/lit/ - Literature

>>4538253
>psychology

>>4538259
Cognitive science/neurology is not psychology.

>>4538270
Neurology and psychology are both gathered under cognitive science (along with things like linguistics), so what's the problem?

>>4538276
>>4538263
>>4538256
What is the point of your dump ?

>>4538282

>>4538275
Psychology can not make predictions the same as neurobiology can.

Science is a greedy eater.

Whatever it deems right, becomes science. It's what's left behind that is defined as not. OP's example is not science. An example of a good scientific question for this would be, is OP a faggot?

>>4538253

How do you think Heidegger was at sex?

>>4538253
>Why then do people put so much faith in science when philosophy itself is a purer and more effective method for gaining knowledge ?

Because ideas without clear evidence is useless.

>>4538253
>Why then do people put so much faith in science when philosophy itself is a purer and more effective method for gaining knowledge ?
I don't know, maybe because philosophy hasn't put anyone on the moon?

>>4538520
Neither has science.

>>4538520
>implying outer space is more important than inner space.

Are you even human?

>>4538500
No it isn't.
Most practical issues are more directly answered by the assumptions of science, but philosophy is hugely useful in clarifying ideas that may account for small or large factors in human behavior.
Science is an arm of philosophy, but non-science philosophies are generally more capable of finding answers in purer ways.
Science is able to answer very specific questions and proves to be more directly-useful than other philosophies, but the others offer clarification that is necessary to successfully pursue scientific answers. Non-science philosophies are generally more pure than the scientific philosophy and they can target both significant and insignificant facets of existence, knowledge and logic.

>>4538253
>Why then do people put so much faith in science when philosophy itself is a purer and more effective method for gaining knowledge ?
Said the person making the case for philosphical stances backing them up with scientific research to validate them.

Science gets you general relativity and quantum mechanics and effective medicine and knowledge of other planets and synthetic drugs and explosives and computers and rocket mechanics and so much cool stuff.

If you can do all that you're pretty much a wizard. I don't think studying philosophy can make you a wizard.

>>4538546
Philosophy: It's like psychology, but even more pretentious.

>>4538557
spinoza died a virgin most likely

>>4538520
>Uprooting the Dasein from traditional dwelling
>Being somehow good for humanity

because the knowledge has no real value until it's scientifically proven.

>>4538552
I don't need science to tell me to accept Heidegger's philosophy, Its just there to show how science is not always at the forefront of knowledge and that thinking can get you way further than science can.

Remember kids, science (and scientists) don't think.

heidegger would have wanted science to "prove him right"

>>4538579
Most scientists think, undergrads don't.

>if it contains math it's true.

>>4538568
http://youtu.be/w1awvC1l7mM?t=3m28s

>>4538577
A philosopher says "Things are so." The public asks "So what?" and the philosopher responds "You should value knowledge for knowledge's sake."

Whereas the scientist responds to the "So what?" with "Oh, well we can predict what will happen with a high degree of certainty and people are willing to bet money that we're right."

>sci/phil divide
>not joined forces

why?

>>4538552
That's what I thought . . . it's a shame this information was presented by someone silly - completely missing the thing you pointed out - and prejudiced.

As much as there is perhaps a right to be annoyed at science, displaying such annoyance is just so off-putting, not to mention useless and tiresome. Thanks for info anyway OP, here's the full write up if anyone wants it (it's pretty long):
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0009433

>>4538591
And? Valuing knowledge for knowledge's sake is a worthless syllogism. Knowledge isn't inherently true or right. Science attempts to be.

>>4538591
That's why capital is interested in science and not philosophy.
There's no money in honing our knowledge and asking questions breaking new frontiers if thought.

There's money in using our current knowledge to determine outcomes minimizing risk, by increasing predictability.

Luckily some people are motivated by other factors than money.

>>4538572
Scientists are nihilists, bruder.

>>4538609
Nihilism has nothing to do with it.

>>4538596
Because sadly most modern scientists and technologists are fucking dumb and so they use their perverse methods to conceal much more truths that they unravel.

I guess this is because of the shitty capitalist higher education system where it basically just trains you to become a "Fachidiot". Universities should require 2 years of relatively intense literature, poetry and philosophy courses no matter what the major.

Now you have people going around who think that the real is "what is measurable" taking their beloved field of natural science and putting it on a throne, making it basically a religion.

>>4538611
Nihilists don't care about uprooting Dasein from traditional dwelling.

>>4538616
What does nihilism got to do with that?

>>4538596
ask scientists

>>4538612
What's the problem again?

>>4538618
Nihilists don't recognise concepts such as dasein and traditional dwelling as valid.

>>4538621
Why? They deny they exist? I don't think you know the meaning of the words you use.

>>4538620
What do you mean what is the problem ?
Science can't look past it's narrow methods, technology transforms and enframes us, turning the Dasein into a standing reserve or rather a cog in the giant framework which can be called for functioning.

You can not reveal any truths this way, because the act of modern science and technology reveals one thing and conceals many others.

>>4538611
sure it does. how does a scientist justify his being a scientist or his being concerned with science at all? bill nye, for example, in his debate last night used the excuse of 'innovation' and of staying ahead of other countries technologically. Innovation, which i take to be a form of creativity, is seen to be good for the sake of dominating other countries and for the sake of transient knowledge which they pride themselves on. Is this not mad?

>>4538628
This has nothing to do with nihilism, bill nye can easily do this believing in natural morals.

>>4538624
They deny that they have an utmost importance to the very Being of the Dasein.

"Everything essential and great has only emerged when human beings had a home and were rooted in a tradition"

>>4538633
They deny they exist as beings in time that can ask the question "what/who/why am I" and answer these questions with language and then act upon it? I don't know what you are on about. It has nothing to do with nihilism

>>4538520
>science and techne are the same thing
LOOK AT THIS PLEB
LOOK AT THIS PLEB AND LAUGH

>>4538664

>implying that a completely artificial distinction between science and technology will suddenly turn your semantic circle jerk into anything other than a circle jerk

No, you're right Emperor, that's a very fine fabric your wearing

>>4538520
In making this statement one conducts philosophy.

And no, this is not subject to empirical observation because we're asking if it /can/, not if it has before.

>>4538687
Is it wrong to use a laptop solely as a paperweight? Where's your science now? Does technology have an inherent function that is solely decided by the technology, making up its parts?

>>4538490
He is pretty fucking /fa/ so I guess yes.
People who know how to dress themselves also know how to fug.

i'm really enjoying the turn to heidegger this board seems to be taking. unless it's just one guy samefagging.

>>4538500
How the fuck are they useless ?

>>4538819
/fa/ main-border here.
Now we don't.
Good portion of us are virgins.
Really enlightening how insecure good looking people can be.

>>4538853
*boarder

>>4538253
SCIENCE PRESENTS TRUTHS THAT PHILSOPHY CAN UTILIZE. PHILOSOPHY IS GOOD FOR FINDING CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN IDEAS AND FOR PONDERING OUTSIDE THE BOX. THEY ARE DIFFERENT TOOLS FOR DIFFERENT THINGS.

>>4538857
Rei you forgot your trip.

>>4538837
I'm also enjoying it and I will do my part to see that it continues.

>>4538857
I completely agree however as I stated earlier most scientists are relatively dumb. They have no problems with steamrolling various potentials to reveal truths just to make way for their "scientific method".
Science is religion to them. The notions that you can do harm with science and that the scientific method, measurements and quantization is "heresy" to their ears.

They BELIEVE in science.

>>4538490
Probably great. He knows it's not the size of the wave but the motion of the ocean.

Hanna Arendt wanted his dick pretty badly. I remember reading that after the 60s or something, Arendt would visit him every year.

The science of National Socialism proved him right a long time ago...

>>4538837
It's definitely better than the Max Stirner meme...

>>4538873
>I completely agree however as I stated earlier most scientists are relatively dumb.
Relative to whom?

>>4538873
>They BELIEVE in science.

No. Go back to church and stop shitposting.

>>4538888
Relative to what Heidegger calls "thinking people".
>>4538891
Go back to your lab like a good Bestand and wait for the call of your master to bring you forth into function.
Thinking is obviously not for you.

>>4538873
Scientists don't believe in science, the tens of millions of directionless, illiterate atheists our society has produced believe in science the way they would have believed in the gospels if they had been born in another time (though they would never admit this, even to themselves). Go to reddit to observe this phenomenon.

It's really quite sad, because science is going to lose a lot of its power (has in fact already lost a lot of its power) in the coming centuries, since this kind of religious worship is in direct conflict with the essential scientific ethos.

This is why I think the loss of religiosity in the Western world is a bad thing. People need religion to take care of their religious impulses and needs (which most people clearly have, even if they don't realize it) and if they don't have religion then they will simply invest their belief in something they perceive to be similarly powerful and authoritative--in this case science.

>>4538253
>Why then do people put so much faith in science when philosophy itself is a purer and more effective method for gaining knowledge ?

It had no empirical basis until science techniques were able to catch up and test it.

We had no idea that it was 'true' in any sense and it was merely conjecture.

At most this shows that 'philosophy' is not something that is apart from science nor something at odd with it and also that philosophy is still very much relevant.

>>4538918
>the tens of millions of directionless, illiterate atheists our society has produced

some of whom happen to be scientists.

>>4538930
>It had no empirical basis until science techniques were able to catch up and test it.
And ?
Not everything needs an empirical basis.
Not everything CAN have an empirical basis, that does not mean that it can not be used to uncover truths.
>We had no idea that it was 'true' in any sense and it was merely conjecture.
It was not a "conjecture", it did not seek empirical testing.
>At most this shows that 'philosophy' is not something that is apart from science nor something at odd with it and also that philosophy is still very much relevant.

Science is something which follows the formula of the scientific method and concerns itself with what is observable and measurable.
And that is completely fine as long as people don't start to believe that this is the only way of achieving truths and gaining knowledge.

>>4538930

it validates science as a truth-giver and invalidates it as an epistemic grand wizard, which is about what needs to happen.

>>4538941
>And that is completely fine as long as people don't start to believe that this is the only way of achieving truths and gaining knowledge.

Which is what most "STEM" plebs believe sadly.

>>4538941
>And that is completely fine as long as people don't start to believe that this is the only way of achieving truths and gaining knowledge.

Amen. How long did it take einsteins relativity to be empirically tested again? How long for Hawkins theories on black holes? They sure as hell didn't use the scientific method for their uncovering.

>>4538944
>truth-giver
Truth is not given my dear Dasein, it is brought forth from concealment.

>>4538948
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what scientists understand science to be. Also relativity is wrong, just like Newtonian mechanics is wrong. QFT bitch.

>>4538948
Actually they did.
The Michelson-Morley empirical experiment was the gateway for relativity.
The black holes can be observed and their effects measured as well.

And this is fine, no big deal, but such forms of revealing truth should not be the only tools for humanity.

>>4538963
I'm talking to fedoras not scientists. People who take science as objective truth. Did I strike a nerve?

>>4538914
>shitposting overload
It's not even worth it arguing with idiots like you.

>>4538918
>blind predictions based on nothing
Why don't you try making a coherent statement instead of babbling about the future?

>>4538971
Science isn't objective truth because that sentence makes no fucking sense you retarded ape. Shooting yourself in the head can't be objective truth. Dropping a rock on your head can't be objective truth. Science is a fucking action, a method, it GIVES US truth, and it's reliable because science TAUTOLOGICALLY PRODUCES EVIDENCE FOR ITSELF.

Go back to church and stop shitposting. Seriously, go away.

>oh, this is a nice post
>read the last sentence

>>4538978
>it GIVES US truth
Sometimes, sometimes the truth it "gives" conceals other truths.
>Go back to church and stop shitposting. Seriously, go away.
You fucking go away, it's you who is sticking out like a drooling retard and fucking up the whole discussion.

>>4538966
None of those examples explains relativity in full it wasn't sufficiently empirically supported until the start of the 60's. Also we haven't measured inside a black hole yet.

>>4538978
>Science is a fucking action, a method, it GIVES US truth

Objective truth? Lol you are really dumb.

>>4538983
>Sometimes, sometimes the truth it "gives" conceals other truths.

Explain this view.

>You fucking go away, it's you who is sticking out like a drooling retard and fucking up the whole discussion.
You haven't argued a single point, you simply come up with word salad and attempt to make a mockery of points you don't understand

>>4538989
True but the theories of Einstein were based on the methods of the scientific method. In the end stage the theory agreed with experiment and thus it was proven true.

If it wasn't it would have been trashed.

>>4538973
>Why don't you try making a coherent statement instead of babbling about the future?

The tip of the iceberg:

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/06/139231/majority-of-landmark-cancer-studies-cannot-be-replicated

>47 of 53 'landmark' cancer publications could not be replicated in the laboratory

All influential studies published in top journals and subjected to the most stringent peer review available in modern science. But 47 of 53 were bunk, probably produced by statistical noise or basic flaws in procedure.

You know part of the reason that those 47 of 53 bunk studies went on to be influential 'landmark' research? Because a religious element has arisen in science. If something passes through the hallowed hands of the peer review committee and is approved for publication, it becomes sacred knowledge. No-one bothers to verify results anymore, because they have lost faith in religion, and gained faith in the scientific process.

>>4538996
This makes it clear that Einstein wasn't reliant on the scientific method in unconcealing his theory.

>>4538994
That's literally not what I said.

>>4538995
>Explain this view.
A detailed quantifiable explanation of a natural event can mask all the other attributes given to that event, especially if the act of quantifying and measuring it produces "usefulness" to the "populace". It then masks the truths about it that for milenia poets and the like attributed it to it, and formed whole worldviews which allowed the populace to flourish around it.

>>4539000
That's just shitty science, it doesn't mean science is bad or wrong

>>4539004
What did you say then? It's a method that just gives one answer of many posible?

>>4539007
"It's just a few rotten apples"

>>4539003
Yes it was. The empirical testing is the last stage of it. He simply made predictions based on previous testable work utilizing a mathematical framework and rigorous physics (such as the equivalence principle).

>>4539003
The scientific method != science. The scientific method is a way of testing theories. First theories have to be drawn up on the basis of available data, which is what Einstein did. Once a plausible theory has been proposed and mathematically worked out, then we can begin looking for ways to use the scientific method to attempt to falsify it.

The difference between philosophy and science is that philosophical theories cannot be empirically falsified, whereas scientific theories can.

>>4539006
So what you're saying is science makes people not believe in God because it works, so it's bad and you're a deep and smart guy for not trusting it?

>>4539008
No, because objective truth will always elude us, but science rapidly progresses us towards a more comprehensive model, which no other method or view does.

>>4539011
Go back to church and stop shitposting

>>4539017
The difference between science and philosophy is that philosophy relies on unfound assumptions and oversimlifications of the world, whereas science is simply the method to determine specific facts in certain circumstances from which new deductions can be formed

>>4539017
that makes a lot of sense, thanks.

>>4539023
>which no other method or view does.

What if another method proves otherwise?

>>4539017
Empiricism is a shallow worldview.
Concepts such as "love" for example, that have been around since the dawn of humanity, do not need empirical testing and using "science" on such concepts can conceal many truths.

>>4539034
Philosophy isn't, so there's no point in considering what the OP is saying.

>>4539007
If 87% of research being published in top journals is shitty science, then perhaps we need to ask ourselves what is currently wrong with the scientific community.

Let me propose a theory: could it be that the ~90% of scientists who identify as atheists have begun to selfishly satisfy the religious impulses that they refuse to admit they have by placing their faith in science? By worshiping peer review and the scientific method? By, in essence, abandoning the spirit of skepticism which is the most essential ingredient of scientific inquiry?

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts," said Feynman, but clearly contemporary scientists are taking experts at their word.

>>4539036
No, what you just said is completely retarded. Love makes perfect sense through the scientific lens, science simply robs you of the extraworldly fluff that enhances your delusional worldview.

>>4539036
Same about death, meaning, hope, faith, sex, language, behavior and general aesthetics.

>>4539037
>philosophy is one thing

>>4539041
>If 87% of research being published in top journals is shitty science, then perhaps we need to ask ourselves what is currently wrong with the scientific community.

Maybe it's not a problem with the scientific community. Maybe it's a problem with the structure of society and how funding is appropriated. Oh wait, you're giving a very narrow and simple view which leads you to error, which is the fault you believe is inherent to science.

>>4539042
The fluff is exactly what gives it significance to all others than autists.

>>4539049
Funnily enough, science could set up an experiment to see in which setting better science is produced.

>>4539050
Nope. The fluff is just bullshit word salad that people apply to emotions via association. The meanings are contradictory and nonsensical and ignore neuroscience. Go back to church and stop shitposting.

>>4539043
You are correct.
>>4539050
The fluff may also contain many truths which the science can't begin to touch.
>>4539042
>Love makes perfect sense through the scientific lens
Yes it makes perfect sense WITHIN THE SPECIFIC FRAMEWORK OF SCIENCE and for it's purposes but not much else, and the danger here is that these "scientific truths" may be used to conceal other truths.

>>4539061
There are no other truths. If you believe there are, the onus is on you to demonstrate such. I'm now abiding by Hitchen's Razor, until you comprehensively show which truths science conceals, I will dismiss your entire argument as hokum and laugh at you for being a complete fuckhead.

>The fluff may also contain many truths which the science can't begin to touch.

Nope.

>>4539056
>The fluff is just bullshit word salad that people apply to emotions via association. The meanings are contradictory and nonsensical and ignore neuroscience.

We are humans we have emotions it's an important part of our perception and how we construct our worldview. If it contradicts neuroscience, empirically neuroscience must be in wrong then.

Speaking of contradictions your feelings towards contradictions and word salad is emotionally based on your personal sense of aesthetics. Your worldview is based on your emotions towards emotional statements.

>>4539074
>We are humans we have emotions it's an important part of our perception and how we construct our worldview. If it contradicts neuroscience, empirically neuroscience must be in wrong then.

You literally just said emotions trump neuroscience.

>Speaking of contradictions your feelings towards contradictions and word salad is emotionally based on your personal sense of aesthetics. Your worldview is based on your emotions towards emotional statements.
No it's not.

>>4539083
>You literally just said emotions trump neuroscience.

No, I said that if neuroscience can't explain its own phenomena it's falsified.

>No it's not.

How is it not?

>>4539071
Demonstrate how? It's tautologically impossible to demonstrate which truths science conceals using the methods of science, and since that is the only type of intellectual inquiry you seem to accept, we are at an impasse.

>>4539096
>No, I said that if neuroscience can't explain its own phenomena it's falsified.

It completely can, if only you'd read the literature. Also "turing completeness" does not define truth.

>>4539097
All you're doing is repeating "You can't prove that" over and over again, without making a single valid argument nor are you even attempting a philosophical stance. You are a moron and an anti-intellectual. You should stop posting, and go sit down and meditate about your life and why you're wasting all your potential on trying to find God. He doesn't exist, now move on to better things.

>>4539103
>dogmatically asserts that no truth can be correct except truth discovered his way
>accuses others of anti-intellectualism

>>4539110
>dogmatically asserts that no truth can be correct
>still tries to prove a point

>>4539115

>>4539118
Good, now that you've admitted that by your own belief you have no right to assert because the assertion that there is no truth contradicts, and thus literally goes against the only assertion of philosophy, that you should GO BACK TO CHURCH AND STOP SHITPOSTING ON /LIT/. CHURCH FILTERS EVERYTHING DOWN TO YOUR LEVEL OF STUPIDITY, IT'S GOOD FOR YOU.

>>4539103
>It completely can, if only you'd read the literature. Also "turing completeness" does not define truth.

What? If you can simulate the machinations of the brain how can there be anything more to discover? Why doesn't such explanations do much for people who are living their ordinary lives?

Why can't you tell a man who takes a day off because his wife just left him, by telling him it's just chemical 'trick' his brain does and that he should just get over it because it's just emotional fluff?

>>4539123
>gets #reckt
>gets this mad

Bye.

>>4539131
>Why can't you tell a man who takes a day off because his wife just left him, by telling him it's just chemical 'trick' his brain does and that he should just get over it because it's just emotional fluff?

Because people aren't free actors and understanding a system doesn't change how that system operate. Orgasm with a woman, oxytocin releases and your brain associates her face with a very deep set reward mechanism. This "love" is inescapable.

You just have a bad understanding of neuroscience, really.

>>4539140
I fucking hate the face of most women I have fucked, again thanks for useless info.

>>4539145
>again misunderstanding neuroscience

stop trying and go back to church, you're wanted there to pray

>>4539146
I'm saying its useless to people's everyday world. Why haven't anyone made a product that everyone wants based on simulations of brain activity?

>>4539151
Not familiar with junkfood, video games, movies and popular music?

>>4539162
Are you postulating that these products are based in neuroscience? Sociology have been able to explain these phenomena for half a century in a way that makes sense, not reduced to chemicals that might/might not be released after studying these phenomena in retrospect. The only valuable knowledge neuroscience gives us is which chemicals McDonald should infuse their 'food' with, to make ameriburgers even fatter.

>>4539131
>Why can't you tell a man who takes a day off because his wife just left him, by telling him it's just chemical 'trick' his brain does and that he should just get over it because it's just emotional fluff?

Ironically this is essentially the approach that Buddhist monks take.

>>4539174
Just in their case their would be no earthly attachment to cause them harm in the first place, but yes.

>>4539186
>implying a pentagon understanding of a circle isn't better than a nonunderstanding of everything

>>4539207
>implying truth is a circle and not a hexagon.

>>4539071
>THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH AND THIS TRUTH IS THAT ONE WHICH SCIENCE GIVES ME
>>4539186
>There is only one absolute truth

STEM trash are disgusting, they have completely forgotten what it means to be human. You are but tools to various objects, your religion is SCIENCE.

You scream at others "go to Church" when you yourself are already fully brainwashed and indoctrinated by the religious institution of the scientific method.

>>4539186
Your point being? I assume that most of us are scientifically literate. The majority of Heideggerians in this thread probably have a solid grasp of scientific methodology and the history of the natural sciences - after all, critique of western Cartesianism and scientism is one of the thing post-Nietzschean thought is mostly concerned with. You are behaving just like a proselytist who supposes the natives will accept the Truth if he just keeps repeating Bible passages, in Latin, word-to-word for long enough - because who would dispute the self-evident truth when he hears it?

>>4539212
>>There is only one absolute truth
do you want to elaborate on this or are you just going to throw a hissy fit

>>4539186
>more likely

My sides

>>4539234
why are you assuming a position based on a single picture. that image is actually pro-science if you read it carefully

>>4538259


i think you mean >phenomenology, which is of course, the master race. godel agreed, dont bother him about it.

>>4539238
Is your reading comprehension very poor or am I missing something vital in yourpostt? Of course the picture was pro-science, that is the crux of the matter.

>>4539234
>>4539238
Is your reading comprehension very poor or am I missing something vital in your post? Of course the picture was pro-science, that is the crux of the matter.

>>4539238
Is your reading comprehension very poor or am I missing something vital in your post? Of course the picture was pro-science, that is the crux of the matter.

>>4539256
>>4539261
>>4539265
>deleting the same post twice in a row

>>4538612
>>4538620
That guy seems butthurt that other people are doing things he doesn't like.

>>4539140


>Because people aren't free actors and understanding a system doesn't change how that system operate.

actually, it does, analysis changes analyzed outcomes.

sage and report all shitposting threads
sage and report all shitposting threads
sage and report all shitposting threads

>>4538873
>The notions that you can do harm with science and that the scientific method, measurements and quantization is "heresy" to their ears.

>doing harm

>2014
>morality

>>4539307
No, actually, being aware that your brain is influenced by neurochemical DOES NOT change the effect of said neurochemicals.

>I can just think chemicals away!

Literally retarded.

>>4539301
There is a very good reason I don't like "technological progress" in it's current trend.

It's completely destructive and anti-human, it will soon come directly after human beings, it will "challange" us [Herausforden] and turn us into "standing-reserves" [Bestand] to continue it's uncanny seamless functioning.

Technology in it's purest form can be made into something beautiful, with its essence which is Gestel it can bring forth Ereignis in the Dasein.

I don't hate technology, I don't hate science, I hate what technology and science have become in the modern world, and I hate the people who are the cause of this, the same people who hold religion as it's science and technology as a tool.

>>4539311


i dont think you understand.

>analysis changes analyzed outcomes.

this is one of the major bug-bears of economic study, for instance, and just so in any sort of case, such as this. analysis through self-consciousness certainly influences how you then react to phenomena. indeed, the very act of self-analysis can in a way 'alienate' you from the phenomena, dispelling it in a way that simply trying to deny or contradict it would not.

>>4539311
What if you felt depressed and a doctor analyzing your brain chemicals says you aren't depressed and it's all make-believe, doesn't that change the truth?

>>4539331
So... Technology should be more like art?

>>4539331
>It's completely destructive and anti-human, it will soon come directly after human beings, it will "challange" us [Herausforden] and turn us into "standing-reserves" [Bestand] to continue it's uncanny seamless functioning.
Can you teach me to see the future please?

I like science (the one I study) because it's fun. Funnier than the other activities you can get paid for it seems.

>I hate what technology and science have become in the modern world
Can you be more specific?
Do you hate the internet? Do you hate worldwide instant communication? Do you hate antibiotics, vaccines, intensive agriculture, industrial robots?

>>4539341
No because if your doctor said that then he's making a statement he cannot make.

>>4539340
>analysis changes analyzed outcomes.
Why would I believe you?

>>4539308
> posts porn on SFW board

Report submitted!

>>4539282
It wasn't the same post, though. I'd still like an answer to my question.

the media is the message?

>>4539365


it can be true in the sense that *clinical* depression is so defined as a literal depression of neural energy, sending the decision making cycle into extinction, such that the subject is simply incapable of conceiving of a positive or rational outcome to events.

it may very well be that the subject in question is simply a faggot (but you dont necessarily need to scan someones brain to tell that).

>>4539374


because its evidently true.

>>4539378
>Announcing reports

The trap is sprung.

>>4539385
But can't a doctor take control over your personal experience with his 'science'. Alienating us from our own experience.

"That hurts!"

"No it can't possibly do that you are just a faggot"

>>4539389
Well it's not to me. You don't seem very good at that "convincing" deal.

>>4539361
YES
The greek word Techne encapsulates all "mechanical" arts, including music for example.
A positive example of modern technology would be the speakers and turn tables and other various tools [das Zeug] that can bring forth into existence a new creative form of "music" such as for example minimalist techno.

A problem can arise here if said music is real and rooted in some sort of authentic tradition and not just commercial but I could make arguments what electronic music fits such descriptions and why.

>>4539364
>intensive agriculture, industrial robots

These two are the worst offenders and the main cause of the depression and uprooting of the Dasein. It forces everything into uncanny functioning and already forces certain expectations of yield from animals and nature itself.

Instant communication and internet has it's fair share of problems but it's nothing compared to automatization and industrialization.

>Can you teach me to see the future please?
That I can not

>>4539374
Because "observer effect" in lack of a better term.

>>4539403
WRONG!

WRONG!

WRONG!

Do you know what 'delusion' is? A person like YOU ought to.

>>4538520
The reason for going on the moon is more important than the means of actually accomplishing it, wouldn't you say? Science would be absolutely meaningless without phillosophy.

>>4539423
So if your own experience doesn't fit their diagnosis, our own experience is merely delusion, so that you should have a 'fix'. Damn, Foucault only scratched the surface. Hail the docile bodies.

>>4539410


it is simply impossible for information gained to not influence subsequent states. your refusal to grasp this simple fact is a consequence of your insecurities, you cant admit the point not just because it threatens your presuppositions, but because being *wrong* would be *devalidation*, which is unacceptable to the solipsist, the content, context, and purpose of discussion becomes subordinated to this existential impulse.

>>4539434
Oh okay. You're a faggot. You can't disprove it since I thought it and all human interactions are null because everything humans think is right.

>>4538891
If you understand science, then you will know that it is very limited in what questions it can answer. People who believe in science deny the existence of anything it doesn't have an answer to.

>>4539414
>These two are the worst offenders and the main cause of the depression and uprooting of the Dasein.
So you boycott them, right?
You only use hand-made items and eat hand-grown food free of industrially-processed fertilizers and pesticids?

>Instant communication and internet has it's fair share of problems
It doesn't seem to bother you too much right now.

>>4539417
If only there was a mean to find consensus in opinion through some kind of work methods and some patterns of assessments... Oh yeah maybe you could share some evidence of what you're asserting?

>>4539437
It's true to you, that doesn't make me a faggot though. I think you believe me to be a faggot, because I disagree with your ideology. People like me shouldn't be taken serious, right?

>>4539446
>So you boycott them, right?
Correct
>You only use hand-made items and eat hand-grown food free of industrially-processed fertilizers and pesticids?
Correct
>It doesn't seem to bother you too much right now.
They don't, I said it has it's fair share of problems which need to get looked into but is nothing compared to other more immediate dangers.

>>4539436
>it is simply impossible for information gained to not influence subsequent states.
If you say so.

>your refusal to grasp this simple fact is a consequence of your insecurities
Is that how philosophers attempt to convince other people? By insulting them?
If I remember correctly, Freud only got away with it on vulnerable people who were considered insane anyway.

>>4539462
Where did you find an hand-made machine with an access to the internet?

> I said it has it's fair share of problems which need to get looked into but is nothing compared to other more immediate dangers.
I need to tell you that I feel really grateful that such an enlightened future-teller such as you would stoop down to share some of their much precious time with me.

>>4539446
>If only there was a mean to find consensus in opinion through some kind of work methods and some patterns of assessments... Oh yeah maybe you could share some evidence of what you're asserting?

Every time you become aware of something that you didn't think of earlier, it changes how you relate to the whole. Every time you discover something it changes the outcome of how you describe the whole. It's pretty banal which means that every new way of seeing parts of a phenomenon changes your description of the phenomenon in its whole, no matter if you use language or math to unconceal it.

>>4539469

I'd also like to say that I am lucky to have enough wealth to afford such a lifestyle, I have my own garden and mostly grow my own vegetables and fruit, and I only use natural cow dung for the fertilizer.

The gardening tools I use are all handmade and were passed down.

I avoid meat all together because the naturally slaughtered one can grind even my expenses.

But some people can not afford such a life, it is forced upon them that they unwillingly pay into such a disastrous industry.

>>4539463


i do say so.

>...

im simply helping you become reflexively aware of your own pathologies, such that hopefully you can overcome them and attain greater virtue and a more transcendent purpose. after all, it just wouldent do to sabotage any future relationships, projects, or goals you have due to tendentious narcissism.

>>4539437
Now, firstly you're just pretending that because someone disagrees with you they have a perspective that is the exact polar opposite of yours. Secondly, reality isn't as simple as that. There are plenty of good reasons to be depressed, or to kill yourself, it just doesn't make sense if we consider humans to be mere animals.

Basically, science denies abstract concepts their truth value by boiling everything down into observable phenomena and giving them names and patterns. It's chopping up existance into chew-sized bits and being surprised when things become un-observeable in the process.

>>4539486
>Every time you become aware of something that you didn't think of earlier, it changes how you relate to the whole.
If you say so.

>Every time you discover something it changes the outcome of how you describe the whole.
If you say so.

Is that how philosophy works?
If you can just write anything and get people to accept it you get paid. It's basically advertisement.

Way and weighing
Stile and saying
On a single walk are found.

Go bear without halt
Question and default
On your single pathway bound.

* * *

When the early morning light quietly grows above the mountains….

The world’s darkening never reaches to the light of Being.
We are too late for the gods and too early for Being. Being’s poem, just begun, is man.

To head toward a star—this only.

To think is to confine yourself to a single thought that one day stands still like a star in the world’s sky.

>>4539494
What do you do where you know the conclusion before you start? Are you a troll or moronic?

>>4539494
>let's not put up any resistance and see how it works out

Phillosophy is arguments and idea-systems, and these systems must be free of inner contradictions to be considered valid. Only very few combinations of ideas make sense, and most of those are still too absurd based on the beliefs you would need to hold in order for them to become relevant. So, you see, not everything is true.

>>4539494


its how everything works, but as noted economics is the classic example of this principle in action. the stock market is a perennial display, consider also the stagflation of the 70s, wherein businesses caught on to the fact that the government was increasingly the money supply at a consistent rate every so often, tailoring their prices and employment contracts to factor in regular inflation, essentially reducing the lag between money created by the govt and its dissemination through the wider economy (and hence, the benefit) to zero.

>>4539441
And the other questions are inherently meaningless, yes.

>>4539455
>It's true to you, that doesn't make me a faggot though.

YES IT DOES. I SAID SO. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SAY SOMETHING AND IT'S TRUE. LALALA SCIENCE IS FAKE

>>4539499
Sorry I didn't get your post. I know the conclusions?

>>4539509
I have to put up resistance?
>and these systems must be free of inner contradictions to be considered valid.
Well okay I'll try then.

>>Every time you become aware of something that you didn't think of earlier, it changes how you relate to the whole.
All your knowledge is based on an infinite recursion of unproven axioms.

>>Every time you discover something it changes the outcome of how you describe the whole.
All your knowledge is based on an infinite recursion of unproven axioms.

Did I do good at finding the inner contradiction of their philosophy?

>>4539514
>its how everything works
Oh I got this!
All your knowledge is based on an infinite recursion of unproven axioms.

>but as noted economics is the classic example of this principle in action.
Oh so you have some evidence. And you just decided that everything behaves like the stock market. That's interesting.
It's probably easier to say that the world fits your economic model than to try to prove that your economic model fits the world I suppose.

>>4539514
Yup, which is why classic economics is utter bullshit and anyone who isn't a socialist in 2014 is a complete fucking moron

>All your knowledge is based on an infinite recursion of unproven axioms.
This claim itself is based on an infinite recursion of unproven axioms, and thereby implicitly accepts the basis of unproven axioms. Even the attempt to simply highlight the self-referentiality of unproven axioms insinuates the acceptance of unproven axioms.

The actual difficult part, of establishing why we should not accept the unproven axioms that you are highlighting in a deflationary manner, you have yet to do.

>>4539528
>Sorry I didn't get your post. I know the conclusions?

You are saying that when you analyze something, you know the conclusion of the analysis (it's a priori revealed to you). You are saying that you will never discover something by the act of doing the analysis that will change the outcome (conclusion) of said analysis?

>>4539528
>everything is based on an infinite recursion of unproven axioms

That's just a variation of making a statements that's to broad to be disproven, like 'we're all part of a giant computer program' and 'everything is just in your imagination'. Nice try, guy.

>>4538837
i'm also loving it. i think it's largely a result of all the science vs. philosophy topics lately. just glad everyone has moved on from stirner.

seems like a couple years ago everyone was into schopenhauer. i don't see as much on him anymore. nietzsche has been fairly consistent, as have wittgenstein, marx, and camus. i think a philosopher needs a certain level of edgyness in order to trend on /lit/.

>>4539556
I think he needs to be basic, not edgy, stirner is the only edgy one.

>>4539556
Marx doesn't trend with the philosophy friends on /lit/. A large number of dicks regularly ask how to read him. And then we have about three Marx scholars: that 3rd worldist, the ultra, and probably another.

>>4539563
>the ultra

I like him.

>>4539541
>The actual difficult part, of establishing why we should not accept the unproven axioms that you are highlighting in a deflationary manner, you have yet to do.
I agree.
The point is to leave it there.
Maybe that claim is wrong, who knows? I was just trying to find an inner contradiction to show I can into philosophy! Do I get a gold star?

But maybe the universe does behave like an economic model that changes whenever we try to analyze it. Maybe it's not anymore now that I just analyzed it... And now that it's no longer changing when I analyze it, it's probably stuck that way?

All we'd have to do is to build a model of the universe's changes from changing from analysis to not changing from analysis...
That would constitute an analysis so we'd need another model for sure.

Guys, guys, Hitchen's Razor. Hitchen's Razor. If they deny science with no evidence, you can deny their denial with no evidence. Just mock idiots who deny science

>>4539572
>deny science
>with evidence

>>4539556
>i think a philosopher needs a certain level of edgyness in order to trend on /lit/.

You're probably right. It's not like we're seeing regular Dewey threads anytime soon.

>>4539577
Wow great argument fagtron you sure convinced me with those hot opinions.

>>4539547
>You are saying that when you analyze something, you know the conclusion of the analysis (it's a priori revealed to you).
Oh I wasn't saying that, you were saying the opposite I think.
Maybe I do what you're saying.

>>4539555
Nice triples. It seems you're agreeing with me in your post :^)

>That's just a variation of making a statements that's to broad to be disproven
You mean, some sort of statement that would lie on too many unproven axioms?

>>4539531


but anon, a complete 'rationalization' of the economy does not obtain because A. a science of 'universal efficiency' (efficient for what?) is basically another way of saying 'the form of the good' or 'divine righteousness'; B. systematizers transcend the systems they create by necessity, a dasein capable of 'rationalizing' all of society can/does function essentially as the god emperor of mankind (not that theres anything necessarily wrong with that); and C. if you consider it then to be an emergent group effort, then that is essentially how catallaxy is always and already functioning, and hence this line between 'capitalism' and 'socialism' breaks down.

>>4539583
You want to deny science by sciencing, you don't see the irony?

>>4539587
Okay, you're right, but capitalism as it exists in America is inherently inefficient, wasteful, broken, and should be changed.

>>4539591
I support science.

>>4539579
>Oh I wasn't saying that, you were saying the opposite I think.
Maybe I do what you're saying.

I said that analysis starts somekind of observer effect on the object analyzed. You said that was baseless. I then explained how if there wasn't this observer effect, we would know the conclusion before we undertook the analysis. My explanation of it was that everytime you discover something by the act of analyzing it changes how you percieve the whole. Then you claim this isn't true.

Maybe I confused you, but this should be obvious to anyone from my perspective so sorry if I didn't communicate the idea well enough.

>>4539579
Yes. the point is that you yourself don't have a concrete definition for 'the sum of every statement that may be possible', which makes it utterly useless as a philosophical concept. It's like coming up with a formula for primenumbers which simply states that x=any primenumber. And yes, I am aware that you are just playing around. I'm merely typing out my thoughts in order to change them by reflecting upon them.

>>4539616

>I said that analysis starts somekind of observer effect on the object analyzed.

>analysis changes the object of analysis, the one on which analysis is performed

>My explanation of it was that everytime you discover something by the act of analyzing it changes how you percieve the whole.

>analysis changes the subject of analysis, the one performing the analysis

So subject = object? You're just saying that analysis changes something, which seems rather tautological by your definition.
If your philosophy is about tautological statements on carefully-crafted definitions I'm good at it!

>>4539632
Let's just sum it up by: You can't know nuthin'.

>>4539660
That's right, Jay. Which is why we need to settle for guessing. And what you need to realize about that, and about living in a world where everything is relative is, that it doesn't make all statements equal. At some point on the 'possible statements' spectrum, idea-systems cease to be reasonable guesses and become baseless speculah.

>>4539701
>everything is relative is, that it doesn't make all statements equal.
Not equally relative?
Some statements are more relative than others?

>idea-systems cease to be reasonable guesses and become baseless speculah.
What's the difference exactly?
Did Jules Verne make reasonable guesses or baseless speculah, or both?
Maybe you have some sort of scale to assess the relativeness of a statement, the reasonability of a guess? Wouldn't that scale be relative too?

>>4539660
>You're just saying that analysis changes something

Yes it's really banal. So banal that most people forget, that how they approach the object actually changes how they perceive and act towards that object in the future. Even more they forget how their knowledge about the nature of the object changed by the very act analyzing it throughout the process of analysis and only take away the conclusion which might be incomplete.

Subject <-> object would be a more precise way of putting it, since higher understanding continues to influence how the object is perceived and how the subject interrogates it.

>>4539725
Higher=increasing**

There is absolutely no reason why this sci/phil debate should even exist. Even Heidegger was not completely a technophobe or a luddite. Modern science/technology is merely one way of revealing truth. Heidegger makes room for science, for truth as correspondence (why idiots in this thread can't comprehend that this philosophical concept is what acts as foundation for their "pure" field I can't understand). But truth was once thought of in different ways. Read about the greek conception of aletheia if you'd like to know more.

We shouldn't completely disregard technology. We should enter a free relationship with technology though. We should understand that it is something that can exert tremendous influence and power upon us--it is not simply a tool. Most dangerously, it is something that can turn against us and has in many ways. The philosophical mode of understanding of modern science/technology (enframing) is so rampant that we ourselves can become merely placed in boxes of "standing reserve", of "labor value" or "man power."

Heidegger has hope though. Remember the last passages of Question Concerning Technology guys: "in great danger [enframing/modern technology], lies also saving power [moment of vision, possibilities for authenticity, avenues for a free relationship with technology]"

>>4539725
>Yes it's really banal.
I don't really see the point of tautologies.
Constructing things that you can perceive as true does not make them true.

>how they approach the object actually changes how they perceive and act towards that object in the future.
Only because you defined analysis as something that changes something.
Maybe there are actions that do not change anything at all. Then you wouldn't call them "analysis" I suppose.
Also future seems to be by common definition something that is different from the present. Saying "you" will be different in the future is again a tautology.
Lots of future-tellers in this thread. Or maybe it's the same one. I guess future-telling is too overbearing to do anything but focus entirely on tautologies. Maybe it's a coping-mechanism?

>since higher understanding continues to influence how the object is perceived and how the subject interrogates it.
Why do you assume "higher" understanding?
Maybe I just lost you now.

>>4539740
>Saying "you" will be different in the future is again a tautology.

If you touch a red glowing hot stove to analyze its temperature, you will get burned and you will have a increased understanding of stoves which will change how you act towards stoves. This is not tautology it can only become that AFTER the act of experimentation where the stove have revealed one of its attributes. What's so hard to understand?

>>4539734
Nobody ITT claimed that science or technology are bad, but modern science and modern technology are heading down a disasterous path.

I don't want everything turned into a standing reserve and conceal previous AND future modes of revealing.

Most STEM shits never think outside of the box but keep injecting the quantafications into nature, modern physics already expects results from nature and searches the best way to get them.

I love technology ever since I was little, but the whole framework of global modern technology makes me want to puke. How can you see hope in such mess ?

>>4539593


i should think the fundamental problem is basically the institution of what are essentially parasitic 'central' banking systems by international financiers throughout western countries, whereby 'official' sovereign entities are divested from the surest tool of sovereign control over society: monetary policy (what matter are laws when you are the giver and taker of capital? why bother to conquer or suppress a man, when you can simply hold his debt?).

in effect, not only must a polity pay taxes in order to fund the creation of debt based money, the revenue from this interest does not even go to the ostensible sovereigns, meaning yet more taxation is required just to fund whatever projects it desires. a sovereign in charge of its own currency does not have to 'default' (or even go into) debt if it does not wish to.

warren mosler is your guy here if this interests you. theres also an interesting essay on this topic by mencius moldbug titled 'sam altman is not a blithering idiot'.

>>4539754


alternately, being told that the stove is hot and will burn you will likely lead to you not touching it instead of touching it.

>>4539754
Maybe that stove was the only burning stove you'll ever encounter.
Maybe every other stove or just one of them will grant you eternal life but you'll never find out if you don't check every time.
Where's the higher understanding?
"The stove has revealed one of it's attributes". You sound like a wandering-reader in Borges' Infinite Library. For sure you're getting closer to the book of your life!

>>4539757
This, basically. I'm one of the Heideggerians who has been posting in this thread, and one of my ancillary interests is conservation ecology.

>Pic related arrived in the mail just a few days ago

>>4539767
That's irrelevant. In fact it's how tradition and religion conceals truth, it just tells you the conclusion without necessarily explaining the "well spring" of the knowledge.

>>4539771
>Maybe every other stove or just one of them will grant you eternal life but you'll never find out if you don't check every time.

How do you deduct this from burning yourself on a stove?

>>4539757
>but modern science and modern technology are heading down a disasterous path.
Why aren't you preventing it, oh future-sayer?

>I don't want everything turned into a standing reserve and conceal previous AND future modes of revealing.
Choices are being made at every moment seemingly. Ever one thing or the other. Modes of revealing are the same way. People who study physics don't study alchemy and alchemy gets lost. People who study theology don't study medicine and medicine gets lost. People who study philosophy don't study something else and it gets lost eventually.

>Most STEM shits never think outside of the box
What's outside of the box? Why do you need a box?

>modern physics already expects results from nature and searches the best way to get them.
So?

>>4539759
>socialism
>bad
full pleb

>>4539786
>What's outside of the box?

Phenomenology, hermeneutics, poetry and a myriad other modes of revealing, obviously.

>>4539775
Hope you work hard at conserving all these bacterial strains that come out of labs and hospitals all the time.
Quick! They're being wiped out by antibiotics as we speak!

>>4539781
>How do you deduct this from burning yourself on a stove?
You don't. Same way you don't deduct all stoves will burn you. I personally often put my hands near stoves, because I have acquired the necessary reflexes to survive in these times, and it seems to me that most stoves aren't burning all of the time.
Also I'm not incapable of crossing streets even though I am aware that it's possible to get hit by a car.

>>4539801
And what's outside of your box then?

>>4538253
Heidegger question: Is Ereignis something that happens on an individual level, or do all human beings attain it at once?

>>4539807
>You don't. Same way you don't deduct all stoves will burn you. I personally often put my hands near stoves, because I have acquired the necessary reflexes to survive in these times, and it seems to me that most stoves aren't burning all of the time.
>Also I'm not incapable of crossing streets even though I am aware that it's possible to get hit by a car.

Congratulations you've made and defeated 2 strawmen, good job. Now I'm not wasting more time on you.

You forgot the detail that the stove was glowing red. You are not a very attentive reader, are you? You are being stupid for the sake of being stupid which means you are just a troll, good night.

>>4539777


no, it is entirely relevant. if we start with A. i dont want to burn my hand, then we goto B. by various means (perhaps i can see its glowing hot, or boiling, or maby a thermometer), ive learned that this shit is hot, then naturally we get to C. im not gona touch this shit.

maby there was some delicious looking food cooking there that i was going to try and get, but learning about the burnination that would also entail through analysis lead to a change in the ultimate outcome.

other example, if i have a model (or tip [insider trading is of course a perfect example of this principle in action]) that predicts that such and such company is going get alot of new sales this quarter (maby its construction and alot of people are moving into the area), chances are prospective investors will buy stocks preemptively based on this information, where they might otherwise not have.

>>4539811
Nothing, as far as I know. I'm not claiming my current understanding is final, but if I acknowledged a method of revealing, it would no longer reside outside our metaphorical box, no?

>>4539816
Heidegger works hard to overcome the subject/object cancer plaguing philosophy for centuries.

It's simply something the Dasein experiences.

>>4539788


if you dont understand the errors, how will you make it good?

>>4539824
Yes your analysis change the outcome from discovering A->B->C. You imply you know that you will burn your hand, which implies other actors and socially accumulated knowledge (tradition) my example didn't have room for that in my example, because it's the relation between one subject that analyze one object in "vacuum". But I do agree generally with your post.

>>4539837
which errors?

>>4539821
Oh glowing red stove.
You could encounter a glowing red stove that was just painted in glowing red.
Another example would be a theatre knife. It's pointy, it looks sharp, yet it doesn't hurt when it stabs.
What if a baby first gets stabbed by a theatre knife or sees someone get stabbed by one, before seeing a kitchen knife?
Or if a child has only ever seen a water-gun and is confronted by the threat of a real gun?

>>4539824
You need to know that what is hot is dangerous to be careful. I don't think it's impossible that a child would not be aware of that connection and would burn themselves that way.
I'm not arguing that humans can't make links between events, ideas, and so on, I'm just saying these links are not necessarily an improvement over the lack of these links.

It's just the problem of induction. Thinking that the laws of physics are somehow constant. That a prediction, a link, a correlation can be 100% accurate across time and space. That if you have conditions A, B and C then you have outcome D.

>>4539826
I don't see the difference between your box and theirs.

>>4539834
Isn't he dead? Or is that Elvis?

>>4539854


it still happens even if the information is incorrect, i point again to the field of economics to see this happen.

>>4539374
Well, to use an example, we specifically know this is true on a quantum level.

So there is scientific evidence proving that such a thing does occur.

Of course, generalizing it to something broader is difficult, but not inherently incorrect.

This is also documented in other cases but the same problem continues to apply, because a generalization is inherently problematic.

However, you can't say it's not real. That's empirically falsifiable, and real problem in science today- something people are ignoring because it would require some epistemological groundwork to progress our ability to understand how science can produce useful information or "truth," because science needs philosophy so that we can know what it's telling us.

Science is very clearly useful, but just like anything else useful, we have to understand what its uses are and not believe that it has a capacity to do things beyond its bounds.

You're clearly the shitposter here, you're not trying to have some kind of good dialogue and are specifically responding to the worst posts in a clearly confrontational manner, at the expense of an informational conversation. Stop being a douchebag, this board is so much better when dickheads like you don't waste posts attempting to troll retards.

>>4539851
>>4539587

>>4539854
>I don't see the difference between your box and theirs.

Mine is more expansive and I'm not afraid to revise its contents - that's how I got here in the first place. It's the difference between a pluralist and a dogmatic. You're somewhat right, though, at a very basic level there probably is little difference

>>4539861
Can you explain what differences it makes to have one single more experience or less with something?
I was just taking issue with "higher understanding". Maybe I should rather ask what a "lower" understanding is?

>>4539867
>However, you can't say it's not real.
Oh I don't say anything.

>Stop being a douchebag, this board is so much better when dickheads like you don't waste posts attempting to troll retards.
I'm sorry that you don't enjoy my quality posting.

>>4539875
You do seem to have some quarrel with science, technology and so on
>heading down a disasterous path
Maybe you ought to be more tolerant :^)

>>4539872
>fucking amazon 1 click

the kindle is working it's magic on my wallet

>>4539902
>Maybe you ought to be more tolerant :^)

When did I ever say tolerance was a valuable for its own sake <:^)

>>4539902
>Maybe you ought to be more tolerant :^)

When did I ever say tolerance was valuable for its own sake <:^)

>>4539902


the degree to which one tolerates things is the degree to which they develop in ways that are already in accord with your ideals without any greater interference on your part.

as to your question, im not really sure i understand, perhaps youve mixed me up with another responder.

go to bed prof dreyfus, prof weston is beckoning

>>4539917


if you like that, pic related is another book thats in more or less the same vein (a philospher by creed becoming embroiled in business and economic matters, in this case literally).

>>4539931
Thanks anon

>>4539921
You seemed to be of that opinion:
>Mine is more expansive and I'm not afraid to revise its contents - that's how I got here in the first place. It's the difference between a pluralist and a dogmatic.
Don't you want as much stuff in your box as possible?

>>4539922
Nice doubles. Yes the question was for: >>4539725
Basically their idea that any experience brings something more, that any "analysis" brings a "higher understanding", whatever that means.

>the degree to which one tolerates things is the degree to which they develop in ways that are already in accord with your ideals without any greater interference on your part.
Or maybe it's all random.

>>4539948


>Or maybe it's all random.

whos the cant no nuthin-fag now eh?

>>4539957
It was me all along ((:
See here : >>4539660

>>4539961


considering that a *categorical* separation (like all such definitions) of beings from being does not obtain, any valid epistemology must account for (or better said, *rely on*) being-in-the-world. the systematic divorce of object from subject being an enlightement conceit based on the presupposition that any valid basis to build knowledge must be a completely atemporal and fully transcendent foundational 'first philosophy', which, if so, would preclude the validity of working to reach such epistemic nirvana to begin with.

Oh look it's the daily science vs philosophy thread
>I'm an autist with undergrad knowledge in math and physics so that makes me a central authority on everything scientific, also all my philosophy knowledge comes from wikipedia articles because i'm afraid of reading too many big words
>I'm a pretentious pseudo-intellectual who failed math in high school so I think science is only about computing numbers really fast but it's also a part of philosophy also who cares about scientific advancement when name-dropping Heidegger makes me feel superior
>we are both retards who buy into the science/philosophy false dichotomy, we probably believe in the left-right brain bullshit separation
>we are both unaware that both fields use the same area of thought because we both have no idea what we're talking about

is it a giant retard contest something

>>4539982
Pic related.

>>4539986
Phew, good thing there's that guy who's better than everyone else :^)
If only we used the remaining 90% of our brain maybe we'd get on his level.

>>4539986
>you can't falsify an abstraction therefore its not worth anyone's time
>good is good and bad is bad
>the emperor is naked

i experience a mental earthquake whenever i compulsively make a poor decision to read any of these threads

>>4539990


ill take that as your admission of my obvious superiority.

>>4539902
>what a "lower" understanding is?

He corrected it to increasing, here
>>4539731 and here
>>4539754

Duh.

>>4540020
Well I'm still confused.
What would a "decreasing" understanding be like then?

>>4540015
Alright mang.

>>4539902

>>44539867 here. Dude, you didn't even respond to what I said. You literally proved that you were shitposting with your response to me saying you're a shitposter. Get it together!

>>4538396
You're right. Psychology makes different predictions. Neurobiology doesn't make psychology obsolete; they're different levels of decription.

>>4540046
I did respond. I don't have an opinion one way or another.
We just don't have the same expectations for a quality conversation, I'm sorry.
I'm leaving now anyway. Good end of a day to you!