/lit/ - Literature

>>4103756
>>Appeal to technology: ✓
>"data-manipulating tools (computers, optical character recognition, statistics, data banks)"
his appeal to technology there is completely fair. we are, indeed, armed with new tools that allow further clarification and there is no reason to dismiss them.
>>Vague hatred of postmodernism: (free space)
anything but vague. he plainly accuses postmodernism of damaging humanities greatly
>>Insinuation that the humanities hold an arrogant claim on truth, which they also hate: ✓
that paradox is empirically observable
>>Assertion that scientists know more about philosophy than humanities professors: ✓
he's more specific, pointing what is the problem with philosophers:
>the plain fact is that every discipline generates philosophical issues as it advances, and they cannot be responsibly addressed by thinkers ignorant of the facts (the findings, the methods, the problems) encountered in those disciplines.

as for the inverted commas. I don't know what entails abuse for you. Dennet denies unjustified philosophical concepts like qualia not as inexistent but as without proof. The problem is not just that there's no proof of them (being a speculative discipline) but that it is a concept that fills no gap and serves no function. It's an intellectual whim

I see many good points raised in that article. I see you, OP, calling him names instead of actually addressing a single one of those points. Clearly, OP buys into faggotry.

>>4103756
Dennett sounds kind of ass-pained. Natural science does not and can not cover the entire human experience. Don't like it, Dennett? I suggest you revise your hypothesis.
>This is true enough, if carefully interpreted, but Wieseltier asserts it without argument, showing that he himself is not even trying to be a philosopher, but rather a Wise Divulger of the Undeniable Verities.
>hurr he di'n't esplain he'z a feget, but he's right, and I also won't esplain all my statements
>mffw

>>4103756
>Does Dennett buy into scientism?
Yes

>>4103873
but Dennett does explain his statements and Wieseltier is, matter-of-factly, quite a fagget

>>4103821
What do you think these new tools are?

I think OP is fair about the vague part. Yes he does specify that it has damaged the humanities, but he doesn't clearly show how besides a brief description on the "plurality of truth". Honestly this piece is just too short for the topic.

>>4103901
>What do you think these new tools are?
he mentions them in the article and I quoted them above. Since the article is short and it is not about the specific tools it is completely fair that he only cites the types of tools even if not the specific tools. It's also fair because he has a multitude of books and even his own page where he does explain in exactitude some of those tools, either for the statistical management of different kinds of data, mechanical tools for the exploration of things we were previously unaware of (about the nature of the human body, the nature of the enviroment, etc.)
About the vagueness, I don't think it's fair at all. That brief description of the plurality of truth, postmodern tendencies to fall into an spiral of comment over comment (which, by the way, it was also common of medieval theology) and the simultaneous disregard of truth while declaring an authority on philosophical discourse (all named in the article) are more than enough to critique postmodernism and they are not vague at all

>>4103756
I have never been able to understand why Daniel Dennett is considered smart. There are so many smarter anti-continental analytic philosophers.

>>4103821
The ironic inverted commas are for things like calling postmodernism a school of "thought." How does this further debate? How does it even further thought? Dawkins does the same thing, e.g. French "philosophy," in a way (invoking Godwin's law for no particular reason) that reminds me of Nazi polemics against Jewish "intellectuals" or allied "leaders." It's distasteful in any context.

The appeal to technology is fair, but there's the tiring suggestion that modern philosophers "want no part of this." The idea that they can't understand the findings of technology without being versed in it themselves is the same elitism he pins on modern philosophy. This also applies to "every discipline generates philosophical issues as it advances." Do modern people somehow experience the problems of modern living in a less real way? A philosopher of mind ought to understand the mind, of course—but there are other kinds of philosophers. The point he neatly skirts around is that technological advances don't simply obliterate the subjective experiences of living in a technologically advanced society.

>>4103931
>brief description of the plurality of truth
The way he uses it suggests that postmodernists simply don't like truth in the conventional sense. If I tried publishing a paper claiming that Pyrrhonism produced nothing of value because of their suspension of judgment, I doubt I'd get very far in academia. It's a short article, yes, but it's very tiring that every time someone criticizes postmodernism, the closest you get to a definition of actual postmodernist thought is that it doesn't believe in the truth and it's probably French.

>>4103756
>scientism post again

Are you a butthurt theologian?

>>4103934
>against postmodernism
>therefore anti-continental
no.

Why does anybody buy into scientism? The last time it was popular it supported prohibition and prophylaxis and suffrage. It was at least partly responsible for the whole eugenics legislation thing Holmes was involved in, and social darwinism. I don't think anything relevant has been written by a "Scientistic Philosopher" since the twenties. This thing should be allowed to die out. It's embarassing.

>>4105139
Scientism is what liberal arts fags come up with without reading about the scientific method. If they were scientists they would demand experiments and evidence. You can predict human behaviors? Demonstrate it.

Science IS the answer to all problems, IF you actually can demonstrate it. A tautology, with the latter half well ignored by people who don't care about the method.

The only alternatives are hot air and theology.

>>4105210
read foucault

>mfw science was/is also known as natural philosophy
>mfw OP is butthurt and wants to divorce philosophy from science and marry it to postmodernism which is the new theology

Top kek

>>4105139
>'scientism' supported X

Am I the only one who thought this looked retarded?

>>4103934
John Searle?

>>4105294
yeah, though john searle has this funny thing where he is super fucking smart but always manages to be wrong about everything by just a LITTLE bit

Does OP buy into faggotism?

>Appeal to ignorance: ✓
>Abuse of green texting: ✓
>Vague hatred of areas he doesnt understand: ✓
>Posting on a computer on the internet while ranting about technology: ✓
>Assertion humanities professors could even hold a glass to a STEM graduate: ✓
>Insinuation that the humanities hold any claim on truth: ✓
>Insinuation that the OP hold a full time job in relation his degree, if any: (free space)

>>4105139
Social Darwinism was what happened when humanities wrongfully understood evolution you numbnut. Most of the time this is where all shit ideas come from. Proper scientist usually just develop tools while humanities develop shitty ideas that will kill people with said tools.

No wonder liberals always blame the guns, huh

>>4105249
>foucault

Hah, I love this shit. Why does most of /lit/ think that just because it's in a book, it means it must be true?

Why are you guys defending dawkins? even as a scientist and philosopher of science he is elementary tier.
If you must only read intro texts to science and philosophy, at least be guided by Dennett, Scruton, or Grey than Dawkins, Pinker or Harris.
Also, I'd seriously advise you to read The Story of Mankind before any of them. it's a children's book but it's a brick and it hits all the landmark stages of history among them the disputes of science and philosophy.

>>4105210
>Scientism is what liberal arts fags come up with without reading about the scientific method

Modern scientism comes from guys like Harris, Dawkins, meaning: scientists.

>>4105286
>postmodernism
>the new theology

No, most people don't even know what postmodernism is. Meanwhile, the "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE" page has six million likes and about 100 posts involving actual math.

>>4105337
>Posting on a computer on the internet while ranting about technology

So much shitty fucking thinking on this board. OP wasn't "ranting about technology" he was pointing out a fallacy. But even if here were ranting about technology, posting on a computer does absolutely NOTHING to negate his argument. It is the stupid person's reply to point out that he is using an atom of the molecule he is criticizing.

>>4105400
Denying atoms exist or has any use while using molecules is pretty fucking ignorant.

>b-but muh rethorical circle jerk
>a debate victory actually trumphs what is true and makes it true
>everything is a social construct

>>4105347
Weird how you're seemingly smart enough to realize that science itself is neutral but can't connect that the same applies to the study of humanities.

Science is a tool, but people have used its products in horrible ways and have even configured it within a mechanism that specifically seeks to develop new horrible uses that we eventually get to play with (see R&D). But the criticism isn't against science, it's against the people. These people can comprise both scientists (soviet animal experimentation, evolutionary psychologists) and humanities majors (ceos, bureaucrats). It's dumb to pit the fields of study against one another.

>>4103756

>>4105409
>Denying atoms exist or has any use while using molecules is pretty fucking ignorant.

Who's denying anything? And spare me the incoherent greentext.

>>4105421
ironic that the amount of faith involved almost makes this an entire religion in itself

>>4105421
>>4105427
Ironic that science is the only method there is to falsify what is real or not, ironic that all the tools you use for communicating these thoughts are through tools that is the result of science.

How would you describe postmodernism? What is it?

>>4105427
It's called the 'problem of induction'.

And it's not much of a problem.

>>4105427
It isn't necessarily a religion, but it has almost taken the symbolic place of religion. Looking again at something like the "I fucking love science" FB page, you have at least two things going on: people who claim to love science without putting in the effort to learn much of what it actually entails (they didn't pay attention in Bible study, but they know it's socially valuable to express faith) and people who claim to REALLY love science and criticize the page for not being pure enough (accusations of heresy). Sound familiar?

>>4105431
yeah, but it cannot falsify or prove everything and if you've read the literature it seems that it may never be able to. The central precept of scientism isn't even supported by science itself!

>>4105431
>ironic that all the tools you use for communicating these thoughts are through tools that is the result of science.

This is NOT an example of irony and what you're implying he said is NOT contradictory.

I understand what's he's getting at. Philosophy is the love of life and so you should be, not necessarily an expert, but well verse in multiple discipline, especially science and mathematics. Exactly how can you have a claim to truth or experience if you don't understand the reality of the world around us? You learn how the world actually works through physics, chemistry, and biology, and then you can start talking about "essence of being." Besides all the good philosophers were also scientist and mathematicians.

Whenever I hear or see the word 'scientism' I automatically assume someone is butthurt.

This meme is merely a straw man and an ad hominem attack.

>>4105442
>The central precept of scientism isn't even supported by science itself!

This. Some of you are just so eager to get into a STEM vs. humanities shitfest that you're not even paying attention to what you're supporting.

>>4105455
>Whenever I hear or see the word 'scientism' I automatically assume someone is butthurt.

At least you admit your shortcomings right off the bat.

>>4105447
>what is situational irony

>>4105454
Science IS philosophy. Science is literally a euphemism for natural philosophy. Physics is literally philosophy expressed in the language of mathematics.

Historicists, postmodernists, theologians and other counter-enlightenment shills can fuck off.

>>4105461

My orgasms are usually sustained, actually.

>>4105466
>Historicists, postmodernists, theologians and other counter-enlightenment shills can fuck off.

wut

>>4103756
Funny how Dennett criticizes Weaselmeister for not supporting his claim (which Dennett says is "true enough") and then goes on to say

>Postmodernism, the school of "thought" that proclaimed "There are no truths, only interpretations" has largely played itself out in absurdity

Which is merely conventional wisdom without any support.

Personally, I think people should make an effort to be well-versed in both the sciences and the humanities, but Dennett comes off as lazy in this response.

>>4105464
It ain't that either, kid.

>>4105466
Scientism is a word people from the field of humanities normally use since they cant relate to the rigorous methods of falsification that tend to be standard in the STEM field.

It's like a really obese girl screaming at a fit girl facebook page calling her 'thin' and saying how she 'obsesses unnaturally over her health regime' while blaming any shortcomings of her own on some genetic disposition and that society oppresses fatness and that beauty is merely a construct.

Funnily enough the law of thermodynamics refutes that argument, as well as biology and genetics refute most shit from the pseudo-intellectual triad of Sartre, Derrida and Foucault.

>>4105475
What are "the humanities"?

>>4105480
You being in a situation, the medium of technology as a result of science, while ranting on science isn't situational irony?

Okay...

>>4105481
BEEP BEEP! BORING STEM FAGGOT ROLLING THROUGH!

>>4105484

>>4105487

You fucking destroyed him. You rekt him, bro.

>>4103756
>Assertion that scientists know more about philosophy than humanities professors

Can you link some proof of this? I've never seen anyone--Dennett nor anyone else--claim that scientists know more about "philosophy" than humanities professors.

Just because they (and most people) think philosophy is 99% irrelevant doesn't mean they think they know more about it. It just means they don't care to know more about it.

>>4105485
>while ranting on science
He made a comment about SCIENTISM which is distinct from SCIENCE.

>>4105511
scientism is made-up

it doesn't even exist

>>4105488
dubs4truth

>>4105505
>The best of the "scientizers" (and Pinker is one of them) know more philosophy, and argue more cogently and carefully, than many of the humanities professors who dismiss them and their methods on territorial grounds.
this, despite the fact that most scientists (and even analytic philosophers) treat the history of philosophy as... history. The most bizarre point, at least to me, is when he criticizes the claim that philosophy doesn't progress linearly as science does. He seems to accept that philosophers are in a dialogue with the past ("the intellectual treasure we humanities professors were dedicated to transmitting to the next generation"), but tars "armchair theorists" for being stuck in the past. Certainly this isn't an either/or, but it's ridiculous to take the works of Plato and Aristotle as a good effort that could have really been improved upon if they only knew how to use computers. We bring these works into the present by reading them carefully, not by crudely jamming them into our current scientific framework; otherwise you just get the same arguments argued in newer, shittier ways. Again, it isn't an either/or, but criticizing modern philosophers for a lack of technical knowledge to the extent Dennett does presents it as such.

>>4105289
>>4105347
Not talking about science, talking about sciantISM: the scientistic social philosophers. Whole different bunch, and yes, they did advocate prohibition, social darwinism and the sterilization of undesireables.

>>4105582
Yes I noticed that later on but didn't bother correcting it.

>>4105210
>Science IS the answer to all problems
>The only alternatives are hot air and theology

>>4105515
You deny that there are people that think natural science is the only method to understand everything in the world?

>>4105589
>I don't have a proper rebuttal, so I'm just going to post this ready-made image straight out of /b/.

I'm not even the guy you're responding to, and I don't really have any interest in the thread itself, but this kind of knee-jerk "look at the image. you're ridiculous, dude" shitposting really should be taken to other boards.

>>4105597
Do you think it was when he mentioned anything other than SCIENCE being "hit air" or "theology" that the anon showed his commitment to nuanced, reasonable opinions?

Explain why or why not we should practice non-interventionism concerning the Syria kerfuffle using only scientific arguments.

>>4105505
I haven't read the article but
>Insinuation that the humanities hold an arrogant claim on truth, which they also hate: ✓
If not misquoted, could be read as Dennett claiming that he is more aware of the epistemological problems involved in establishing truth (which is a a struggle that goes back to the very earliest roots of philosophy and all the way onwards; from Plato to Descartes to Kant, etc.) than the humanities, or humanities professors.

>>4105659
You can't, but that doesn't mean the Natural Sciences can't solve all of humanity's problems (compared to the arts which can solve exactly NONE), it just means you're a dumb fuck who doesn't understand the scientific method.

>>4105669
>You can't,
>but that doesn't mean the Natural Sciences can't solve all of humanity's problems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

>>4105569
>but criticizing modern philosophers for a lack of technical knowledge to the extent Dennett does presents it as such.
I haven't read the article, but isn't Manuel De Landa an example enough to disprove this? He specifically looks to >>4103821 "data-manipulating tools (computers, optical character recognition, statistics, data banks)".
Ie
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/delanda/pages/intuition.htm
>DeLanda examines various ways in which virtual environments can help us to synthesize fresh intuitions.
http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/delanda.htm
>DeLanda argues that, in order to take full advantage of virtual environments as research tools, we must purge ourselves of various philosophical notions
etc

Unless by modern he does not mean contemporary, but philosophers that did not exist before the information age, or that by philosophers, he means only the ones he is aware of, it seems like he's employing very weak, or in the words of another poster, "distasteful" rhetoric.

>>4105392
Science is the God and Postmodernism is the Devil. This is our modern secular religion. Why haven't you bought into it yet? Don't you like progress?

>>4103756
>rejects scientism

>what is Geisteswissenschaften?

>>4105696
>there is no interpretation of data
>there is only mirroring of reality
>science should stop progressing and become absolutist
>there is no distinctions only physical facts

This should be said before every meal.

>>4105696
Postmodernism is kind of stupid though.

>>4105787
Science is postmodern.

>>4105788
No.

This thread makes me so very sad. Look there are merits to the study of literature and art and, yes, natural scientists won't be able to solve all the world's problems (if only because some of those are of a, say, art historical nature). Having said that, it is ridiculous to accuse someone like Dennett of "scientism," it shows that you have, in fact, no read his actual work.

Postmodernism is a container concept that has been overstretched and become quite meaningless. It is equally bad to bandy that word around, without qualification, as accusing someone like Dennett of being a scientist.

These "STEM" vs. "Humanities" debates are stupid. The only reason they can be sustained is because of that fucking English language, as noted by >>4105763

>what are pseudo-problems?

Yes, I am aggrevated.

>>4105801
>as accusing someone like Dennett of being a scientist
The fact that "scientist" can now be used in two different ways that sometimes overlap but don't have to, is a bit problematic.

>>4105799
Prove that it isn't. Using only scientific arguments preferentially.

>>4105804
yeah, scientist as in adhering to scientism...

>>4105809
Prove that it is.

>>4105809
burden of proof bitch. oh, wait I guess you don't know how2popper.

>>4105817
Popper made science postmodern, doofus. There is no truth anymore only temporally satisfying hypothesis awaiting falsification. This is interpretation.

>>4105821
>Popper dismisses any notion of truth

ISHYGDDT

>>4105812
I think we need a word for someone who is not a scientist, but who prefers the antiquated and obsolete doctrines of scientism to more modern philosophies. I propose the word "scientard"

who cares

the only things that will matter in the future are power and vanity, how you obtain it is a different matter completely

>>4105827
Fair enough. Than obviously Dennett is not a scientard.

>>4105828
how does one obtain vanity?

>>4105821
Popper didn't make science anything, he simply had a big influence on a bunch of self-styled "philosophers of science" who seem to feel that they can declaim definitively on the nature of science without ever having practised it, and who don't realize how utterly ridiculous they are.

>>4105831
Reasonable. It's not derived from "retard" by the way, but from "communard"

>>4105832
vanity is learned

>>4105829
Not relative truth, but objective truth, yes.

>>4105833
That's the most retarded thing I have read all day. Meta cognition must be hard for you.

When is Jesus coming back so we can put a stop to all this?

>>4105838
Popper does not wholly dismiss the notion of objectivity, bud. Also, embracing a notion of a (ugh) relative truth does not make one a postmodernist by definition.

>>4105659

Who are "we"?

>>4105840
Ho hum.

>Hurr durr I will declaim on the nature of labour without ever doing hard labour
>Hurr durr I will declaim on the nature of science without ever practising science

Maybe this seems logically sound to you based on the axioms of your twisted mental system, but to the ordinary, common-sense individual this can't seem anything other than ridiculous, and the fact that your kind take no notice is part of the reason the humanities are in decline.

>>4105844
Relative truth is objective truth.
The most effective relative truths are the most objective. Science will eventually reach its end point, at which point only relative truths will take over. I know this because I am smart.

>>4105853
go to bed, anon. you sound capable of sound reasoning, but I think that atm you've had one glass too many.

>>4105844
No, but he doesn't make a retarded claim that objectivity is obtainable with certainty (theres an important difference between believing that and "striving" for objectivity") like retarded unreflected kiddies in their first years of school who thinks themselves "intelligent".

>>4103821

>stay in my room reading optical science textbooks because I am NEET
>decide to go outside because I ran out of Mountain Dew
>see something red for the first time
>this is not a new experience for me because I already know everything about seeing red and qualia is obvously an intellectual whim

>>4105859
>all that insecurity in one post

>>4105859
>Popper did not adhere to the beliefs of firstgraders

Well, yeah...

>>4105849
>common-sense

More like common-stupidity and appeal to majority, faggot, is that really your standard of truth?

>>4105859
Objectivity is and will be obtainable with certainty. This is not exclusive to the sciences. I know this because I am smart.

>>4105866
Very well, I'll approach this with an open mind. Why is not ridiculous for someone who has never practised science to declaim on its nature in the same way that it is ridiculous for someone who has never done hard labour to declaim on the nature of labour?

>>4105864
>the stupid are cocksure and the wise so full of doubt etc.

>>4105872
>politely calling bull-shit

you, I like you.

Daily reminder that you are all base faggots and products of the massive wrong-turn philosophy took after the death of Socrates.

>>4105870
Under average lel.

>>4105872
Hard labor isn't an abstruse concept you fucking moron. People need jobs and one of these jobs is doing picking stuff up and putting it down and following instructions to do whatever. The fact that you think this is some extremely complicated subject probably means that you are a skinny weakling who just can't fathom how people can use their bodies.

ITT: Philosophy dies

>>4105884
>doing science is not hard labour

go fuck yourself.

No dialectic in this thread. What a waste of time. Keeping bashing each other like beasts.

>>4105870
This is the new cry of scientismists. "It will happen someday!" Science has left the building, you are now speaking in prophecies.

>>4105872
I don't know what you are talking about define science and labour? So by your logic you have to be a slave to talk about slavery? Do you have to be a heroin addict to talk about heroin? I don't get it.

So much ego and insecurity ITT, very little cogent argumentation.

>>4105889
lel it's not. it's labor, not hard labor. please learn the difference

>>4105884
Science isn't an abstruse concept you fucking moron. People need jobs and one of those jobs running chemical experiments under the fume hood and jotting down values from measuring devices and following instructions to calculate whatever. The fact that you think this is some extremely complicated subject means that you are a bohemian liberal arts major who can't fathom how people can use their left brains.

>>4105903
>left brains

you had me convinced you knew what you were talking about until here.

>>4105901
nice b8 m8

>>4105903
As a bohemian liberal arts major, I know natural science is dry and boring as fuck and done by equally dry and boring partypooping nerds without passion. It's really not hard or complicated it just takes a bit of training.

>>4105909

>mfw science and postmodernity are actually compatible because neither believes in an end point of objective truth
>mfw people think "truth" matters more than virtue

>>4105909
I like the way you embrace the stereotype. Don't project it though, scientists are usually pretty passionate about their subjects and often take low-paying jobs just to keep working in their field. I'm sure this is true of liberal arts people as well: they want to pursue painting or poetry or music even theough they might never make a good living from it.

>edge.org
lmao

what the humanities need is a revival

unfortunately, most of them are useless
philosophy is the best, but the way this devil-controlled world is makes it largely impractical

philosophy's use is define the world, it is the mother of science, after all. therefore all scientific decisions must seek authority from philosophical experts first. this is how you fix the world. philosophy has been too obscure for too long, and now the time is ripe for it's rightful place at the top of the theoretical ladder. i of course will lead this expedition into the new world and the revival of the humanities. no need to thank me as i will take all credit

>>4105909
>I have never taken an upper-level math or physics course at a university

Go on anon, sign up and see how far memorizing all the equations gets you.

>>4105922
lel, your day is over philosophaggot. this is our era. don't be too upset though, maybe we'll keep a research chair or two around for you guys. it's least the we could do I'm sure.

>>4105921
So, which face is yours? The horse's or the bovine's?

science and postmodernity cannot believe things, as they are neither things, nor sentient things.

>>4105928

One day you might learn to read.

>>4105909

Learning math is like learning a language. It is a language.

Evolution cannot be true.

Prof. Richard Dawkins says that evolution is when an ape, over a period of millions of years, turns into. Well I have one question and one question only for "professor" Richard Dawkins - how can an ape turns into a man over millions of years, when apes only live for a few dozen years?
Now that, atheists, is what we call a 'checkmate'.

Pic related, it's Richard Dawkins waiting 12 billion years for a rabbit to turn into a human.

>>4105936

It's like a language in some ways, but it isn't a language.

>>4105934
maybe one day you might learn2syntax

>>4105938
>Prof. Richard Dawkins says that evolution is when an ape, over a period of millions of years, turns into.
turns into a man*

sorry about that omission, folks; but hey, I guess you can compare that omission in my sentence to the omissions in the fossil record which evolutionists need to prove their "theories" (their guesses) right.

>>4105940
... formal language vs. natural language.

yes, mathmatical systems are languages.

>>4105938

>and then an eagle sheds a tear on Principia Mathematica

>>4105941

Get off 4chan, child. Run along and play.

>>4105923
I teach upper level physics and statistics. We post the relvant equations on the board and allow an eight and a half by eleven sheet of notes, printed on both sides for exams, as well as a graphing calculator (TI-55 or equivalent--we supply those) So no, memorizing equations while useful, won't get you through. I do encourage liberal arts students to take more math and science though:it's not that hard and can broaden your perspective.

>>4105947

If you use the word 'language' in an idiosyncratic way, sure.

>>4105948
>Get off 4chan
When you stop tripping

>>4105921
>he doesn't realize a belief in virtue is contingent on a belief in truth

>>4105951

Mathmatics as a formal language is an indiosyncratic use of the word language...

Goddamn... Hold on.

Mr. Russel, mr. Whitehead, mr. Gödel, mr. Frege, mr. Wittgenstein, mr.Tarsky, mr. Chomsky, mr. Searle, mss. everyone in mathmatics... have you heard? You are being idiosyncratic in your use of the term formal language.

Why are you telling people to run along and play again?

>>4105956

The word you're looking for is 'supervenient', and it isn't.

>>4105960

Didn't realise the billions of people that live on the planet and talk about language all the time were avid readers of a handful of dead white theorists.

>>4105962
"it is true that one ought to pursue virtue before truth."

>>4105965

No, it isn't a matter of truth, it's just a matter practice.

>>4105964
hello falalcies.

you don't know the difference between technical terms and idiosyncracies, do you?

>>4105970
"it i true that it isn't a matter of truth, it's just a matter of practice."

>>4105921
>mfw people think "truth" matters more than virtue

The truth does make people more virtuous though.
That's why Christ said, "and the truth shall set you free".
If a person is not virtuous it is because he is not fully understood the truth and has given himself over to vanity and delusion.

The truths of science are certainly truths, but they are far from being the whole truth and, in fact, the truths of science can often mislead men into falsehood. For example, Dawkins discovered a truth in natural selection, and then Herbert Spencer spun a falsehood when he invented Social Darwinism having received a false impression of what the truth of natural selection means. There are countless example of this - people falsely relating the material truths of science to spiritual truths. For example, one discovers the Copernican Principle that the Earth is not at the center of the Universe, and that the Earth is but a tiny part of the Universe, and then he says to himself in his heart, "the human race is vain and meaningless as a hole, and my life is meaningless". You see, he's translated a mere mathematical relationship of size and proportion to a spiritual thing (in the case a spiritual despair), and now he will constantly refer to this fact about the Universe as though it justified his despair. This despair is not the truth - it does not set them free, it makes them feel hopeless and powerless.

>>4105923
Like memorizing anything else, claiming intelligence by field is like claiming to be anonymous by wearing a guy Fawkes mask.

Engineers tend to be simple-minded or even stupid people, but good at being trained monkeys.

>>4105974
>Dawkins discovered a truth in natural selection
Darwin*

>>4105962
no, supervenient is absolutely not what i meant. supervenient would only make sense if i had said "supervenient on truth", but i was talking about the contingency a belief in virtue has in a belief in truth. in order to believe there is virtue, you have to believe that virtue is true. if you're talking about "a matter of practice" you're just describing arbitrary things as "virtue."

>>4105979
I defy you to find a simple minded or stupid person who has any skill at all at being a trained monkey. Being a trained monkey requires, depth, insight and empathy. In fact being any kind of monkey is vastly underated in terms of difficulty.

>>4105982

If you need me to tell you what virtue is, you're never going to possess it. Sorry.

>>4105972

If you're too autistic to tell the difference between truth and wisdom you can fuck off right now and stop talking about philosophy period.

>>4105988
I like you (im the anon you responded to btw)

>>4105990
fallacies in this post:
ad hominem
shifting the burden of truth
red herring

>>4105420
>Weird how you're seemingly smart enough to realize that science itself is neutral but can't connect that the same applies to the study of humanities.

But it doesn't. The final arbiter of truth in science is fact. That's either unavailable or irrelevant in the humanities.

>>4106105
>implying anything is objective
>implying "facts" aren't proven wrong all the time
>implying science isn't for little fuckboys

some branches of physics are cool, because they acknowledge the problems of measuring anything and usually have less of a hard on for truthclaims

>philosophy students still wallowing in irrelevancy
every thread

>>4103964
>It's distasteful in any context
well that's a matter of taste then... not a real criticism in any sense
>The idea that they can't understand the findings of technology without being versed in it themselves is the same elitism he pins on modern philosophy
not being versed means precisely that they won't understand them
>Do modern people somehow experience the problems of modern living in a less real way?
no, there he is talking specifically about philosophers talking about matters they are not really familiarized with
>The point he neatly skirts around is that technological advances don't simply obliterate the subjective experiences of living in a technologically advanced society.
he didn't say they do. he merely pointed that speaking in a complete abstract ground detracted from reality is not a solution and it's no alternative to observation

>>4103964
>If I tried publishing a paper claiming that Pyrrhonism produced nothing of value because of their suspension of judgment, I doubt I'd get very far in academia
only if you did it wrong. he produced nothing of value

>>4105139
just to clarify. Dennett does not support sientism

>>4105249
foucault is only partially correct. it is true that reality is determined by the system of beliefs in a specific place and time. it's also true that humanity forgets certain facts in time and if lucky, rediscovers them. What's wrong about Les mots et les choses Foucault is that he doesn't make the proper counterargument himself: that certain institutions, sustained by the nodal web of people that support them, do work on cumulative knowledge. Science is one of this systematic institutions that, although not fully organized, is organized at a level far above the humanities, I'm not even a scientist simply someone interested in science who acknowledges its virtues fro the outside. Don't commit the mistake of making it about you vs them. Stick with what you think is true rather than what ou wish was true

>>4105304
examples

>>4105872
>Why is not ridiculous for someone who has never practised science to declaim on its nature in the same way that it is ridiculous for someone who has never done hard labour to declaim on the nature of labour?

Is it ridiculous? Aristotle explored athletics, labor and politics alongside his development of the fundamentals of the scientific practice. Was he an Olympian? No. Was he lumpenproletariat? No. Was he a politician? No. He was a philosopher, and I'm sure he looked absolutely ridiculous, in the same way you must.

>>4105431
>implying I wouldn't just communicate my ideas through anatomically integrated tools if I lacked a phone or a computer or something to write with and over.
>implying it makes any difference to me at all whether I communicate my ideas to you or someone else
>implying muh progress is a good argument for science to deny humanities
>implying muh progress is not just an excuse for STEM rats to enjoy self-importance and entitlement

>>4105454
>Philosophy is the love of life
really, that's the definition now? that definition lacks so much in rigor that a philosopher must have come up with it

Can you prove scientifically that the scientific method will always will produce every answer to every question and every problem anyone will ever have?

>>4106231
No, but that doesn't mean that you've disproved science... only your own notion scientism

>>4105481
I guess that's haw you want to view it because it favors you as a STEM and I am completely sure that you're partially right. There are other reasons though. Some STEM people can be quite obnoxious out of their self-importance, I repeat, SOME. They will go mocking and diminishing any form of expression that does not relate to science. This is a loyalty towards science completely out of context, an useless defense of science when it's not under attack.

The reaction of SOME people in humanities is not necessarily out of jealousy, just a reaction against the self-important and reductionist view of SOME STEM people that are therefore deemed as advocators of scientism

>>4106245
Good, I like science but hate scientism.

>>4105488
that's a beautiful life

>>4105669
>you can't fix this problem with natural sciences
>that doesn't mean science can't solve all problems
>I thought STEMS had to have at least a basic grasp of logic

>>4105481
>Funnily enough the law of thermodynamics refutes that argument, as well as biology and genetics refute most shit from the pseudo-intellectual triad of Sartre, Derrida and Foucault.

That's a claim that needs much more actual scientific back up. I hate it when pseudo-scientist hijack thermodynamics to make their point. It's like you have no real respect for the filed. So let's stop the amateurism. I want to see actual knowledge of thermodynamics.

>>4105481
It's statements like this that reinforce my belief that, outside of their specific fields, most STEM guys are total fucking morons.

>Sartre, Derrida and Foucault.

I mean, three people, one from a different generation, who worked in a roughly simmilar field in the same country are a triad? You clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I've met like, one STEM student who didn't believe every other subject (except business studies) was totally redundant. I think something about the culture of STEM trains people to be retards outside of their specialty.

>>4105863
go to bed, Mary Dennett...

Got dammit /lit/ science is more important than philosophy.

Seeking truth does not mean picking sides like a sports team

>>4105927
>lel, your day is over philosophaggot. this is our era. don't be too upset though, maybe we'll keep a research chair or two around for you guys. it's least the we could do I'm sure.
jesus fuck this debate is completely moronic. both sides talk like children with their fucking "my toy is the best" arguments

>>4105964
what makes it, NOT a language? I don't think you have explained that anywhere

>>4105998
wisdom implies truth, even for theologists that say wisdom is following the word of god. why? because they suppose the word of god, god himself, or both at once to be the truth. Following it is thus following truth, and wise is who follows truth and applies it to life. Same with "practical wisdom" which orbits around making life pleasant and attain some happiness. They are called wise because happiness and pleasant life are considered good and it's considered that a good life is something that we should strive for. This belief is considered truth and the wise is following, therefore following truth. That's part of what makes him wise. Knowledge is not the only requisite for widom but it's essential to it

>>4106301
>Science is more important than philosophy

God. Damn. You. Do you not understand that without philosophy, there could be no science? It operates entirely upon philosophical assumptions. It's like saying apples are more important than trees.

The worst part of these dumb threads is that you can tell the pro-scientism side barely has any experience doing any science (or reading philosophy, obviously). It's like there's a subset of users on this board who don't do ANYTHING but post on this board. They don't read, they don't go to school, they've never been in a lab...and it fucking shows.

>>4106690
I studied philosophy and I think this idea is fucking bullshit. Sure, at one point in history, there was no distinction between scientific and philosophical aims and methods, but that was about 200 years ago. You don't need philosophy to do science, as evidenced by all these STEM retards who literally don't know what philosophy is.

On the other hand, the question 'what is the most important field of study' is really fucking stupid, too. The idea that one interest is to be preferred over another is basically a capitalist mentality infiltrating intellectual matters - interests can only be compared in terms of relative economic importance. In academic terms, you either have an interest or you don't. There's no academic value in arguing one interest is better than another. It's like arguing that liking apples is superior to liking oranges. Pointless.

>>4106737
You failed to answer the most important question: Is truth relative?

>>4106690

God. Damn. You. Do you not understand that without alchemy, there could be no chemistry?

>>4106749
I literally don't give a fuck about that question but it does make me want to wear your severed scalp as a jock strap.

>>4106756
>>>/b/

>>4106755
Chemistry is alchemy.

But anon, hating high-octane sophistry (such as postmodernism) is perfectly healthy.

>>4106779
>implying you can define postmodernism without posting a derrida jpg

>>4103821

Anon, you don't know what you're talking about. Qualia is more or less the opposite of a transcendent principle. The acceptance of qualia does not just AUGMENT a worldview - it is REQUIRED if one agrees that a view can exist at all.

>>4106793

That's the thing though, postmodernism itself has a hazy definition.

>>4106737
Well, even if you think the idea is bullshit, that just means you're an idiot. Science is built upon some very fundamental philosophical assumptions, as are things like linguistics and mathematics. If we were without philosophy, we would thus be without science.

>>4106767
did you have your ancient philo class today fgt?

>>4106798
after modernism.

>>4106814
Way to repeat yourself while ignoring my argument, genius.

>>4106819
ok so what is modernism, faggot

>>4106822
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism

>>4106821
Lol, there's nothing to refute. You're literally just saying, "NUH-UH!"

>>4106814
>daily life is built upon some very fundamental philosophical assumptions. If we were without philosophy, we would thus be without life.

99% of the human population have always, do, and will continue to operate under realist assumptions, belief in desirability of objective truth, assumption of basic axioms, etc.

Go read some fucking Kierkegaard while the ones that have accomplished something of consequence in the past century study computation and atomic theory

>>4106737
posters like this

>>4106872
>Dat appeal to popularity

Just because they aren't consciously aware of the philosophical assumptions upon which they base their lives, it doesn't mean that they don't practice philosophy. It's just that realism is very basic philosophy.

>>4106873
The ethos of your argument is astounding.

I must say I have never been so swayed by an internet post, please stay keep posting, you are a valuable part of this community.

The rigor of your logic is unfallible

"Scientism" isn't a thing

?lit/ is just pissy because, yes, the hard sciences have proved themselves to have a measurable and desirable effect on the world and are the most promising path to objective truth

>>4106884
>rigor of your logic
i lol'd

>>4106301
It really is that simple, and people might be able to admit this if they forced themselves to look at actual problems faced in the world.

FUCK SCIENCE

this is the blasphemy of our age.

>what's a scientist
>false dichotomies everywhere
>ur a STEM no ur a liberal art
>science is a religion
>thermodynamics refutes Derrida and Foucault
Thank you /lit/.

>third culture
more like
>third reich
amirite?

but seriously, the trend back towards empiricism/realism/observable reality/health/fitness/biopolitics/nature/positivism/etc is highly fascistic. it follows the form that fascist thinking and art took as it developed in the 30s. we should resist this with all our might, irony and rigour.

let's show them how it is the degenerates that have access to life's secrets, not the technocrat dweebs.

let's show them that there are incommensurable and unmeasurable aspects to existence. let's blow huge lacuna into their neat, totalising narratives about "how the world really works".

let's undermine them at every turn, use their language against them, pretend to be them and sew seeds of doubt, play magic tricks that shift the discursive ground beneath them.

let's reveal how their project is in line with the increasing confinement of man and the decreasing horizon of his possibilities. let's show how their reason is always instrumental, always connected to systematic exploitation.

we have many predecessors who can show us techniques and strategies to win this insurgency. pick your gods and use their blessings to reclaim the realm of the living from these priests of reification! together we can resist the tide, even if it overwhelms everyone else. when it recedes the ones who come after will be able to locate us and say: they held out, they kept the way when everyone denied its existence, and in doing so preserved something invaluable for all posterity.

>>4106285
>I've met like, one STEM student who didn't believe every other subject (except business studies) was totally redundant. I think something about the culture of STEM trains people to be retards outside of their specialty.

They need to be uncritical critical thinking would make the world too complex, for their feeble one way streets they have as minds.

>>4107832
Thank you, lol´d heartily.

>>4106105
Nice sweeping generalization, moron. Induction is a fallacy when applied like that. Let me try that: most STEM fags have no idea why their claims are valid, they are just brainwashed to parrot 'muh statistical significance' or muh scientific method.
See? That's how you sound.

>>4105896
I like you.

>>4105863
I chuckled

>>4105876
What wrong turn was that?

>>4107921
Logic.