/lit/ - Literature

>>3055154

im going to tell everyone i know that story now so i can pretend to be you

convention

>english prof lecturing,
>I enter, "Sorry I'm late"
>English prof says "get out of my room"
>I leave

>reading

>>3055160

This guy has it.

>>3055154
The way her front teeth are showing, the girl kinda reminds me of Sandy from Bikini Bottom.

>>3055185
>the girl
>Olivia Munn

>>3055188
That's her name? So what? Does she have a penis?

>>3055197
No she's famous.
Do a google search for better pictures

>>3055197
better: she has books

>>3055197

>does she have a penis

nope, but she does

>nothing is objective

Isn't math objective? Pythagorean theorem or some shit

2+2=4 is objective. Anyone who says otherwise is a motherfucker

>>3055203
>>3055210
>>3055211
Ah, okay, thanks. I kinda see why /lit/ likes her.

>>3055154
>english prof lecturing, "nothing is really objective anyway"

>I reply "grammar is basically"
>English prof rebuts, "well even grammar is subjective"

>I reply, "so what basis do you have to mark us wrong on grammar errors?"

>English prof says "hmmm lets change the topic"
>entire class laughs at her

>prof leaves room in tears, breaks down, converts to a knowable system of linguistics without the gap problem.

>An eagle called "A=A" flies into the room and perches atop a copy of the Principia Mathematica

>Everybody stands up and denies that Gödel's incompleteness theorum has any application to open ended empirical systems such as language.

English profs should stick to what they know

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.

>>3055222
That's not objective, it's derived from a set of arbitrary definitions. In fact, it's a wholly perfect example of the subjective.

>>3055241
Why cant humans come say something is objective therefore it is, why do you materialist nihilist scum need a God so badly for something to be objective?

>>3055241
All definitions are arbitrary. The logical underpinnings of taking two of something, then adding another two, therefore making four is objective if the term 'objective' had any meaning.

>>3055251
>why do you materialist nihilist scum
Damn dude, that's quite the assumption.

>>3055251
Gödel, modern linguistics and the problems of transferring knowledge through an arbitrary and (Gödel) meaningless system,

IT IS IN SPINOZA PEOPLE

(pro-tip: the way out is through "love of God," by which of course I don't mean that)

IT IS IN KIERKEGAARD PEOPLE

>>3055251
Why do you need things to be objective in order to believe them?

>>3055284
>Gödel
Spoken like a true frenchfaggot.

Gödel only applies to MATHEMATICS

>>3055326
lolno
not even him

>>3055326
Gödel applies to all formal systems mate, because as we know from the 1940s and 1950s all formal specifications can be simulated. In your case you seem be both incomplete and incorrect.

>English professor lecturing, "Nothing is really objective anyway."
>I reply "grammar is, basically."
>English prof rebuts, "well even grammar is subjective."
>I reply, "so what basis do you have to mark us wrong on grammar errors?"
>"My subjective standard, which is a modification of prescriptive standards created by authorities, the de facto standard for this class. If you deviate from it, I mark you incorrectly. There are acceptable deviations from it, of course, you only need to open the internet and see that, while ugly, even the stupidest comment on Youtube appears to have a grammatical syntax that is more or less consistent."
>"Oh."
>"Also: get out."

ITT we pretend that we don't know how to leap the hermeneutic gap.

>>3055239
Winner

>>3055346
Well?

U GO OP!!!!!!

>>3055154
metaphysics is by definition, objective

>>3055365
I was in class the other day and a Christian Marxist suggested that pure faith in the knowledge of Christ or External reality can act as a bridge between the isolated knower trapped in their own language set and the body of a text, a corpus or an intertext that is filled with claims of meaning with no way of substantiating them due to the discovery of the hard language problem. That between the reader and the text a leap of faith, predicated on the best reading practices and faithful rather than hostile reading, can bridge the unknowability of the text—essentially that as in Kierkegaard the text is pre-existing in the reader as a matter of universality of Christ/meaning; and that the simultaneous discovery of a reading and the text is accomplished by the mysterious process of Christ/God/Knowledge.

Derrida and I laughed so hard at him. Foucault laughed so hard he pooped a little.

>>3055284
Godel did not prove anything of the sort. He proved that no formal system complex enough to derive arithmetic is complete. This has ramifications only to the reduction of mathematics into logic and also the philosophy of mind. It does not have any baring on modern linguistics as a science. Get a fucking education.

THE Linguistic subjectivist AND THE Marine


A United States Marine was attending some linguistic courses between Arabic and Farsi. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan as a seasoned interpreter. One of the courses had a professor who was a vowed nihilist and a thought that societies ultimately thought that linguistic rules had no meaning and were pointless to study.
One day the professor shocked the class when he came in. He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, "nothing is really objective anyway. I'll give you exactly 15 minutes to prove otherwise"
The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, "Here I am Geoffry Sampson, I'm waiting" It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got out of his Chair, went up to the professor, and said "grammer is basically"; knocking him off the plat form! . The professor was out cold.
The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked and stunned and sat there looking on in silence. The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and said "Well even grammer is basically" The Marine calmly replied, "so what basis do you have to mark us wrong on grammar errors?"
The entire class laughed at the professor who ran home in tears and converted to a knowable system of linguistics without the gap problem.
An eagle called "A=A" flew into the room and perches atop a copy of the Principia Mathematica, while everybody stood up and denied that Gödel's incompleteness theorum has any application to open ended empirical systems such as language. Latter Noam Chomsky died of the liberal linguistic plauge AIDS and the Marine was promoted to a General who singlehandedly won Afghanistan by effectively teaching all U.S. forces how to breach the language gap.

>>3055389
>reduction of mathematics into logic
And you still don't see it? Really?

>>3055239
so this is what autism looks like.

>>3055394
Don't see what? This doesn't make things subjective. It merely expresses a property of formal systems. We can still use formal systems and restrict our constructions such that we will never run into paradoxes. Do you not see it?

Guys guys, chill the fuck down. Gödel's theorem only applies to shelves, it was only a result of trying to come up with a perfect categorization of my shelves. Needless to say, it failed

Source: I, fucking Gödel

>>3055402
But yet formal systems cannot and never will be able to instantiate truth.

>>3055391
SEMPER FI
p.s.: Repeated non-falsification is a sufficient solution to the empirical fallacy.

>>3055448
Thanks Gerdel

>>3055451
That comment is stupid and shows your immaturity in mathematics, linguistics and philosophy. Both Quine and Davidson provided an account for truth in a formal system. Read "Notes on the Theory of Reference", "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" and "Meaning in Linguistics". What does it mean to "instantiate truth" anyways? Truth cannot be shown with a single instance. It is a definition that we adopt. Also, if you hold this believe, then you have no grounds for believing in mathematical truths, which entails you have no justification for believing in science, which entails you are currently reading this message off of a phantom rather than a constructed device.

the problem isn't whether anything is objective

the problem is humans have no access to an objective phenomena or dimension

>>3055527
2+2=4
The following is false:
Let A and B be matrices, then AB=BA

What is so hard about this?

>>3055520
You appear to not know what the verb instantiation means. Formal systems cannot produce true and justified belief in relation to the totality, because they are metaphysical. Attempts to claim correspondence between formal systems as models and the totality are empirical fallacies.

You conclude with a fallacy, a pretty perfect argument from consumer technology.

You're attempting to beg the question that science is true justified belief, when it is a social practice. I don't know if we've done this yet in this thread, but Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos.

You could be attempting a primitive appeal to faith, but if you're going to do that you need to explore the faith in the correspondence between meaning and the totality, as >>3055527 suggests to you.

Its like you're on the verge of transcending this, but you're not there yet, which is why Kuhn and Feyerabend might be good for you. The only way over post-modernism is to break its line.

>>3055486
I'm not a gerbil, you asshole.

do humans look like gerbils to you?

>>3055527
>the problem is whether humans have access or no access to an objective phenomena or dimension

fixed

>>3055546

But there are cases where given matrix A and matrix B, AB=BA

Not usually, but it's certainly possible.

>>3055561

humans have no access to an objective realm by definition

a human will grasp a concept or perceive a phenomena from his own particular point of view--the objective world or truth does not depend on a point of view, if it were it wouldn't be objective it would be subjective

subjectivity allows humans to perceive the world, but it also negates any possibility for grasping some objective truth

>>3055546

This is like telling me the rules to chess are objective.

Grow up. Silly human with their silly conventions.

>>3055574
>relativity
>materialism
>nihilism
you are everything bad

>>3055579
fuck off depressing bullshitter

>>3055574
Yeah, by the definition of WORDS.

>>3055552
What the fuck are you talking about? Truth and "true and justified belief" are two different things. Truth is a condition for knowledge, JTB are the criterion of knowledge (which have been shown inconsistent by Gettier). Two different things. Also, "in relation to the totality"? What the fucking hell are you talking about? Totality set? Totality set of what, formal systems? The set of all formals systems? Also, how are they metaphysical? You are exploiting an ambiguity of ambiguous term. What is the empirical fallacy? The logic gates on this computer were programmed. The program is a formal system of logic. Do you know how computers work? What are you getting stuck on? Speak clearly because you are starting to shit out your mouth.

>>3055586

>relativity
it operates on our human level

>materialism

it has its merits

>nihilism

it's something we must come face to face with and overcome

>you are everything bad

I am that force which perpetually wills evil but always creates good.

>>3055579
No chess allowed on /lit/

reported

>>3055571
Yes, I should have said arbitrary matrices. Thank you for the correction.

>>3055594

not the guy you are replying to, but damn he sure made you mad

I guess he made legit points and you dunno how to handle it.

>>3055552
cont.
I am not making the claim science is anything more than a predictive tool. You are misusing conventions in philosophy and the verbal diarrhea is starting to seep through your teeth.

>>3055602
I responded to every one of his claims. I am not mad, I just hate when people talk out their ass. He is trying to abuse elements of philosophy and ambiguities in language. He should be punished.

>English professor lecturing, "Nothing is really objective anyway."
>I reply "grammar is, basically."
>English prof rebuts, "well even grammar is subjective."
>I reply, "so what basis do you have to mark us wrong on grammar errors?"
>"My subjective standard, which is a modification of prescriptive standards created by authorities, the de facto standard for this class. If you deviate from it, I mark you incorrectly. There are acceptable deviations from it, of course, you only need to open the internet and see that, while ugly, even the stupidest comment on Youtube appears to have a grammatical syntax that is more or less consistent."
>"Oh."
>"Also: get out."

>>3055616

Why did you repost this?

>>3055594
You seem to be upset that you're relying on empirical proofs in a discussion of truth.

The empirical fallacy is believing that external things demonstrate truth. See Popper on Falsification for the refutation of the empirical fallacy in science.

"The totality" is a commonly used phrase that refers to the total constituents of 'external reality.'

The computer that you refer to is irrelevant to this discussion because you're attempting to demonstrate that because something exists, that all formal systems are true. This isn't possible as you should know from Popper. You can't demonstrate that formal systems are complete and correct, by reference to empirical data.

The way out is for you to read Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos. They discuss the limits of scientific and formal knowledge, the actual systems of production for formal and scientific knowledge, and offer a far stronger argument by reference to the products of science as a social discourse than you're managing to make. (Feyerabend provides the strongest, a Spiderman ("Fuck your shit, I'm spiderman") combined with an ad bacculum (Societies that lack strong systems of social behaviour that resemble the practice of scientists without regard to the truth or normative utility of science survive)).

>>3055239
this is my favorite post in a long time

>>3055616
>>"My subjective standard,

That isn't satisfactory

>>3055638
Thank you, I do try my best for /lit/ as you try your best for me.

>>3055653
No, it isn't, deeply. The moment is a teaching point for contemporary post-structuralist epistemology, and the academic failed utterly. We've been conducting the tutorial for the academic here, more or less, with an emphasis on the History and Philosophy of Science angle of the problem.

There are also outs in terms of linguistics, literary criticism, narrativity, philosophy, politics, etc. Most of this shit Theology went through in the middle ages... seriously... these epistemological problems are trite. The solutions often resemble either graceful correspondence—that the face of God reflects the mind of Man through God's divine intention (we know truth because we synchronise with external reality through some unknown principle), or bacculums such as that deposited twice on the Empire of Japan by Western Science in 1945, or leaps of faith such as Kierkegaard's leap of faith. The last is most suitable to attempts to interrogate meaning by reading texts. The middle is often sufficient for scientists to live with themselves while perfecting systems of human bondage (weirdly, more suitable for social scientists "on the left" as it were than STEMers), the first is something to carry around if you think intentionality exists.

>>3055653
What are you talking about? It is satisfactory enough for the purpose: you give a set of rules to be shared among your students as an agreement in the performance of a task. The purpose of the teacher is not to give an ultimate, irrefutable base for grammar

>>3055673
And there are satisfactory ways to phrase that argument, and OP didn't describe such a satisfactory statement.

>>3055673

>What are you talking about? It is satisfactory enough for the purpose

It isn't satisfactory.
This wouldn't work in math or science for good reason.

apply yourself.

>>3055239
Will you marry me?

She's right, though. Even grammar is subjective. She was stupid not to tell you that grammar should be graded should be counted off for being distracting or awkward. The best kind of grammar is the kind that you forget you're reading, and that varies from person to person but is generally bound by typical expectations.

>>3055686
First off. It seems that the message linked is probably not OP, but someone stating what the teacher could hav responded instead of what she actually responded.
Second. The anon I am responding to (wich might or might not be you) picked a part of the teacher's hypotetical answer. Said part by itself is not a satisfactory response, but the totality of the hypotetical phrase is (I only paraphrased it)

>>3055596
faggot

>>3055693
I said satisfactory for the purpose: the set of rules chosen (wich are the rules of English grammar) are more than sufficient to permit communicability and completion of task. That0s why I didn't say they are philosophically satisfying, in fact they are not. They are pragmatically satisfying. Grammar is a practical matter. It does not need irrefutable justification to work.

Are you fuckers denying my precognitive dreams?

fucking sociopaths

>>3055709

If a grammar system is subjective then it means its hidden from 3rd person analysis. So it either just exists in her mind with her own idiosyncratic interpretation--it wouldn't be fair to mark students according to this metric

If the metric is out in the open, then in a sense it is objective since its open to third person analysis, just like how scientists analyze empirical phenomena...

Grammar may have an arbitrary origin, but it exists objectively now.

When we are talking about something being grammatically correct we are comparing it to an objective metric of Grammar universally accepted in english

>>3055727
Feyerabend, Feyerabend, Feyerabend.

Your account of "science" doesn't correspond to the account of science given by scholars who analyse the social, philosophical and historical practice of science.

It also doesn't match what we know about language change including grammatical change, such as resistant sub-cultural cants.

ITT: immoral sociopaths

kill them all

>>3055742
>i hate ethics because i'm a scumfuck sociopath

the rules of grammar are objective in the same way the rules of chess are objective

and it is a very legitimate sense of the word "objective". I'm not being facetious.

any human can find out the rules of chess and verify them, and it's easy to see if a move breaks the rules or follows them.

Similarly the rules of grammar can be verified if a sentence contains a mistake. The standard has been set and subject to relative interpretation.

so faggot, where is that nobel prize since you've somehow proved that math is simply a human construct?

>has never done pure math before

>>3055745
Who are you quoting?

>>3055727
Isn't is base intersubjective rather than objective. It does exist objectively but it is not based in objective principles (wich, I think, was th thing stated)

>>3055710
Ah, sorry, I missed the reference. I apologise fully.

>>3055742

>You're account of science

describes how scientists go about their business. They don't have access to "subjective" phenomena, they only have access to objective-phenomena, like watching packs of wolves and observing galaxies...etc

>language change including grammatical change

I addressed this.
Its origin might be arbitrary but its existence is objective. Meaning once the changes are in place anyone can go verify them.

A subjective grammar system would be one that is hidden from 3rd person observation. You couldn't know what the teacher thought was a rule unless you read her mind

>>3055762
>Meaning once the changes are in place anyone can go verify them.
Using what? Mystical empirical proof be now boxes? We established the contingency of signs and symbols up thread. Keep the fuck up.

>>3055762
>describes how scientists go about their business. They don't have access to "subjective" phenomena, they only have access to objective-phenomena, like watching packs of wolves and observing galaxies...etc
Observer problem. Please fuck off and read Popper.

>>3055727
But there are plenty of disagreements and variants. Oxford commas, debated spellings, the emergence of new vocabulary as well as new syntax. There is no objectivity in something that the individual manipulates and changes just by participating in it. You're arguing an end of history for grammar, but the history is very much alive and in development.

>>3055766
>Using what? Mystical empirical proof be now boxes?

Published texts on English Grammar, google, etc.
The rules of grammar arent a secret. They are open to the public.

>>3055770
>Observer problem. Please fuck off and read Popper.

Their interpretation is subjective, but the phenomena they observe are objective and open for all others to observe. Just like the rules of grammar.

the rules of grammar just like a pack of wolves exist objectively, however, subjectivity enters the equation when humans interpret them

>>3055766

>Using what?

grammar, you nit

>>3055773
>But there are plenty of disagreements and variants.

People may disagree on the interpretation of the rules, but the rules themselves exist objectively--which is why people are able to talk about them.

>>3055773
> There is no objectivity in something that the individual manipulates and changes just by participating in it.

The individual can't manipulate it. The rules are set down by consensus. The individual may interpret them correctly or incorrectly.

>You're arguing an end of history for grammar, but the history is very much alive and in development.

I already said their origin could be arbitrary. The fact that they change over time doesn't mean the rule arent' objective. A tree grows over time. A caterpillar changes to a butterfly, but it is still objectively existing in the world --- people may interpret it correctly or incorrectly

>>3055773

Even if it's a rule that not many use, it is still a rule.

>>3055778
>a pack of wolves exist objectively
Oh lawdie.

Demonstrate your assumption without recourse to the empirical fallacy.

>>3055780
Except this rules are not derived from observation as are natural laws. That means they cannot be interpreted based on objective observation, they can only be interpreted with subjective bases

>>3055788
>The rules are set down by consensus
But the consensus in the more specific rules tend to be an illusion, and is due to many different interpretations, close enough to each other that they seem the same. This is bound to happen in every system that uses a large amount of rules (and that is not run independently by a machine). Since most human brains are not reliable to hold large amounts of information with accuracy

>/lit/ is so irreparably autistic that they can't spot even the most blatant of trolls

sometimes I genuinely pity you guys, but most of the time I just laugh

>>3055828

>objective observation

oh boy...

>empirical fallacy

You made this retarded term up.


I googled it, fucker.

>>3055905
It seems to be a legit(though not rigurous) term. This is the only info I found about it
http://personalitycafe.com/critical-thinking-philosophy/52153-empirical-fallacy.html

>>3055922
Cont.
This seems to be what he talks about:
>”The same danger may be otherwise phrased by saying that the empirical fallacy consists in resting our proof of a law or theory on confirmatory (i.e. congruent) facts alone. If the facts around us do not fit our theories we have of course unanswerable disproof: but if the facts do fit them, the theories are not yet necessarily secure. We need besides such facts, in every case the further assurance that any contradictory facts, if existing, would have come to light. And so far as this assurance is wanting, so far the proof is weak.”

>>3055926
Is this a essentially the same as Hume's critique of induction? I'm not familiarized enough with the literature

>>3055905
You don't seem to be very good at googling, or at argumentation
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22empirical+fallacy%22

>>3055933
fuck off, why care about arguments when they are just subjective?

HAHA USED YOUR "PHILOSOPHY" AGAINST YOU

>>3055935
Tu quoque.

>>3055154
>Olivia Munn in that dress
Gaw. Dayum.

Sage for off topic.

>>3055946
french is overrated, pretentious fuck

>>3055956
You meant Latin, friend; and, the meaning of the accusation of deployment of fallacy is obvious from the image macro's own meaning.

Just a little note on the side guys. From about a week ago I started to smell a distinctive smell of cooked sausages every time I open /lit/. Apparently it was triggered by me thinking in the word sausage fest. I know this sounds like a joke but it isn't. It's actually a little disturbing since i don't like the smell of sausages. The only thing I hope for is that this thing is contagious and that now you are smelling sausages while skimming /lit/

>>3055828

Their derivation is objective. It is clearly obvious that humans create them.

Anyone can test this.

They also exist objectively. Anyone can verify the rules of Grammar by reading current books on Grammar or checking online. etc

>>3055239
Dumped this into Google Translate (pleb alert) with Latin set as the default language (double pleb alert) and got "Nicholas Manna Wovon sprechen kann, darüber MUMBLE schweigen manna". Hoiw enlightening.

>>3055965
Did you look the term in Wiki first? It's a legit name for a subcategory of fallacies

>>3055963
Yes, I guess we re in an alley since we are usingour term in an uncompatible way

>"Nothing is objective"
>Mfw

This is why they need to still teach Aristotle: so we don't say stupid contradictory shit like this.

>>3055963
sew whose thee egg spurt on grammar? Can eye right these whey be cause eye id's "prop her grammar" too me? Wood id bee all right if eye rote it in a book ore if eye whir, say, Herald Bloom?

Individual rules can be "objective" in the way you're using the term, but the entire system of grammar is not. If it is, where does ultimate grammatical authority come from? Does it have to be intentional, or can a mistake that gets used widely enough become grammatical? In that case, how much is "widely used"? How are contradictions between styles resolved?

Rawlin.

FOR GODS SAKE PLEASE TELL ME ABOUT THE FUCKING GOLF SHOES

>>3055284
Nietzsche has already critiqued the leap into nothing. The way out is through will to power.

>>3056033

>This is why they need to still teach Aristotle: so we don't say stupid contradictory shit like this.

It's not a contradiction, its just vague.

it's more accurate to say, "humans have no access to objective phenomena"

which is true by definition of Objective (not dependent on a point of view or time) and by the fact that humans observe reality from their own particular points of view from a particular point of time.

Hopefully you'll go beyond Aristotle one day and catch up to the 21st century

>>3056104
>The way out is through will to power.
Which is strange because Nietzsche himself leaped into Horseness-as-animality.

>>3055571
yes this is possible, but these cases often become some matrix x inextity matrix x A. In otherwords all the scenarios where AB = BA are derived from AA = AA.

do you guys into the matrix?

>>3056115
Fuck postmodernism.

>>3056033
In 2012 people still believe in Aristotle's categories.

>>3056124
Not even amusing anymore.

>>3056156
No mate, take me up on it. The post-human state, the state of the person willing to power is anti-human in that it transcends the limited capacity and state of humanity. How is this not leaping into the animal characteristics of being? Nietzsche is worse that Kierkegaard because his epistemological break is prescriptivist. Nietzsche, but advocating the reclamation of the animality of the person from "humanity" is effectively a fucking furry.

You're fucking retarded, you're assuming she needs objective basis to mark you down.

hint: she doesn't.

>>3056166

>you're assuming I didn't just 10/10 troll you

>>3055154

I'm almost positive I know that girl. Almost.

>>3056164
You don't understand (Nietzsche or) will to power if you think it is will to the (blond) beast.

Yes! Nietzsche washes his hands of epistemology when he washes his hands of Kant. It is true, there is a 'break' in this, perhaps there's some evidence that he prescribes this to his 'pauci', but so what? What is objectionable to that? Being a moral psychologist does not stop one from being a moralist - in fact as N. practices it, it necessitates it: he brings morality, prescription, and imperatives into everything, but none of these are 'objective' or 'categorical', 'Christian', 'Kantian', or 'Danish.'

Your latter sentiments I read as a way of atoning for your seriousness through the appropriate degenerate gestures: 4chan buzzwords, its subcultural bizzarrie. On its own merits, it's wrong and more evidence of your misunderstanding [see above.]

>>3056310
You know Olivia Munn? Lucky you

>>3056324
Thank you.

It depends on whether you agree with Chompskyan linguistics or not. However, the grammar of a developed language rather than naive grammar is indeed intersubjective. There's no actual grammar thing that exists, however enough people agree on the rules that you can be right or wrong (that is, agree with the grammatical conventions or ignore them)

Grammar is based on arbitrary definitions. Of course it's "objective".

I could make up my own word and claim "it's objective" too. Just check the definition below if you're unsure.

adfuad = jumping sideways from a cardboard box

There's not only objective and subjective. I'd personally say nothing is objective but there's very few things that are subjective. After critical evaluation one can decide if something is right or wrong, if one is qualified to do so (i'm guesing an english prof is qualified to critically evaluate grammar), that doesn't mean it's subjective.

>>3056356
Shut up fag you can't even prove anything outside of your consciousnesses

Oh Jesus this discussion is so confused. I don't know where to start.

Fuck it...

/sci/ here.

All observable quantities are subjective - the only thing that remains objective are the laws of physics, and the only argument for this is lex parsimoniae.

/thread

>>3056348
Going to adfuad whenever I see a cardboard box now.

>>3055239

>>3056364
Which laws of physics? Newton's? Because they seem to fail to accord with external reality—face it, your suggestion that physical actions accord in the slightest with the human comprehension of such actions merely betrays your claim that human knowledge _is_ reality. It is not unreasonable to behave _as if_ Newton's understanding of physics is true; but, yet, this does not make Newton's understanding of physics true. What may lie beyond, and outside, of our understanding will never be properly known, just as much as I will never properly know my foreskin no matter how often I observe it.

>>3056359

>>3056371
The basic point of this discussion was to transcend the knowledge problem. Merely agreeing not to use nihilistic arguments isn't sufficient unless that itself is grounded in something that can transcend the knowledge problem.

There are a number of easy outs which can be suasive if followed until they exhaust themselves and their problems and difficulties are uncovered, acknowledged and then accepted.

>>3056369
>Which laws of physics?
The laws of gauge theory.

>Newton's? Because they seem to fail to accord with external reality
Newton's laws are valid within their domain, classical mechanics. Any classical system evolves in time according to Newton's laws. A Quantum mechanical system recovers the classical mechanics when it decoheres with environmental degrees of freedom.

>face it, your suggestion that physical actions accord in the slightest with the human comprehension of such actions merely betrays your claim that human knowledge _is_ reality
Note the use of "lex parsimoniae" in my post. The main reason why we believe that the universe obeys laws is that the laws we have found are the simplest satisfactory explanation out of the trillions of experiments and observations we have performed.

>What may lie beyond, and outside, of our understanding will never be properly known, just as much as I will never properly know my foreskin no matter how often I observe it.
What "outside"? You seem to not agree with positivism, but why? And don't give me your conspiracy bullshit that Russell's teapot might be out there somewhere.

>>3056393
I noted your use of lex parsimoniae with great interest, because it means that you're not speaking truth—rather you are (attempting to) truly speaking your own knowledge. This is valuable for putting a spaceship into orbit, but it isn't truth.

Occam's razor has a value not worth denying when working with empirical data and making judgements about it. But it doesn't mean that any of the models of physics are actually physical reality.

Three trillion not-truthes don't create a truth. They create a situation where we act-as-if. Acting-as-if is pretty damn valuable.

Regarding true knowledge of objects, sense data can never provide true knowledge of objects, and I doubt that (and have every reason to believe right now that it is not true that) consciousness can produce true knowledge of consciousness.

If the truth is unknowable, I can't treat external reality or internal consciousness as if they are anything except contingent as-ifs.

>>3056033
>2012
>Aristotle
stop being underage

>>3056408
How do you define truth?

> sense data can never provide true knowledge of objects
You already implied this to start with, but how do you know this? This is my question.

>>3056364
please leave.
math, logic, science, every fucking thing is subjective

>>3055154
No, no, no. It's not objective, it's intersubjective. Nothing can possibly be correctly defined as objective since the world is always viewed from a subjective point. When we agree on systems and rules, which we often call facts, it is an agreement between our subjective viewpoints. It appears and seems objective, but it is not. Your teacher is right. Grammar is a law we agree on to use. It functions objectively in the system that has the individuals that agree on (or are forced) to use it, but is not objective.

>>3056414
Wrong. Truth in mathematics is objective and independent of the person posting it.

>>3056408
Are you cribbing Hans_Vaihinger's 'Philosophy of As If'?

>>3056412
Truths inhabit a metaphysical domain, they are definitionally disconnected from empirical reality. 2+2=4 (within the Juvenile mathematics construct) regardless of the existence of people to know. The formal system is specified and truths can be deduced from known true premises. Empirical objects can only produce partial knowledges: this mouse is a mouse until it is no longer a mouse and broken. We can only inductively reason about empirical data because we cannot observe the totality of empirical reality across all time (ie: make it "true").

Mathematics can be true. Engineering can only be inductively repeatedly demonstrated and not falsified.

We know this from the observation of what is empirical data, and the observation of the process of observation. As repeatedly cited his, Popper goes into the theory of this admirably, and demonstrates why we can't make true statements about objects in the world, but we can make unfalsified statements about objects in the world. (Later the idea of falsification is brought into serious question by other philosophers of science)

Can we open a sub-board somewhere, on site, for the discussion of elementary metaphysical questions?

>>3056424
I.e. so this shit can get the fuck off my /lit/?

>>3056417
I'm going off 15 years in the higher ed industry around philosophers, philosophers of science, sociologists of science, a lot of buddhist philosophy, some post-Hegelian philosophy, and smatterings of Kant, Greeks and Spinoza. I've also sat a graduate seminar on this in relation to social science research methods in qual and empirically informed quant.

Also done a lot of historiography in the Marxist tradition where this comes up (knowability of the totality).

>>3056424
Can we open a sub-board so entry level fiction and genre fiction recommendation, homework questions and creative writing questions get off my /lit/?

>>3056427
can we open a sub-board so you get off my /lit/

just one board, for you to post in forever and ever, all by yourself

and i'll come there and visit you sometimes, and we'll be friends

>>3056426
And you don't still just going a roundabout way of arriving at conclusions already reached a hundred years ago?

Now THAT's human all too human. Don't you know, how many scholars' lives are so?

>>3056429
/lit/ averages one epistemology thread every 2 days. There are about 150 threads active at anyone time. Quit your bitching.

>>3056431
Yes but I need it as daily working knowledge to know when and where I can make claims in the interpretation of texts according to a rigid and highly structured text interpreting tradition because the acting-as-if results of this text interpretation is widely sought for hints and tips on how to repress or liberate people politically today. Its job craft for me.

>>3056431
Gee, I'm super impressed at how that came out. CORR!

"And still you're just...." s'il te plait.

>>3056434
Yeah, it was a pretty powerful critique of the circularity of discussions of human knowledge. Scholarship's just another job btw. It isn't romantic like being a whore or an underwater gas welder or a social worker.

>>3056433
And you the guy who doesn't understand Nietzsche? the same to whom >>3056324 responded.

Right?

>>3056440
You know there's a name for people who use Nietzsche's methods in historical inquiry—Foucault. It tends to turn you off someone, especially when you've already read nihilists via existentialism and Kierkegaard and way too much zen that you got forced on you for religious reasons. Watching some German man slowly going mad in the face of Kant is tiresome when you've got the core epistemological issue covered and you have to write an undergraduate paper on the causes of the war of 1812 in terms of non-maritime issues.

>>3056436
Quit the sarcasm, it don't become you.

Maybe it's me, but I find it hard to see romanticism in any of that shit without a lot of drugs - snorting romanticism for example.

Scholarship's just another job? Ain't you a modest motherfucker. I bet the Proles love you.

>>3056448
I wasn't being sarcastic, I try to avoid being sarcastic because it doesn't work online and go for invective instead. When I compliment, I mean it. I genuinely believe it is a powerful critique. Replication by round-a-bout method isn't good scholarship, nor is it good pedagogy. And its a typifying characterisation of the mediocre scholar—which I have every reason to believe that I am based on age, field, publication history and personality.

The West has a problem in "booting" intellectuals due to the circularity of inducing essential understandings of epistemology, method and disciplinarily.

>>3056448
A working class hero is something not to be. It is more that I can't shed my class background and I have to apologise for sticking my head up.

>>3056446
That may be so, as regards the historical inquiries - may be they are all Foucault. But what kind of misdirectional technique/enthymeme/ignoratio elenchi is that?

If you are that guy, you don't understand will to power/Nietzsche.

>>3056455
No, no I don't; I also notice that /lit/ hasn't provided me with an exposition, and that I've managed to avoid being schooled until today and I can still determine social meanings from archival texts fine. How would understanding Nietzsche's will to power impact my epistemology given that I escape from post-modernists through a Kierkegaardian leap into meaning existing in texts.

>>3056453
Yeah Nietzsche said be the blond aryan beast and WTP, that's ad bacculum icing on top of his holocaust cake - how l'homme moyen sensuel always thinks so.

Why don't all the marxists become Nietzscheans? The main motivation of all their spiritual activity is unspiritual, material envy. Your average marxist intellectual today, your average bastard son of the "aristocratic" suburbs, inner city? Chamforts who wish they were Danton.

Stupid bitch should have said that marking is subjective as well; according to someone else's standard and you are probably going to have to deal with it for the rest of your life.

>>3056462
Maybe they can't?

Maybe this is after all just /lit/ on 4chan?

Or does that contain a profound truth ... about Nietzsche... sure. Jokes on induction.

Understanding Nietzsche would put your epistemology back up on the cross, sit down and weep in the front-row at its transfiguration into WTP.

>>3056486
And yeah, how glib sounds my glibness.

I'm just a guy on 4chan who understands one philosopher which you don't/can't/won't/are afraid to understand.

The biggest change in Classical studies/philologie in the last 100 years has been Nietzsche.

>>3056491
>>3056486
>>3056477

Yeah, look I just did the blonde beast via wikipedia. As far as being a Historian he's telling a just so story. As far as being a moralist it is an interesting supposition, I can see why non-Marxist leftists go there, because it offers a method of getting at the issue of the radical transformation of subjectivity. The blonde beast as a beast is the fascist dream, but only because fascism coincides with the moral interests of the blonde beast metaphor. If this is "animality" then give me my human condition, that halting moment of my sticking my head up as a prole and feeling all the guilt of doing so. Give me my contradiction as I do the wikipedia crib notes on WTP.

>>3056491
This whole dispute is essentially Wilamowitz against Nietzsche, except your recycling different old arguments for Wilamowitz's old
method.

Personally, I think both were ultimately failures, but Nietzsche failed facing humanity's true Mecca.

>>3056494
Nietzsche needs interpreters and readers, not apologists.

>>3056500
>>3056494
Fuck you mate, I'm cribbing for a discussion where people keep bringing this cunt up, eh?

I'm not seeing anything in will to power that I seriously haven't seen in basic Cha'an / Zen pedagogy; and, it seems like there's an intentionalist projection on a natural process. As if a kind of Dawkinsean organic process has been crudely assigned intention as if the stars twinkle because we enjoy their twinkling.

Part of this depends on whether Nietzsche thinks the subject actually exists or whether the subject is an excrescence of the process of being.

Wikipedia's discussion of the will to power, as far as epistemology goes, remind me of the First of the Seven Samurai's decision to shave his hair. Nothing more, nothing less. This metaphor doesn't give use the beautiful "leap" across the gap between meaning and reader that Kierkegaard gives us. It is just a praxis, and one with an embedded intentionality and some rather serious moralistic claims that would require separate demonstration and a less than desirable (for a social historian) connection to genealogies.

>>3056494
And then suddenly, while a man was not understanding a misunderstanding on an internet website, the Revolution appeared in an elegiac robe with a very red flag and a melodramatic hand gesture, denouncing other leftists for their lack of Marx, and announcing to History that is nothing more than the eternal struggle of class.

>>3056507
"I'm not seeing anything in will to power [as it is abastracted on wikipedia.]"

Seriously, you haven't read Nietzsche?

>>3056512
Seriously, I read Marx, Hegel, Cha'an, Zen, Sufism, Kierkegaard and Marxist fucking historiography

>>3056507
"Having only ever studied a few philosophers, he afterwards only saw those few philosophers in the other philosophers he read."

And this is new to you, as a scholar? Isn't that you there, reading your own knowledge into Nietzsche, rather than reading Nietzsche, and this is your amazing reading technique using Zen via Kierkegaard via Christian Marxist et al etc.

Surface/Depth. No one calls Nietzsche superficial. Read deeply.

>>3056514
Mon dieu, just to confirm this in positive language, you've never read Nietzsche?

And your critique is "His wikipedia articles remind me of what I've already read."

I know a lot of classicists who have the same problem as you. Read anyone after 500CE? "BAH! It's all there in PLATO! It's all a footnote to Plato/Read Pynchon? BAH! It's all there in Petronius etc." You seem to be suffering from a marxist adaptation of this intellectual perversity.

As I mentioned to someone today regarding their love of Camus in overturning nihilist epistemologies, when I get the time. In the meanwhile I'm not going to slog through a complex hypertext which doesn't immediately contribute to my output. My misreadings of Wikipedia's cribs of the two concepts raised here is an invitation for you to correct me with your valuable readings while I have access to you.

>>3056507
In few words, and crudely oversimplifying:

There is a intentional projection on a process, but that process in N. is no longer "nature/-not-man" it's will to power - everything is.

There is no Dawkins, and your comparison is what is crude - based on your lack of understanding.

For Nietzsche there is neither subject, nor object, and there is no being. There is a process of becoming and it is eternal.

Will to power is not strictly metaphysical... for Nietzsche phusis is not merely a nomos either, it's a combination of the attributes of both, a deletion of some, their replacement by WTP.

Nietzsche is the strongest attack on Greek philosophy to date. For this reason he is often called an anti-philosopher, a new way of saying skeptic or cynic, although generally speaking he is neither.

"Meaning" is something that is done, not something that is. Meaning is WTP.

Nietzsche's moral claims demonstrate themselves within WTP, and to use a useless (post-WTP) adverb, 'internally.'

If grammar wasn't at least a little subjective, do you think anyone would put up with Cormac McCarthy's shit?

>>3056601
Best post in this thread.

>>3055211
Name?

>>3056601

McCarthy writes grammatically correct

>>3055962

Brain cancer

>>3055965
About which one cannot speak, one should be silent about.

>>3058035
More commonly:

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

My English teachers always said that you have to demonstrate that you know the rules before you're allowed to break them

Take it for what it's worth

>>3055211

She's also got massive tits. In the final analysis, this is the important factor.

>>3058241

mah nigga

>>3058258
YOUR WIFE IS WAITING FOR YOU ALTHUSSER

>>3058258
Yeah, but then you try and find a fully naked picture of her, and it's all, nooooo.

>>3058306

What's she called? I want to test your hypothesis.

has she got a massive cock?

>>3058311
Elle Simons.

>>3058323


A thousand blessings upon you sir

i dont believe a teacher ever said that. i think you made this story up to seem clever online

>>3055251
>humans say something is objective
>humans say
>objective

Also
>materialist nihilist scum need a God
>materialist nihilist
>need a God

What I think you're saying is that people, in order to believe in something, need it to be objective, and that in order for something to be objective, they need a deity to represent absolute truth?...and this makes them materialistic and nihilistic?

I guess you didn't scan Wikipedia's philosophy article for more than five minutes.

>>3058339

OP here. It happened just as I said except I made up the part about "entire class laughs at her"

and instead of "lets change the topic" she said something similar I can't remember what but to the same effect

>>3056115
>pomo shit
>in two-thousand fucking twelve

>>3055345
I like this man, and if I meet him one day, I will buy him a beer.

Everything is subjective when it comes to languages, and that is the truth (even mathematics). But our societies try to meet certain standards to form a coherent basis for all kinds of languages while accepting minor deviations from the norm over time. If society did not do this, communication and our ability to coexist as a race would break down into ruin.

For example, there is a reason why they symbol 2 is 2 and not BLiPPoty Bloddy FUCK MDD DOODOO. And there is a reason why gay changing in meaning from happy to homosexual over time is an excepted deviation.