/lit/ - Literature

>>3523913
http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.php?id=1435

In other news, at some point the LARB surpassed the NYRB and the subset of humanity who will be amused by that image is precisely the subset of humanity I want to bunk with in a succession of squatted large, high-story rooms.

I mostly just ignore them. There's no rule saying that you actually have to get into dumb internet slapfights with them, you know.

>3523955
Ugh.

That picture is dumb. Ludwig didn't care about no whores.

>>3523966

there was one whore who he almost married

>>3523955
Thanks.

>>3523961
True, true

>>3523966
How's this?

What themes, topics and questions do you bring up in order to deal with prejudiced relativists, amoralists and nihilists? Any philosophy major that has his head so deep up his ass that he cannot help but suffocate within the repetitive repertoire of his finely brainwashed-farts, really.

How do you point out to their blind rejectionism, their deficit of bayesianism, their lack of historical perspective of science and shitty subjective thinking?

Are there any bulletproof strategies to fuck with their haughty heads? Any corresponding book recommendations are more than welcome ITT.

>>3523969

he liked dudes mostly

>>3523970
>prejudiced relativists, amoralists and nihilists
Cool, although erroneous, story-wrapped conjecture bro.

Keep the butthurt levels up, comrade!

>>3523970
God, they're the worst.

Especially the ones who don't understand Bayesian modelling. When they start with the 'science doesn't know any objective facts' routine, just give them:

“Show me a relativist at 30,000 feet and I'll show you a hypocrite ... If you are flying to an international congress of anthropologists or literary critics, the reason you will get there - the reason you don't plummet into a ploughed field - is that a lot of scientifically trained engineers have got their sums right.”

I like pointing out that Pauli only came up with the idea of four different spin numbers because of Neoplatonism, when the 'experimental scientific method' couldn't help him any further.

Bumping with more pics. Expecting more opinions and recommendations!

>>3523913
>materialists, reductionists and naturalists

>>3523970
>relativists, amoralists and nihilists

>Being any of these things

>>3523970
>>3523983
samefag

>>3523983
I don't think anyone intelligent would argue that science doesn't have a lot of very good ideas and hasn't been very useful. People want to argue that it does not have total validity and final, unchallenged certainty and supremacy, which is a much different argument, and also that things which are not accessible to the scientific method may still be worthy of discussion. That is to say, yes, science is quite good at putting airplanes in the sky, and it has got us to a pretty good idea of how a lot of things in the world work; that does not mean that it is the only appropriate epistemological point of view, or the only way of ascertaining truth, or the only standard of measurement and reality.

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 cunt 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 rhetoric 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 judgement 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.

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, point your philosophical fingers and tell me that I can't have axioms or objective truth, because that's all you can do.

>>3524013
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 a great 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.

>>3524013
>science > philosophy xD

The modern sciences are a malignant outgrowth of natural philosophy.

>>3524013
>A neurologist or psychologist combined with a biologist can tell us exactly why we respond to the flower and think it is beautiful,

You can't tell us why it's beautiful, though. Telling us why we find it beautiful does not satisfactorily address the question of beauty.

>>3524028
>Telling us why we find it beautiful does not satisfactorily address the question of beauty.
It does.

>>3524030
Does not.

>>3524032
It does. Why don't you understand that you're wrong?

>>3524018
An outgrowth so malignant, it increased wealth and quality of life.

>>3524032
Yes it does. 'Beauty' is a linguistic construct that we use to overlay reality. All that exists is an attraction of a biological organism to something, and this attraction can be clearly explained.

>>3524039
>All that exists is an attraction of a biological organism to something

How do you know that?

do you remember the 2+2=5 part in notes from the underground? about how a man can choose to believe whatever he wants no matter what? and the joy that can be sucked from a man as he strives for more and more answers? and do you remember Keat's concept of negative capability? and how humanity's ability to recontextualise themselves is what truly makes us great? well, that's what i think about when i come into contact with people who spew facts and figures at me as if they know something i don't.

>>3524047
Not him, he just said a couple of posts back.

>>3524018
it's a tekne, philosophy is inherently part of it though, you can't separate philosophy from science, any scientist has to go by some basic axioms and preconceptions that can't be justified by science itself

>>3524055

No, he did not.

>>3524013
>>3524015
This copy-pasta still alive?

2/10

>>3524035
>>3524030
>>3524039
>All that exists is an attraction of a biological organism to something, and this attraction can be clearly explained.

/sci/ monkeys sure managed to quickly and successfully derail a potentially interesting thread

stay classy

Nottu dissu shittu again

>>3524093
Did you even read the OP?

I want to strangle you, you fucking cunt.

>>3524104
lol more like /sci/ = math homework

>>3523913
I expected more recommendations, you guys. Are all the smart ones away from their keyboards?

the great thing about those kind of people is that they're incredibly single-minded. making it pretty easy to circumvent their logic and they end up raging every single time

>>3524166
True as well. Thanks for contributing to the thread!

another religious butthurt guy who can't live a human life without a god

>>3524545
op here, im atheist

>>3524552
ok. then you are prtty dumb.

OP: omg hard problem of consciousness so hard etc.

that's basically the level of this anxiety

>>3524069
lol caught him copy pasting too

>>3524545
Actual OP here, let me address you to >>3523978

Do all of you /sci/ bros throw around such hollow arguments?

Pic related - is this your #1 idol?

Whenever i pretend to take some post-modern deconstructionist side for trolling purposes i've found that i often win arguments against these people (naturalists, reductionists) through devoted obscurantism, the more circumlocutory and vague my language, the less scrutable thus wining by default.

source: im a humean reductionist naturalist myself and i know how to wrastle my own djammers

>>3523998
Thing is, science is the best method for determining truth.

There are many arguments in philosophy. In fact, there are not many true answers in philosophy, just different opinions.

In Science, there is one truth. There may be varying theories, but those theories get closer to the truth through continual refinement.

In my mind, science is the best way to get objective truth. It might not be able to answer "What is beauty?", but it can sure as hell answer "What will happen if I mix ammonia and bleach?"

>>3524607
You're a loser and nobody likes you.

If you had a friend, you probably wouldn't be here all the time.

>>3524620

no but really though, im awesome

>>3524643

Please don't get started. We all know you bench 9000 pounds and look like adonis bla bla bla.

>>3524653

i'm awesome and super good looking.
its funny how i only post like 3 times a week yet, faggot>>3524620 over here has enough familiarity to say im here all the time...le projection of le untermensch sedentary worthless pile of le shit.

>>3524607
>through devoted obscurantism, the more circumlocutory and vague my language, the less scrutable thus wining by default.

I don't see this happening in an actual, face-to-face conversation though

this is now a talking about stan thraad

>>3524660
>i'm awesome and super good looking.
pics or it didn't happen.

>>3524612

>but it can sure as hell answer "What will happen if I mix ammonia and bleach?"

can i tell you what else will answer that question?

going ahead and mixing the goddamn ammonia and bleach

>>3524669

its even easier face to face

>>3524671

haha ya got me.
but i feel weird about posting my pics on an imageboard full of homosexuals who would probably jack off to it...ugh

>>3524685
You're full of shit. You won't post pictures because you're DYEL mode and ugly.

You know it, we know it.

>>3524672
Which is how science finds it out.

>Mix the two
>They make chlorine gas
>Try a few more times to verify
>Try changing variables of environment to further verify
>Publish paper
>get peer review
>You have now verified a fact

Philosophy, while valuable, has no similar process.

>>3524687

haha ok whatever faggot,
>>>/hm/ if you must have pictures of men

>>3524689
>You have now verified a fact
Just because you name it a fact, it doesn't mean that you have objective truth. Philosophy will always prevent you from having that.

>>3524692
see you there

I don't know who's worse, Stan, or the homosexuals obsessed with having his picture.

>>3524665
captcha: ephosag protracted

>>3524705

im awesome

>>3524696
Define "Truth."

For me, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and exhibits all the other physical qualities of a duck, it is safe to call it a "duck."

Technically, it could be an illusion by a magic gnome who is SSH-ing into the universe with his magical laptop to simulate a duck, but that wouldn't really matter as long as it really has all the qualities of a duck.

>>3524710

>goatanon

wat it do ace? long time no see

>>3523983
you just sound like someone who completely misses the point of subjectivity

or maybe you've just been arguing with people who miss the point

>>3523913
>a /sci/ fag gets sassy
>do you like sexy things?
>y-yes
>do you like... empiricism?
>y-yes
>you must like...sextus empiricus
>NOOOOOO
>YOU CAN'T KNOW ANYTHING
>NOOOOOO
>RATIONAL THOUGHT EXCLUDES KNOWLEDGE IN GENERAL
>NOOOO
>YES
>PLS GIVE EXIT BAG
>NOOOOO
>HAHAAAAA

etc.

>>3524036
it also brought us the holocaust

when you use 'science' as such a vague term it's how anyone can tell you're a blind zealot for "science and progress"

A scientist sent me a photo of his penis. I'll never know if it was an experiment of he's just just gay for me.

>>3524721
do black people have lower IQ?

>>3524721
>For me, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and exhibits all the other physical qualities of a duck, it is safe to call it a "duck."

Actually, Anon, that's a gosling.

Lol

>>3524726
>>3524739
Lol

>>3524724
Drinking beer, collecting welfare, getting my flâneur on, achieving ataraxia, planning someones demise, bringing tinychat literatichat to life for pure lumpenpatrician glory.

>>3524747
fuck him i can cross the street myself thank you very much

>>3524751

>lumpenpatrician
adding that to my lexicon, i guess if someone could pull off such a dichotomy i guess id be you dude. let me know if you ever decide to join le uber side of life, ill give you some supplement stacking tips

>>3524741
As a trend? Yes.
Does that mean they're less smart?
Hell no. IQ isn't a very reliable way to measure intelligence.

>>3524780
Thanks Stan. Help bring the tinychat to life, you'll bring in at least twelve people asking for your picture.

>>3524809
Pic related.

It's a picture of Stank, looking all hot and buff and awesome.

>>3524829
DEEEEEEEEERP

>mfw lit does not cease to sit on stans dick
why

>>3524852
forgot sage

inb4 hurr proper use of sage faggots
sage
sagew

>>3524852
>>3524855
>>3524809

hey, stank

>>3524577
Yes, keep referencing "levels" and the "hard problem of consciousness" like you always do without actually making a substantive point. We get that you may have read a couple of books a few years ago, but you've clearly forgotten how to articulate what you've learned.

>>3524794

>IQ isn't a very reliable way to measure intelligence.

Lrn2gfactor.

>>3524809
that sounds like a terrible idea goats

>>3524866

haha what

>>3524874

haha she's currently writing some 'paradigm shifting' spiel on solving paradoxical sets...the haughty manner of her vagueness gets me off

>>3524917

>haha

kill yourself

>>3524917
>she

dear lord. is it really a she?

>>3524874
you are so far up the creek without a paddle i don't know how to get to you

>>3524780

What supplement tips u got stan?

>>3524917
>that sounds like a terrible idea goats
Doesn't even work either, it's just me sitting in a lonely room like a friendless fat kid on his birthday party. Mission aborted.

'OPIATE WITHDRAWAL' LEADING TO 'NARCISISSM' IS NOT EXCEPTIONAL AMONGST 'INTJ' TYPES.

>>3524946

yeah,
hey onion>>3524957
...was that picture of the cute asian girl you?

>>3524961

What are you going for?leaning? bulking?recomp? I'm currently doing a mini recomp cycle, stacking bioforge with erase pro

>>3524977
requesting guide as to what the hell you are talking about

>>3524977
she's an annoying haughty bitch, man

do we have a pic of her?

>>3524992
guide to le uber body:
bulking is getting big without worrying about fat gain. (get a test booster) eat a lot.
leaning is cutting fat. get 7 keto dhea, or erase, or just very careful diet and cardio.
recomp is gaining muscle mass while also cutting fat (the hardest to do) which is why i have a test booster (bioforge) and also a suicide estrogen inhibitor (erase pro rapes estrogen hence killing estrogen related fat and speeds up metabolism so you look all dry and cut up like rambo 2)

>>3525029
won't this shit backfire and turn you into fight club bob at some point?

>>3524612
>science is the best method for determining truth.

>lel
that's based on a correspondence theory of truth. which is laughable.

truth has to do with unconcealment. science is a way of unconcealing things, but it's not the only way. plus, the power of science has nothing to do with being able to say "what" something is, but rather "how", which allows for science to be predictive. the power of science is that it is one method of prophecy, as you said:
>what will happen...

but when you and everyone argues right now, you aren't doing science. you're doing rhetoric. if science brings you objective truth, how are you being objective when arguing, since, it's certainly not science?

>>3525029
you forgot

1. consistency towards diet and training
2. caloric surplus/deficit in respect to diet; progressive overload in respect to training (strength+hypertrophy hybrid programs are arguably the best for maximizing gains)
3. 2 - 5 years as a fucking minimum to look anywhere near swole

'bout it

how good are those test boosters though? always thought it was a pompous sham

>>3525037

no, unless you start running gear ( a good PH will surely give you that effect , cant tell you where to get em though and be sure to have a post-cycle support if you do or else youll end up with shriveled balls and gyno)

>>3524971
that was a long time ago 'dickhead'

>>3524957
You wouldn't know how if you could.

philosophy has very limited tools to get at any information. science gets information from constantly engaging with the world, mathematicians get at information by actually doing maths. philosophers just sit on their asses and use some basic represnetations to tell themselves stories.

that's only tlaking about the kind of philosophy that some of you hold, of course.

>>3525054
>the power of science is that it is one method of prophecy
>when you and everyone argues right now, you aren't doing science. you're doing rhetoric.

Two excellent points.

>>3525054
>unconcealment
Expand and explain, perhaps? Yes, I know this is from Heidegger.

>>3525077
>2 - 5 years as a fucking minimum to look anywhere near swole

not if youre serious from the start and with a little extra help its way easier.
which brings me to your question.
yes they work. if you're ever stuck on a plateau, test boosters are the way to go, as far as the legal route goes.
the best ingredients in my opinion are d-aspartic acid (d-pol) and longjack (bioforge has this).
p6 works great also its just that its really expensive. also 8 week cycles give way more results.

>>3525117
I don't want to fuck with my hairline, though.

>>3525117
Why would you take boosters instead of an actual cycle? With PCT the adverse effects are minimal.

>>3525130

hhaha, already ahead of you.
i use lipogaine once a day and keto shampoo twice a week and have had absolutely no problems in that department

>>3525138

i dont have access to legit aas and the PH they're making these days (post-ban) are sketchy as fuck...

>all that physical kratonism
Seems exhaustive.

>>3525095
>muh information
>muh instrumentalism
>muh SCIENCE, man.
>UNIVERSE IS SO VAST AND BEAUTIFUR ;_;
>LOOK AT ALL THOSE OBSERVABLE BLACK HOLES AND LE STRINGS THROUGH THE MAGNIFYING GLASS
>WHY CANT I HOLD ALL THIS GRANDEUR KNOWLEDGE :OO

etcetc

>>3525189
better than sitting on your couch and wondering about your mind hurr

>>3525195

>string theory
>observable

laughingonionrings.mobi

>>3525195
i'm glad we're on the same page, sweet candy you

>>3525209
that's cute but what's your point

>>3525095
The tools that were used to construct ZFC are the same that are used in philosophy.

>>3525103
aletheia = greek word for truth.

a = un , lethe = concealment, or forgetfulness, oblivion

when we talk about what is true, we are talking about the "subject matter" (die Sache) unfolding and it revealing itself to us, i.e. our understanding of it. this understanding happens pre-conceptually, non-propositionally, and non-representationally.

>>3525248
Does everything have a subject matter?

How is this anything more than a semantic word game, anyway?

> pre-conceptually, non-propositionally, and non-representationally
Expand upon these, perhaps?

>>3525238
>that's only tlaking about the kind of philosophy that some of you hold, of course.
these lit theists and whatnot are most probably not talking about model theory

i have it on good authority that this is what onion looks like

>>3525261
>these lit theists
>throwing random guesses out of your cunt again

onian pls

>>3525257
you're thinking of subject matter as linguistic, but think of it like this: for every human (existing as being in the world), as with every world, there is subject matter.

when you go into a certain world, e.g. frat or corporation, there is a certain way that world unfolds: think about the difference between going into a frat and going into an investment bank. that difference is difference between their subject matter, i.e. the way that they specific truth unfolds into/as their world.

the idea that the world should be read as a text is backwards: the way we understand a text is similar to the way we understand the world. not through semantic word games, which we CAN do but are derivative of the primordial way of understanding.

Are you assholes really going to make me jerk off to this?

>>3525236

haha no point sweetheart, just agreeing w you

>>3525236

laughingsluts.mobi

He's calling you a slut basically

>>3525361
What do you mean by the way a world unfolds? What do you mean bu subject matter in terms of world?

Thanks for your patience, by the way.

>>3524594
/sci/ does contain a lot of nuts. But you should change your view a little. Dawkins is pretty abrasive, I agree. But all in all in some cases I would say that arts students can be worse. Last night these pissed english students were talking about Schroedinger's cat and quantum entanglement and it was cringy. I imagine it's sometimes the same, we aren't the most eloquent philosophically always. Now some can be fascist dicks obsessed with productivity and not giving a fuck about anything other than a weird warped view of the world which excludes music and art and anything more than trivial populist masturbation level philosophy. Meh. Just what I think.

>>3524893
Good job getting the point there.

I mean you guys do accept that the body is only limited to biological and physical forces right?
You can do all the mental philosophical gymnastics you want, as long as you don't talk about having a literal soul.

>>3525959
>literal soul

heh. i don't know if anyone has ever talked about a literal soul -- it's always understood on some allegorical ground.

anyways the soul has to do with our freedom. this isn't the ability to arbitrarily choose between various choices, but the ability to be open towards potential possibilities that arise from a given historical situation.
>"the soul is the prison of the body"
the bars of its cage are the limits of our inexhaustible possibilities.

>>3525959
We accept physics and biology. They don't really have much to do with what we talk about or the idea of a soul, though. Propositions can express nothing that is higher.

>>3525054
I never said science was the sole method of determining truth, simply the best.

Rhetoric can determine truth, but mostly about concepts. You can argue about how humans came to be all day long, but unless you get science involved, you probably won't get the right answer.

>>3526136
>simply the best.

By what measure? Certainly nothing 'scientific.'

>mfw OP got ass blasted by the conscious troll on /sci/, is too stupid to come up with an argument himself, and tries to bribe /lit/ into doing it for him

>>3526163
I don't get why /lit/ and /sci/ are so butthurt at each other. They should fuck already and ally against malignant boards such as /pol/ and /x/.

>>3526173
>I don't get why /lit/ and /sci/ are so butthurt at each other.

Arrogance and ignorance from both sides.

>>3526183
>>3526173
they essentially represent definite/scientific philosophy versus indefinite/rhetorical sophistry.

it's a battle that trillions of years in the making to Parmenides, who advocates the philosopher's counsel of silence, and Gorgias who issues the rhetorician's counsel of speech.

hermeneutics (interpretation) and understanding exists in the space in between these two tensions (definite and indefinite). hence Hermes being the god that travels in between the Gods and Man.

>>3526163
lel

It's funny how they all call me a troll just because they can't refute my arguments.

>>3526617
Shut up, actual OP here

>>3526201
Well put, hombre

>>3526622
>Shut up, actual OP here
Are you illiterate? I wasn't pretending to be you. Read what post I was responding to.

>>3526626
0/10 - literally.

apply yourself, literate.

>>3526626
i haven't even read the thread but if you think he was implying that you were pretending that then you are an idiot

>>3526201
i like dat