/lit/ - Literature

>>4665022
If you're interested in continental theory, then this man is for you. His take on Hegel is brilliant. Some guy that I used to fuck always talked about him and meillassoux

>>4665022
this interests me

Because of enlightenment, being reasonable and levelheaded has become the norm so people struggle with ways to not become their parents.

>>4665028
He covers an impressive range of thinkers, that's for sure.

>>4665028
>continental theory

Edgy like a beanie on a 90s alt rocker whose totally against the system, man.

>>4665036
>“Philosophy should be more than a sop to the pathetic twinge of human self-esteem.”
You sound like a cunt, but I should have expected people like you to make a comment.

Hahah this man is brilliant: "The ‘speculative realist movement’ exists only in the imaginations of a group of bloggers promoting an agenda for which I have no sympathy whatsoever: actor-network theory spiced with pan-psychist metaphysics and morsels of process philosophy. I don’t believe the internet is an appropriate medium for serious philosophical debate; nor do I believe it is acceptable to try to concoct a philosophical movement online by using blogs to exploit the misguided enthusiasm of impressionable graduate students. I agree with Deleuze’s remark that ultimately the most basic task of philosophy is to impede stupidity, so I see little philosophical merit in a ‘movement’ whose most signal achievement thus far is to have generated an online orgy of stupidity."

What exactly is the point of scientism if you're a nihilist? It's obvious that science is the best way to gain knowledge in the "scientific domain", no?

>>4665046
According to Brassier, "the disenchantment of the world understood as a consequence of the process whereby the Enlightenment shattered the 'great chain of being' and defaced the 'book of the world' is a necessary consequence of the coruscating potency of reason, and hence an invigorating vector of intellectual discovery, rather than a calamitous diminishment". "Philosophy", exhorts Brassier, "would do well to desist from issuing any further injunctions about the need to re-establish the meaningfulness of existence, the purposefulness of life, or mend the shattered concord between man and nature. It should strive to be more than a sop to the pathetic twinge of human self-esteem. Nihilism is not an existential quandary but a speculative opportunity."

>>4665046
He argues that as science progresses it will shatter most of our common sense views on what it means to be human, aka the "manifest image". As the "scientific image" takes place there will be no room for meaning.

I cannot into new materialism, unfortunately.

>>4665022


might as well go strait to the source in nick land instead.

Okay, but does he actually say anything interesting?

>>4665060
>scientific image

Yeah, it couldn't get more meaningless than that.

>>4665070
What would you consider interesting? He argues vehemently for an extremely marginal position in philosophy while not coming across as an idiot. How cannot that be interesting?

>>4665060
mmm

Obviously that's rather speculative. And I can't help but think "so what?" The scientific understanding of our inner workings is already completely different from everyday experience. But our experience is never going to change, no matter how much progress science makes.

>>4665088
But you don't understand, it will take over. People will wake up one morning not caring about meaning. Because if we objectively map ourselves that means we become the map, duh.

>>4665088
>>4665079

I recommend reading the book as its completely free, it's all in greater detail there. I personally think eliminative materialism is stupid because it's first of all unclear what exactly is to be eliminated.

>>4665060
Doesn´t he realize that the "scientific image" is also a work of man and thus full of human meanings?

>>4665100
Anything that doesn't materially exist. It's repackaged quietism.

>>4665103
Wouldn't this include ideas about things that doesn't exist yet? Such as technology?

>nihilist
>eliminative materialist
>endorses scientism

And he doesn't see the contradiction?

>>4665101
He wouldn't agree with that. If I remember right he is of the opinion that the world itself exists independent of thought.

>>4665103
But what is that doesn't materially exists that we're trying to make go away? It must first be distinguished from the material but that isn't possible if what we're trying to eliminate didn't exists. I think it's dualism that should be eliminated, not everything that isn't "material".

Or then I have the wrong idea what eliminativism is about.

>>4665060
The fantasy writer R. Scott Bakker says the exact same thing. Pretty scary shit. His book Neuropath is a good illustration of this idea.

>>4665088
There will be a point where, even on an intuitive level, you will not be able to deny this. What do you do when there's nowhere to run?

Semantic apocalypse.

>>4665118
You're right. Most of the people in this thread haven't a fucking clue what they're talking about.

>>4665114
There is no contradiction. I'm fed up of faggots on /lit/ not understanding nihilism.

>>4665164
Nihilism and eliminativism are both incopatible with science. If you have no science education, then better stop replying right now before facing more embarrassment due to your ignorance.

>>4665174
Too obvious.

>>4665178
Are you mentally retarded? There was no "bait" in that post.

>>4665174
Well, good thing I can continue replying. Now please, do tell me how science is incompatible with nihilism and eliminativism. Or would you like to sidestep the question for a little longer?

>>4665181
Eliminativism and nhilism both mean outright denying scientific facts.

>>4665181
That's like asking "how is creationism incompatible with evolution?"

Are you trolling or genuinely retarded?

>>4665184
Just stop embarrassing yourself...

>>4665173

>>4665190
>appeal to emotion

I see your out of arguments. Go cry somewhere else.

>>4665196
There are no arguments, you're just spouting nonsense. Please, list the scientific facts that nihilism denies.

>>4665197
Nihilism denies objective morality.

>>4665184
Please explain how and when the inherent meaningfulness of life was scientifically proved to exist. I'm astonished I didn't hear about this sooner.

>>4665188


not that guy, but one could easily posit that evolution too is part of a system set into motion.

>>4665173
>most people are never going to die because they're never going to be born

>>4665198
ok

>>4665173
>multi-millionaire assures everyone status quo is alright

true detective has pulled new materialism into popular discourse. its only a matter of time until its ruined by a bunch of illiterates, which is exactly what happened to deconstruction.

>>4665060
We're already making new meaning. As if we could stop.

>>4665200
You haven't yet figured out the objective meaning of life? Hahaha, oh wow my sides. How old are you? I hope you know this forum is 18+.

>>4665213
>>4665198
see
>>4665178

Remember kids, sometimes, letting them pretend they were trolling all along is the kindest thing to do.

>>4665213
To have sex in missionary position with the lights of with a woman? What does stars have to do with this?

Seems interesting. Thanks for bringing this to my attention OP. I'm curious to seem how he goes about defending this "edgy" and marginalized position.

Link for the lazy.
http://rosswolfe.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/ray-brassier-nihil-unbound-enlightenment-and-extinction.pdf

>>4665226
He shitposts on /lit/.

>>4665204
>>4665194
>not understanding new sincerity
>not realizing the only people left to satirize are those that haven't realized how ineffective it is

>>4665208
>its only a matter of time until its ruined by a bunch of illiterates, which is exactly what happened to deconstruction.

You mean when Derrida copied it from Borges, right?

>>4665215
>can't debate the truth
>resorts to yelling "b8"

Cool story, fag.

Mereological nihilism is a far more interesting, similarly edgy position. And has far better arguments going for it.

>>4665235
are you saying you are satirizing satirizers?

>>4665243
Like what? I've never seen mereological nihilism before. But then again, I never usually go where nihilism treads.

>>4665243
That whole debate just seems like unnecessary semantics. I'm not even sure if the question exists.

>>4665257
The question clearly exist but is it an important one? It's definitely a logically sound position.

>>4665022
Yes, Ray is cool. Snatching errbodies comfort blankets away.

>>4665256
It's basically the opposite of object oriented ontology. The main idea is that composite objects (i.e. anything made up of parts) do not exist outside of abstract human delineations. So when we say "chair", what we actually refer to is "fundamental particles arranged chair-wise". Any notions of personhood become absurd, with obvious consequences in ethics. It also provides an elegant solution to the sorites paradox.

One problem is that the main guy behind it, Ingwaen, is a giant coward unable to face the results of his own work, so he shoehorned-in an exception for human selves.

>>4665261
Yes, but I mean, "ball" is just a word used to describe a particular arrangement of matter. Obviously the concept of a ball is a human convenience, but why does this mean it isn't real? You run into needing a rigorous definition of "real", and as far as I can see, any answer to "can abstract concepts be real" is itself an artifact of human convenience, along with the question.

>>4665279
Bitch, when I say "chair" I mean a fucking chair. The act of sitting on a chair works out perfectly fine irregardless of how much time you waste pseudo-intellectually contemplating the true nature of its existence. I call it a chair and everybody understands what I mean. Stop being autistic and get a fucking job.

>>4665279
Is this just the same deal as interdependent arising in Indian thought? Hume brought this up as well (if I'm applying bundle theory correctly). But yeah, that Ingwaen dude sounds like a wimp. "This overarching and all-encompassing theory applies to everything except me!" What a tosser.

I'll have to see how it pans out with sorites paradox which is where I'm guessing it sounds like it stands on its own I suppose.

>>4665284
>>4665279

>>4665256
I thought that was common sense rather than an interesting position.

>>4665305
Shit, I didn't mean interdependent arising. I meant more along the lines of Buddhist thought that the self is made of parts that all function together and when broken down show there is no self. The same deal that Hume talked about.

How is scientism "edgy"? Isn't it just rational?

>>4665313
bundle theory

>>4665325
Scientism is deemed edgy because people are offended by folk psychology not holding water. A crude example would be wanting to blame paedophiles for being paedophiles, or general baddies for being bad.

>people still thinking that the scientific method isn't flawed
>people still thinking that the scientific method can be applied to anything
>people still using science to derive any sort of truth

it's like i'm stuck in the 18th century. get a grip, kiddos.

>>4665060
Why do you think that science means shit? Religious people have had the technology to destroy the lay conception of humanity since prehistory. It also comes naturally to anyone who thinks about anything with any amount of depth.

None of the things he said about science are really an endorsement of "scientism."

>>4665344
Don't worry Kuhn! I still support you!

>>4665344
Go back to church and stay there, creationist retard. Science works.

>>4665342
It doesn't really matter whether or not we "blame" baddies. Even when society catches up and realizes free will doesn't exist, we're still going to throw the baddies in jail. It will just be more of sad thing (maybe) and jail will probably be much more humane (think norwegian prison).

>>4665325
I wouldn't call it edgy, just retarded. Most people who are branded as scientists are just morons who don't understand the is-ought gap.

>>4665358
>implying free will doesn't exist

>>4665354
>science is real because Black Science Man says so! Only 90s kids xD nuuurrrrdddzzz will understand!

>>4665354
I'm having difficultly discerning where your argument lies, it seems like you just made a brash assumption and attacked my character. Try to respond to me again, this time with a little more intelligence.

>>4665362
0/10

How hard did you fail your mandatory science classes?

>>4665373
I meant scientismists, obviously.

can anyone tell me why anyone feels qualified to discuss free will in a scientific context when humanity's collective understanding of physics biological structures neuroscience etc. still amounts to ~0

>>4665370
>"bawww science is wrong because muh feelings"
>demands an intelligent counterargument

You are lacking the mental capacities to understand an intelligent retort.

>>4665376
Define "scientism".

Oh boy, another thread that will descend into everyone fighting about scientism!

I guess it wouldn't be /lit/ if this didn't happen everyday.

>>4665379
Nah our understanding of physics is pretty good.

And in any case, all the things you mentioned are completely irrelevant to the free will issue. Free will necessarily requires dualism, which is outside the purview of science.

>>4665391
google it

>nihilism

I suppose the contradiction of valuing a belief in 'no values' completely goes over his head

>>4665397
Google tells me it's a pejorative buzzword used by people who have no idea what they're talking about. Google also told me that philosotards who use the word "scientism" to insult scientifically educated people are just jelly as fuck because they know they're gonna be homeless and poor while STEM master race gets all the jobs and is more intelligent. Is this true?

>>4665407
Scientism is just a dogmatic belief that science will provide the answer to every single question/problem to ever exist. The kind of people that are (pejoratively I'll admit) seen as "scientismists" are reddit kiddies that watched a video of Neil Degrasse Tyson on youtube and think they know string theory.

>>4665388
When did my feelings ever get involved? What're you talking about?

Science is unreliable because it's looking at one side of a coin and claiming to know the nature of the coin. Empirical analysis is only reliable as long as you have the capabilities to analyze data. And there are aspects of reality and truth that we will never be able to discern simply with empirical data. Anything that can be analyzed empirically is inherently falsifiable because we simply don't have the ability or nature to be able to analyze truths to the fullest possible extent, because our outlook is so narrow. It's the simple problem of induction.

simply put:
"Where intellectual understanding ends, the domain of belief begins; man must reconcile himself to the fact that things exist which are true although he cannot understand them."

>>4665397
>Free will necessarily requires dualism, which is outside the purview of science.
Unless you can prove the assumptions behind that statement there's no reason to believe it. One must remain scientific.

>>4665417
Science and dogma are opposites, you religious douchebag troll. Science can and does change its theories with new observations. This is how it will sooner or later explain EVERYTHING objectively.

>>4665421
>Science is unreliable
Science is reliable and objective.

>And there are aspects of reality and truth that we will never be able to discern simply with empirical data
Bullshit. Your sky fairy simply doesn't exist. Deal with it. If it can't be proven by science, then it is non-existent.

>>4665350
You're trying to sidetrack there. What did he say sbout science? Nothing that endorses scientism. But behold, Merriam-Webster defines scientism as "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)". And what exactly is Ray doing? He is trying to justify nihilism by scientific researches, particularly by those of neurosciences.

Science is but an ever-evolving belief system that can be applicated for the good of mankind or not.

>>4665430
That's the entire point of scientism. It's assuming a dogmatic position of science. If you read my post carefully you'll notice I mention the only true scientismists are the people that don't understand science but claim to do so.

Take your knee-jerk reactions elsewhere.

>>4665430
>Science can and does change its theories with new observations. This is how it will sooner or later explain EVERYTHING objectively.

Objectively? Then why has the "objective truth" changed so radically and so often in the purview of science in the last 2500 years? How do you account for the constant paradigm changes that radically prove science previously held as "true" to be now regarded as "false"? If science has failed to grasp truth and contracted itself so many times in the past, and constantly runs into crises that completely revolutionize science, why do you think that the science that's happening right now won't inevitably be proven wrong by some future scientific observation?

>>4665425
There is absolutely no room whatsoever in our world for free will. Depending on the level on which you're looking at things, shit's either deterministic or random. Free will requires some sort of metaphysical force that is magically unconnected to the real world.

I'm a continental fag who usually takes that side during the stupid debates but lately I've become more interested in rationality, science, and logical positivism. I know logical positivism isn't really in vogue (some may even say it's outdated), but what are the analytics up to these days that's really interesting (meaning no free will bullshit or hard problem of consciousness snorefests)?

>>4665452
No room in your worldview. Tell me what is stopping free will from existing?

I see no reason to believe anything about anything.

>>4665439
>Science is reliable and objective.

elaborate, please?

>Bullshit. Your sky fairy simply doesn't exist. Deal with it. If it can't be proven by science, then it is non-existent.

wait wait wait

when did I ever claim to believe in God? Let's look EMPIRICALLY at my posts, shall we?
>>4665421
>>4665370
>>4665344
heh. I see nothing mentioning anything about God. It seems like you made an assumption outside of the realm of empirical evidence. now YOU'RE sounding like the theist who draws assumptions out of nowhere.

>>4665458
I don't see what anyone's worldview has to do with it. Free will is a supernatural concept, I don't think that's a controversial position.

>>4665452
Different anon here. Have you ever read Schopenhauer? Just asking b/c I just started reading him and I'm not sure whether his view counts as dualism or not. On the one hand, there is representation (phenomena, objects) and the other, will (the "thing in itself" of the phenomena, the natural force behind everything). I've not gotten too far in his work, but he seems to imply that the representation is determined (according to the principle of sufficient reason) and that the will is "unalterable", but that we can make decisions that *don't* accord to the will because of false knowledge, deception? Does that mean we have some kind of control over how we deal with our will?

Any Schopenhauerfags wanna clear this up for me?

>>4665466
What basis is there for that statement? I see examples of will pretty regularly in my life.

>>4665481
:^)

>>4665439
Not that guy, but science cannot ever produce reliable truths about world without dogmatically assuming that the truth of statements concerning the correlation between test results and predicted outcome imply the truth of statements like x will happen if y. The latter are then used to argue for the existence of physical laws or alike.

>>4665496
Are you saying evolution is wrong?

>>4665481
Different anon. What examples of free will do you see? Are you sure you aren't mistaken in thinking that those examples are "free"? For example, consider the decision to get up and walk to the bathroom. You might think this is an example of you expressing free will, since it seems like you made a decision. But doesn't your brain control your movements? And doesn't your brain consist of atoms which are subject to the causality of their environment/composition? Stepping away from yourself, doesn't everything else in your room correspond to long chains of cause and effect of which the objects (atoms) involved have no control over? The wind blows in from the window and moves a scrap of paper. A fly bites your cat and it runs around. Isn't it possible that you are just like those objects, only your cause-and-effect chain isn't entirely obvious (because the motivations and stimuli for the brain aren't always observable due to the nature of our consciousness/evolution)?

>>4665500
He's saying it can be falsified.

>>4665500
Maybe not wrong in a moral sense, but if you mean if I think that evolution exists as anything else than a concept, then no I don't think it exists.

>>4665500


of course its wrong, all humans are neurologically uniform and equally equal :^)

>>4665508
So he's a creationist? Evolution CANNOT be falsified.

>>4665496
True, but can nothing be said about the reliability of science for providing us with solutions to specific practical problems?

>>4665516
It is science which means it can be falsified, creationism cannot be falsified. Nowhere does he even hint at evolution, creationism, or whatever. Quit knee-jerking and putting words in everyone's mouth.

Look up falsification/Karl Popper and realize that falsifiability is a good thing.

>>4665516
"H-hey g-guys. Phlogiston cannot be f-f-falsified!"

-Scientific community before 1778

>>4665507
So you define will as a response to a set of conditions conceived of and executed entirely removed from those conditions? I don't get it. Sounds like a useless idea to me.

>>4665045
>actor-network theory spiced with pan-psychist metaphysics and morsels of process philosophy.

That is Deleuze boiled down to a single sentence fragment

>>4665524
There is no possible falsification for evolution. Not even hypothetical.

>>4665508
Yeah, I guess you could put it that way. Falsifying is an integral part of science and it's one reason why actual scientists don't generally speak in terms like truth and certainty. Scientismists on the hand...

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Albert Einstein

>>4665500
>>4665508

It's important to not get too caught up in the language. "Evolution" is just what we call the observation of specific experiments which lead to data. We use this data to predict and make hypotheses about other phenomena. Whether or not a bunch of people think the predictions or hypotheses hold water will not effect whether or not they hold water. But on the other hand, going around and saying things like "I believe in evolution!" is almost meaningless because it also has no bearing on the predictions or the data.

>>4665289
>irregardless

>>4665534
what the fuck

>>4665534
Thanks for letting me know that you've assumed a dogmatic position and further discussion is pointless. I will now bow out of the discussion. Chalk this one up as a victory to you is you so desire.

Look to these posts if you do want to see/engage in further discussion.
>>4665536
>>4665537

>>4665534
it's an aspect of science that everything observed is inherently falsifiable.

I think you're a little too zealous as to what "falsifiable" means, it doesn't mean that it's totally useless and should be disregarded. Falsifiability is simply what keeps science from being dogmatic. There's no difference in the scope of dogmatic aspects between a theist saying "the world is 6000 years old and was created by God and there's no other way it happened" and evolution. Falsifiability is what tries to keep science grounded.

>>4665526
>entirely removed from those conditions?

What do you mean by this part? I'm only saying that nothing is without causation and that what you think is your decision making (your free will) is just as well part of a determined process of cause and effect that ultimately has nothing to do with what your conscious mind is telling itself. It's true that I can't *prove* that our conscious thinking is misleading and wrong, but I can look at every other phenomena and see the causality, it's just that the other phenomena lacks the illusion of free will.

Spinoza says that if a stone projected through the air had consciousness, it would imagine it was flaying of its own will.

>>4665559
how can you prove that it isn't?
also, how do you know that it doesn't?

>>4665529
Deleuze was a mathematical prophet. Time will reveal his genius.

>>4665521
I don't think that science is completely unreliable, just that it can't provide any solid foundation for other kinds of thinking, such as philosophical thinking, for it should something unfalsifiable and certain. I think that when people speak of reliability they're refering to their positive experiences with solutions to practical problems. Unlike Brassier, I heavily endorse the instrumentalization of science. It's good for that.

>>4665567

I hope I'm not alive to see that day.

>>4665573
should be*

>>4665564
I already admitted that I can't prove that. But I'm willing to make the Copernican leap and assume that humans aren't special.

>>4665573
>I think that when people speak of reliability they're refering to their positive experiences with solutions to practical problems

Not necessarily. Even the negative experiences reinforce their reliability.

>Unlike Brassier, I heavily endorse the instrumentalization of science.

What's the instrumentalization of science? And how does it differ from what Brassier is saying?

>>4665601
>Not necessarily. Even the negative experiences reinforce their reliability
That is true.

>What's the instrumentalization of science? And how does it differ from what Brassier is saying?
From Nihil Unbound (>>4665226) "all the postulated entities of the scientific image [e.g., elementary particles, neurophysiological mechanisms, evolutionary processes, etc.] are symbolic tools which function (something like the distance-measuring devices which are rolled around on maps) to help us find our way around in the world, but do not themselves describe actual objects or processes". He discusses it in the first chapter, check it out.

>>4665443
Look at how the word is actually used. It's bunch of reactionary fucking philosophers exhibiting Dunning Kruger brain fuck disease.

>>4665833
>exhibiting Dunning Kruger
nope

http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/wandering-abstraction#sdfootnote8sym

this thing he wrote about communism recently is pretty rad

>>4665865
http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c114612/documents/2008/Reply_to_Midgley.pdf

>>4665876
This is Dawkins skewering Mary Midgely, btw.

>>4665909
>tfw dawkins looks like feynman a little bit

>>4665876
Posting an article you haven't read and assessed beforehand is not the same thing as "Dawkins skewering Mary Midgely".

>>4665909
He's handsome. :^)

>>4665289
You are the true genius of this thread. I think you've actually completed /lit/ - you are free to go and you're prize is you never have to post here again.

>>4666020
That is what happens when one reads Nietzsche

On topic, Nihil Unbound provides a pretty good introduction to speculative realism in the part where he writes of Meillassoux. There are some solid arguments that could be used against Wittgenstein, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger insofar as they're "correlationist" thinkers.

>>4666049
Those posters are utter trash.

Nihil Unbound is intimidating at the moment. I've just finished reading a lot of Heidegger and Bataille and I'm reading some easy Foucault at the moment. I'm going to Lebanon this summer though, so I'll pop in and say hello to Ray.

>>4666069
What are your thoughts on Nihil Unbound other than that it is intimidating? Do you find his arguments convincing?

>>4665909
>skewering a little old lady
Wow, what a fucking champion.

>>4666077
Look. I get their critique of correlationalism (which poses new methods for the fields of metaphysics and Heidegger studies -which I'm primarily based in) but I'm never going to agree with a purely materialist approach. I think Brassier has certain kinks to work out of his philosophy, but I don't want to say too much without reading the whole book.

>>4666102
If you can't take women's ideas seriously, why let them be philosophers?? Stupid sexist fuck.

>>4665051
Interesting. It's refreshing to hear a thinker not complaining muh degeneracy from the top of his high horse, and still not sound like a begging-the-question wide eyed progressive.

>>4665088
>But our experience is never going to change

Look around you. Our experience over the past century has changed tremendously, and not least becuse of science. When the first long-distance railways were being built, people started to wonder wether this would cause the dissolution of the traditional family. After all, the argument went, the trains allow for a married man to commit adultery at the other end of the state in the afternoon and be back home for dinner without anyone suspecting him. It turns out the reasoning wasn't that retarded.

>>4665559
Look up compatibilism on this issue. Your action being determined by prior causes doen't necessarily negates free will, if you don't understand "free" as "absolutely boundless and arbitrary".

Just read the section of Nihil Unbound on the "arche-fossil."

Neither Meillassoux or Brassier seem to understand what Kant was saying. Or, if they actually do understand, they are deliberately equivocating in their interpretation to open up a space for their own "critique."

>For Kant, then, the ancestral time of the arche-fossil cannot be represented as existing in itself but only as connected to a possible experience. But we cannot represent to ourselves any regressive series of possible perceptions in accordance with empirical laws capable of conducting us from our present perceptions to the ancestral time indexed by the arche-fossil. It is strictly impossible to prolong the chain of experience from our contemporary perception of the radioactive isotope to the time of the accretion of the earth indexed by its radiation, because the totality of the temporal series coextensive with possible experience itself emerged out of that geological time wherein there simply was no perception.

This is just tone-deaf. Kant's "possible experience" is a priori and conjectural, not that of an actual, historically contingent human perceiver. It is perfectly legitimate within even an old school Kantian framework to project a time series backward to a point before actual human existence, there's no contradiction here. It just isn't possible for this now impurely conceptual "phenomena" to take a form that does not fit the categories of the understanding or the pure forms of the intuition, if it is to be cognizable, as there is still some subject performing this conceptualization.

>>4665403
You don't understand the different positions the word nihilism can refer to.

>>4666310
Brassier and Meillassoux are against the interdepency of thought and being posed by Kant and many others. Look up the part on correlationism.

>>4666398

I get what they are opposed to. I don't think they offer, if what I quoted is a representative example of their whole argument, any kind of cogent response to Kant or the post-Kantians.

As far as I can tell, they are simply rejecting the "correlationist" position (which they deliberately misinterpret) out of a kind of dogmatic obstinancy. They don't like that our cognitive equipment determines, to some extent, our perception and conception of the world, or even the very possibility of experiencing the world? Well that's just a tough fucking titty, said the kitty.

And they've completed ignored post-Kantians like Strawson, who makes a claim inverse to Kant--that the possibility of a subject is predicated on the existence of an objective world.

>>4666429
>out of a kind of dogmatic obstinancy
No, look up Meillassoux's principle of absolute contingency and you'll see that there's some actual argumentation going on too.

>>4666473

Sure, maybe there is. But that someone has made an argument is no proof of that argument's soundness or validity. If Meillassoux's can't even approach Kantianism, let alone offer a proper critique of it, why should anyone even think of accepting some principle he's laid down, let alone one that is, on the face of it, oxymoronic (oh, but I'm sure it's properly dialectical). Just seems like more waffling.

There still hasn't been an answer to this >>4666310

>>4665028
Can't tell if girl or fag

>>4666498
>hasn't read meillassoux well enough to know about his principle of absolute contingency
>complains about meillassoux supposedly not having read kant well enough

die in a fire

>>4667298

>butt hurt about not being able to support his cock jockey's arguments on his own
>hasn't read Kant
>hasn't read Strawson
>thinks Meillassoux or Brassier have anything interesting to add to the conversation of philosophy

get over yourself, you edgemaster faggot.

>this thread

>>4667298

in any case, what's so difficult to understand about the concept? it's a rejection of the principle of sufficient reason, a strict version of which isn't held by anyone they are trying to refute. And it's simply laid down as if it were a brute fact, when it's in fact just another dogmatic assertion that's in reaction to an equally dogmatic assertion.

>>4665022
ladiescontainyourorgasms.jpg

>>4665045
>implying

When we started allowing STEMtards (regreted stemfag here), debate class fags and idiots here? Where is the facist mod when you need them?

does Ray offer a solution?

>>4665184
>scientific facts

mentally underage

Reading an interview of him and he sounds kind of retarded.
http://www.kronos.org.pl/index.php?23151,896

>All this may sound platitudinous: surely existentialists had already realized this? But the difference is that existentialists thought it was still possible for human consciousness to provide the meaning that was absent from nature: existence may be meaningless, but man’s task is to provide it with a meaning. My contention is that this solution is no longer credible, because a project is now underway to understand and explain human consciousness in terms that are compatible with the natural sciences, such that the meanings generated by consciousness can themselves be understood and explained as the products of purposeless but perfectly intelligible processes, which are at once neurobiological and sociohistorical. My claim is not that science has succeeded in explaining consciousness, but only that considerable progress has been made, and that the burden of proof lies with those who insist on denying such progress and who presume to dismiss the attempt as impossible in principle.

Even if we do explain consciousness completely in a materialistic and eliminativist or reductionist way (a big if which I would question and so would other philosophers), I honestly don't see how this would undermine our ability to create meaning and imbue our world with meaning.

We have explained how love works in the brain and all the chemicals involved, that does not mean that we have done away with love. Valuation and meaning creation is natural to us, a complete and utter nihilism seems not only unhealthy and an unnatural way to live.

>Like Nietzsche, I think nihilism is a consequence of the ‘will to truth’. But unlike Nietzsche, I do not think nihilism culminates in the claim that there is no truth. Nietzsche conflated truth with meaning, and concluded that since the latter is always a result of human artifice, the former is nothing but a matter of convention.

Has this bitch read Nietzsche? Nietzsche is not a fucking relativist about truth, fucks sake.

>>4665022
>nihilist

Transcendental nihilist, get it right.

>>4668363
To be fair Nietzsche did say that morals are personal but that the absolute personal morals are the morals of the overman. And until the overman is here we are, as a society, the bridge on the way to becoming. Maybe the morals of the overman will be purely abstract mathematical formulae?

>>4668363
>Has this bitch read Nietzsche? Nietzsche is not a fucking relativist about truth, fucks sake.

"There are no facts, only interpretations."
- Nitch

The cunt basically invented relativism.

>>4668403
>The cunt basically invented relativism.

He was just honest about it.

>>4668363
Uh I haven't read much of nietszche but a quote kinda stuck into my mind: "Truth itself is not important, for there is no truth. What one hold as belief is the truth". Those aren't the exact words because of like 15 years since I read and triple translation

>>4668411
> nietszche
brb hanging myself

>>4668403
wrong, there are, in fact, many interpretations of what Nietzsche's view of truth was, but complete relativism is a rare one

see this book for more

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam034/90036094.pdf

Also Partially Examined life did a good podcast on this, Nietzsche's view of truth is very nuanced

http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2012/07/15/topic61/

>>4668425
>but complete relativism is a rare one
Forgot to add this to this>>4668411
Thanks for expressing what I meant to say.

>>4665030
Yeah I notice this among some, sadly or not I'm kinda the same way.
Either way nihilism edgy and simple I mean the fact that we are conscious in this place can't be non meaningful. The universe is just so complex .

“Philosophy should be more than a sop to the pathetic twinge of human self-esteem.”

what should it be, a study into how worthless we are? that's easy.

human values: arbitrary
human ideas: arbitrary
human thought: arbitrary
human pain: arbitrary
human joy: arbitrary
human invention: arbitrary

Science has led us to believe that these conclusions are the only logically sounds ones. Philosophy is effectively over. Philosophers back in the day were ignorant. They had a sense of hope. But no more, now. All the ways we act can be traced to products of evolution, a species developing the concept of meaning as a necessity in making tools, and applied their misguided, ignorant questions to things uncaring about them.

The most logically sound conclusion there is now, a conclusion with physical evidence that philosophers of ancient times would have killed for, is that when we die it's over. Electrical activity in the brain has coincided completely with conscious thought, behavior, emotions, everything. If anything, our time on earth has been one of disillusionment and humbling. Not the shitty religious kind of humbling either.

So now that we have that part of philosophy solved (which I don't blame ancient philosopher's for being crappy at solving)

we should focus on what's important down here on earth.

>>4668982
OP here. As much as I respect Brassier for his intellectual honesty (though he can be really arrogant at times), I don't think philosophy should ever be founded on science for science is a process of systematic falsification. It cannot offer the ground philosophy is after. Science merely shows where the traces lead, but there is no body to be found.

Another contemporary philosopher I find interesting is Caspar Hare, who endorses a position called egocentric presentism. "In one example that Hare uses to illustrate his theory, you learn that you are one of two people, named A and B, who have just been in a train crash; and that A is about to have incredibly painful surgery. You cannot remember your name. Naturally, you hope to be B! The point of the example is that you know everything relevant that there is to know about the objective world; all that is missing isyourposition in it". This I think highlights one problem with eliminating subjective experiences like Paul Churchland does. The problem is that our positing of other minds is similarly arbitrary, like in the thought experiment.

>>4669076
>It cannot offer the ground philosophy is after. Science merely shows where the traces lead, but there is no body to be found.

The body could be unattainable, and so really a meaningless endeavor in searching for it. The shadow of a 4d object in a 3d world (just an analogy)

>This I think highlights one problem with eliminating subjective experiences like Paul Churchland does. The problem is that our positing of other minds is similarly arbitrary, like in the thought experiment.

Surely, though, the difference between subjective experience and what can be considered objective is third person consensus? If all of us can empirically observe the same thing, come to an agreement about it, then is that, for all intents and purposes, all we can really call a 'fact'?

>>4669104
But what would happen if multiple people observed something that couldn't be falsified?

>>4669104
>Surely, though, the difference between subjective experience and what can be considered objective is third person consensus? If all of us can empirically observe the same thing, come to an agreement about it, then is that, for all intents and purposes, all we can really call a 'fact'?

I'd be very careful about drawing any lines between the subjective and the objectively, because the world can, despite of such distinction, be conceived as a uniform whole.

>>4669143
*objective
Fucking auto-correct

>>4669076

>his intellectual honesty

God damnit, no. >>4666310
It's a game of 3 Card Molly, not any kind of philosophizing.

And the "elimination" in "eliminative materialism" is of the categories of folk psychology, like "belief," which lead philosophers and especially researchers down theoretical and experimental dead-ends. It's not really a rejection of "subjective" experience, which most people seem to interpret as just plain "experience."

>>4667273
>discussing german idealism with fuckbuddies

fag of course.

>>4669104

>Suppose you and I have had an argument. If you have beaten me instead of my beating you, then are you necessarily right and am I necessarily wrong? If I have beaten you instead of your beating me, then am I necessarily right and are you necessarily wrong? Is one of us right and the other wrong? Are both of us right or are both of us wrong? If you and I don't know the answer, then other people are bound to be even more in the dark. Whom shall we get to decide what is right? Shall we get someone who agrees with you to decide? But if he already agrees with you, how can he decide fairly? Shall we get someone who agrees with me? But if he already agrees with me, how can he decide? Shall we get someone who disagrees with both of us? But if he already disagrees with both of us, how can he decide? Shall we get someone who agrees with both of us? But if he already agrees with both of us, how can he decide? Obviously, then, neither you nor I nor anyone else can decide for each other. Shall we wait for still another person? But waiting for one shifting voice [to pass judgment on] another is the same as waiting for none of them.

>>4669162
Well, that's the general impression I've got from him. Maybe he is just a pretentious cunt after all.

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Eliminative materialism (oreliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist."

>>4669189
brb getting into zhuangzi again

>>4669139
And, yes it has to be falsifiable too, I think

>>4669143
Yes.

The thing is, I'm becoming sort of convinced that 'new mysticism' is a thing, and a new definition may emerge of 'subjective', that describes it as unknowable and unobservable due to the fact that
we cannot observe any first person experience empirically. We cannot observe or know someone else's consciousness. To use the same analogy for consciousness (I don't believe in 4d consciousness or whatever) the empirical data of something like consciousness could be described as the 3d shadow of a 4d object, we ourselves being the 4d object.

>>4669197
New mysterianism**

>>4665022
>Nihil unbound
>free .pdf
seems legit.

>>4669217
Lel, Ray-Ray isn't some basement dwelling self-publisher. Look into him.

>>4669197
Neuroscience will do its thing and eventually explain how consciousness and qualia emerge, but only by asserting that they are dependent on neurophysiological activity. That is where Hare's theory steps in.

>>4669193
>mental states posited by common-sense

those would be the categories of folk psychology.

>>4669229
I like this quote by Schrodinger:

"The sensation of color cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so."

I don't believe any qualia will be explained to the degree we imagine it might be with our methods of third person observation. Simply due to the fact that it is not quantifiable and only apparent through its shadow.

>>4669235
Okay, you win.

>>4669243
Yes, science has its limits that become apparent when it comes to explaining that things exist at all. Projecting them on supposedly objective realm won't solve anything.

>>4669243
⇒Schrodinger

Are you seriously quoting the same guy who believed a cat can be dead and alive at the same time?

>>4669282
He didn't believe that. The point of the thought experiment was to point out the absurdity of it.

>>4669282
schordinger's cat is a demonstration of how the quantum world works, not our own.

>>4669293
How does the quantum world work?

>>4669296
Very differently from our own, and counter-intuitively

>>4669296
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition

here is what the thought experiment was about, if you're interested

>>4669312
What is the role of consciousness in collapsing the wave function?

>>4669282
Look, an uneducated pleb that is unaware of non-classical logics.

What a truly disgusting and traditionally "educated" ignoramus you are. Moreover: are you seriously dissing an exceptional physicist that has achieved and contributed to quantum mechanics more than you ever will without any objection and argument whatsoever?

>>4669319
What kind of non-classical logic is used in quantum mechanics?

>>4669318
Consciousness doesn't exist. It's a buzzword propagating the sociological realm for centuries.

>>4669332
I think I would have to say consciousness does exist. The screen you staring at right now is consciousness is action. It is something being experienced

>>4669332
Consciousness is being researched in neuroscience. Keep your Dennett tier anti-scientific bullshit to /x/.

>>4669341
No, the former (The screen you staring at right now) is perception, the latter (It is something being experienced): representation.

>>4669332
What are you refering to that doesn't exist? An illusion? Please elaborate or this will devolve into a matter of semantics.

>>4669348
Not him but I still believe in cognitive closure and new mysterianism even though I accept consciousness exists. It's simply not in the realm of science as it is not observable except through third person observation.

>>4669348
"x being researched in Y" =/= "Consciousness exists". Moreover, we do not have a consensual definition of consciousness; it might as well, if we're keeping up with metaphysical possibilities, not exist.

Looks like I've awaken the irrational dogmatists.

>>4669360
You're ruling out something that you don't have a clear definition of. Who's the irrational dogmatist now?

>>4669352
Consciousness IS a matter of semantics, fool. How naive are you, really? And no, you cannot refer to a thing that, in your mind, doesn't exist.

>>4669369
so what is "whatever it is", if "consciousness" is not the appropriate term?

>>4669369
>And no, you cannot refer to a thing that, in your mind, doesn't exist.

Then we can conclude that you're a braindead scumbag who should get the fuck out of here.

>>4669366
I'm ruling it out for the time being. When it will have a clear, consensual definition amongst philosophers, cognitive and neuroscientists in virtue of some new findings in cognitive and neuroscience respectively, perhaps I'll take another look at it. But I doubt this will happen, since many take "consciousness" to be an emergent property of something, which, in the end, could be just THAT something.

You can't be dogmatic about the existence of something that lacks well-defined and coherent theory and evidence.

>>4669379
First you will have to convince me that it is something DISTINCT and not merely a, e.g., "representation" or something else that we already know of.

>>4669383
Compelling objection.

>>4669386
I might see what you are saying.

Since the only criteria we have for existence is empirical observation, are you saying that due to the fact we cannot empirically measure something like our experience, is that why you say it doesn't exist?

Definitely, we can measure the electrical activity of the brain, but the leap from that to consciousness could be considered nonexistent, as a result of being unmeasurable and unobservable.

>>4669384
That sounds more reasonable. It is hard to define accurately. I guess it could be approached with drawing clear line between being alive and being dead.

>>4669348
Read Dennett then come back you dumb fag.

>>4669443
0/10

>>4669397
>Since the only criteria we have for existence is empirical observation
If you treat it as an empirical object then you're on the physicalist side of the debate. You just have to find out what kind of object or mechanism consciousness is equal to, or from which object(s) or mechanism(s) does it emerge from. And you have to have a theory. If you're a non-physicalist, you still, and too need a coherent theory.

>are you saying that due to the fact we cannot empirically measure something like our experience
We can't determine if it exists or not if we cannot make our minds about its definition. If it's "that emergent property x of y" then, I'm sure, there are physicalistic/property dualistic frameworks that will be compatible with this view. Then again, there are many that disagree, and as we know, you can always disagree about a lot of things; especially of the controversial kind that just happens to be the semantics of consciousness. And that's what is happening, so it seems to me, in the contemporary debate.

>Definitely, we can measure the electrical activity of the brain, but the leap from that to consciousness could be considered nonexistent, as a result of being unmeasurable and unobservable.
Equating consciousness with the electrical activity of the brain is too broad. You have to be narrow it down and be more specific and exact.

>>4669348
loving every laugh

>>4669494
He doesn't explain conscoiusness in his book. Actually he does the opposite. He denies consciousness because it doesn't fit his demonstrably wrong world view. Typical anti-scientific philosotard.

>>4669494
>payed blurbs

Nothing more pathetic than continentals trying to be edgy.

Oh, you're really going to shake up the establishment. Fucktard.

>>4669498
>demonstrably wrong
Not him, and not saying that Dennett's theory is right, but: Demonstrate it.

>>4669498
>when social scientists talk about beliefs or desires and cognitive neuroscientists talk about attention and memory they are deliberately using cleaned-up, demystified substitutes for the folk concepts. Is this theology, is this deliberately obtuse, countenancing the use of concepts with such disreputable ancestors? I think not, but the case can be made (there are maddog reductionist neuroscientists and philosophers who insist that minds are illusions, pains are illusions, dreams are illusions, ideas are illusions—all there is is just neurons and glia and the like).

Dennett is not a reductionist. Like I said, read Dennett.

>>4669514
>all there is is just neurons and glia and the like

I don't believe this. But I do believe 'neurons and glia and the like' is all we are ever going to know about consciousness. I don't think there will prove to be a satisfying higher dimension of consciousness, or a satisfying quantum world, or a satisfying computer that will explain consciousness in some magical way.

No, I think there will only ever be third person evidence of neurons and glia, that seems to correlate with the ever illusive 'experience'

>>4669514
>(there are maddog reductionist neuroscientists and philosophers who insist that minds are illusions, pains are illusions, dreams are illusions, ideas are illusions—all there is is just neurons and glia and the like).

Dennett is one of them.

>>4669535
Dennett is an eliminative materialist.

Does he use propositional calculus?

>>4669630
>propositional calculus
Are you stuck in the mid 19th century?

>>4669643
Probably. Now does he or does he not?

>>4669648
Continentals do not use logic, silly

>>4669318
None (at least in the Scchrôdinger experiment). What causes wave-function collapsing is interaction with observable particle (typically photons). In the case of an actual cat, the animal would interact very quickly with billions of particle at the same time, so the collapsing would happen too quickly to be noticed. We have experimental ways, however, to observe it in the case of subatomic particles.