/lit/ - Literature

>>6101471
[Pretensions Intensify]

Why is Pokemon red still played when Pokemon gold is out there?

>>6101471

Excellent post, OP. This is the kind of edgy and thought-provoking topic we discuss in my Richard Dawkin's fanclub.

if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

>>6101488

im going on a mass murdering spree soon

peace

>>6101493
i lol'd.

>>6101471
why do you still post pepe when all frogposters were proven to be autistic sociopaths with no sense of hygiene?

why is science and math still discussed when having to rely on human made axioms renders all debate meaningless?

>>6101493
I like it. Now if only we could get that guy without a fedora on and shoop this in...

>>6101471
Finally some one who gets it! OP, you are a gentleman and a scholar! I like the cut of your jib good sir!

*tip*

>>6101582
It's not hard to find pictures of him he's a child actor I think Jeremy something

How doee faulty naturalistic metaphysics render debate meaningless, please explain?

Top pleb.

>>6101584
I actually teared up a little reading the text on that pic. Who wrote that? His world definitely fascinates me.

>>6101685
Sam Hyde.

Does it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb13ynu3Iac

>>6101718
That's a maymay

>>6101718
Pretty grim picture there.

>>6101471
>metaphysics
>still discussed
By whom?

>>6101718
whats inherently wrong with any of that stuff? Can't people live comfortably if they want to?

>>6101883
you're the typical modern male, aren't you?

"am i gay? I dunno" *loads cuck tube* - you

>>6101797
All the pre 1850 philosophy and theology

>>6101886
probably, Im also content with it. Whats wrong with being gay and watching cucktube? Everyone gets off to something

>>6101797
You're pretty delusional if you think metaphysics isn't back in a major way after the disillusionmentwith20th century logical positivism. It's only going to get more relevant.

>>6101883
No, since that weakens the base, thus will have a negative impact on society if everyone follows that type of living at a categorical imperative level.

Can someone clear me up on Heidegger's position on metaphysics? From what I understand he says that we can't ask metaphysical questions if we don't understand what it means to be. Isn't that a metaphysical question itself though?

>>6101883
what part of that image argued that anything it portrays is "wrong?" moreover if such an argument exists what would the author argue is right?

>>6101914
He says that western mataphysics are completed, since they only took one path of the definition of truth or whatever the greek word was. Apparently it is time for new metaphysics.

>>6101910
i categorically impregnated ur mom

Science actually doesn't, and the people who study it intensely (especially psychisicts and mathmaticians) more often than not engage in debate about metaphysics.

>>6101471
modern linguistics (science of language) has made metaphysical debate on the level of platonic forms very relevant. discussions on quantum nihilism also cast new light on such inquiries

>>6101910
Kant was an autistic midget. Any idea of an absolute moral system is doomed to fail because it neglects the emotional intuitions and cultural norms that lead to moral thinking in the first place. Morality applies to subjects and is therefore always subjective. Nobody prescribes moral judgments to rocks, trees or rivers.

>>6101963
I was just giving an example. I also support traditionalism, thus a certain cultural relativism that isn't universal for the whole world as Kant did.

>>6101975

I've never known a self-proclaimed traditionalist that actually supports traditional mores. Hell, most of them are nationalists and the dominance of the nation state is a relatively new thing.

>>6102001
Those are fascists and nazis which are rationalists, with fascists being more mild and open to actual tradition.

>>6101471
yeah but get this, science is a spook

>>6101582

>>6101471
Because science relies on metaphysics to extrapolate on any empirical findings. Science without logic does not fly.

>>6101471
>>>/lesswrong/
>>>/reddit/

>>6103418
Logic is not a part of metaphysics, it is a field of mathematics. How do the empirical sciences rely on metaphysics?

>>6104313
>How do the empirical sciences rely on metaphysics?

For the empirical sciences and its findings and results to be useful/trusted, you have to begin with a metaphysical claim... have you read anything about metaphysics? I don't mean to be condescending, it's a popular misconception that metaphysics is synonymous with the supernatural and the like.

>>6101481
nice

>>6104330
What is the metaphysical claim?
You are looking at it from the wrong way.
To have a concept of useful/trustfulness you need to have empirical knowledge.

>>6101471
Because science can't establish the nature of mathematical objects, for one thing.

>people falling for this LQ youtube ripped bait

>>6104349
Naturalism, or that empirical methods can create useful models of the world and the way it works (eg assuming things will happen again and again, the same way), is a metaphysical claim.