/lit/ - Literature

>>5270140
>Why does philosophy seem, at the current time, to be in direct opposition to the sciences, and vice-versa?
It's not. You're an idiot. Delete this thread, you 14 year old.

>implying

>>5270147
Probably should have phrased that better.

What I mean is not that the two systems are incompatible. I was mostly discussing the personal antagonism between philosophers and scientists.

⇒on both sides of the fence

It's a very one-sided conflict. Philosophers constantly anti-intellectually attack science while scientists don't even give enough of a fuck to respond with more than a slightly annoyed "fuck off".

Not OP, and I'm not attacking science, but wouldn't the part in Plato's allegory of the cave where the people who are chained up define knowledge as the ability to predict which shape will come next be a direct parallel to modern science?

>>5270140
Isn't the big thing in academia analytical philosophy? It's becoming more and more like a science. I personally don't think that's a good thing but I'm also a dumbass.

>>5270185
Except, both of those generalizations are incorrect

>>5270140

Delete this thread. This is all based on silly pop science you've heard.

>>5270185
Who the fuck attacks science, are you retarded? The whole conflict is some certain scientists crying at philosophers because they're generally selfish cunts and what's to talk about after that. Not good old Einstein though, amazing what getting laid can do for you.

>>5270214
"Analytic philosophy" is dead. More precisely it never was a thing in the first place.

>>5270219
⇒Einstein
⇒"getting laid"

Top kek m8. The guy married his cousin. He was that much of a failure that he didn't find anyone outside of his family.

>>5270244
>⇒
You are a phd student: why do you spend all day on this board?

>>5270255
Today is Sunday.

>>5270140
You're wrong. Most contemporary metaphysics is in done in communication with science. Check out any "grad students projects" page and look for metaphysics. All contemporary epistemology is in conversation with science, if not straight up philosophy of science. Aesthetics is starting to look at neurology. The only people who are really doing what you're talking about is the Phil. of Mind people. Even then, you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who straight up hates science.

>>5270268
>The only people who are really doing what you're talking about is the Phil. of Mind people
You're an idiot.

>>5270274
>He hasn't read Nagel.

>>5270274
Thanks you for this satirical caricature of how "arguments" in the "philosophy of mind" are being conducted.

>>5270277
>>5270276
>is not getting a phd in philosophy
>doesn't realize that current phil of mind academics study cognitive science as well
>is only a 2nd year in undergrad at a mediocre institution
topkek, lads

>>5270274
⇒hurr durr u stoopid

Wow, that's a Dennett tier argument right there. For a perfect imitation of his style the next thing you need to do is to post a thought experiment invalidating your own stance.

>>5270296
>⇒
Kill, you autist.

>>5270294

>thinking that the study of cog sci means they agree with all of cog sci
>not thinking there's a significant anti-scientific camp among the Qualia people, or people uncomfortable with it
>implying that means all Phil. of Mind is anti-scientific
>thinking I wasn't defending philosophy as a study in the first place
>so insecure they need to wave their dick around and insult people

>>5270140
What conflict are you talking about?

Do you mean the conflict between continental philosophy and orthodox science?

Between post-structural thinkers and so-called 'positivists'?

What are you talking about?

>>5270140
They are not.
It's just a question of funding: the universities like money, the universities can get a lot of money doing research from the private sector, the universities decide to cut the humanities both because they are hard to evaluate and because they are politically unpleasant (ready to denounce as dangerous the mixture of the academia and business interests), the humanities get mad and write about why they are important and why science alone can't lead to a comprehension of the universe, fedoras like pinker and harris reply that such articles are evidence that the humanities hate science and are backwards and thus the university admins should give all their funds to their psychology and neurology departments instead of philosophy.

It's just a question of money and bruised egos and politics.

>>5270255
>people lie about themselves
>on the internet

Arrow is just a basement dwelling troll. Someday he'll get bored, until then we get 16+ hours a day of shitposting.

>>5270211
omg, I actually found somebody with intelligence on /lit/

nice to meet you, anon

>>5270311
>the Qualia people

U wot m8? Qualia is not a belief system, it's a phenomenon that needs to be explained - by science.

>>5270326
Didn't she post pictures of herself on /pol/?

>>5270328
That image is wrong.
Philosophy is pumpernickel: extremely tasty, filling and satisfying if eaten occasionally. But if eaten too often it becomes tiring and pointless fast.

Science is like bread: a healthy staple of your daily diet.

Bottom line: have too much of both and you'll get fat.

>>5270322
>because they are hard to evaluate and because they are politically unpleasant
and because they are fucking absolutely worthless to humanity, producing nothing of value to anyone (that couldn't be found elsewhere)

>ready to denounce as dangerous the mixture of the academia and business interests
you mean whine about vaginas & homos, and chastise people for using naughty phrasing

What is it that Marx said about the Left Hegelians, that they were only interested in 'phrasing' and that they were
>"sheep, who take themselves and are taken for wolves; of showing how their bleating merely imitates in a philosophic form the conceptions of the... middle class"

please. Fuck the humanities, bourgeois idealist twats..

Hegel happened.

>>5270360
You're an idiot. The point is that science is just a subset of philosophy. It wasn't some tired metaphor about tastiness.

>>5270392
both are a subset of the mode and relations of production, sucka

>>5270140
>Philosophy should, in my opinion, be used to explain scientific and mathematical developments, in the same way that scientific and mathematical developments can expand philosophical thought. I see no reason why there should be opposition between the two fields. If anything, they should work hand-in-hand to understand the universe.

hey guy, how about you read some philosophy of science and it's various sub-fields (philosophy of physics, biology, etc.) and then you'll see that this is exactly what happens most of the time

>>5270364
>>5270364
>and because they are fucking absolutely worthless to humanity, producing nothing of value to anyone (that couldn't be found elsewhere)

They produce value for me. I studied the humanities, paid for it, got pleasure and I'm still buying and reading books from the humanities so this is false.

>you mean whine about vaginas & homos, and chastise people for using naughty phrasing

Strawman. When I studied philosophy I mostly studied history of philosophy and the canon.

But also I'm a middle class bourgeois that never had any interest in marxism.

>>5270392
⇒science is just a subset of philosophy

I'm sure that's the reason why you see so many philosophy majors working at CERN.

>>5270425

>>5270425
Every scientist is a philosopher. They aren't mutually exclusive. It's like saying "I'm a bird but not an animal" or "I'm a car but not a vehicle."

>>5270425
There are many philosophy researchers that are financed by cern. I was studying with one who actually was writing on the relationship between Lacan and Bergson.

Also:
http://ph-news.web.cern.ch/content/philosophical-experiment-empirical-study-knowledge-production-lhc-1

Saying "I love science but I hate philosophy" is like saying "I love basketball but I hate sports."

>>5270444
>relationship between Lacan and Bergson.
>Lacan
fucking scum
It's worse than faggots having a deleuzian understanding of Bergson

>>5270452
Don't be hating Lacan, Lacan is good and Bergson was certainly an influence on Lacan as he was an influence on all French philosophy.

>>5270411
>They produce value for me
First of all, bullshit. Second of all, then you're a retard. Literary theory is just watered down, hopelessly distorted continental philosophy. If you're interested in such literature
1) there's already more of it written then you could read in a lifetime - read that
2) read European writers

The humanities simply don't pull their weight. And we know this because of low enrollment (people usually only take the classes because they are required) and extremely low (if non-existent) sales of literature. Like I said, there is better 'humanities-style' literature coming out of France or Sociology Departments than out of the humanities.

Fuck.
The.
Humanities.

>Strawman
Bullshit.
Look at who gets employed and who studies what and where. Women's Studies, Ethnic Studies, Queer Theory, etc etc etc are most prevalent in the humanities. Please, don't deny statistical facts - you're making yourself look bad.

>history of philosophy and the canon
oh god, talk about fucking worthless. jesus christ...

Again, why do we need 'the humanities' for you to sit around reading but not understanding Plato-Kant? We already have libraries.

Plus, at any rate, this canon is studied/taught elsewhere, such as in Political Theory

>But also I'm a middle class bourgeois that never had any interest in marxism
[sigh] My point exactly. Why do we need the humanities when they produce retards like you. You didn't understand anything you read, did you? Why do you pay these people to teach you nothing? So you could use fancy language to describe the mundane, and therefore feel superior to others even though you're physically and aesthetically inferior?

fuck me. this world is truly fucked...

>>5270178
It doesn't really exist. They just happen to be specialists with some deal of overlap between their fields.

Scientists are just philosophers. They work in the philosophical fields of empiricism and scientism.

>>5270262
>implying this matters to a phd student

You could spend the day reading papers or working on your thesis.

>>5270140
> Why does philosophy seem, at the current time, to be in direct opposition to the sciences, and vice-versa?
Because anti-rationalist philosophy opposes science and empirical outlook on human life.

> Philosophy should, in my opinion, be used to explain scientific and mathematical developments
Do you have other fascist wishes of reducing institutions into tools you can use to further
your ends?

> It appears to be a meaningless argument focused entirely on pride.
It's not about pride, its about language, cognition, sociology, ideology and other actually difficult issues that can't be simplified to negative vanity.

>>5270425
Most people who work in CERN have a PhD which means that they literally are Doctors in Philosophy.

>>5270178

It's a hold over from the 60s, 70s, and 80s when post-structuralism and identity/cultural theory gained popularity in philosophy, social science, and literature departments. Post-structuralism explicitly sets out to disprove, subvert, problematize, etc the all of our fixed structures, including language and science, which made scientists and conservatives attack them polemically, and there were counter-attacks.

Identity theory is occasionally anti-scientific because it has an interest in disproving claims that certain categories, female, black, etc, are essential, that is, biological, and are instead social constructions that do all sorts of bad things to their members. This also caused a lot of polemics from science, because a lot of this work is explicitly anti-scientific, as science has been used to assert these classes, or calls science biased, and conservatives, obviously, because they're often racists in the technical sense, or believe in traditional gender roles.

Because of the prevalence of polemics in this period, people are used to being able to dismiss other fields out-of-hand, and so it's gone from dismissing cultural theory and post-structuralism to philosophy on the whole, because philosophy basically seemed to be them for awhile because they were popular (getting grants, chairs, etc.) The schools of thought that caused them are mostly out of fashion now, however. There was, and still is, a very significant lack of understanding of the opposing camps because of the relative complexity of the disciplines and the relative inaccessibility of congenial literature to non-philosophers and non-scientists.

This is a pretty rough explanation, but I think it's the gist.

>>5270392
He was using humor to make a good point you stunted autist

>>5270360
>bread
>a healthy staple
>eating the carbohydrate jew

>>5270721
>carbohydrate jew
you're not welcome here. >>>/pol/

>>5270789
yes he is, bread is shit for food, and has been marketed as good for you.

deception is virtually synonymous with Hebrew

>>5270233
Then I guess someone should tell Kripke he isn't doing anything.

>>5270159
esh 2 esh

>>5271913
He hasn't been doing anything since he proved completeness for modal logic.

>>5270569
This is a very american reading though.
In reality post-structuralism was the result of an attempt to make the humanities more scientific.
Then it was hijacked by american scholars to support identity and racial politics to the unhappiness of most of those theorists.

Derrida himself said that he doesn't want to have anything to do with "deconstructionists" and Foucault claimed multiple times that he admired the logic of analytic philosophy.

>>5271913
Kripke is a mathematician.

Where are you getting this impression, OP? I don't share it. It seems like academic philosophers today are deeply concerned with goings on in science. Philosophy of mind is deeply entwined with cognitive science and psychology, philosophers of time deal with relativity, there are people interested in the implications that computing has for epistemology.

tl;dr yes, you are missing something

Could it be you are assuming 200y old dudes writing their books before even Darwin came around are contemporary philosophy ? Philosophers usually accept science, and scientists usually do not attack philisophy.

>>5274253

He's also an analytic philosopher.

>>5274283
⇒Philosophers usually accept science

Nietzsche called science "gay".

If you mean the phrase of Hawkins "Philosopy is dead", it is very questionable. He meant that science now answers questions from philosophy sometimes, and he has a point that science has the advantage of empirical experiments while philosophy mostly uses logical deduction. But that's exactly what makes philosophy free, it's more like brainstorming.

>>5274294

What Hawking *really* is that if you accept his rhetoric, scientists will have a monopoly on knowledge, which is something people like Hawking and Feynman vigorously endorse, but Einstein, Mach, Neumann and so on would not have.

>>5274294
⇒while philosophy mostly uses logical deduction

No, that's math. Where did you get this wrong impression of philosophy? Philosophers don't use logic, they use appeal to emotion, ad hominem, straw man, appeal to tradition and a hundred other fallacies I'm too lazy to list in this post. Philosophy is applied sophistry without rational or empirical basis.

>5274291
Back to /b

>>5274301

10/10 post, can't wait for your next one.

>>5274301
Read Wittgenstein. Modern philosophers have a mix of assumptions (usually far-out) and logic. Nietzsche was not modern.

>>5274303
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_gay_science

>>5274311

Why bother with Wittgenstein when you could read Heidegger instead?

>>5274312
12y old or troll detected. Gay meant "happy" in the 19th century.

>>5274316
Wittgenstein used logic in the mathematical sense. He even used operators and formulas instead of words.

>>5274320

WOWZERS, OPERATORS

>>5274322
He didn't try it the Nietzsche way, that's what I'm saying.

>>5274320

DOOD YOU SHOULD TOTALLY READ KRIPKE, HE WRITES PHILOSOPHY BUT IT HAS TURNSTILES AND BOXES AND DIAMONDS, THAT'S HOW YOU KNOW IT'S RIGOROUS AND OBJECTIVE DOOD

WOWZERS

>>5274328
Srs discussion please

>>5274329

BUT MAN THIS GUY READS PHILOSOPHY WITH MATH IN IT - HOW CAN I COMPETE WITH THAT? LIKE, WHOA, ARGUMENT OVER. CONTINENTAL CHARLATANS BTFO, AMIRITE CHOMSKY?

>>5274328
So what's wrong with Kripke ? Did he use too many axioms ? Was he wrong ? Or is it he was not a mathematician and dabbled in interdisciplinary areas other people consider their own turf ?

>>5274329
>>5274327
>>5274320
>>5274301

Hey guys, reckon if we all got together and wrote a letter and signed it, and like, sent it to all the big universities, we could get all the philosophy lecturers fired until they agreed to put mathematics in their books? I'm pretty sure we can do this.

>>5274311
Wow, he uses symbols of first order logic to express his insane drivel. Such math, much rigor lol.

Let me quote a few very laughable sentences from his Tractatus

⇒5.634 Alles was wir überhaupt beschreiben können, könnte auch anders sein
In other words: "u cannot know nuthin"

⇒2.063 Die gesamte Wirklichkeit ist die Welt
What a contentless tautological deepity.

⇒6.031 Die Theorie der Klassen ist in der Mathematik ganz überflüssig.
Yeah, we got it. You philosophical fucktard never heard of K-theory.

⇒6.421 Es ist klar, dass sich die Ethik nicht aussprechen lässt.
⇒7 Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
At least this makes sense. Nothing new though, only a triviality everyone with common sense would of figured out on their own.

>>5274335

You're right. These fucking 17 year olds dabbling in inventing logics, man.

>>5274339

He's right though. You can't know nothin'. Everybody knows that.

>>5274331
But you're retarded.

>>5274320
⇒Wittgenstein used logic in the mathematical sense

Lol no, he didn't. He used logic in the sense of a middle schooler who saw quantifiers for the first time and immediately proceeds to sound profound and pseudo-intellectual by inappropriately forcing statements of natural language into a pseudo-formal format.

>>5274339
As I said, they are brainstormers so most of it will be wrong. You are using the quality standards of math applied to some completely other area.

>>5274350
⇒You are using the quality standards of math applied to some completely other area

I was not the one who claimed "philosophy mostly uses logical deduction". On the contrary I demonstrated the falseness of that claim.

>>5274347

I know. If only I'd read a book that had math symbols in it. Then I could have pulled myself up by my bootstraps and become something other than a poststructuralist Continental Marxist charlatan who doesn't know science. But no, power of charlatanism was too strong.

Woe is me, how will I ever have your mathematics professor's approval, now?

>>5274354
Logical deduction on "kiddy" grade is still logical deduction. They are not mathematicians.

>>5274354
Philosophy uses argumentation and reasoning. And believe it or not, logical deduction is part and parcel
>>5274356
Why are you still posting?

>>5274358

Quite right. If only more 4chan posters knew as much about logic.

>>5274362

Sometimes I think of taking my own life. How shall I deal with the agony of not being a Math PhD? Of not being truly superior to those dumb dumb philosopher poo poos?

>>5274372
I'm actually a Philosophy major going on to grad school for philosophy. I'm just telling you that you're retarded. I'm not saying you should major in math, less to get a phd

>>5274380

Just make sure you put math symbols in your thesis man. If you don't and your professor was in this thread you're going to fail and be thrown into the flaming pit for all eternity.

>>5274358
⇒Logical deduction on "kiddy" grade is still logical deduction.
I would expect an academic scholar to reason on a higher level than an infant.

>>5274362
⇒Philosophy uses argumentation and reasoning
Why call it "philosophy" when this "argumentation and reasoning" doesn't go beyond preschool level? How is it even an academic field, when every "argument" can be conceived, formulated and refuted by a normally functioning child with common sense?

>>5274391
There are stronger arguments and there are weaker arguments. Usually you can't bs yourself by building any kind of argument because it can be deconstructed pretty easily. It's harder to build a strong argument than it is to destroy an argument.

I don't know why you get the sense that conceiving, formulating, and refuting arguments can be done by a functioning child. It's like you haven't read an actual philosophical dialogue. When you're surrounded by some really intelligent people you just can't do these kind of things. Philosophy has standards. Strong reasoning is among them, as well as logic

>>5274391

This is how you know Austria was a fucked up place man; why would they let preschoolers like Wittgenstein do logic? Kids at that age should be out and about, playing and making friends, making parties and becoming leaders.

>>5274391
I do not really think it's all on kiddy grade. Some people here could implicitely assume that their level has to do with the quality of reasoning. It is not so, because whatever the reasoning is, if you use deduction and the axioms are correct, the results will be as well. The axioms are the problem, and the size of the toolset. The kiddy-part can have no effect on the quality of the result. If the logical toolset is not big enough they may end up being unable to make the deduction, that's all. If they WERE able to make a deduction it will be ok inside of the axiomatic framework.

>>5274391
Here's why you can't just bs your way through philosophy, at a good school at least.

http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

>>5274417

>no math
>good

Ha! Try again, continental charlatanfag.

>>5274422
Depends on what specialty in philosophy actually.

>>5274426

Nope, if you can't even put mathematical symbols in your paper, why should I believe it's at all rigorous or true? Fucking charlatrons.

>>5274403
⇒Philosophy has standards. Strong reasoning is among them, as well as logic

Show me how you quantify "strong reasoning".

>>5274435
You can't quantify it, it's just a matter of quality. If you want more rigor then look into symbolic logic.

>>5274435
>Show me how you quantify "strong reasoning".

Math. If you're a philosopher you can't do math, anything you say is bound to be false.

>>5274437

I found this response useful, well considered and informative.

>>5274437
>>5274435
>>5274426
>>5274413
>>5274417

Anyways I'm out, got better shit to do, get a STEM degree or suck my balls losers. Pick related, it's me and my bitch.

>>5270331

>it's a phenomenon that needs to be explained - by science.

How can someone be so arrogant?As if science has the force of God on it's side and is able to explain the totality of the facts of consciousness all at once. How did we fall to such dengerous philosophical pitfalls?

Heidegger was so damn right about Gestell, why didn't we listen?

>>5271710
Yet without bread, there wouldn't have been revolutions.

>>5274448
If science can't explain it, then who else can?

OH MY GOD HE'S FUCKING MADE THIS THREAD AGAIN

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

WHAT IS THIS FOR, JUST STOP ALREADY

>>5274339
I doubt you have any understanding of wittgenstein, but hey you are arrow anon, you have barely any understanding of anything.

>>5274417
This is why philosophy is shitty. Only the dullest and most mediocre characters would settle to write in that way.

Uncle billy bob's ramblings are not philosophy. Real philosophy is what you describe, OP.

>>5274457

philosophy, art, literature ,poetry.

>>5274457

>>5270478
Calm your fedora down, bro.

they aren't "in opposition" OP they just diverged with Netwon and have been getting further and further apart ever since.

>>5270211
<3
get coffee with me anon

>>5274457
Why don't you ask science?

>>5274653
Coffee is for shitskins.

>>5270392
your post made me kek ty anon

>>5274627
oh snap

>>5274656
are you the person I replied to.
If so, tell me so I can cry not instead of later.

>>5270478
>The humanities simply don't pull their weight. And we know this because of low enrollment

In Europe the humanities have a pretty high enrollment rate. In Italy for example it's STEM that is lagging behind.

The cost of the universities and widespread anti-intellectualism of US culture is more to be blamed.

>Look at who gets employed and who studies what and where. Women's Studies, Ethnic Studies, Queer Theory, etc etc etc are most prevalent in the humanities. Please, don't deny statistical facts - you're making yourself look bad.

Go ahead and post the statistics of those who are employed.

>Plus, at any rate, this canon is studied/taught elsewhere, such as in Political Theory

Why would I go and study political theory when I want to study Literature and history of philosophy?

I mean you must figure it out that when you are sending people to complit and polsci to continental philosophy it means that there are some pretty heavy distortions in your academic politics.

>So you could use fancy language to describe the mundane, and therefore feel superior to others even though you're physically and aesthetically inferior?

I'm actually a pretty good looking and fit guy (6"2, 165lb).
That's just to say that you should get a hold of yourself because you are not arguing against me but against strawmen that you have constructed in your mind.

>>5274673
>165lb
Thank you, hungry skeleton.

>>5274683
Projecting this hard.

>>5274683
I even have to diet to fight in the middleweight class.

>>5271710
As a breeder of new strains of wheat and triticale, I have to come to the defense of the two main staples of western European diets, bread and beer, neither of which has any particular Semitic leanings, as far as I know, and which, contrary to your statement, are excellent storage forms of calories and trace minerals, and even some vitamins. Stop with the loaf-hate,

>>5274746
Beer was invented by Semites, moron.

>>5274766
lol, it can be found all over the world from the earliest humans, cretin.

>>5274766
Beer was invented by Egyptians, well before there were semites, and also by the beaker people of central and western Europe, though true beer wasn't created until the mid sixth century when hops were added to the basic ale recipe. I haven't found any reference to semitic beers at all. Just Mesopotamian and indo-european. The nabateans don't seem to have gone beyond mead.

>>5270211
A physicist with a funny accent is working towards asteroid strip mining while you're posting clever messages in some online echo chamber. Are you sure you're not also stuck in a cave, together with the rest of us?

Of course it would be nice if we could do something about fordism but I'm not seeing it happening anytime soon because many of us are unemployed and don't give a fuck anymore.