/lit/ - Literature

Because only the rich can afford to devote a life to thinking. (Unless you go monk mode like Wittgenstein.)

because being a god-tier philosopher requires resources for delivering education and books

>tfw you'll never be a philosopher

le patriarchy xD

the poor have no time to think

>>3431048
they aren't

Because to get where they got they had to go through an education and libraries and their families had to support them, not only in monetary terms, but also with the cultural scenario, with a life of thought over manual labour, with people around them ranging from diplomats and doctors, to scholars, scientists and artists. There is really no mystery. They were only white men because only white men could have that, even if that is changing today.

>>3431056
I actually don't even care that they are men. It's more or less the feudal stratification that a lot of them strive for that irks me.

>>3431051
But Wittgenstein was born into one of the richest families in Europe. His family was the Austrian version of the Rothschilds. He was literally raised in a fucking castle.

>>3431069

After World War 1 he gave up his fortune to teach in a rural elementary school and work in a church garden. He died penniless, and only received treatment for his cancer because he was friends with a doctor.

He was born with a silver spoon but gave it all away once he reached maturity. That's what I mean by going monk mode.

Philosophy is a sham. It died a long time ago. It now lies in it's own excrement, pointing an emaciated finger at the scientific method and crying "Objective truth, no objective truth." In order to be a modern philosopher you have to be a cuntbag of the highest order. You have to acknowledge that all philosophy is now just a snide poke at science, but master the technique of living on Fathers money and forming semantic bullshit to convince everyone you are important and intelligent. Look. I'll give an example.

"Philosophers; why is the flower beautiful?"

>Schopenhauer - "Here we contemplate perfection of form without any kind of worldly agenda, and thus any intrusion of utility or politics would ruin the point of the beauty."
"Utility spoils beauty, but can't get us closer to understanding beauty? STFU, Shoppy. Next."

>Hegel - Art is the first stage in which the absolute spirit is manifest immediately to sense-perception, and is thus an objective rather than subjective revelation of beauty.
"Objectivity? Really, Hegel. STFU. Next."

>Kant, "the aesthetic experience of beauty is a judgment of a subjective but similar human truth, since all people should agree that “this rose is beautiful.”
"Subjective interpretation could lead to an objective consensus? U R 1 Cheeky Kant m8, and you're talking out ur arse.

Listen, cuntbags, the answers can only be found in the sciences, the questions should be asked in those fields too. Our pretty little flower, if we want to understand why it's beautiful, can only be explained in a spectrum of non-philosophical fields. A neurologist or psychologist combined with a biologist can tell us exactly why we respond to the flower and think it is beautiful, and we can express that subjective beauty in art. So go ahead, fuckers, point your philosophical fingers and tell me that I can't have axioms or objective truth, but that's all you bitches can do.

>>3431080
lmao

>>3431080
bingo the gringo

>>3431080
Science is a subset of philosophy.

>>3431080
How can Scientific method prove that the flower is beautiful ? Explain me, please.

>Inb4 butthurt.

>>3431080
0/10

apply yourself.

>>3431080
Philosophy accepts the hard and hazardous task of dealing with problems not yet open to the methods of science--problems like good and evil, beauty and ugliness, order and freedom, life and death; so soon as a field of inquiry yields knowledge susceptible of exact formulation it is called science. Every science begins as philosophy and ends as art; it arises in hypothesis and flows into achievement. Philosophy is a hypothetical interpretation of the unknown, or of the inexactly known; it is the front trench in the siege of truth. Science is the captured territory; and behind it are those secure regions in which knowledge and art build our imperfect and marvelous world. Philosophy seems to stand still, perplexed; but only because she leaves the fruits of victory to her daughters the sciences, and herself passes on, divinely discontent, to the uncertain and the unexplored.

Shall we be more technical? Science is the analytical description, philosophy is the synthetic interpretation. Science wishes to resolve the whole into parts, the organism into organs, the obscure into the known. It does not inquire into the values and ideal possibilities of things, nor into their total and final significance; it is content to show their present actuality and operation, it narrows its gaze resolutely to the nature and process of things as they are. The scientist is as impartial as Nature in Turgenev's poem: he is interested in the leg of a flea as in the creative throes of genius, but the philosopher is not content to describe the fact; he wishes to ascertain its relation to experience in general, and thereby to get at its meaning and its worth; he combines things in interpretative synthesis. Science tells us how to heal and how to kill; it reduces the death rate in retail and then kills us in wholesale war; but only wisdom--desire coordinated in the light of all experience--can tell us when to heal and when to kill.

charles john dickens

>>3431080
People often say that aesthetics is a branch of psychology. The idea is that once we are more advanced, everything--all the mysteries of Art--will be understood by psychological experiment.
Exceedingly stupid as the idea is, this is roughly it.

Aesthetic questions have nothing to do with psychological experiments, but are answered in an entirely different way.

"What is in my mind when I say so and so?" I write a sentence. One word isn't the one I need. I find the right word. "what is it I want to say? Oh yes, that is what I wanted." The answer in these cases is the one that satisfied you, e.g.someone says (as we often say in philosophy): "I will tell you what is at the back of your mind..."

"Ah, yes quite so."

The criterion for it being the one that was in your mind is that when I tell you, you agree. This is not what is called a psychological experiment. An example of a psychological experiment is: you have twelve subjects, put the same question to each and the result is that each says such and such, i.e. the result is something statistical.

You could say: An aesthetic explanation is not a causal explanation."

Cf. "Why do I say "This word is not right!"?" with "Why do I say "I have a pain!"?"

>>3431104

Because they don't have to worry about getting a job to sustain themselves. Their parents can take care of that.

Why are most Nietzsche-fags rich and snobby white men born into middle class families with spoons up their asses?

>>3431092
>How can Scientific method prove that the flower is beautiful. ? Explain me, please.
The flower isn't 'beautiful'. Beauty, morality, God..., are all human constructs. Science can tell us how and why we have invented these constructs and how we apply them. The beauty of something is not an inherent property, but a subjective appeal based on biological and psychological factors. I think this flower is beautiful because of my genetics, social conditioning, imprints, the way molecules are tasted and smelled and processed by neurological functions. A flower has no beauty, in any other terms, other that what science can tell us about the subjective attraction to the flower. All philosophy can do is cry about axiomatic grounding and objective truth.

•Epistemology (meaning "knowledge, understanding) - Biology, psychology, linguistics, neurology...,
•Metaphysics ( the fundamental nature of being and the world) - physics, chemistry, biology, their sub-fields, how we approach these through psychology, linguistics, neurology...,
•Ethics - meta, normative, applied, descriptive, (moral propositions and their truth values) History, politics, economics, sociology...,
•Aesthetics - (art, beauty, and taste) biology, psychology, neurology...,

Of course, these can be spread out to many more fields, but only an idiot would resort to philosophy. Even Philosophy has to resort to other fields to scrutinize our axioms. I can question '1 = 1' from a linguistic and psychological standpoint; can we ever have identical viewing of these symbols. Or a physics perspective; am I just using empirical observation to confirm the axiom - one apple is one apple, and so on. Philosophy is dead.

>>3431129
Yeah, but science is a subset of philosophy.

>>3431088
No.

>>3431129
i like how you had to resort to philosophy to tell us philosophy is dead

>>3431129

>>3431137
yep, its axioms rest basically on a presupposition of materialistic external reality and from there a naive empiricism

Well, those are just the philosophers you are familiar with
>fucking casuals

>>3431129
>The flower isn't 'beautiful'. Beauty, morality, God..., are all human constructs. Science can tell us how and why we have invented these constructs and how we apply them. The beauty of something is not an inherent property, but a subjective appeal based on biological and psychological factors. I think this flower is beautiful because of my genetics, social conditioning, imprints, the way molecules are tasted and smelled and processed by neurological functions. A flower has no beauty, in any other terms, other that what science can tell us about the subjective attraction to the flower.
Exceedingly stupid as the idea is...

>>3431129
But some animals very clearly have an appreciation for or at least a knowledge of aesthetics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS1nfkk6M

>>3431129
Please read: >>3431104

>>3431142

Science had it's roots in philosophy. It's the beautiful flower born in shit. Philosophers like Pythagoras, Parmenides, Zeno, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Aristotle..., Were both philosophers and scientists, but science grew up, and philosophy didn't. It's irrelevant which 'team' came up with axioms, as science is happy to use them know, while philosophy is crying about them. Philosophy is now just a whimpering about axioms and objective truth. Move over kids, science has it from here. You are no longer needed.

>>3431164
Have fun trying to make advances in physics without philosophy of mind.

Also fuck this old fiddle.

>>3431164
oh so you admit science is just about dumb application, not about knowledge

>>3431170
>that straw man

>>3431164

only the scientist is naive enough to even talk of objective truth with regard to the "external world." it was only very recently that scientists ceased to have any schooling in philosophy and it shows in the prevalence of modern scientism.

also please respond to this: >>3431115

>>3431162
>dealing with problems not yet open to the methods of science--problems like good and evil, beauty and ugliness, order and freedom, life and death"

You are talking nonsense. Well written nonsense, but still nonsense. Most of your constructs don't exist. And the second part, the 'Science is the analytical description, philosophy is the synthetic interpretation...,' Science is the creation of models to describe reality. That is we can have. I'm saying philosophy is now just a scrutinization of objective truth. There is no room left anywhere for it, as our models describe everything. Science has taken over to the point where questions like 'why is murder evil' are redundant questions.

>>3431178
i'm just repeating what >>3431164 said

>>3431183
>I'm saying philosophy is now just a scrutinization of objective truth.
But that's just a little part of philosophy?

>>3431152

I like this but take a bit of issue. Beauty isn't a property of an object, I agree. The flower is beautiful because of "my genetics, social conditioning, imprints, the way molecules are tasted and smelled and processed by neurological functions". But at the same time it is beautiful because of how its atoms are arranged, its own properties, how its surface reflectance alters my perception of the light. It depends on the other objects around it (is it in a field on a horrid winter's day or during summer's radiance etc). In short, the construct depends not just on my generic and individual capacities but those of all the other elements of the picture.

>>3431188
>implying
>ad hominem

>>3431164

I'm not sure you're reading much philosophy.

>>3431092
>How can Descriptions prove that the flower is beautiful. ? Explain me, please.
The flower isn't 'beautiful'. Beauty, morality, God..., are all human constructs. Descriptions can tell us how and why we have invented these constructs and how we apply them. The beauty of something is not an inherent property, but a subjective appeal based on potato and banana factors. I think this flower is beautiful because of my conditioned potato and peanut, the way molecules are tasted and smelled and processed by pear's functions. A flower has no beauty, in any other terms, other that what Descriptions can tell us about the subjective attraction to the flower. All Food can do is cry about axiomatic grounding and objective truth.

•Epistemology (meaning "knowledge, understanding) - potato, banana, apple, pear...,
•Metaphysics ( the fundamental nature of being and the world) - tomato, cucumber, potato, their sub-fruits, how we approach these through banana, apple, pear...,
•Ethics - meta, normative, applied, descriptive, (moral propositions and their truth values) almonds, hazelnuts, cashews, peanuts...,
•Aesthetics - (art, beauty, and taste) potato, banana, pear...,

Of course, these can be spread out to many more vegetables, but only an idiot would resort to Food. Even Food has to resort to other fields to scrutinize our axioms. I can question '1 = 1' from apple's and banana's standpoint; can we ever have identical viewing of these fruits. Or a tomato's perspective; am I just using empirical observation to confirm the axiom - one apple is one apple, and so on. Food is dead.

Is it possible to be a hobo philosopher? More layman?

>>3431195
I really hope you are not presenting that as a rebuttal.

>>3431190

When we ask about what makes a flower beautiful, we are not asking for a causal explanation. We are looking for the qualities, which when reflected in the mind's eye produce the feeling of the flower being beautiful? What is not understood by scientist-san is that the "proof-game" in aesthetics is quite different from the "proof-game" in science. (And that is quite different from the "proof-game" in history and so on.)

>>3431203
>rebuttal

more like a satiric interpretation of your ridiculous and pitiful trolling abilities

>>3431190

When we ask about what makes a flower beautiful, we are not asking for a causal explanation. We are looking for the qualities, which when reflected in the mind's eye produce the feeling of the flower being beautiful. What is not understood by scientist-san is that the "proof-game" in aesthetics is quite different from the "proof-game" in science. (And that is quite different from the "proof-game" in history and so on.)

>>3431210

So the things I mention have no part in the flower's beauty as conditions for it to be beautiful?

>>3431183
If you really want to believe that beauty is a human construct (which completely goes against science; see: >>3431153) then that's fine. What I'd really like you to do is refute this sentence:
"Science tells us how to heal and how to kill; it reduces the death rate in retail and then kills us in wholesale war; but only wisdom--desire coordinated in the light of all experience--can tell us when to heal and when to kill."

>>3431205
>When we ask about what makes a flower beautiful, we are not asking for a causal explanation. We are looking for the qualities, which when reflected in the mind's eye produce the feeling of the flower being beautiful?

And where are you going to find these qualities? You can't. You can ask the neurologist, the biologist, the psychologist why the patient is responding to the flower. You can ask the physicist and the organic chemists about the composition of the flower, you can ask the optician about how they eye perceives the flower. You can ask the linguist about the words used. You can ask numerous other scientists for their input, but what is the philosopher doing now? He sees the model of beauty that science has created, but can he take part in this? No. He is obsolete. He now sits in his chair and screams at the STEM's for subscribing to axioms, and rages that their model is not objectively true. He has no other part in the analysis of reality.

>>3431220

If the physical makeup of the flower increases the feeling of the flower being beautiful then the physics of it matters. If not, no.

>>3431220
The flower's beauty not only attracts humans, but also birds and bees. To the point that the birds the and bees literally help flowers have sex. Hence the old idiom. Without that inherent beauty (that science can't explain in words) pollination wouldn't take place and life wouldn't exist.

>>3431229
>Aesthetic questions have nothing to do with psychological experiments, but are answered in an entirely different way.
>"What is in my mind when I say so and so?" I write a sentence. One word isn't the one I need. I find the right word. "what is it I want to say? Oh yes, that is what I wanted." The answer in these cases is the one that satisfied you, e.g.someone says (as we often say in philosophy): "I will tell you what is at the back of your mind..."
>"Ah, yes quite so."
>The criterion for it being the one that was in your mind is that when I tell you, you agree.

You find out by asking someone. He responds: "I really like the color."

That's the answer.

>>3431210

The qualities? Are you suggesting the flower possess the primary quality "beautiful"? If so then the flower is beautiful-in itself, which makes no sense.

Secondly, 'the mind's eye' is not something a scientist could take seriously. It is not a concept of natural science but Cartesian introspection.

>>3431238
This is true. Some plants have evolved petals with stripes and dots (patterns humans find aesthetically pleasing) in the ultraviolet range (which bees see color in) for the express purpose of attracting bees.

Science can explain how that aesthetic evolution took place within that plant to attract more bees. It can't explain why.

>>3431233

My point, which you've entirely missed, was that beauty is an emergent property across the flower-world-observer network. Beauty doesn't belong to the flower or the observer.

Answers for the answers are nothing. This desperation for answers happened for a historic reason. There isn't nearly enough thought given to deal with uncertainties. A need for closure, conclusion, a response that is definite or usable is what is now driving people to philosophy, science, religion and art. You want to dispose yourself of the question as quick and effective as possible. For that, science gets the most recognition, religion becomes utter meaningless and false, art becomes merely decorative, philosophy is left looking like a dog chasing its own tail. The role of this imediate and utilitarian approach is ingrained in the way we handle these things, from changing channels to discussing these things. The very speed of the spin of this wheel has taken the place of the God announced dead by Nietzsche. It is that which makes us feel the weight of this "blah blah blah" and a profound desire to just roll for the answer, disregarding all that, without understanding where the question is coming from, what you gain from the answer, if should you even answer it. Uncertainty is unacceptable. It is much more than saying this approach is better than that, but to see that there is a way of thinking that predates the entire debate, giving the advantage to one instead of the other. To conclude why this is seen as higher than that is to discover a deeper set of circumstances underlying the whole thing, also allowing us to know where, when and why one could think differently.

>>3431243
>>3431243
>Secondly, 'the mind's eye' is not something a scientist could take seriously. It is not a concept of natural science but Cartesian introspection.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/m/23-the-brain-look-deep-into-mindeye#.UQ623qVQXK0

You're a bad troll.

>>3431238

Birds and bees are not attracted to a flower because it is beautiful. Their visual systems are different from ours; in the case of bird's radically so. All three species may encounter the same flower but their experience of the flower is incommensurable.

>>3431226
>If you really want to believe that beauty is a human construct (which completely goes against science; see: >>3431153
The birds don't find each other 'beautiful'. They are responding to instinctive imperatives. You no longer need to fear predators in your own kitchen, but you will jump if someone jumps out from a cupboard. You are still ruled by survival, and reproductive neurological functions; the same as those birds using mating displays and coloured feathers.

>but only wisdom--desire coordinated in the light of all experience--can tell us when to heal and when to kill."
This is not an argument. You are setting up 'heal' as being good, and anything that goes against it as bad. You are imprinting your own subjective good/bad dichotomy over the top of reality.

>>3431256
>http://discovermagazine.com/2010/r/23-the-brain-look-deep-into-min-eye#.UQ623qVQXK0

You're a bad reader. 'Mind's eye' is a metaphor here. It refers to 'a particular network of brain regions [that] becomes active, including areas that process raw signals from your eyes'.

I find it funny that every philosopher happily admits that science is necessary and extremely helpful to society, but you'll never find a fully left-brained hardliner scientist willing to admit the importance of philosophy.

They have a symbiotic relationship. One cannot exist without the other.

ITT: /sci/ pseudo-intellectually determined nerds who can't into Aesthetics, Introspection and Phenomenology raiding /lit/

>>3431048
Because up until 60 years ago those were the only people that got into university you fucking retard

>>3431243
>>3431254

I'm saying that an object being beautiful means that it has produced the feeling of it being beautiful. Beauty is imposed by the observer.

Further, my greatest point is that the goal and "proof-game" in aesthetics is different than that in the natural science. I don't care if the science takes me seriously because I am not doing science. The issue with thinkers like yourself is that you can do science and nothing else. You are incapable of removing yourself from the "game" of scientific discourse.

>>3431281
So do you admit then that the current University system is built on aristocracy and feudal stratification and should be dismantled?

>>3431276
>Phenomenology
Don't mention to them that it's both a philosophy and a science, you'll make their heads burst

>>3431289
Why should something be dismantled just because it doesn't work?
The University system reflects the society it resides in
The fairest method of higher education is a first-come first-served (past the entry requirements, obiously), with education completely funded by the state.

>>3431286

I'm not making a scientific argument. I'm making a philosophical argument that makes use of science. In order for beauty to be 'imposed by the observer' the thing itself has to be a certain way. Otherwise you are talking idealism.

>Implying psychology is a science
Just because it uses the scientific method doesn't mean it is a science
History uses the scientific method, but it's a humanity
Explain that atheists
God: 1! Atheists: 0!

>>3431302
>Why should something be dismantled just because it doesn't work?

The entire education system in America needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up. You're correct about it reflecting the society it resides in.

>>3431289
>Current university system
I said up until 60 years ago, are you a fucking idiot? The modern system is okay, though the tripartite system (with a little modification for inter-institutional mobility) is best for equality. The university system, however, shouldn't change.

>>3431308
Both explanations are equally applicable to atheistic and theistic worldviews, stop being an asshat.
Also, what is a science if not a subject that uses the scientific method? There is nothing necessarily praiseworthy about being a science, that's a terrible preconception

>>3431308
>Just because it uses the scientific method doesn't mean it is a science

You are definitively wrong.

http://xefer.com/wikipedia

Type in literally any (real) word you can think of. Have fun /sci/fags.

>>3431329
I'm not him, but I don't think he is implying anything to be praiseworthy, on the contrary, you can't dismiss psychology nor history with a test tube mentality, because they are in the humanities.

>Both explanations are equally applicable to atheistic and theistic worldviews
You are a newfag.

God: 2
Tolkien: 0
Atheists: 4
Eagles: pi

>>3431335
???????????
???????????
profit/philosophy

>>3431080

Philosophy=no objective truth? You may want to stop generalising specific philosophical positions to all philosophy.

>>3431335

>>3431336
It's the difference between the natural sciences and the human sciences

>>3431329
A science is more than just the scientific method, I can apply the method to walking, but that doesn't make walking a science
A science should tell us something about the world we inhabit at a fundamental level
Science is primarily about discovering the workings of the world, and then about humanity
Philosophy comes in a close third after the human sciences
Human sciences aren't pure science, and philosophy, while it is the logical continuation of this argument, is sufficiently detached from the role of science that it is not a science.
See also languages.

>>3431335
bookmarked.

>>3431335
You can get to Physics from any wikipedia page too.

>>3431363
The application of the scientific method to something is what we call science. How are you not getting this? I'm not differentiating between human and natural science; those are both types of science. I simply said that using the scientific method is what qualifies something to be science, whether it produces any certain kind of knowledge or otherwise is irrelevant. The difference between philosophical physics (I.e Aristotelian) and the science known as physics is the scientific method.

>>3431304
>I'm not making a scientific argument. I'm making a philosophical argument that makes use of science.

That bit wasn't directed at you.

>In order for beauty to be 'imposed by the observer' the thing itself has to be a certain way. Otherwise you are talking idealism.

Beauty is imposed by a reaction to the thing; it is not caused by the thing itself. When you say that it is beautiful you might as well be saying that it is "quite right" or "most agreeable". The coat has the right length. I have selected the right word. That one has the reaction can be explained with genealogical and scientific discourse with the use of terms external to one's mind, but that's beside the point.

>>3431371
Only because physics comes directly from natural science which comes directly from philosophy.

>>3431356
>>3431335
Conclusions:
- Penis is more directly connected with philosophy
- Vagina and ass need to go through logic to get to philosophy
- Only the ass is linked with science

Penis > Philosophy > Vagina = Ass > Logic > Science
Obviously

lel

Why are most /lit/ posters middle-class and snobby white boys born into suburban families with spoons up their asses to this day?

>>3431375

> Beauty is imposed by a reaction to the thing; it is not caused by the thing itself.

We aren't disagreeing then

>>3431387
I'm darker skinned and am poor as shit.

>>3431387
They aren't, most of us are pretty fucking poor, though I may be generalising from myself

Because there's only three kinds of people:

At the bottom-tier; people with knowledge of philosophy, metaphysics, general 'deeper' thinking, but can't make use of their knowledge. Generally end up being outcasts, depressed, etc. Limitations might not only be economic, might lack self-confidence, have depression, physical barrier, didn't have knowledge at the right time.

Middle-tier are the ignorant who supply the workforce for the rich and the wealthy. Just need to be happy and content with life enough to not think things are bad. Will supply work for workforce, obviously.

High-tier are those of 'deeper' thinking who actually can make use of it. Rich, wealthy, go-getters. So on and so forth.

>>3431401
> High-tier are those of 'deeper' thinking who actually can make use of it. Rich, wealthy, go-getters. So on and so forth.


This despite the fact that almost all "deep-thinkers" reject this as a goal.

>>3431407
Philosophy does not have one correct answer. Plenty of Philosophers find material wealth to be a worthy goal.

>>3431416
>Plenty of Philosophers find material wealth to be a worthy goal.

And none of them are worth a damn.

>>3431401
>At the bottom-tier; people with knowledge of philosophy, metaphysics, general 'deeper' thinking, but can't make use of their knowledge. Generally end up being outcasts, depressed, etc. Limitations might not only be economic, might lack self-confidence, have depression, physical barrier, didn't have knowledge at the right time.

It doesn't help that these types are often surrounded by people who just do not give a shit about any of that.

>>3431424
How does it feel being bottom-tier?

>>3431124
LOL, and why do they seem to frequent /lit/ so aggressively?

>>3431201
See diogenes

>>3431201
Lrn2Diogenes

>>3431401
>High-tier are those of 'deeper' thinking who actually can make use of it. Rich, wealthy, go-getters. So on and so forth.

you are severely delusioned and have no idea what you're talking about

>>3431075
Seriously learn to context.
Aristocrats never go penningless. Penningless is like they lost 3 villas but still have the two apartments in New York and Paris.

They have relatives and a legacy filled with people that give them money.

>>3431453
Penniless you dense motherfucker

>>3431437

Feels good. Nearly all good thinkers have been strangers to their times. I prefer novelty in thought and human relationships to anything material.

>>3431408
Type nigger and job, watch society unravel

>>3431458
I like you

>>3431458
>anything material

How'd you get your computer, then?

>>3431466
I made it myself.

>>3431469
Including the monitor and the keyboard? You wired it all youself?

I assume you're also stealing internet, then?

>>3431466

I mean that if i have to choose between the material and the immaterial, I choose the immaterial. The computer helps me reach out to people who need it, and so I make good use of it.

>>3431453

He really was penniless. He just had lots of friends who loved and revered him. I believe most of his family fortune was also lost when they paid off the nazis, but i could be wrong.

>being trolled this easy

so, it this what lit actually looks like or are you being invaded by other boards?

>>3431466
>I prefer thinking than having stuff
>omg so y u hav comptuer? n do u use money? do u eat?
classic

>>3431485
Unfortunately this is what we're like.


I wouldn't have it any other way

>>3431496
invader detected

>>3431139

/thread

Yet everybody kept on.

>>3431512
Nope! I rarely venture out of lit to be honest. If you couldn't tell my previous post was joke.

>>3431516
He didn't resort to philosophy.

>>3431387

I wish

>>3431472
>Physical thing
>Internet
Are people in the real world THIS retarded?

>>3431567
Yes. They also think virtual means "stuff in computer", that images are made of pixels, that positive means "good", and that by saying "philosophy is a language game" they are not playing the game, let alone saying it's dead.

>>3431048
they had the education and time to think about such things. Everyone else had to bust their asses to survive.

>>3431587
I'm sorry, your point is completely escaping me, are you being a sarcastic prick?

>>3431609
There is no sarcasm in what I wrote, I'm genuinely complaing about people being that retarded, like you said so yourself. And then I'm just poking those dismissing philosophy here, not you. Not like a care to join thread, though.

>>3431609

He is referring to the distinction between virtual (capacity or potential aspect of the real) and the actual (those potentials that are enacted).

>>3431567
well technically the internet weights 52 grams

>>3431642
did you weigh the internet yourself?

>>3431671
electrons, son
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/j/how-much-does-the-internet-weighUQ77IqFU4gE

>>3431080
You are 1 cheeky Kant m8 deserves an image macro.

>>3431104
A good post, I like your prose.

>>3431115
Lrn2MRI. We have machines now which will move around when you give them a command with your mind, what makes you think we won't eventually figure out what makes someone enjoy television or books.

>>3433476
>Exceedingly stupid as the idea is, this is roughly it.

The whole point is that we aren't looking for a scientific explanation. Why do I say "I have a pain!"? because I have a fucking pain, not because my neurons are firing at such and such rate. Why do I say "This word is not right!"? because I feel it to be incorrect, not because my neurons are firing at such and such rate.

Statements in aesthetics are exclamations. They are expressions of a feeling that happens internally.

>>3431080
Just curious whoever posted this. I am interested in what you read.

Please respond

>>3433539

he doesn't read

>>3433502
>The whole point is that we aren't looking for a scientific explanation.
You mean you're not. Don't speak for us.

>Why do I say "I have a pain!"? because I have a fucking pain, not because my neurons are firing at such and such rate.
If you ever break a leg, be thankful people weren't as ignorant as you. You will probably be given strong painkillers, anaesthetic, or another way of blocking the nerve signal or certain receptors from firing.

>>3433547
Captain lower case strikes again.

>>3433556

autism, ladies and gentlemen

>>3433567
What? Grow up, child.

>>3433571
>When we ask about what makes a flower beautiful, we are not asking for a causal explanation. We are looking for the qualities, which when reflected in the mind's eye produce the feeling of the flower being beautiful. What is not understood by scientist-san is that the "proof-game" in aesthetics is quite different from the "proof-game" in science. (And that is quite different from the "proof-game" in history and so on.)
>The issue with thinkers like yourself is that you can do science and nothing else. You are incapable of removing yourself from the "game" of scientific discourse.

>>3433572
>The issue with thinkers like yourself is that you can do science and nothing else.
Why are you blithering about flowers though? We were talking about pain being related to neurology. Anyone claiming that neurons firing is absolutely irrelevant is obviously quite ignorant.

>>3433576
>Exceedingly stupid as the idea is, this is roughly it.

we were not

>>3433577
>we were not

>Why do I say "I have a pain!"? because I have a fucking pain, not because my neurons are firing at such and such rate.
>Why do I say "I have a pain!"? because I have a fucking pain, not because my neurons are firing at such and such rate.
>Why do I say "I have a pain!"? because I have a fucking pain, not because my neurons are firing at such and such rate.
>Why do I say "I have a pain!"? because I have a fucking pain, not because my neurons are firing at such and such rate.
>Why do I say "I have a pain!"? because I have a fucking pain, not because my neurons are firing at such and such rate.
>Why do I say "I have a pain!"? because I have a fucking pain, not because my neurons are firing at such and such rate.

>>3431048

Because the poor can't afford the time to think.

>>3433578
>"What is in my mind when I say so and so?" I write a sentence. One word isn't the one I need. I find the right word. "what is it I want to say? Oh yes, that is what I wanted." The answer in these cases is the one that satisfied you, e.g.someone says (as we often say in philosophy): "I will tell you what is at the back of your mind..."
>"Ah, yes quite so."
>The criterion for it being the one that was in your mind is that when I tell you, you agree.

>>3431048
If this were true, i'd be tempted to cite Maslow

But it's not, so the point is moot.

>>3431048
Only since capitalism.

In the middle ages, the poor like us could be philosophers. You just had to join the priesthood.

>>3431064
This might shock you, but they were white because Europe used to be a place with only white people in it.

>>3433590
nostalgia'd hard.

>>3431129
The kind of reductionism is why science fails. You abstract away all the particulars of the subject leaving yourself with pure property-less abstraction.

A rose is beautiful because beauty is part of a rose's essence.

>>3431164
Prove the objective world exists.

>>3431229
You obviously don't know much about philosophy beyond your participation this board and wikipedia articles.

>>3433502
>Why do I say "I have a pain!"? because I have a fucking pain, not because my neurons are firing at such and such rate. Why do I say "This word is not right!"? because I feel it to be incorrect, not because my neurons are firing at such and such rate.

This is the most ignorant thing I've read in weeks, and I spend a good deal of time on /v/.

Please, either educate yourself, or jump off a fucking cliff.

>>3433602
>and I spend a good deal of time on /v/.

perhaps you should attempt to understand the context of my statement

>>3431379

>>3433612
>and I spend a good deal of time on /v/.
And if I spent more time on this board, I'd be screaming "ad hominem" at you.

I understand your post, and its context, perfectly well. I would explain to you why you're wrong, but given your response to >>3433556, it's unlikely any good would come of it.

>>3433622

>>3433632
>I'll just keep posting reaction images! That'll show 'em!

>>3433502
>when I feel pain, it is because I feel pain, not because my neurons are firing
>when I like a book it is because something in it appeals to me, not because my neurons are firing.
>whycan'twehaveboth.jpg

You like the book and there is some process in the brain that makes you like it. Eventually we will decipher what that is.

>>3433643

>>3433647
>The whole point is that we aren't looking for a scientific explanation.
>Statements in aesthetics are exclamations.
>They are expressions of a feeling that happens internally.
>What is not understood by scientist-san is that the "proof-game" in aesthetics is quite different from the "proof-game" in science. (And that is quite different from the "proof-game" in history and so on.)
>The issue with thinkers like yourself is that you can do science and nothing else. You are incapable of removing yourself from the "game" of scientific discourse.

I don't care what the process is. That is not a question in aesthetics. It is a scientific question.

>>3433658
>It is a scientific question.
Don't leave us hanging, please elaborate what you mean.

>>3433658
Can you not see how understanding the neural process behind how some work of art appeals to us has implications for aesthetics?

Scientific questions can influence philosophy. It's been doing it for centuries.

>>3433658
Not caring about it does not mean that it doesn't exist, and it most certainly does not mean that scientific investigation of this process is meaningless.

You're failing to understand the redundancy of aesthetics, and arguing that "because this question is part of so-and-so field, it cannot be answered by this different field" - which, needless to say, is nonsense.

>>3433665

You know what science is. It can describe the process. I am not interested in the process at this time because I am doing aesthetics.

>>3433667
>Can you not see how understanding the neural process behind how some work of art appeals to us has implications for aesthetics?
You think people will suddenly go "well, this neural cognate means that beauty is such and such, and so I have now determined that this piece is ugly" or similar?

>>3433658
>That is not a question in aesthetics. It is a scientific question

I think the point is that aesthetics is redundant. Your pain is not some magical quality, it's being produced by your nervous system. Equally the book is appealing to you for a wide range of neurological factors. I know you want to go full >>>/x/ and say beauty is an intrinsic quality, but it's not. The philosophical issues of aesthetics can only be met in science fields, otherwise you are just writing poetry.

It was acceptable in ye good olde days when they didn't know any better, but there's no excuse for it now.

>>3433669
>You know what science is.
I know a few different ideas of what science is. We talking in early enlightenment Lockean terms, later enlightenment Humean terms, Feyerabend's view, Quine's view, Bachelard, Hegel...? Again, elaborate.

>>3433670
No, but I think it will help explain why some people think it to be so.

>>3433673
>The philosophical issues of aesthetics can only be met in science fields, otherwise you are just writing poetry.

This.

>>3433679
I doubt it. Neural correlates are not as well defined as you seem to think. The brain really isn't like an unchanging mechanism. It's very fluid, as is the world around it. And aesthetics, like language, has a presence out there at least as much as up here.

>>3433683
>implying that the fundamental mode of apprehension isn't poetic, that language isn't extended through metaphor, and that language doesn't derive its sense from common experience just as a poem does

note that i have expliscitly stated:

>"Beauty is imposed by a reaction to the thing; it is not caused by the thing itself. When you say that it is beautiful you might as well be saying that it is "quite right" or "most agreeable". The coat has the right length. I have selected the right word. That one has the reaction can be explained with genealogical and scientific discourse with the use of terms external to one's mind, but that's beside the point.""

>>3433676

ordinary terms. the goal of science are models that can be used for accurate prediction. when i do aesthetics i am looking for an explanation that i can feel at home in.

>>3433673
>missing the point

>>3433670

i like this post

>>3433686
>The brain really isn't like an unchanging mechanism. It's very fluid, as is the world around it.

Stop acting as if you understand neuroscience; your knowledge of it is obviously limited to what you gleaned from the occasional news article.

>>3433686
>And aesthetics, like language, has a presence out there at least as much as up here.

We can analyse the stimuli too. We can look at how the object interacts with light to give the impression of colour, or how the string resonates to produce sound waves, but any perceived beauty is done purely by the individual.

>>3433697
>Stop acting as if you understand neuroscience
Ha di ha di ha. Go at least read some of Crick and Koch's work and try again.

>>3433694
>when i do aesthetics i am looking for an explanation that i can feel at home in.
And that is your problem. You are actively looking for an explanation that isn't there. You might as well resort to 'God made the flower pretty'.

>>3433701
You're missing my point, and acting as if neuroplasticity backs up everything you just said. Stop name-dropping, and come up with something substantive.

>>3433694
>the goal of science are models that can be used for accurate prediction.

Grotesque overgeneralization.

>when i do aesthetics i am looking for an explanation that i can feel at home in.

That's both unscientific and unphilosophical.

I don't think flowers are beautiful at all. I have sever hayfever and flowers just make me think of headaches and snot. That waxy texture the petals have just makes me cringe too. Anything summery is just wasps, sticky things, sneezes, sunburn and discomfort.

>>3433686

Argument: Knowledge of how the brain works will help us understand how and why people like film,books,music etc.
Response: Doubtful, because the brain is changing.

Yes, and...?

I'm giving an example here of how neuroscience can assist in explaining how art appeals. You certainly aren't stating that how it appeals to them will be true for all people at all times. You're just looking at how an individual responds, and maybe aggregating data from many individuals.

>>3433704

I think the issue is that you can only get cozy with scientific explanations. Think to yourself, why do you prefer this type of explanation. What justifies it?

>>3433705
>and acting as if neuroplasticity backs up everything you just said.
Neural correlates are at best tenuously related to neuroplasticity, and do not rely on it as an assumption, pop sci anon. This is a little bit more complicated than you might think.

>>3433707
>Grotesque overgeneralization.

give a better account

>That's both unscientific and unphilosophical.

well Wittgenstein was the end of philosophy...

>>3433708
>Anything summery is just wasps, sticky things, sneezes, sunburn and discomfort.

So does your waifu take exception to you pissing in bottles, or is that one of the compromises she makes in the relationship.

>>3433673
>WOT IN THE HELL IS ESTHETHICS.. FUG.... ILL JUST NAMEDROP SOME NEURANS LOL !!! XDDDDDD
>U CAN REDUCE MOZART, BACH AND BEETHOVEN TO QUARKS ITS SCIENCE MAN. U R LISTENIN TO QUARKS DUDE.
>THERFOR AESTHETICS IRRELEVANT N IS MAGIC /X/ XDDDDD

how nice of you to grace us with your anti-intellectual participation in a discussion out of your competence and understanding, trying to justify your inability to appreciate aesthetics by hiding your wretched mug under irrelevant disciplines of neurology

you /sci/, borderline autistic kids sure deliver all the requisite jocularity.

>>3431188
anarchism: basically, just a bunch of huge beards

>>3433694
These are just the words of someone who is poorly educated in the Philosophy of Science. The notion that you can somehow discern the "difference" between 'science' and 'aesthetics' by a simple application of pragmatics is absurd for several reasons. The first is that it appears you're simply making that argument for usefulness and brevity's sake, and the second is that in applying said pragmatics to the (false) dichotomy you're sketching, you're making a philosophical judgment using a scientific tool (I am using vague terms such as 'judgment' and 'tool' to point out the vagueness of your verbiage and expression) -- exactly the sort of thing you claim is impossible/irrelevant.

Now here's the problem with the Scientistic (look it up if you don't know it) worldview so prevalent among non-contigualists (David Lewis would call you an 'Ersatzer') like you: in invoking "Science", this omnipotent, looming and augurous arbiter of truth, the foundation upon which you tread is faulty. That is, you use terms like "truth", which is hardly a tenable, provable, deductible, etc. term to use (as a simple look at the Liar Paradox would show), and you presume a non-Fictionalist viewpoint -- something there is very little reason outside pragmatics to do (and, remember, if you're appealing to pragmatics, you're implicitly confirming the view you oppose). These problems on their own can be accepted on "science"s own terms, but the problem comes from when you start examining these foundations, i.e. looking at the notion of "truth", as Tarski the former mathematician did. You know why? Because at that point, you are doing Philosophy, the methods of which are supposedly distinct from science's. Your position is untenable. Inextricable linkage.
Read some Quine, bro. Pragmatism necessitates contigualism.

>>3433715
I'm not sure I understand what that means. I'm not actually married, but I still go out in the summertime. I just take massive doses of antihistamines.

>>3433718
>grace us with your anti-intellectual...
The irony is bordering on painful.

>>3433712
Now you're backpedaling. You were talking about how fluid and mystic and unquantifiable the brain was, and I politely interpreted that as a reference to neuroplasticity. I guess a few searches on Wikipedia have convinced you to try a different line of attack.

>>3433721
>start examining these foundations, i.e. looking at the notion of "truth",

Read this post again >>3431080 particularly:
>" It now lies in it's own excrement, pointing an emaciated finger at the scientific method and crying "Objective truth, no objective truth."
>"So go ahead, fuckers, point your philosophical fingers and tell me that I can't have axioms or objective truth, but that's all you bitches can do."

>>3433722
>No knowledge of waifu or NEET

I take it you are new here? That's alright, friendo. That's okay.

>>3433730
>Now you're backpedaling
Really not, you're just failing to understand through limited knowledge I'm afraid.

>>3433721
>These are just the words of someone who is poorly educated in the Philosophy of Science. The notion that you can somehow discern the "difference" between 'science' and 'aesthetics' by a simple application of pragmatics is absurd for several reasons. The first is that it appears you're simply making that argument for usefulness and brevity's sake, and the second is that in applying said pragmatics to the (false) dichotomy you're sketching, you're making a philosophical judgment using a scientific tool (I am using vague terms such as 'judgment' and 'tool' to point out the vagueness of your verbiage and expression) -- exactly the sort of thing you claim is impossible/irrelevant.

point out the error

>Now here's the problem with the Scientistic (look it up if you don't know it) worldview so prevalent among non-contigualists (David Lewis would call you an 'Ersatzer') like you: in invoking "Science", this omnipotent...

you don't understand a word i'm saying, despite your affected verbosity. i'm arguing against a scientistic worldview, indeed against the formation of concrete worldviews in general. if you've read Wittgenstein, you'd know that my arguments are from one of his published lectures on aesthetics. this post >>3431115 is verbatim from the lecture notes.

>>3433731
It's funny that he only uses German Idealists as his examples of why Philosophy is useless. The philosopher's I've cited are all within the Analytic tradition, and do utilize certain folkways and methods of rationality. It's serious business, as you'd understand if you read some of it. Look at the work of Donald Davidson and Alfred Tarski. It's hard to say that serious progress isn't being made in the Philosophy of Language. The reduction of semantics to formal logic is one of the most important developments in all human knowledge. Linguists, neuroscientists, computer scientists, and cognitive scientists all accept this.

Second, "Pointing our philosophical fingers" is all we can do for science? Really? You might want to tell that to Alan Turing, Noam Chomsky, Joshua Knobe, David Lewis, for Christ's sake! Frank P. Ramsey! J.M. Keynes! Jerry Fodor! It's invalid as a rhetorical point because it's just factually *incorrect*.

Third, I don't think anyone's saying that philosophy is the most powerful arbiter of the future course of science and/or its methods. The discipline, however, has *proven* a worthy member of experience-sorting methods, both on its own terms, *and* on science's. Philosophers are very much aware that it is largely unlikely that science will change its course due to philosophical developments (even though such things are becoming increasingly common) in this day and age, but that doesn't invalidate anything I said in >>3433721

>>3433736
Please, explain to stupid little me how something so general as neural correlates backs up your ideas of the purity of aesthetics, and how your talk of fluidity was in reference to something other than plasticity instead of just hurling insults. Oh, is it that my limited knowledge is preventing me from seeing your flimsy arguments as intelligent? You haven't demonstrated even a vague understanding of what you're talking about, let alone comprehension.

>>3433741
Sorry, didn't realize >>3431115 was you, as well. That changes your position, a bit. Apologies.

As to my "affected verbosity", I'm not sure why verbosity is so horrible a thing. I'm having fun on an online image board. I think what I've been saying is largely comprehensible.

That said, Quinean contigualist arguments still apply to Wittgenstein, including the passage you quoted. Pragmatism (even in the twisted Wittgensteinian way) necessitates contigualism, and vice-versa.

A note for context: I personally often lean towards a Dummettian (i.e. Neo-Wittgensteinian) Anti-Realist worldview, so it's not as if I'm not a friend to his late philosophy.

>>3433741
>The first is that it appears you're simply making that argument for usefulness and brevity's sake
Nobody is claiming any kind of utility in aesthetics. We are making the argument that the music of Beethoven is no better or worse than that of Justin Beiber. We are saying that a thirteen year old girl may like Justin Beiber and someone trained in classical music is more likely to say Beethoven. We are making three claims:

1. That this is a result of biological factors, and science gives us thousands of models to understand these.
2. That the 'beauty' of either piece isn't an inherent quality in the music. The music just exists as sounds, but the 'beauty' exists in the subjective experience of listening to it, which is why we have different opinions of which piece is beautiful.
3. The words good/bad better/worse good/evil don't exist in nature, and are constructed by us to overlay on top of reality in situations like these.

>>3433751
>We are making the argument that the music of Beethoven is no better or worse than that of Justin Beiber
>That this is a result of biological factors, and science gives us thousands of models to understand these.

holy mother of fuck.

>>3433751
>That this is a result of biological factors, and science gives us thousands of models to understand these.
Knowing 'how' something works is not the same as 'why' it works. Using science to explain everything gets you caught up in an endless recursion of 'how' -> 'why' questions but doesn't provide an means to an end. When do you take the end point and stop?
>That the 'beauty' of either piece isn't an inherent quality in the music. The music just exists as sounds, but the 'beauty' exists in the subjective experience of listening to it, which is why we have different opinions of which piece is beautiful.

Are you saying to like JB and Beethoven are two mutually exclusive things? What if one person may like LB but detests JB yet at the same time someone who likes JB finds beauty in LB as well?

>The words good/bad better/worse good/evil don't exist in nature, and are constructed by us to overlay on top of reality in situations like these.

You may well say that our entire language is simply a social/human construction by us to interact with, and explain reality. Does language not therefore exist in nature? Does it make it any less relevant in its use? The words may not exist but do the concepts?

>>3433751
I disagree with the second part of "1". I object to your use of the word "understand".
I'm not disagreeing with the idea that "quality" is universally subjective (though I *do* disagree with that), but rather that the folkways of science are as faulty as those of philosophy. I'm also claiming (for the sake of argument), beyond this, that science and philosophy are contiguous. Philosophy is as different from Physics as Mathematics is from Biology, for example. Math, Science, Philosophy, all different, equally integral parts of the same edifice. I reject imposing a fact-value dichotomy, then claiming one 'discipline' governs over one half, and the other 'discipline' the other.

>>3433769
>>3433771
10/10 troll baits

>>3433769
>Knowing 'how' something works is not the same as 'why' it works.
We can have that too. We know why a lot of out behaviour exists. As someone pointed out earlier, if I jump out from a cupboard you will get scared, your heart will race, you may even scream. This is left over from a time when we really needed to have a fear of predators. All of our behaviour is modified survival instincts, with social programming. Knowing the how can give us the why.

>Are you saying to like JB and Beethoven are two mutually exclusive things?
Yes and no. They are two separate pieces of music, but we can view all music as one spectrum. We can also view the aesthetic or moral preferences of the individual as a spectrum. The subjective good/bad dichotomy is what categorizes and separates. These pieces are not good or bad, they are just sounds.

>You may well say that our entire language is simply a social/human construction by us to interact with, and explain reality.
Yes
>Does language not therefore exist in nature?
Some of the nouns, or things we describe are actual material things, but language is artificial and in some cases inadequate. A lot of our concepts are total fabrications, but they can influence reality.

>>3433777
Back to /b/.
Trying to have an intelligent conversation. The two posters have different arguments, as well.

>>3433778
Then what about skepticism of meaning? How is language artificial if it occurs and coalesces naturally?

>>3433797
>Engaging in a discussion with a /sci/ raiding partisan of materialism, reductionism and scientism combined

Lol. There is a reason why no one takes you seriously, except those 2 gullible faggots I linked.

>>3433804
>Then what about skepticism of meaning?
Language, like various disciplines of the scientific method or even mathematics, is a representation model. We form a linguistic mental grid and pin reality to it.

>How is language artificial if it occurs and coalesces naturally?
I'm using artificial to denote a creation of man. We have arrived at certain linguistic conclusions through faulty observation. Our linguistic grid doesn't always correlate to reality, and therefore a concept which is entirely 'artificial' like the word 'good' is treated as a property of reality.

In aesthetics this leads us to believe that 'good' is something other than a property we have created.

>>3433744
>Please, explain to stupid little me how something so general as neural correlates
First I'd have to explain what "neural correlates" means, but I'd rather you just look up and read Crick and Koch's work. And presumably you would to, since you seem to at least be feigning an interest in all this. You also seem to be having some trouble, though, getting your head around the idea that neuroscience isn't just concerned with what's in the brain or exactly how neurons fit together. If you can imagine disregarding those baseless assumptions, then you can perhaps imagine the possibility that fluidity doesn't rely upon an assumption of neuroplasticity. As an analogy, imagine this is about my plain old nutcracker. I claim that my nutcracker doesn't just crack nuts, you're coming in and going "Well, it must be some kind of Swiss Army nutcracker then", not suspecting that I can reply by bopping you on the head with it.

>>3433895
>neuroscience isn't just concerned with what's in the brain or exactly how neurons fit together

Either you're pointing towards baseless mysticism to support yourself, or you're being deliberately opaque because you don't quite understand what you're talking about. Nauseating.

> not suspecting that I can reply by bopping you on the head with it.

This does seem to be the style of most of your replies, but not quite in the way that you meant.

Again, a reply totally devoid of substance. Really, you're just posting the same thing over and over again: "I'm right, and what you say is meaningless because you obviously don't understand what I'm talking about. This absolves me of any duty to explain exactly why I'm right.".

If you're willing to, at some point, actually offer and argument for the separation of aesthetics and neuroscience, I'd be more than happy to listen.

>>3433895
>neuroscience isn't just concerned with what's in the brain or exactly how neurons fit together

Either you're pointing towards baseless mysticism to support yourself, or you're being deliberately opaque because you don't quite understand what you're talking about.

> not suspecting that I can reply by bopping you on the head with it.

This does seem to be the style of most of your replies, but not quite in the way that you meant.

Again, a reply totally devoid of substance. Really, you're just posting the same thing over and over again: "I'm right, and what you say is meaningless because you obviously don't understand what I'm talking about. This absolves me of any duty to explain exactly why I'm right.".

If you're willing to, at some point, actually offer an argument for the separation of aesthetics and neuroscience, I'd be more than happy to listen.

>>3433914
>Again, a reply totally devoid of substance.
Really? You can't work out the difference between "all that a thing can do is based on intrinsic properties" and "all that a thing can do is based on context (relative)"?
>"I'm right, and what you say is meaningless because you obviously don't understand what I'm talking about. This absolves me of any duty to explain exactly why I'm right."
It's more that you have no idea about what you're talking about. And there's no duty to absolve, you may not like being ignorant but I'm not your teacher. I've even gone beyond any duty by giving you specific names to look up.

>>3433943
You're making two assertions here. The first you made quite some time ago, and I pointed that out in my last post. The second is simply an insult.

I'm not asking you to explain anything but your own opinions - this is the duty I was referring to. I'm not asking for you to start from first principles, since we both know that's not necessary. Claiming that I don't/can't understand is just reinforcing, over and over, that you don't have anything of worth to say. It's pretty pathetic.

>>3433950
>Claiming that I don't/can't understand is just reinforcing, over and over, that you don't have anything of worth to say.
To you, at your current level of understanding and attitude, I don't. Indeed the latter half of the sentence follows from the first. So either educate yourself, or stop whining about not being spoonfed.

>>3433950
Oh, and please don't try saying that your interpretation is obviously implicated in the literature, and that anyone reading it will be inescapably drawn to your conclusions. That kind of cop-out is almost as bad as what you're doing now.

>>3433958
>>3433957
>>3433950
>>3433943

I think you two had better state your opinions in the form of a battle rap.

>>3433965
This is a good suggestion, brb.

>>3433957
You're confused. Understandable, given the intelligence you've displayed so far.

>So either educate yourself, or stop whining about not being spoonfed.

See >>3433958

>>3433965
This is the other guy. It's fucking on.

>>3433965
>>3433972
Okay literary people on the board...
This is something you never witnessed before...
Yes, it's the incredible Anon E. Mous...
Explaining all the meaning of NC, Neural Correlates
And belatedly relatedly coalesce the three aesthetically fluidity and brain states
(Sorry to keep you waiting, but the explanation made me snooze
and yeah, finally I am on the move)
so listen closely so y'all don't miss
as we go a little something like this, HIT IT!

>>3434248
Ha di ha di you think you're Moriarty
But I'm Sherlock here to school you, no need to get your smarty
pants, up in an bunch, all up here on /lit/
This here's your Reichenbach, you're gonna have to admit
that you're a fool and take a fall, with this spoonfeeding help
So just open wide and enjoy yourself
Cause it's cool when you see those neurals correlating
Stumped up on this final problem, cause I've got the solution
So, listen close, to what I say
Because this type of shit ain't explained everyday:

There are certain conscious states to certain brain states are relating,
Which allows us to take certain everyday abstractions
Like consciousness, or concepts, or emotions like love
Even ideas like aesthetics mentioned above, and
not need look at neuron configurition specifically
(which is why the idea that I assume "neuroplasticity"
Is a corrollary you've flung on me erroneously)

>>3434250
Now I've covered that, allow me to restate
This ain't about neurons, it's about your brain's state
(and to further point out, there's no assumed causation
from the brain to aesthetics, it's just correlations)
Is your brain's state about neurons, how they fire or are placed?
Or is it about stimulus, what's in front of your face?
It ain't no sucka NC don't care
Exactly why I'm rockin this post right here
But that if you could find another MC so fly
And get us both to rap in an MRI
That even if our brains are wired differently
That the way they're lighting up has similarities
And, just like with a nutcracker that bops you on the head
It's a question of sufficiency, not specific neural nets
(are you following me so far? You see it doesn't matter
whether it's made to crack nuts, but that it can also head hammer)
And back to aesthetics, like my rhymes the mind fluidly
Can have a different place in the contextuality
That puts a brain state in a place I.R.L.
That in a given situation it doesn't follow you can tell
That the mechanism that tells you that something looks nice
Is the same as another's, but that what you have suffice
To put you in a state that we can relate to aesthetics
And think "you sublime girl" and whatever else that makes you tick
Not like the tin man waiting for Dorothy
To whir up his cogs, cuz all along you see
Regardless of the thinking, we've already got the concepts
It don't exactly matter how it does it if the black box is checked.
If you only had brain to have a state then you'd know
Dear pop-sci, you're just a silly scarecrow

>>3434253
Yo, I feel your rhymes but your lyrics is whack.
I gotta respond to just to tell you that,
A neural state isn't a set condition.
You wont respond the same to a women.
You see a ho where I see a horse.
This is the result of parental intercourse.
They gave me their genes, their social imprints,
which influence the way that I see things.

The aesthetics will change as I get older
Coz' beauty is only in the eye of the beholder.
I agree that there might be some brains,
that occasionally seem to respond the same.
But you are missing the crucial feel,
that we are conditioned with similar ideals.
Don't kill or rape, yo momma did say,
Not because it's morally gray.
But If beauty is constant, and we like the same things
Then why do you like a dick up your ring?
The MRI that I got from your doc,
shows you light up when viewing a cock.

The object is neutral, the beauty not found.
Only I can provide the right grounds,
to claim that an object is a beautiful truth
Consensus will never give you a proof.
Your underlying objective appeal,
Is as bad as your rap, you should just kneel
and suck ... Yo I'm outa time.

>>3434310
Platitudes on platitudes and rhymes without attitude
Pop-sci, you've missed who I was representin
And just become another crap rapper Slick Rick was lamenting
"Yo momma" "you gay", can you not think of better
Oh wait "like it's er- it's in the eye of the beholder?"
If you had a clue then you'd have plainly seen
This isn't about sub or objectivity
So rather than begging this Anon to suck your cock
I'll tell you again, go read Crick and Koch

Nigga lemme first say I'm real impressed with yo' rhymes
I though you was a hater, but turns out yo' real fly
But get this straight, I ain't backin' down
Gonna turn that self-assured smirk into a frown

You say abstractions can be related to brain states
These circuits can be matched to love, sex, food or hate
You dissin' specificity, I say quite specifically
The exact patterns of these cells will relate
To the functions that each of these circuits create

But listen now Holmes, that there's just a quibble
Imma take this rap, and really start to dribble

Correlations and causations, you say they don't fly
It's an assumption we make without no reason why
But nigga, shit's real, we gotta use some common sense
And I, sure as hell, ain't sittin' on the fence

It all comes down to our sensory pathways
They take what we see: a sound wave, a light ray
This information is translated, processed, condensed
It undergoes a transformation, all this happens when it's sensed
These states ARE caused by the shit that we see
And if you don't believe me, you better read more, G

Now you really can't say there ain't now correlation
Because, you see, the geeks have seen the gestation
Of these strange, specific states of our brain
From taste, smell, a sound, the feel of pain

I'm enjoying this profusely, I really really am

You two are great sports, this couldn't be better planned

Now excuse this shit script, you really did enthrall me

My balls are so hot after what you've done to me

Now pardon me while I go put on a sexy movie

Thanks for the original content, I'm going to go commemorate it

With some hardcore masturbation and flying ejaculate

Yeah, sure, our brains are wired differently
(Got a little more junctions in mine, perhaps significantly)
But stereotypes still apply in this space
Not the racist kind, guy, but the type that encase
Regular patterns, evolved for this shit
They interpret, translate, take inputs, bit by bit
And turn them in to these neural correlates
Which they themselves are part of - I'm givin' it to ya straight

Morality, beauty, they all are a state
Part of our instantaneous correlate
Differences, sure - you might say genetics
But differences ain't that big (and I say, cognetics)
We can work these down, if they eggheads try hard enough
You say they can't - shit, that's fair enough
But then you must supply a reason for this
Where do these come from? Joy, hate, bliss?
Saying they're aesthetics, that just don't cut it, man
I need something tangible, with some research in hand

Now I ain't gonna dis you
Got too much respect for that
But it does appear I'm at the end of my rap

You gimmie all you got with that nutcracker, cracka
Imma come down like Biggie, four-fives from your attacker
Our differences come down to "can one correlate"
I present this, yo' honor, and leave the rest up to fate.

>>3434338
You guys deserve blowjobs tonight.
Were it up to me I'd do dem all night.

>>3434380
I completely agree that some of these traits,
are geneticaaly passed, and considered innate.
We may even respond in similar ways,
to, pain, emotion, neurological games.
But my contention still lays in places,
beyond MRI scans to pictures of faces.
Without an objective reason to act,
your pain remains pain, not an immoral act.

Our hereditary responses are passed down to us,
and control our genetics, our genes, and our lusts.
But to observe a pattern, behaviour predicted
is different to saying beauty is objective.
The quality of beauty will always reside
back in the brain, behind our keen eyes.

My second point is a matter of words.
The ones we are using to describe our world.
The words 'good' and 'bad' are constructed by us,
to overlay things, and give us a jus-
tification to act on subjective desires.
From helping or killing or lighting of fires.

So yes, we can sit back and hit that bong,
we can agree that we like the same song.
But the music we hear will never be 'good.'
Coz that is a quality from under our hoods.
Though, if we really respond the same,
then why do so many not play the same game?
There is an even split throughout our group,
to art, nature, music, and literature too.
If the value and worth are independent of us,
why do so many reject the same stuff?

>>3434532

Homie, lemme come to ya with one small confession
I think that, perhaps, our previous aggression
Caused some confusion, this I do suspect
Now let me get this straight, I hope I'm not incorrect:

You say value and worth are human construction
Brought out of the nether through neural transduction
You say all that stuff is from under our hood
I agree with you, nigga, that shit's all good

But see, now I say, while an MRI can't see those
Some futuristic scanner might see those I suppose
Into the head, down into the heart?
Keanu said it best, and I say yes.

I contend it is possible for these states to be observed
Listen up dog, 'cause this here's the word
We can't do it yet, but we're getting closer still
Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsjYxJ0bo, go there and get your fill.

What the fuck did you guys do to my thread?

>>3431048
Most actual philosophers aren't and weren't. Maybe most philosophy majors in colleges? But still.

Not sure about the white part, but as for the rich and aristocratic men part, its mostly because you had to be rich, which usually meant you had to be aristocratic, in order to not only have the education and free time necessary to pen your philosophy but the means to publish it for public consideration. And for much of history in many places a mans opinion was held as more worthy of thought than a womans.

>>3434577

They made it good.

It appears they're done rapping, which is a shame because I was almost ready for round 2 on my penis.

>you will never study under one of the most brilliant philosophers of the 20th century and have him call you a genius

>>3434602

>>3434566
This was epic. I saved the whole thing. I might even edit it together in one image one day.

>>3434604

>>3434605

>>3434610

>>3434611

>>3434612

>>3434614
eaddypl the

>>3434616

>>3434619

Simply, they are the only ones with the time, education and funding to be able pursue a lifetime of thinking. While simultaneously being able to communicate their thoughts intelligibly, and then have said thoughts distributed to a large audience.

This thread is precisely why /lit/ puts all other boards to shame.

>>3431080
>that modernist thinking

What's it like being stuck in the 1960s collective consciousness

>>3431065

Well what about all the philosophers who influenced the democratic revolutions in Europe and America?

There are three people rapping here, not just two. This is quite confusing.

>>3434683
/lit/ = a smelly turd floating around in the sewers
Other boards = Gamges river during an epidemic of diarrheia

yeah, puts all the other boards to shame alright

>>3434602
>saving a shitty thread
>not just bookmarking it and seeing in the archive later if you feel like so
>not using simple programs that can screencap the whole thing in one click and save it in one image
>having this much trouble
>SAVING A SHITTY THREAD

Holy shit, get out. This thread is just as bad as the rest of the board. Don't take what you read here serioulsy, there is a lot of shitposting all the way. Sure this is no Ayn Rand or atheism vs theism thread, but it's still shit.

>>3431048
probably because if you are rich it means you are smarter than other people, hence the children of the rich will be smarter.

>>3437894
Then why the fuck are you even here?