, physics and organic chemistry come together to do that. evolution only takes hold once reproduction (splitting) starts. I feel like I must not be talking to the same anon here.

>>21324586
>evolution only takes hold once reproduction (splitting) starts.
Okay and where does that start in organisms. Show me the complexity.

>>21324582
We dont know how reality started. But more broadly I'm making the point that reality isnt necessarily a sort of "randomness generator" in the way you appear to be conceptualizing it. If it were then yes in eternity we would get very possible configuration of matter I guess. But it could be much more restricted than that such that many eventualities are never produced.

>>21324598
I dont think it's a randomness generator. I think there's design.

>>21324569
Fair but still comes off as a bit "um aktchualllyyyy" to me. My point is that I could come back and say that the majority of mutations fall into a category that contains both harmful and neutral mutations and it would not change the argument one bit. Semantic pedantry is not very interesting. I apologize for seeming defensive. I am drunk.

>>21324611
Ok well if theres design that means some things dont happen right? To design is to restrict some possibilities such that you achieve a desired end

>>21324631
Maybe, but I think the preserved existence of every unique consciousness is part of the design.

>>21324643
As in afterlife? Its possible but I dont think you can reason your way there from pure metaphysics

>>21324572
Sure, so in our current atomic model their are "quantized" states that electrons can have around nuclei that make up their energy levels. These states are places around the nucleus where electrons can exist in pairs of spin up and spin down that have a set energy value to them. The fact that Im pointing out does not require an exact understanding of that science, the upshot is that electrons only stay in certain set energy levels (which can overlap in crystal structures to form conductors, semi conductors insulators. but that is not important) and that stability of material requires a certain number of these energy levels (too many electrons with too much energy is an unstable material that doesnt last long, too few is subject to fusion) seems to suggest finite parameters for what can be selected infinitely. But of corse if selection is infinite also depends on the nature of space time and other such very poorly understood stuff so I remain agnostic.

>>21324380
Yeah, you sound totally not-mad.

>>21324662
It can be reasoned to be pretty likely. I see the whole debate sort of like a Monty hall problem where materialists are clinging to the door they selected out of one quadrillion and when all but 2 are revealed can't understand why switching doors now would be advantageous.

>seethers have to leave the thread when asked how a tree can evolve into a human
>they think it's possible

>>21324552
>That's completely impossible
We've found amino acids on comets and you're still doing "atoms don't exist"?

>>21324682
There are a lot of problems with theodicy though.

>>21324144
>>21324155
>>21324167
>>21324170
>>21324181
>>21324193
>>21324201
Idiot underage dimwits. Dawkins is saying that “continental philosophy” is not a real classification of philosophy anymore than “continental chemistry”.
For an angl*id, he’s quite enlightened in looking past the fraud that is British historiography.

>>21324596
Well, for me it, all starts with the hydrogen atom. I do not subscribe to the big bang theory of things because it seems to point to something equally implausible as an intelligent creator, which is that something weird happened that defies all science after (of course we have seen somethings that do this but it seems to come from a lack of understanding more than a weirdness). I suspect your problem is with the big bang theory than it is with evolution. Would I be right? Because if so Im with you there.

>>21324693
No I'm not doing atoms dont exist, I'm explaining how the theory of evolution is obviously insufficient to explain the complexity of life on earth, especially human beings.

>>21324476
>something which can not happen through these means
But it can. We can observe evolution in real time. We can observe mutation in real time.

>>21324688
I would like to see you point to something that claims that humans evolved from trees.

>>21324708
No you aren't, you're just wrong.

>>21324705
Very german post

>>21324705
My problem is with evolution being a result of random mutations. I'm fine with the diversity of life being "caused" by mutations but I would say those mutations correspond to a set of designs or codes that are then filled in. Like how a fetus forms and grows or how an acorn becomes a tree. For gods sake anon in the combination of semen and egg there's already a physical blueprint of the individual that, interacting with the environment somewhat, determines not just who they'll be born as, but how they'll change over time in every single sense. A lot of that is predetermined.

>>21324713
We can't observe mutations from an incredibly unsophisticated/simple creature into a human being or something equivalent.
>ya because that takes too much time
And also because it's impossible. I'm just making sure everyone understands that what random evolution believers believe in has never and can never be observed to actually happen.

>>21324733
>there's already a physical blueprint of the individual
No there isn't. That's not how genes work. There are no genes that code for your arm to be however many inches long, or genes that say that your hair is this precise shade of brown. Rather, there's just alleles that code for certain gene-products that interact in certain ways.

For example, dwarfism is caused by overproduction of a protein that causes bones to thicken too quickly.

>>21324746
>We can't observe mutations
Yes we can.

>from an incredibly unsophisticated/simple creature
Yes we can.

>And also because it's impossible.
Clearly it isn't if we can observe it happen.

>>21324746
how many mutations does it take to go from "simple" to "complex"?

>>21324762
Anon words mean different things when you take them apart in a sentence lol. I said we cant observe incredibly simplistic organisms evolving into humans

You cut out the into humans part and replied to that

>>21324733
>For gods sake anon in the combination of semen and egg there's already a physical blueprint of the individual
Here is where mutation happens. There is a blueprint like you said. But sometimes randomly (the chances of which can be effected by things like radiation or pore nutrition during replication of cells), during the actually building of the organism, the blueprint isn't followed. A single bit of information (or sometimes more than that, an entire byte! of course I use this language allegorically. Im not a simulation fag) is flipped and then replicated as if it were correct many times over until something new is created in the place of what was intended.

>>21324749
I see, so how is ones hair colour determined then?

>>21324774
Yes that's fine. I never said mutations don't happen, but that who are for life is formed in the womb even if it takes decades for some of that to realize.

>>21324716
What makes it impossible?

>>21324791
You mean how do we get from single cell organism replication to reproduction through child birth? That would take a lot more explaining than I have energy for but if you are actually interested in how science attempts to answer that question (and not just raging against something that you dont believe in, like many people I have talked to) then the answers you are looking for are in organic chemistry and biology text books. I wish I had more gumption to give you a satisfying answer but I assure you it is out there.

>>21324859
The point where trees use carbon dioxide to live and we use oxygen.
>well we could have evolved to rely on
carbon dioxide instead of oxygen
well then we wouldn't be the same life forms and you would be making the same statement except substituting animals for trees.

>>21324781
A "gene" is a slot in the genome. An allele is a specific string of nucleic acids. Genes are not "in competition" during evolution, alleles are with each other. There is no competition between the alleles in a gene that code for hair color and the alleles in a gene that code for skin color, for example.

Hair color is the result of 11 genes, each of which has dozens of alleles. These alleles are concerned with the production rates of eumelanin (black-brown pigment), and pheomelanin (reddish-yellow pigment). Having said that, there's an entire other subset of genes that are concerned with pigment deletion, meaning that hair color is the result of a complicated process of hair pigmentation being produced (in a certain ratio), and then deleted. White hair has zero pigmentation (tl;ldr as you age you stop making it). Albinism is caused by a a total lack of eumelanin production, whereas having red hair is a result of having very low melanin production.

Having said THAT, human hair coloration is made more complicated by virtue of things like eye color, which influences hair and skin pigmentation, alongside a number of other genes (gene products are very, VERY often multi-purpose; the FOXP2 protein is used in humans for speech, but it's also involved in all sorts of muscular functions, is how bats produce echolocation, is used for birdsong, non-human primates use it in fast-twitch movements, etc) that code for random bits and pieces (if you've ever noticed that no two people seem to have the exact same skin coloration, this is why).

There is no pre-planned ratio or schematic for structures like "hands" or abstractions like "height", humans are the result of a huge number of overlapping processes that produce certain compounds at certain rates, and remove or alter other compounds at certain rates. Dwarfism is a good example, because it's the result of an allele producing more of a certain protein (that causes bones to solidify) thereby resulting in the person being a midget. But, there's no schematic to alter, or design to change, it just makes this one protein be produced at a slightly higher rate.

>>21324860
No, that's not what I was asking lol. I said that who we are for life is formed in the fetus and that somehow there's a blueprint there that goes on for decades of bodily changes and peculiarities.

>>21324887
It should be noted that eye color seems to not be influenced by other forms of human coloration. We can reliably tell someone's eye color by their genome, but we can't really do that with human skin or hair beyond vague trends, or very specific things (like pitch-black hair, albinism, or certain forms of red-hair).

This is made even more complicated by texture, as human hair has a degree of structural coloration (the color is changed by the microscopic structure which alters light as it hits the hair, not just pigmentation), where, again, outside of extremes (very kinky or very straight hair) we can't tell much about someone's precise hair texture just by looking at the "hair texture genes" because there's so many moving parts, and there is no singular design or blueprint to cross reference them.

Yes, this is why genetics research is so time consuming, it takes a lot of effort to figure out what everything does by trial and error because there is no central reference.

>>21324914
>who we are for life is formed in the fetus
Well thats just not true. Now you are getting into a discussion of nature vs nurture. I think you are ascribing too much of "who we are" to "what we are." Hell there are theories evolution of our very consciousness through our life (see Rudolf Steiner, but dont ask me about it because Im only vaguely aware of them and am working to the actual literature in my back log) let alone our perception and interpretation of the world through our sense organs (which demonstrably do change over time) that make the assumption that "who we are is set by blueprints of our biology" extremely suspect. All of this is very outside the scope of what the theory of evolution claims to be able to predict.

>>21325012
>It's extremely suspect
>nature v nurture
It's mostly nature and, yes, scientism considers it "suspect."

>>21325030

>>21325030
If you say so anon. If you say so.

>>21324144
>>21324170
Twitter threads should be a bannable offense

>>21325030
It speaks volumes that you preferred to make the "le scientism" straw man rather than talk about what I actually stated call the "mostly nature" idea into question.

>>21324417
>Riddle me this science atheist
Evolution is a Catholic doctrine.

>>21325177
It's not in question

>>21325391
kek ok

>>21324144
Hello. I am new to lit. What is the difference between continental and analytical thinking?

>>21325138
They really should be.

>>21325421
A way to distinguish between "mostly" Anglo and "mostly everyone elses" in modern philosophy. It is a terribly inaccurate way of representing things as such, and generally speaking someone identifying himself more as an analytical or a continental just showed you he isn't worth listening to.

>>21324144
This poor empty man is going to have a very rude awakening sooner rather than later

>>21324301
Shut the fuck up, faggot. This is the exact kind of midwit faggotry you people invited by turning your backs on God.

>>21325421
>continental
Riddled with obfuscation to the point it's hard to weed it out until you've read enough. It's more thematic.
>analytical
Very dry to the point it can become pedantic. It's more about semantics (but not in the negative colloquial way you see on 4chan where someone ignores an argument to focus on a word).

But basically >>21325461 is right.

>>21325461
>>21325585
Okay, so it's more of a geographical broad stroke that maybe accurate at a low resolution, but it generally meaningless when representing what individual thinkers think.

>>21325632
The main distinction is between thematic ideas and semantical ones. Continental philosophy is harder for most people and more easily written off as intentionally obfuscating to make itself sound more important/grandiose. However, if you read enough of it you realize the writing style actually feeds into bringing the ideas forward (e.g. I had this experience reading Heidegger). Analytical philosophy is more straightforward/logic based. Things are broken down and you try to reconstruct the relationships between them and the most basic form that constitutes them. It gets very pedantic at times and can be pretty boring/dry.

In the end, once you read enough from both schools you see they blend together and overlap and philosophers don't fit cleanly into either category. There's a general style and basis for both but the distinction is a broad one (just like dividing political ideologies between left/right when there are not only commonalities but significant overlap the more granular you get). Check out The Library of Living Philosophers (various books), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Oxford/Blackwell handbooks for reference. Good luck.

>>21324252
I guessed it solely from his referencing Aristotle. Dawkins practically never mentions the link between Aristotle and Christianity.

>>21325012
>see Rudolf Steiner,
I hope you're not being serious

>>21326101
What? Am I wrong to say that he has a theory about consciousness changing over time? Because that and the fact that plenty of people take him seriously is about the total of what I know about the guy. That and that his theory is what his school programs are based on. I just threw him out as an example of radically different views of how dynamic our personalities are. The point isnt that Im sure he is right, the point is that there are many views on the subject that haven't been ruled out because our understanding of what makes us us is so limited.

>>21324308
Good take actually

>>21325436
>>21325138
Why can't we make this a rule? I petition a thread about this.

>>21324144
Feyerabend.

>>21324193
He's actually right about this. Show Afghanis some softcore.

>>21324380
Pseuds pose the biggest threat to The establishment.

>>21324144
>looks on wikipedia page for continental philosophy
>scrolls to significant works
wow... wow
yeah i think it might be best to skip all the philosophy after 1900. i mean all your getting is subversive jews and French pedos. i might stick with works that have been either approved of by Hitler or approved of by people that approve of Hitler, weed out the riff raff.

>>21329190
i have an extension in my browser that highlights jew's names, in case anyone was confused

>>21324170
>Aristotelian nonsense(not in the Bible)
These amateur "theologian" atheist scientists will never not be funny. They are like some kind of idiot savants, great in their specializations, utter imbeciles in everything else.

>>21329190
Kek didn't know there was an Early Life extension

>>21329218
https://coincidencedetector.com/
its kinda a pain to install onto your browser but ive got alot of mileage out of it. it got removed from the chrome web store a few years ago for obvious (((reasons))) and so now its something you need to manually install to your web browser

>>21324144
It tells us that much of what is labelled philosophy in university is history of philosophy.

>>21329190
You extension doesnt work, Husserl was Jewish before converting very early (and forcing his wife to convert).
Your heuristic is also wrong, since despite being Jewish of birth, Husserl is the most nonQjewish writer there is, while Heiddegger is the most Jewish non-jew philosopher ever.
Finally, many of the best philosophers of the last century are hidden amongst those French "pedos".

>>21329190
>>21329966
Im happy as long as Deleuze and Guattari are unjewed.

But to be completely frank, Anti-Oedipus is the absolute antithesis of facist ideology

>>21330173
Deleuze and Guattari were both gentiles. Deleuze also married and reproduced.

>>21329966
Yeah, it won't pick up Sartre, who was about as philosemitic as you can get without being a Christian, and he was a gentile.

>>21330194
Yeap they were, but i take their texts as being "jewish" - hell even transcending "jewishness" and shooting itself in the foot, if one is to believe the anti-semite mythology.

>>21330199
>being so spiritually jewish that you turn yourself into a rhizome and sabotage ZOG by deterritorializing the plane of semitism
Becoming-Aryan.

>>21330194
>>21330173
Sartre is shit. Maurice Merleau-Ponty is great, however. Emmanuel Mounier is also one of the greatest.
I believe the point of degeneracy in French philosophy can be traced back to Jean Toussaint Desanti, a fairly unknown figure who happened to have taught Althusser and influenced many others. His attempt to reconcile phenomenology, Marxism and semiology is the earliest form of absolute schizo babble taken as serious philosophy in French academia, which then became a sort of point of pride for the Incorruptibles.

>>21330242
This is why i love 4chan

>>21330269
And I love you anon.

>>21324144
What does this niggerly bullshit even mean? Philosophy is not a science that is set in stone.

It is only natural that different people from different places would think different things. The Germans, the Chinese, and the Peruvians have different philosophies because of the vast distance that separates them. He, again, proves himself to be a dumb nigger

>>21331491
What makes you say that.

>>21324144
>"Am I alone in finding the very idea of 'Atomic Physics' ridiculous? What would we think of a university that appointed someone to teach astrophysics? Quantum physics? Does it tell us something about physics as an academic discipline?

>>21324144
>>21324170
>>21324193
>>21324222
>>21324235
r*ddit a*tist s*y g*y

>>21327148
>Show Afghanis some softcore
Afghanis regularly rape young boys whenever they need to get off. Why would they want softcore porn?

>>21324144
>forest
>trees

>>21324699
>Dawkins is saying that “continental philosophy” is not a real classification of philosophy anymore than “continental chemistry
Except this is utterly retarded. There is a reason why there are courses in 'european literature' and 'asian literature'

>>21331795
daily reminder that this practice was only stopped under the taliban and was returned and turned a blind eye towards by the american occupiers

>>21329966
the extension isnt for gauging religious beliefs or quality of philosophy (although usually its a good tell of their agenda). it just highlights ethnic jews. the point of the extension is to help detect patterns at a glance, And it does a pretty good job at that.

>>21331811
What the hell? I love American imperialism now!

>>21324144
There are no straight lines in nature

>>21332213

>>21324144
The Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics? Who ever heard of something like that?!? What’s next, Copenhagen algebra? Doesn’t it tell you something about physics as a discipline!!!

>>21331807
there isn't

>>21332258
There is

>>21324699
No he’s not. Dawkins is a scientism proponent with no understanding of philosophy or metaphysics. What he means by this post is that, in “science”, everything is uniform and everyone agrees with each other, and this proves that the scientific method gets at truth. Whereas in philosophy there are different approaches and disagreements, and this proves that philosophy is useless. He’s a moron.

>>21324144
On the continent we just call it philosophy.

>>21324167
Lurk moar*

>>21329190
>The Phenomenology of Spirit

>>21332249
Zoom in. Its jagged as shit.

>>21332253
Quantum physics is physics. Interpretations of quantum physics is philosophy. Nice try though.

>>21332291
*Lerk Moore

>>21324699
But we don't call it "continental philosophy" on the continent. We just call it philosophy, it's you anglos which call it continental.

>>21324235
correct

>>21324170
>How?
Easy-peasy, it's called 'backwards contagion'.

>>21324380
No, it's because people were forced into a vaccine mandate that had really painful side effects at worst and did little at best. You fuck with people's health and they might not say anything, but they are never going to forget or forgive you.

I like David Bentley Hart's zinger against Dawkins in his book God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss:

>"As for Dawkins own attempt at an argument against the likelihood of God's existence, it is so crude and embarrassingly confused as to be germane to nothing at all, perhaps not even to itself."

Then he deals with the "argument" only in a footnote at the back of the book because it's so idiotic it doesn't even deserve to be addressed in the main text of a serious scholarly book.