/lit/ - Literature

I've read parts of it. I remember not liking how dismissive he was of, for instance, Aquinas.

He basically mocks the guy and says he wasn't doing true philosophy, etc.

Like Aquinas or not, he's one of the most influential and important thinkers of all time and his writings have left an 1000 year legacy of intensely intellectually rigorous Catholic philosphy in the tradition known as Thomism.

There are better histories of philosophy out there that are more objective.

>Now, I know, I know, a lot of atheists will have knee-jerk reactions to anyone Christian and dismissive Aquinas as a dribbling fundamentalist and respond with something like, "hurr well rusell wuz rite abut aquines he wuz dum christien lol old man in sky dawkins hurrr"

>>2796274

I prefer to study philosophy and form my own opinions, not read someone elses.

>>2796274
Don't conjure up a laughable straw-man to counter-argue the fact that all Christians are fundamentally retarded and Aquinas most definitely deserves to be dismissed.

>>2796304

Not a helpful outlook. You may disagree with Aquinas's starting points, but to disregard his importance in the history of Western thought is silly.

>2012
>still have the illusion of objectiveness

>>2796304
>assumes his current point of view is the only valuable one
>thinks past points of view are laughable
>2012

>>2796362
>>2796355
>subjectivemind

>>2796355
>dismissing objectivity but still having the illusion of subjectivity
>not being post-perspectivist
>not being epistemologically nihilist

>>2796373

>ism
>2012

>>2796373
>MFW philosophyfags argue over their buzzwords, while I get on with discovering how reality actually functions.

>>2796380

>objective knowledge of reality
>any year

You're doing it wrong

>>2796380
>reality
>implying

>>2796384
0/10

>>2796391

>>>/sci/

Horrible book and Russell is a horrible philosopher.

>>2796393
Why? Science can be related to /lit too. You should go to /pol/, thats where /phil/ belongs.

>>2796380
>implying it functions
>hurr durr I'm a hard headed scientist
>measuring every day
>so shit must be comprehensible
>or my job will go away
>therefore i've decided
>as prematurely as I can
>that knowledge is really possible
>or shit will hit the fan

>>2796396

>/pol/
>coherent thought

wtfamireading.jpg

>mfw knowledge is changing century by century and no certain knowledge is possible
>mfw this meaninglessness

>>2796380
>reality

>>2796397
>implying science isn't the best way to form theories about reality.

Have fun lounging around saying "Dude, what if life is like the matrix, wooow. Oh no, my life has no meaning, neeecheee halp me"
You can also enjoy grrentexting redundant statements on the internet that philosophy(1) gave you.


1. This was obviously sarcastic.

>>2796412

>he thinks science is the best way to form theories about reality

>>2796412
See, you're funny because you clearly don't even know that much about science.

>>2796412
>on the internet that philosophy(1) gave you.


>1. This was obviously sarcastic.

>>2796412
>still using the term reality in a sincere and faithful manner

This is why science fags are often dismissed as lab monkeys. You should learn the origin of your activities and the frame in which it takes place.

>>2796416
I study molecular biology with a focus on proteomics and amino synthesis for genetic bypassing.

>>2796420

>>2796423
All i'm saying is philosophy doesn't get you anywhere; you had Locke Kant, Bentham, Hume.. Who worked so hard on Consequentialism, categorical utilitarianism, and various forms of morality and ethics, which were just made redundand by the 'lack of objectivity' and empiricism. Then existentialism and nihilism stripped the meaning from everything. All of western philosophy is crudely paraphrased eastern ideas formed in the prior millennium and bunched into categories that contradict themselves.

Even if I, the scientist, accept that objectivity doesn't exist. The fact that there are limits such as light, sound, absolute zero etc means that we can explore ourselves in terms based on mathematics which is verifiable between ourselves and ultimately advancing us to a point where we might actually be able to form a complete model of reality. We are still discovering things using tools that exponentialy outperform or senses, and are constantly refining hypothetical constructs, philosophy doesn't contribute anything.

I think of philosophy as the drunken depressed cousin to science, who sits on the stairs at 3am with a bottle of gin and calls science complaining about suicidal thoughts.

>>2796460

Thank you for sharing your PHILOSOPHY with us.

To OP; deeeerrrrr shut up troll derr derr you want and honest informed opinion on a piece of literature from /lit/?? der der UR TROLL der your 12 and gay and a nigger virgin SHITSTORM SHITSTORM SHITSTORM... huuurrr duuuurrrrrrrr.....yea thats how most of you sound ps guess who?

>>2796466

>>2796460

I don't get it... you're dismissing ethics and political philosophy, etc, and putting science in their place?

You seem to think philosophy is just metaphysics.

>>2796460
The fact is that scientists feel bad because every time they try to do philosophy, as you just did, they get mocked.

Seriously it's painful to watch you make epistemology in the same way you hate it when people you meet at parties start to talk about quantum mechanics or human genome just because they want confirmation from you that they are smart.

>>2796472

this.

The five major branches of philosophy are: Ethics, Political philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetic philosophy.

Sure, I could see scientists arrogantly dismissing epistemology as irrelevant with the advent of nueroscience and dismissing metaphysics with the advent of modern physics, but ethics and political philosophy and the philosophy of art, etc, are not in the domain of science.

>>2796482
Why is epistemology irrelevant with the advent of neuroscience?

>>2796472

I am observing the effects of using of a limited language in comparison to mathematical testing. And the relevance of philosophy compared to Science when in the realm of Science.

Take Searle for example, and his thought experiments into AI and machine intelligence. He will sit forever trying to work out if the machine is sentient or not based on the fact that it functions the same way as a human, and responds to stimuli in a way that replicates neural functions 100%.

What use is this? Science can build the machine, test it, and confirm that in 100% of cases it fucntions the same as a human, however it could fail in future testing. That is all there needs to be. We don''t require a philosopher.

>>2796460
You understand that science is just a sub-branch of philosophy, right?

>>2796492
>You understand that science is just a sub-branch of philosophy, right?

Apart from that being wrong, this is what I was referring to here:
> All of western philosophy is crudely paraphrased eastern ideas formed in the prior millennium and bunched into categories that contradict themselves.

>>2796491
Are you serious?
How can you test if a machine has consciousness?

The problem is not if the machine will behave the same. The problem is to decide whether it is thinkable if the machine that behaves the same necessary has consciousness.

>>2796495

>Apart from that being wrong

Read more.

>>2796495
>wrong

Ahhh, wut. Please be trolling. I weep for the future if this is the current generation of scientists.

>>2796497

Okay, this guy doesn't have any idea what he's talking about. I'm leaving.

I believe Confucius once said, "The man who try to persuade a retard has just spent time trying to persuade a retard."

>>2796501
Their mind is muddled like mud.

Science: How does it work?
Philosophy: What shall we do with it and why?

You can't act conciously without any notion of ethics. So as long as you need to have some ethics you might as well be serious about it.

Science is the art of measuring, which is useless in itself. It needs some goal and purpose to have value, and this can be provided by philosophy.

>>2796504
No I know what I'm talking about.

The problem is that you misunderstand the problems and use very rough definitions and that's why you constantly miss the problem.

>>2796511
Also, this is a trap, because when you say that science can have value without philosophy you automatically enter the domain of philosophy since value statements aren't scientific but ethical.

Scientists are so arrogant. Krauss is a theoretical physicist (aka a theologian for atheists) who goes around spouting how worthless philosophy is.

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/04/lawrence-krauss-another-physicist-with.html

Krauss is notorious in philosophy circles for saying "nothing" and not actually meaning "nothing." He could use some basic philosophy 101.

Those who mock the worthwhileness of philosophy are those who need it the most. They never examine their presuppositions or the worldview that clouds their "objective" reading of the facts.

Only the most ignorant of men would reject the value of philosophy.

If philosophy is such a valuable endeavor, how come you idiots haven't advanced since Socrates?

>>2797280
If science is such a valuable endeavor, how come you idiots haven't proved your own existence yet?
At least my statement is true.

>>2797283
Irrelevant. Will never be relevant, and will never affect anyone's life in any way ever.

Just like everything else in philosophy.

>>2797283
Because we aren't stupid enough to doubt that we exist.

>>2796274
before browsing through the thread, I would like to say that it is a very much OKish crash course.

Selective - yes, but the point of it being more personal than most actual dry treatise by the original authors is pretty much its point.

I, myself enjoy reading/watching biased reviews of various media rather than the source material...

All real philosophy you'll ever need can be found in Goedel Escher Bach, a Great History of Time and The selfish Gene - all of them horribly subjective and somewhat speculative, but at least they don't pretend to be otherwise.

All other philosophy is "History" and is worth a review in a form of this book at best.

>>2797283
>how come you idiots haven't proved your own existence yet?

What a fucking dumb question. If we don't exist we couldn't prove anything, if we do exist then proving is irrelevant.

Also, science doesn't ever 'prove' things. It forms theories about things.

>>2797283
>>2797280
Why do I have to go into every thread and inform retards that science is just a sub-branch of philosophy? Seems you guys think knowledge exists, too. I miss when /lit/ had some semi-sentient posters.

>>2797299
>Why do I have to go into every thread and inform retards that science is just a sub-branch of philosophy?
No one cares about semantics. Philosophy as actually practiced has nothing to do real with data, falsifiability, or any other of the other hallmarks of science.

>>2797292
>All other philosophy is "History" and is worth a review in a form of this book at best.

I mean, I think if you're going to be of that mind, you should say that all philosophy is history and modern ones are just more relevant.

>>2796304
>mfw Aquinas writes a Summa for Christians and a Summa for pagans but he's still too Christian for them

>>2797306
So mathematics has nothing to do with science?
"Muh math is an instrument of science!"
So are words, context, history of the discipline and logical thinking.

I mean "survival of the fittest" is a quote borrowed from spencer...

Even Einstein agreed that if you suck at philosophy you suck at science.

>>2797323
Well, math is a subset of logic, which is philosophy (but not the kind /lit/ is interested in). I wasn't aware language and context arose from philosophy though, maybe you could shed some more light on this?

"Survival of the fittest" is nonsense; conflates reproductive fitness with with a whole bunch of other things to create an unscientific, unphilosophical social theory. The wrong-headed application of scientific concepts by ignorant "philosophers" pushing an agenda reminds me of post-structuralism, actually.

>>2797329
Christ, you're stupid.

>>>/sci/

>>2797329
You admit in your posts, intentionally or not, that you have no idea what you're talking about. Just stop, read, and then come back.

>>2797329
>I wasn't aware language and context arose from philosophy though

someone this ignorant of fundamental aspects of both philosophy and science is not qualified to comment on their validity. just leave

>>2797329
No, silly. Why is science real? You have no way of knowing if anything is empirically real. You have to rely on philosophical thoughts to give your field any justification.

>>2797299
>>2797294
>>2797286
>>2797285
I posted this to satirise the poster I was responding to. It's a misrepresentation of science, much as he provided a misrepresentation of philosophy. In response I get three posters saying "that's just ridiculous" and not explaining why with a guy who didn't get the joke and spoke down to me. I am pretty confident that /lit/ has taken a turn for the worse. However, I'm not sure that I've contributed to it.

>>2797329
You do know that Darwin is the one that borrowed it?

>>2797338
I think he means historically.. As in our stone age ancestors didn't sit around thinking in philosophical terms before mentally deciding to invent nouns. So language came first, then philosophy is constructed using language and is restricted by the limitations of language.

>>2797329
People like you, apparent advocates of scientism, are the plague of the modern world. I wish better for you, friend. I am inclined to believe you are trolling, but I think that is out of sheer disbelief at the amount of ignorance you exhibit.

>>2797355
lol. are you trying to assert that the sign came before the concept? Oh lordy.

>>2797329
>dem responses

8/10 for sheer success. sage for troll-induced discussion

>>2797361
Oh-ho

Now he either has to claim that philosophy is first science or agree with the postmodernists.

He'll probably say fuck you and go back to tell us how useless philosophers are. That's the rigor of scientism.

scientism is dogmatism that is even worse than the worst fundamentalist

go back to /sci/ you faggots

It is better to leave a vessel unfilled, than to attempt to
carry it when it is full. If you keep feeling a point that has been
sharpened, the point cannot long preserve its sharpness.

>>2797369
>Now he either has to claim that philosophy is first science or agree with the postmodernists.

I'm pretty sure those stone age ancestors performed scientific experiments first. They analysed geological properties of sedimentary and igneous rock before deciding what to make spears and 'henges' out of. They analysed the burning potential of different types of wood... Yup, I'm fairly certain they performed scientific experiments before discussing existentialism.

If you mean which historically existed first... The principles and of science came first.. but both science and philosophy are explained using language, the latter not existing without it.

Why does /lit/ always have an argument titled 'Science Vs Philosophy'? Can't you guys accept that they are both needed in society.

>this entire thread

Everyone time half-wit stumbles over from /sci/ to ramble on about their dogmatic retardation it cause suck a monumental cluster-fuck that I am beginning to think /lit/ is on their level. Just ignore them; we all know they're stupid, let them figure it out themselves.

>>2796373

>epistemologically nihilist

the cancer killing humanity

>>2797391
Wait, you're not? BAHAHHAHAHAHAAH. Oh man, that's camedy geld.

>>>/sci/

>>2797388
>misunderstood the entire thread

gj, bro

>>>/sci/

>>2797382
3/10

>>>/sci/

>>2797390
>Everyone time half-wit stumbles over from /sci/

>>2796373

Can you tell me what you actually mean by "epistemologically nihilist"?

>>2797413
simply put, it states 'knowledge' doesn't exist

>>2797423

...not even Deleuze could come up with something like that, come on. And aren't recent studies coming up with the whole idea of "knowledge ecologies", I mean de Sousa Santos, deLanda and even Latour.

>>2797439
Well when you think of a counter-argument to it I, and all of continental philosophy, would love to hear it.

OP reported for creating a troll tread !

>>2797445

http://forajidosdelanetwar.blogspot.com/2011/08/arturo-escobar-ecologias-politicas.html

The guy's colombian, hope your spanish works.

>>2797450
It does not. Regardless, it's not a claim that can refuted by any human so I would not have wasted time reading it anyway. Seriously, though, refute nihilism with a logical argument and you'll be the most influential mother-fucker since Kant.

'Alan Pratt defines nihilism as "the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated"'

>>>/sci/4859994

Dear /lit/.

Science is the most important tool developed by philosophy, epistemological concerns have already been addressed thousands of years ago and as such requires no further philosophical inquiry (especially not from "modern"/armchair philosophers such as yourself). Your "silver-tongued" sophistry only serves to impress dimwitted female hipster in your Phil 101 class. Stop this faggotry already, there's a reason every field, including BA's, try to associate themselves with Science (poli. sci. etc.).

Sincerely,
/sci/

>>2797476
10/10, would rage again

>>2797476
el zilcho/10


>>>/kierkgaard/
>>>/kant/
>>>/schopenhaur/
>>>/nietzsche/

come back with an education

>>2797456
I suppose you are too unintelligent to comprehend the transcendent self-evidence of objective subjectivity.

>>2797500
laughed. camedy geld. thanks, /sci/ ^.^

"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language"

Ludwig Wittgenstein

>>2797476
>BA's
>'s
>'

/sci/ really are retarded, aren't they?

>>2797494
>A few semi-intellectuals question the validity of something beyond their comprehension.
>Years later some faggot thinks he can use an argument from authority.

Come back when you can construct a logical argument, try using that "education" of yours.

>>2797516
>Complaining about minutia.

Yo'ur dum.

>>2797516
>OMG you fucked up your grammar on 4chan! What an idiot!

what science has done.

tripled life expectancy.
provided food for 7 billion people
eradicated small pox
cured a majority of the most horrible diseases in the world

what philosophy has done

guys we should really do something about stuff

"how do you know stuff is stuff?"

enjoy your intelectual circle jerk.

name me 1 example where philosophy has directly contributed to the improvement of the world i dare you.

I heard over on /sci/ that /lit/ has gone full retard by denying the legitimacy of science? Here's a something to consider: modern science is a direct continuation of the program set out by Plato and Aristotle, pre-socratic philosophers before them, and the neo-platonists at the twilight of the empire. Their influence reached through Byzantine scholars to return to the west, where it inspired the first revolution against Christian superstition, reaching fruition at Cambridge under Newton and ultimately leading to the Industrial revolution and the scientific revolution of the modern day. All the "philosophers" who departed from this tradition of science to merely write about ethics, epistemology, or whatever it is you dorks think you understand are not really philosophers at all, as they've abandoned the pursuit of true wisdom in the way our forbearers imagined it. So strong is this link that Plato's ideas still have relevance inside of scientific circles regarding the nature of mathematical objects, whereas outside they've all but been dismissed by seemingly "deep people." Your Derridas, Kants, Heiddeggers, are all fools (esp. Kant, Gauss laughed at his work after the discovery of non-Euclidean Geometry). Butt hurt barristas who wish they could do more than read vastly obfuscated philosophical tracts need to accept their inferiority or fight against it by learning how to science, but no amount of retardation will ever change the reality that modern philosophy is utterly a dead end. Stay mad, /lit/.

>>2797521
>grammar

this keeps getting better and better

>>2797517
Genuinely laughed. I wish /sci/ popped over more; tonight has been hilarious.

>>2797527
>implying about 48 things

doyouevenread.jpg

>>2797527

Philosophy created science, so philosophy takes all credit for those, thank you.

>>2797532
>implying anyone will read that wall of weight-less wankery

The scientist stood in his lab. He was very busy removing the pesky gamma branch from his benzene ring when an English major wanted to play.
"Do you believe life has any meaning" demanded the English student, he is desperate to be in the lab and philosophy is his only tool.

"Go away, I'm busy. Look kid, there probably isn't any meaning to anything" Replied the busy Scientist.

"ahha, you're a nihilist, you can't survive without philosophy, I caught you out" shrieked the English student, rubbing his hands together and drooling from the side of his mouth.

"I'm not doing philosophy" yawned the scientist. "I just analyze and interpret the evidence. Stop trying to label everything with redundant buzzwords"

"But you took a philosophical stance, I'm important too"

"No, I just lean towards whatever the data suggests. I don't actually subscribe to any theories, I just gather data to support or reject them. Look I really am busy, can you either identify whether those are aminos by their carboxyl group, or just leave"

The door hit the English student on his way out.

>>2797542
>/lit/
>reading

I guess my expectations were too high...

>>2797545
>has almost no understanding of epistemology
>expects to be taken seriously

ahhh /sci/, you're all so gorgeous

>>2797548
>making value judgements

how's that philosophy treating you?

>>2797390
No one comes here from /sci/. Trolls just know post-modernists are easy to rustle.

>t deals largely with ancient philosophy, and is curt and selective in its treatment of the post-Cartesian tradition. secondly, it is dismissive towards all those philosophers with whom russell felt no personal affinity. thirdly, it shows no understanding of kant and post-Kantian idealism
What glowing praise of the book

>>2797486
Ohhh he's trolling by saying the other person's a troll!
So clever and original!

>>2797517
>logic
>not an element of Greek philosophy

>>2797532
So tell me. Why does /sci/ get all butthurt when people talk about their subjects without knowing shit about then and then go exactly do that and talk about philosophy without knowing anything?

Why so arrogant /sci/?

>>2797557
See
>>2797467

>>2797560
>not an element of Greek philosophy
I presume you can read:
>>2797532

>>2797561
Because science is both intelligible and important. Philosophy since Kant, being neither, isn't worth getting frustrated about.

>>2797517
How could the greeks have solved epistemological problems thousands of years ago when propositional logic was invented in the beginning of the xxth century?

>>2797361
Is /lit/ really this obtuse?

>>2797568
But the claim that science is important is philosophical.

>>2797532
>don't read thread
>spout irrelevant nonsense
You sound exactly like a scientist talking about philosophy.

>>2797373
normally I'm opposed to fundamentalism but if you're saying that science-by discovering fundamental truths, which is what wisdom is-should be disregarded for its fundamental quality, then stay mad /lit/ fag as your perspective continues to sink into historical irrelevancy.

>>2797573
Direct in our disdain for the unintelligent and ill-informed. Most of the time, that means each-other, but tonight /sci/ has attempted to talk about something it does not understand and we don't have the patience to explain it to you.

If philosophy has so many valuable and interesting insights, why is it all you guys do is talk about how DEEP Deleuze and Lacan are instead of actually discussing these insights, /lit/?

>>2797576
What a fantastic rebuke, so intellectually innovative. We're going to need links for those references though.

>>2797579
>fundamental truths
So defining what a fundamental truth is is science territory now? Note that nobody is denigrating science in this thread. No one. Everyone respects what it does. It's scientists that are unbearable know-nothing know-it-alls that we hate.

>>2797587
He or you didn't respond to anything brought up.
So yes, it's legitimate.

>>2797581
>strawmanning
Not every philosopher agrees with Deleuze and Lacan shitface.

>>2797581
Because there are a lot of people like you that have to be taught what philosophy is about.

I mean most of the people on /sci/ are still naive realists.

>>2797589
You get to be a know-it-all when your discipline knows everything known.

>>2797598
Does reality exist?

>>2797579
>thinks knowledge is possible
>thinks truth exists

It's like I'm really in high-school.

>>2797597
An epistemological viewpoint that will serve them well in their future endeavors. It would not matter one whit if they changed their viewpoint here, because philosophy isn't important. Deal with it, /lit/.

>>2797598
0/10, wayyyy too obvious

>>2797602
No one knows. Philosophy hasn't shed any light on this subject since Descartes and probably never will again so I'm not sure what your point is.

>>2797606
>using language (philosophy) to convey a concept (philosophy) pertaining to value (philosophy) and chronology (philosophy)

nice

>>2797538
>>2797538
>>2797538

so because a created b, a is to be credited with the achievement of b?

in that case philosophers are not to be credited with the achievements of science but the big bang.


check mate.

>>2797606
What is important? Is it important to be important? None of these questions fall within the purview of science. Science can give information which can help to solve them, much like a sociologist can use information from an economist, and an economist can use information from a mathematician.

>>2797613
Didn't expect you to hate on Newton, bruh.

Science, with the exception of engineering, died long ago. Why is this discussion taking place?

>>2797534
>Genuinely laughed. I wish /sci/ popped over more; tonight has been hilarious.

I laughed, you guys are so cute! /other childish attempts at condescension.

See how easy that was? Why don't you try actually making an argument instead of just citing a few dead authors and claiming victory or are you too fucking retarded to even recite your prescribed coursework.

>>2797560
Listen fuckstick, everything can be labelled under "philosophy", that doesn't mean someone claiming to study Philosophy can call it less important than other fields of philosophy. Just because biological phenomena can be derived from physics doesn't mean physicists are biologists as well. There is no duurr Philosophy vs Science, they are one in the same.

>>2797570
The scientific method obviously wasn't PERFECTED until much later, but the essential principle still used the today were developed by the ancients.

>>2797616
>implying language, concepts generally, value, or chronology were invented by philosophy
If you idiots knew anything about biology you'd know animals which are utterly incapable of "philosophy" have all of these things.

>>2797620
>check mate
Arguments do not exist to be won in an effort to grow your already over-sized ego. The claim that "philosophy came first" is unrelated.

>>2797606
But how can they be naive realists on pragmatist basis?

That's hypocritical.

>mfw /sci/ is getting anally-annihilated by almost everyone ITT but keeps chugging along anyway

I believe in you!

>>2797613
>when your discipline knows everything known
>present unknown
>somehow irrelevant

>>2797629
Who cares? They don't, the cosmos don't, no except /lit/ does, and /lit/ doesn't matter.

>>2797605
if knowledge is not possible how do you know that?
and like there is a proof that truth doesn't exist
it's like I'm in 1 grade of ph. classes, duh

>>2797634
>/lit/ doesn't matter
Prove it.

>>2797640
None of his statements implied he thought truth doesn't exist. He was questioning your certainty. Learning to read might help you breh.

>>2797642
Prove I need to prove it.

This is fantastic. I am thoroughly enjoying this thread

>>2797655
Prove I need to prove that you need to prove it. Let's stop here. Do you see my point?

>>2797655
OWNED

>mfw retards arguing over what is more important than the other when importance, value judgements, knowledge, truth, reality, and the two things themselves don't exist

oh, you guys :3

>>2797664
See:
>>2797664

>>2797625
No not really.
I mean a lot of classical philosophy is radically opposed to the way sciences are being done today.
Plato and Aristotle for example valued very little experience as opposed to deduction. And the other half of classical philosophy was mostly made by radical skeptics.

Also it's not true that Platonism is still valued as an explanation for mathematical objects. It's a minority opinion among philosophers of mathematics, while most mathematicians are pragmatists. That is they believe that mathematics has no ontological, epistemological or systematic form and it's good as long as it solves problems.

>>2797662
I don't believe you have one. If /lit/ were relevant it would more of an effect than your mother's book club, and it doesn't so it isn't.

>>2797672
Is relevancy relevant?

A marxist post-structuralist continental Ecole Normale Supérieure professor and feminist activist was teaching a class on Martin Heidegger, known hermeneuticist.

”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Nietzsche and accept that his genealogical method was the most highly-evolved theory the continent has ever known, even greater than Hegel's dialectics!”

At this moment, a brave, rational, positivist analytic philosopher who had read more than 15000 pages of Popper and Wittgenstein and understood the raison d'être of empiricism and fully supported all modern hard sciences stood up and held up the constitution.

”How universal is this text, frenchfag?"

The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied “It's not universal at all, fucking positivist, its 'truth' is rooted in our shared understandings about culture, the subject and the nexus of power and knowledge”

”Wrong. It’s been 225 years since human reason created it. If it was not universal, and post-modern relativism, as you say, is real… then it should be regarded as a myth now”

>>2797684
The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of On Grammatology. He stormed out of the room crying those ironic post-modern crocodile tears. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, Michel Foucault, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than an AIDS ridden sadomasochist interested in fisting. He wished so much that he had some kind of truth to hold on to, but he himself had written to disprove it!

The students applauded and all rolled into American universities that day and accepted Wittgenstein as the end of philosophy. An eagle named “Formal logic” flew into the room and perched atop the copy of "Principa Mathematica" and shed a tear on the hardcover. The last sentence of "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" was read several times, and Karl Popper himself showed up and demonstrated how dialectics is nothing but a means of justifying contradictions.

The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of the gay plague AIDS and his "books" were disregarded for all eternity.

>>2797624
Yeah, because the mapping of the human genome, creation of rapid communications, development of the big bang theory, and cloning life is pathetic compared to whenever "long ago" is.

>>2797684

>implying any of us have any idea what we're talking about

>>2797684
>>2797686
>everytiem

Science and philosophy have only been seen as opposed to each other in recent times. I credit to the popularity of empirically laughable ideas like psychoanalysis and Marxism (and related ideas) in modern philosophy departments. If Rawls or Wittgenstein were the public face of modern philosophy this problem wouldn't exist.

>>2797710
>implying empiricism isn't as baseless as anything else

>>2797714
Not that psychoanalysis and Marxism aren't ridiculous.

>>2797686
>ps that student was EINSTEIN
>pps support the white race :)

>>2797714
Keep living in dream worlds, /lit/. I'm going to live in this one.

>>2797721
>resorting to emotive rhetoric
I expected more of you /sci/.

>>2797710
say what you like about psychoanalysis and Marxism, at least they were fully committed to helping people

>>2797686
>>2797684
every god damn time

>>2797714
it by definition is objective and thus is not baseless

ITT: /lit/s storm-philosophers get tied to /sci/s bumper and dragged through a field.

>>2797731
>you
>knowing what empiricism is and its place
Pick one.

>>2797723
If it were possible to make verifiable statements about this kind of thing I would make them, but it's not. Philosophy has done a good job asking these questions but is totally incapable of answering them. My understanding is that theoretical physicists are working on it; I wonder if philosophers will still be around to take credit for the work of scientists when they find the answer.

>>2797731
>i single handedly solved the problem of of induction.

suuuuure

>>2797710
You do know that Wittgenstein is an enemy of empiricism?

>>2797747
How much have those theoretical physicists done on that problem? Oh, nothing? They must be worthless then. You might not have said that, but can you see how ridiculous that sounds?

>>2797747
How can theoretical physics resolve the problem of induction?

>>2797759
Physics has shown us quite a lot about the universe, actually. Not everything, not even very much, but when compared to philosophy's nothing it sure seems like a lot.

>mfw /sci/ is mad

>>2797754
But he wasn't a laughingstock. That's the difference.

>>2797765
>on that problem
lrn2readbruv
>about the universe
You're not even sure if it exists and if knowledge is possible. So why care?

>>2797767
>implying philosophy cares about empty politics
/sci/ is showing that that's their field.

>>2797710
>Wittgenstein empiricist champion
>mfw scorning Freud which was an empiricist

>>2797762
By ignoring it, because it's not important, just like everything else /lit/ related.

>/sci/
Let's hypothesize, observe, and conclude.
>/lit/
Let's hypothesize.

>>2797772

>>2797775
>/sci/
Let's hypothesize, observe and conclude without the tools to do so
>/lit/
Let's hypothesize.

Fix'd.

>>2797768
>/sci/ this is why you are wrong, stated clearly and succinctly
>NUH UH SCIENCE MAN UR JUST MAD THAT U DON'T KNOW HOW REALITY REALLY WORKS HURRR

>>2797771
>>2797770
ITT /lit/ displays its illiteracy

>>2797780
didn't mean to quote

>>2797780
>using 'hurrr' and 'nuh uh' because you're insecure about your strawman
GJGE

>>2797779
>implying we don't have the tools to do so
The computer you're using proves we're on the right track. Why doesn't philosophy since Hume have anything like that show for itself?

>>2797783
>can't into the sign/signifier dichotomy of language

haha, classic /sci/

>>2797789
>technology
>proof of further knowledge
You can't think, you can't write, you have no discernible talent.

>>2797671
This is completely false. lrn2math lit fag.

>>2797787
>strawman
>numerous examples in the same thread

stay mad, /sci/

>>2797767
That must say a lot about how what you decide to laugh and what not is based more on jingoism rather than actual reasons.

>>2797789
>can't into epistemological nihilism

You're going to love 5th grade, dude, it's great.

>>2797793
>technology
>not proof of further knowledge
Sure, sure, it's a coincidence that your computer works like the electrical engineers said it would. Whatever helps you feel good about your lack of math skills, /lit/.

>>2797806
You can't think. Appeals to plausibility are just pathetic.

>>2797803
There are plenty of reasons to laugh at Marxism and psychoanlysis. Their manifest inability to describe the observable universe, for one.

>>2797808
I get the feeling /lit/ would deny object-permanence, causation, you name it. Modern philosophy is a regression to the mindset of an infant.

ITT: /lit/ trips over its pointless verbosity and slams its face on the floor attempting to refute a basic precept of modern society that science is far more useful than modern philosophy will ever be again. Butt mad /lit/ womyn power up on bath salts and rage after learning this.

If sub specie aeternitatis there is no reason to believe that anything matters, including both science and 'philosophy' as it is being addressed within this thread. So both sides of the discussion just accept that humans can't possess knowledge and move one.

>>2797815
>Ad hominem
Keep trying.

>>2797810
>their interpretation of events doesn't conform to my interpretation of events
>waaahhh

>>2797816
There are important modern philosophers. Really. The political philosophy of Rawls even influences real-life governance! /lit/'s favorite philosophers are irrelevant, yes, but that's because they're not serious. Serious philosophy is always going to be relevant.

Gentlemen, hand over your smartphones.

>>2797737
>>2797783
>>2797816
ITT: /sci/ declares that things are happening that aren't happening, throwing their powers of observation into question

>>2797816
>about 63 baseless claims
>incluind the value of empiricism

just accept it, it's a futile argument as there is no possible way for you to refute the position that the majority in the thread are taking. if you need to believe that what you're doing has any sort of value, or that value even exists, that's your problem; not ours.

>mfw so many retards on /lit/ are still actually stuck on the phil 101 "lolol you can't REALLY know anything!!!" phase

>>2797830
>incluind

What? Including?

>>2797827
I would say /lit/'s favourite philosophers serve a very different purpose, but yes, relevant philosophers actually exist; shock and horror!

>>2797831
>Ad hominem
If you have a refutation offer it.

>>2797823
>all interpretations must be equally valid no matter what
>evidence doesn't matter
>logic doesn't matter
Only on /lit/.

>>2797831
>mfw this is the contribution of the average STEM under-grad to any discussion

you realise shit like this is why no one takes you seriously, yeah?

>" One plus one is two."
/sci/:
>Okay, sure. Peano's 1st and 6th axioms give a rigorous definition we can use to verify the truth of this statement.
/lit/:
>But what do numbers really MEAN like how do we even know they exist and its technically impossible to REALLY prove it because Plato's existentially relativistic nihilistic post-modern jazz-fusion

>mfw this thread is flooded by postmodern shitbags

Expected more from you, /lit/

>>2797843
Why would you ever expect that?

>>2797835
What are you basing their importance on? You keep stating your claim, /lit/ refutes it, and you re-state. Do you even know what you're doing here?

>>2797842
>"/sci/ is more practical therefore it must be better"
Which is bollocks.
How about stating conclusions rather than implying them?

>>2797841
The only people who don't take STEM seriously are right here on /lit/.

>>2797843
>no arguments proffered
Yeah, and you're way above that.

>>2797854
Nah, we take it seriously, we just don't take you seriously. There's a difference. Once again, lrn2read.

You're all dumb
I am the best
Suck my pixie dick you chubby coons

>>2797796
I'm sorry but I know what I am talking about.
But you can start with Reuben Hersh - What is really mathematics.

And then I'll explain you why plantonism is silly.

Ok /lit/, you guys are trying and that's to be commended. But perhaps go away for a year and actually study philosophy. All you do here on /lit/ is regurgitate the same basic principles in a variety of threads.

>>2797842
>>2797843
no argument or proper defence of scientific method as a definitive methodology for superior interpretations, just same old useless rhetoric caricaturing the opposition

>>2797843
>was hit hard by the realisation of epistemological nihlism
>hides behind petty ad-hominems whenever his 'worth' is questioned

stay /sci/

>>2797848
Freudian psychoanalysis was discredited years ago. There's a reason only the humanities takes it seriously; people who actually study psychology know better. I wish I could say the same about Marxism but its failure should be obvious enough anyway.

>>2797645
I'm not that anon
If he doesn't agree that truth exists => he thinks that truth doesn't exists
just logic

>>2797868
>implying it needs to be defended
It gets results. Can't say that about anything else. We win by default, deal with it /lit/.

>>2797866
At least toss some recommended reading there to complete your little condescension "heh, this'll gain face" act.

>>2797871
>unfalsifiable ideas
>thinks they've been disproved

Science! Fuck yeah!

>>2797868
>>2797869

Not even from /sci/.

>implying postmodernism will be nothing but a bad dream in human history in a couple of decades

Judging by the behaviour of /sci/ in this thread I would say that our elaborate, expensive system of higher education is first and foremost a system of stratification, and only secondly—and very dimly—a system for imparting knowledge. I honestly, genuinely thought better of you, /sci/.

>>2797875
>win
This isn't a game child. What results? Has it proved that knowledge exists? No? There's no results.

>>2797815
Lit education is nowadays more a social construct than an actual academic discipline. It has transformed itself from an institution whereby fops would refine themselves before entering polite society to a garbage heap for the worst students at college who still need to obtain a degree. The social pressure in America right now is enormous to be educated, yet the level of intelligence to pursue a worthwhile education hasn't changed in probably centuries. Hence lit steps in to fill what's essentially a market demand for accessible education. Anyway, since not everyone one of them is entirely dim, they react to this gruesome state for themselves by maintaining that their wasted education still has some value. Hence the need to attack shining institutions like science, that is, to wrest legitimacy away from legitimate knowledge. They somehow believe this can be accomplished by elaborating their vocabulary to the point that anyone outside of their small cliches would be nauseated, but that is actually necessary since there is nothing else at all at their disposal for attacks. Stay butt mad lit, but you'll never be better than /sci/, and you'll definitely never be as relevant as science again in the world that is emerging.

tl;dr lit is as unimportant and self referential now as the art community.

>>2797866
Seriously what do you expect when teh average /sci/ argument is "lol nobody likes you, I'll enjoy my REAL world".

>>2797854
Mainly because /lit/ is the only board populated by people that don't live looking forward to the next shiny phone.

>>2797881
Marxists and Freudians make testable claims all the time. And they tend to get it wrong. THAT'S the reason relativism and post-structuralism have become so popular in the academy lately, because if Marxists, Freudians, feminists, etc. had to face reality they'd have to change their opinions. That can't be allowed to happen, so they define reality away instead. Thankfully no one takes them seriously.

>>2797882
>useless predictions

you should go to /sci/! they'd like you.

>>2797875
results in terms of probability that then have to be believed in. There's an obvious confirmation bias affecting your judgement here.

>>2797875
>implying the worth of 'results'
>implying 'results' exist
>thinks 'reality' is observable
>implying 'winning' is favourable

this guy

science and math
> transforms the world and our understanding about the world, arguably the most useful thing that we have ever thought up of

philosophy
> "why is stuff, stuff? Do we really exist? What does dying feel like? Life is pointless"

>>2797888
>can't actual contribute any arguments
>"I know I'll circlejerk with another poster who agrees with me so I can post unrelated bullshit that uses psychoanalysis of all ironies!"

>>2797887
Who cares? What it does affect? That's right, nothing. Never has, never will. It's not important.

>>2797897
what understanding? what is this knowledge you speak of?

>>2797878
>At least toss some recommended reading there

-Conversations & Lectures on the Lotus Sutra

Is like the OP book, but details where most philosophical concepts in western philosophy were stolen from, misinterpreted, and sold to the western public. It integrates basic principles of science with detailed philosophy and allows expanding in any direction without contradiction or tension.

>>2797899
At least /lit/ isn't affecting knowledge.

>>2797893
science can't prove things wrong. it can only not prove them right at any given time

>JUST BECAUSE SCIENCE IS MORE USEFUL IN EVERY WAY DOESNT MEAN ITS MORE IMPORTANT
nice going /lit/

>>2797888
>america
>relevant at any point in time

haha

So, what are the flaws in the scientific method exactly, /lit/? No irrelevant shit like the problem of induction, actual problems that have an affect on people, the observable universe, etc.

inb4 BUT YOU KANT NO NYTHNG BCUZ DERRIDA SAID SO /sci/FAG

>>2797895

>implying my philosophical posture isn't better than your postmodern babble.

Trim your beard, go back to college and learn something that will actually be useful and worthwhile for your life and others

>>2797906
Is importance important? Is usefulness important?

>>2797913
Yes. Next "soDEEP" non-question?

>>2797904
>implying most of /lit/ is intimately familiar with Eastern philosophy
>implying that book isn't a complete piece of shot

>>2797888
>thinks I study /lit/

Nigga, I take liberal arts.

>>2797871
mfw freud is considered one of the fathers of neuroscience.
“Freud’s insights on the nature of consciousness are consonant with the most advanced contemporary neuroscience views,” - Antonio Damasio

>>2797909
>inb4ing valid criticisms
Keep going /sci/, it's hilarious to watch you try to think. Also, affect doesn't mean what you think it means and why is the effect of something so important?. Learn to speak English.

>>2797911
>implying im postmodern

again, caricaturing your opponent. why? it can only stem from insecurity

>>2797916
Prove it and stop ad homming the questions.

>>2797913

they're constructs hon

>>2797889
>Mainly because /lit/ is the only board populated by people that don't live looking forward to the next shiny phone.

-Said captain butthurt on his shiny computer.

>>2797924
That's what I was getting at sweetie.

3/10

>>2797930

oh, carry on :O)

Today has been a terrible day for both Science and Philosophy.

I'll just pretend this is all because of the heat.

>>2797527

Science did none of that; it's an abstraction. Human beings, using science, did that. Human beings, using philosophy, created modern democracy.

>>2797931
>269 replies / 32 sages
>3/10
That's pretty niggardly bro.

>>2797926
I have a computer but I don't live for my computer.
Get the difference?

>>2797920
How is it not? /sci/ is more important than /lit/ for the same reason the earth beneath your feet is more important (to you) than Galaxy SXDF-NB1006-2.

>>2797936
No one does. The only people who think others do are pretentious undergraduates obsessed with their own (imagined) high-mindedness.

WE DON'T NEED TO JUSTIFY ANYYTHIINNGG BECAUSE SCIENCE IS MAGGICCCC HUMANS CAN OBSERVE OBJECTIVE REALITY BECAUSE I SAID SOOO PRE-SUPPOSING THE VALUE OF LOOSELY DEFINED TERMS LIKE 'SOCIETAL PROGRESS' ASCRIBES IMPORTANCE TO OUR PARTICULAR FIELDS STAY MAD LITFAGS I DON'T HAVE TO DEFEND SHIT

>>2797939
Important only exists as a relative and subjective construct bro.

/phil/ advocates, let's make something clear. Yes science is technically a branch of philosophy. But what is being attacked is more narrowly defined, like the attitudes of epistemological nihilsm, inquiries into metaphysics, and other "what can we really know" bullshit with no grounding. We don't categorically object to value judgements, and can understand that there is no objective morality, but don't give a shit and make value judgements anyway based on our personal experiences and desires. And these value judgements we've made are that philosophy is a circle jerk. So stop equivocating philosophy the umbrella of thought with philosophy the bullshit, you guys most of all should be ashamed of fallacies. And don't call us out for making value judgements. We don't give a shit about epistemological nihilism, because there's nothing productive to be done thinking about it, so we decide to ignore it because we can.

tl;dr stop equivocating /phil/fags, your phil!=science, value judgements!=your phil

Hurp

>>2797950
>productivity
>existing
lel
Seriously, get rid of that unbearable air of self-importance that screams "I'm saving the world" when you're not even sure it exists and we'll stop laughing behind your back

Science can't prove or do anything!
>they say from computer running on electricity

>>2797963
Plausibility isn't proof.

>>2797950
This is stupid. I'm sorry /sci/.

You just don't get philosophy.

The fact is that the foundational question of knowledge have not been answered. Science has no epistemological value. It does not find truths. It invents way to do stuff and manipulate things.
Which are important to certain communities based on their standards of living.
The fact is that you are not doing science but you are doing engineering and you are forgetting that there is a difference between knowing what is true and knowing how to do something.

And the only reason why science is so much popular than philosophy it's because facebook does a lot of money and thinking has a very little public.

>>2797962
5-star post

>>2797962

if your still spouting that, why don't you kill yourself because we will never know if we or the world exist, but hey at least we don't spend all day at square one asking the most redundant questions.

>>2797965

It's only plausible that computers run on electricity?

>>2797965
The claim is that science can't do anything yet science allowed for the creation of devices and infrastructure which allows you to make that claim on this website. Therefore, even in the absence of everything else, science can do that which proves the statement that it can't do anything incorrect.

>>2797962
>your objection
>existing
What now faggot?

>>2797972
Yes. There are lots of uncertainties. If you do your best, I'm sure you'll identify them.

So, apparently the only way to attempt to discredit the scientific method is to pretend the universe doesn't exist? Damn, it really has conquered all intellectual enemies.

>>2796288
You don't like reading other people's opinions? Where do you think we are right now?

this is a stupid thread. let it die. if you're of age, there's no reason to be arguing about this shit.

>>2797973
Plausibility isn't proof. Think harder. Please. You're not an idiot if you're good at science. So think! Throw the gates of your mind open!

>>2797971

>hey at least we don't spend all day at square one asking the most redundant questions

yeah if yall did that we might have to live without napalm and ddt and the atom bomb and hormones in milk and thalidomide and mustard gas

>>2797966
>Science has no epistemological value. It does not find truths. It invents way to do stuff and manipulate things.
True enough. If philosophy could do that it might get some respect.

>>2797979
>ad hominem
Stay classy /sci/

>>2797966
see "epistemological nihilism". We can't ever be certain of the answers. Some of us get angsty, and some of us get over ourselves.

I'm not attacking science. we only have a better understanding of its application because the whole starry eyed cosmos/magic of reality inspired wonder at the universality of the scientific method is harmful to science itself.

science hates freud but for the wrong reasons. they hate him because they think he was antiscientific. but his problem was he was trying to be scientific. he was reckless in his pursuit of science, applying it to areas it wasn't ready for. it's that kind of agenda that I wish to curb so that science can actually be used effectively

>>2797971
You're so fucking stupid. It's painful to watch you flail about like this.

>>2797984
>your objection to my objection
>existing

>>2797966

>truths

Who needs truths when you have the next best thing, the most plausible and coherent explanation to thing x?

>And the only reason why science is so much popular than philosophy it's because facebook does a lot of money and thinking has a very little public.

Maybe the fact that science has immense utility in all walks of life also has something to do with it, champ.

>>2796415
the stupid, it burns

>>2797985
if we're making that argument, nietzsche's philosophy was contorted to support the nazis, and hiedigger (or some other guy) openly supported them.

>come to /lit/
>see this.

I don't know who is trolling whom. I'll cheer for my home team but I come here too often to do it with complete confidence.

>>2797978

No I can't. What uncertainties?

>>2797983
It's close enough. Absolute proof, as /lit/ never tires of mentioning when it comes to defending their worthless discipline, can never exist. So fucking what? You can't live a perfect life, that's no reason to kill yourself. You're stuck in a cave, but you can at least look at the shadows, /lit/!

>>2797984
>mfw fucking SCIENTISTS can't into burden of proof

He rejects knowledge; you act him to PROVE knowledge doesn't exist. I fear /sci/ may be legitimately retarded

>>2798000

sorry which philosopher vivisected people and froze them and injected them with phenol just to see what it would do

oh? it was sicentists? huh

>>2797992
>spend time thinking about questions by their nature unanswerable to a full degree of certainty
>call others stupid

Why don't you go think about whether or not Russell's teapot is there?

>>2798004
Explaining why the thing that totally isn't an external universe (honest) acts so much like one seems like the bigger question to me.

>>2797983
Your statement is confusing me. I'm objecting to the claim that science hasn't done anything by stating that it has by evidence of the fact that such a claim can be made on this website on the internet.

Your response to that is "plausibility isn't proof". Perhaps in philosophy plausibility means something other than "how likely something is", but based on that definition I don't understand what you're trying to explain/show so please try to restate it more clearly for me because I think it would add to the quality of discourse greatly.

>>2798000
lol you think nietzsche or heidegger was integral to nazism?

>>2797996
>plausability
>coherence

both subjective, temporal and irrelevant. what else you got? oh yeah, nothing. your field has no justification, but neither does anything else. if you weren't so stupid you'd take epistemologically nihlism as a supportive argument and do whatever the fuck you feel like doing because there's no reason not to. just don't go making value judgements about things you can not posses knowledge of.

>>2798010
I wrote a short-story inspired by your post, I hope you like it :3

Making Tea

I took the teakettle and put it over the blue fire of the stove. By and by the teakettle began to boil and I could hear a metallic whining from inside. As if the kettle were not a kettle but an otherworldly egg carrying some strange but cognisant animal and the animal was crying out in pain for pain was all it knew in its worldless existence and this pain and the crying out were without a world to justify it. As if the vapor rising out of the teakettle were the despairing tears of the animal now evaporated and quickly scattered into the nothingness which the animal believed the world to be. As if its thoughts dictated the very tangibility of its body and by its own lack of knowledge would he cease to be altogether. I opened the drawer and took the teaspoon and set it on the counter and I took the teabag and the teacup and put the teabag in the teacup. I lifted the teakettle from the stove and poured the boiling water into the teacup and watched the water turn brown and dark like an Apache’s scalp. I took the teaspoon but I had run out of sugar and I looked at the teaspoon in my hand as if some secret scripture were written upon the concave curve of the metal.

God almighty, I said. Why didnt I buy some this morning.

>>2797842
>>2797843
This, all of this post-modern phylosophical crap makes me sad.
Why the hell does it even exist at the same time with science?

>>2798017
I couldn't claim they were integral. I know they were involved though. More importantly though, science is a tool. It doesn't decide to blow shit up. Neither do scientists, usually. That's politicians and ideologues, who, while not using hardcore phil to justify their wars and atrocities, usually fall back on some value judgments, more often than not based on grand metaphysical concepts. In short, phil is a stabber, science is a knife.

>>2797989
If I were trying to argue that Twilight was a bad book, I would discuss its aesthetic weaknesses.

If I were trying to argue that The Inferno was a bad book, my only option would be the attack the very idea of aesthetic quality, because I wouldn't have any other options.

Same thing is going on here. You can't actually argue against the scientific method because there's just no way to go about it, so you have to argue that absolutely anything goes.

>>2798019

>subjective

If I push you off a cliff is the result of what is going to happen to your body when you hit the ground "subjective"? I'm just trying to wrap my head around what the fuck you're talking about.

>irrelevant

Irrelevant to what? Certainly not irrelevant to the advancement of data about how the universe works and the advancement of technology

>>2798019
Vaccines >>> specks of dust >>>> all literature and philosophy

Science still wins.

>>2798038
B-B-B-BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE THE VACCINES REALLY HELPED ANYONE YOU NAIVE REALIST

I MEAN I STILL GET MY SHOTS WHEN MY DOCTOR SAYS B-B-B-BUT BUT but

Face it, /lit/. You got nothin'

>>2798027

all this whining about continental philosophy... lost in autosage... like tears in the rain

>>2798035
Oh shit, you're this new to philosophy. Well I don't have time to deal with ignorance this staggering. Read Kierkgaard, Kant, Schop-dog then Nietszche in that order, then come back to /lit/.

+ 320 posts and 32 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

Soooo. Would you guys recommend the book or not?

>>2798038
Hey, don't hate on lit just because armchair philosophers are idiots. That's not nice.

>>2798050
Seeing how this has probably, at one point or another, become a troll thread to some degree, I recommend either The Hunger Games, Atlas Shrugged or Twilight.

>>2798058
Having unfortunately read all three. I can honestly say they are equal in literary value.

>>2798064
Or lack there of.

lol
sitting around thinking about what reality is vs the scientific method....
jesus fucking christ you guys are morons.
if you want to engage in complete nihilism be my guest, but don't act like it enlightens you.

it doesn't. in fact, it serves no purpose to you whatsoever, and since purpose is defined by man, it serves no purpose at all. wanna argue nothingness? why are you even bothering to breathe then?
since you've decided to breathe, and live, how about we do things with our lives... alright, so how are we going to imporve things and progress in life and do things?

fucking science.

now now you philosophy retards, no more of your self-righteousness, really you're all useless and a lot stupider than you think you are.

I'm currently enrolled in a PhD program for physics, I have already accomplished succcesful research, and I'm being paid a lot of money to continue making the world a smarter place. people thank me for progressing the world because everyone can see everyday that I have in fact made improvements on theories in nuclear physics. I don't deserve the nobel, I didn't solve any crisis or make a million dollars, but as part of a team of 16 researchers we have confirmed certain aspects of the weak interaction.

you may now sit here and tell me that I don't know wether it exists or not, maybe you'll wake up tomorrow in heaven, who knows. I don't care, but I like to brag, and I would like to think you idiots will one day produce something and maybe I'll inspire you. when you're out of high school.

:D cheers fuckers.

tl;dr I do research, ya'll are useless and stupid.
p.s. science came before philosophy. lol

>>2797467
To whatever faggot made that post on /sci/: Fuck you, cunt. Its cocksniffs like you that are killing this board

>>2798079
Who's fault is it the geniuses on /lit/ always respond to the most obvious trolls imaginable again?

>Philosophy, still useful
>2012

Philosopy has been dead for decades. Now it's just a servant to other fields, including science. It's basically useless to philosophise today, since any debate on any important issue is settled based on empirical data, not on verbal windbaggery.

Soon studying philosophy will be like stydying Latin, for those who still have a hobby of reading ancient authors in original.

>>2798079
i understand your frustration, it's hard to argue with people who know what they are talking about and work hard everyday to better themselves. maybe you should just go lay down and philosophize more, that seems to work out JUUUUUUUST great for you. ;)

>>2798096
Fuck you talking about, kid? I don't give two shits about philosophy, I came here to discuss literature. But because this is a slow board, I have been subjected to this retarded thread dominating the front page for hours.

>>2798106
you're posting in this thread which has evolved into an argument of philosophy vs science.

you posted complaining about people arguing for science but you did NOT, however, complain about people arguing for PHILOSOPHY.

again, like you said, lit board, hmmm... you took a side... hmmm...

you can admit you're wrong here you know, no one will be able to identify you, you're anonymous. it's ok, just stop whining like a girl. it's cool.

>>2798106
/lit/'s literature threads are barely about literature anyway.

>>4860476

>>2798121
>you can admit you're wrong here you know.

I'm not wrong you faggot. I criticized the guy who posted a thread in /sci/ because this huge shitstorm was his fault. I wasn't taking sides, because I don't care about your little argument.

ITT: butthurt /lit/erati taking pretentiousness to a whole new level.

I mean, come on. This is /lit/ and you are all trying to pretend to be fancy, and you shits can't even capitalize and spell words right?

Sure is summer in here.

science made all the computers you are using to have this shitstorm

>2012
>using computer
>science

>>2798490
>using language to communicate

>>2799073
>Using a keyboard to type that.

>>2798075
>>2798095
>>2798144
>>2798162
>>2798173

You guys don't seem to understand the inherent instability in trying to capture the Spectre of any redundant system. In essence the mind can only interpret second hand all epistemologically relevant systems.

According to Nietzsche the dual morality between science and philosophy is only superceded by a deeper core of fruition.

You need to learn to understand.

>>2799305
You can communicate without technology, but not without language.

>>2799387

mindmeld doesn't require language

>>2799394
>mindmeld

>>2799387
...

>>2799463
>implying something dumb