/lit/ - Literature

>>9484313

the power of literature is to convince millions of germans to genocide people for my totalitarian aryan empire

>>9484313
it's okay if you need things spelled out for you

reply to this post or your butt falls off!!!!

>>9484313
I study physics to understand how the world works, and philosophy to understand the 'why' questions better.

Why choose anon? Treat both disciplines as complementary, and don't perceive it as a dichotomy.

>>9484313

Literary fiction can teach about things like human nature, empathy, and so on
Historical fiction can teach history
Hard SF can teach physics

>>9484313

FFS do not pretend you understand the world by studying physics. At best, what you understand are relationships among objects you can't even define in standalone.

What is a photon? What is force? What is energy? What is work? I dare you to define any of these concepts without relating them to one another or to other concepts. It all goes in a circular motion where there is no ontology being done. We can only measure atoms insofar as we can relate them to other atoms or photons by colliding them together. Likewise, we can only "understand" movement at all by relating change in movement to forces being applied, and so on and so on. There is no underlying "meaning" apart from the statement "When x changes, y also changes according to such rule" and we could even switch all the names around, and it still would yield the same equations.

Contemporary physicists like Krauss and Tyson do a huge disservice to physics by claiming we are undergoing questions about the meaning of things. WE ARE NOT. As a physicist, all I do is establish relations among objects and measure how these relations unfold as time passes or as some other variable changes. I am not set out to find "why" anything happens, nor could I claim to be doing so, in any instance whatsoever.

Now physics is absolutely beautiful, and it's done a more than astounding job in helping us grasp at the world, and also to establish relations among all things around us (but I repeat, without bothering as to the proper nature of these things). But philosophy is where you should actually go to think about how can things be as they are. Do not fall into the empiricist trap.

>>9484700
>>9484711
>>9484735
>>9484762
lol ur butt fell off

>t. a rock floating in space

>>9484767

>lol y so buttoverheated

Sage and report

>>9484782
welcome to /lit/ friend

The 'how' questions are perfect for the scientific method, but the 'why's questions are not applicable to it and need a distinctly human, artistic answer.

Why be satisfied with the how, and ignore the why?

>>9484698
you

>>9484313
>Ah, there he is.
>That motherfucker.
>What a tool.

>tfw no ayy lmao gf

>>9484698

Oh fuck oh fuck am I too late? I don't want that to happen

I'm a retard and have only done calc 1-3 and 2 semesters of calc-based physics but, from my experience, math and physics are 10% profound ideas diluted by 90% bullshit notation and terminology. The most difficult parts of the courses were familiarizing yourself with the notation and having to deal with the writing styles of (likely autistic) physics/mathematics textbook authors .

>>9485010
>tfw your gf goes full ayy lmao

>>9485926
Math is 1% profound ideas, 99% autistic proofs
Physics is 50% profound ideas, 50% retarded ideas with no way to tell them apart

>>9484762
Exactly
Just because science finds the "what", doesn't mean that looking for a "why" is pointless

>>9484700
>seven nice, reasonable quotes
>neil degrasse tyson shitting out of his mouth once again

i fuckin hate that guy

>>9484698
Wtf

>>9484698
(You)

>>9484313
>he doesn't read books on the philosophy of physics to understand how being spoonfed abstract popsci reifications on youtube doesn't actually make you an expert on the scientific method or capable of discerning when popularizers make egregious and wrongheaded claims about what our best theories say about the world

embarrassing

>>9485948
Did you read what he said? Physics DOESN'T find the "what", physics only finds the "how". It is the job of ontology to establish the "what" in physical theories, something that is unfortunately lost on people like OP.

Math is a meme, it only proves we're living in a simulation. Observation is what counts, we are the dreamers of dreams anon, through it we create the world around us.

>>9484313
>physics
>how the world works
You haven't learned shit, maybe if you had read some philosophy you would understand why this is the case.

>>9484313
>how the world works

no, you have an understanding of what some white men and lab coats agreed is a reasonable and reliable explanation for certain banal physical phenomena.

>>9484762
Philosophers don't understand the world either, they just write a lot about not understanding it. What's the point? Philosophers don't even agree with each other about anything.

>>9484698
No

>>9484762
>What is a photon? What is force? What is energy? What is work?
These are fundamental properties of reality as far as we know so far. I'm assuming your suggestion from this point is to turn to some asshat philosopher and his """theory""" that photons are actually sparkles in God's eyes or something? Thats very useful.

>>9484698
*you

>>9484762
>What is a photon? What is force? What is energy? What is work? I dare you to define any of these concepts without relating them to one another or to other concepts.

I dare you to define the word word without using any words.

>>9484762

You post was succinct and all that needed to be said, 100% correct, and any replies telling you otherwise are trying to troll you.

/thread

>>9486181
You can't know what they are. These ideas are nothing more than correlates. You can't truly know anything about the external world.

>>9486202
Whoa dude deep. Did you learn that in philosophy book?

>>9486215
Try reading one sometime. It might cure you of your scientism.

>>9485948
How do you look for a why and verify that it's correct? Or do you just settle with a why that sounds good and assert that it's like that?

>>9484698
protecting my butt

>>9485950
haha yeah that compilation really makes him look bad. he has some decent quotes but is certainly highly overrated.

>>9484762
>At best, what you understand are relationships among objects you can't even define in standalone.
So? That's good enough. If it has predictive capabilities and lets us advance our technology and understanding, great.

>>9484762
I'm a math dude but I'll try my best

a photon to me is most naturually described as the magnetic/electric field it distorts. The "photon" is the crest of these, the two waves traveling at orthogonal directions with similar frequencies. Also I've heard the term "packet of energy" to refer to the quantum state of the whole thing as opposed to some sort of wavy spectrum of energy.

>>9485926
keep with being a retard or you might get as bad as
>>9485940


shrugging off the usefulness of math in reference to proofs is among the stupidest things i've read all day. math happens in the proofs, everything else is at the surface, little more than idle description.

>>9486202
I can't tell if you're trying to use some clever Popper type scientific solipsism or you're actually just another mouthbreather. my bets on the latter

>>9486092
>Math is a meme
Math does not prove anything. It is universal and necessary. It is a means by which we reasonably manipulate the world and understand observation.

>>9486392
Where can I observe complex numbers and infinities?

>>9486399
take any two dimensional surface and your'e seeing complex numbers, and for proof that we have results regarding infinite processes that you use ever day, just use a calculator for a clean little taylor sum

>>9484698

I love my butt :3

>>9486399
You cannot observe math. Math is an *a priori* form of knowledge.

>>9486445
Two dimensional surfaces only exist in the abstract.

>>9486526
what the fuck are you standing on then?

Philosophy is the greatest meme of all time.

>I'll just go ahead and write a shit ton of open-ended ideas, feigning significance

There are too many things you can think of to waste your time on people who lead you into what to think.

>>9484698
Replied.

Philosophy is just playing with semantics and useless abstract concepts. Absolutely none of it applies to the real world.

>>9484313
>>zero sum of my knowledge is zero but I learned a bunch of meaningless terms and names to namedrop in conversations
That's because you didn't pay attention or simply lack the mental capacity.

>>9484698
>reply to this post or your butt falls off!!!!
Pascal's wager says I should reply.

>>9486181

But how can they be fundamental if their very definitions depend tautologically on each other?

>>9484313
>Ask me how I know you're an "ST" type.

You're a meme, kiddo.

If only I could go back in time and bomb the Vienna Circle, then we wouldn't have this thread.

>>9486532
holy fuck

>>9486289
Popper is smarter than u

>>9486532

>>9484313
Pictures of women should be banned from all non-porn boards, there is literally no thread that has a dumb skank's selfie as it's image that isn't complete and utter garbage

>>9486681
She's pretty hot, if asymmetrical

>>9484698

https://youtu.be/RkZLl1CUT9s

>>9486665
Popper is to science as your mom is to my cock

>>9486709
Fact: Popper is extremely important to science
Fact: you aren't important at all

>>9486709

Indifferent?

>>9485950
All those quotes on the left are shit

>>9486716
Popper is important only because it was a rehashed theory of science that placated the egos of said scientists. No shit I'm not important; I haven't even drafted my treastie. desu popper writes like a mediocre existentialist and as a sort of shallow take on solipsism. He's also kind of an apologist for his own work, not being able to ever get it to really "work" within a scientific framework

desu his biggest contribution almost comes from this apologetic phase: in talking more about how scientists do science rather than the nature of science, he paved the way for figures like Kuhn for whom this was the basis of their texts

>>9484313
please stop responding to these threads it's so embarrassing

>>9486392
Obeservation IS creation.

>>9486776
>he says, responding to the thread

>>9484313
Youre using 'the power of literature' to express an asinine, or perhaps just a juvenile, opinion. And if more opinions are forthcoming, you'll use letters to express them, etc. The truth beyond the b8 is that youre somehow proud to be a fucking bore. Congratulations.

There is no world and there are no works.
>>9484711
You understand nothing. They are only complementary to absolute reactionary pseuds thinking they are Renaissance men. Physics and philosophy are both trash.
>>9486259
>presupposing pragmatism
Fuck off
>>9486392
False, it is neither universal nor necessary. Reason is an ideological construct devised to give one a sense of control over existence.

>>9484313
You have to practice after reading to internalize the principles with either subject. Try reading a science text without doing any problems, see how much you remember in a month

>>9484698
no
NO

>>9484313
God she's ugly. I rank girl's attractiveness by whether or not I'd sniff their ass and I would not sniff her ass

Being a pragmatist positivist might be an incurable and horrible disease

>>9484813
Philosophy doesn't answer the 'why' >>9485001
either

>>9484313

Fiction is not a learning aid. It provides something that's felt, not known.

Ya got tricked by a bunch of academics that want to be paid to write about books all day.

>>9487472

this is what I look like, btw

>>9484698
I'm doing Kegels, actually.

>>9484698
Gotta play it safe

>>9486532

Is this real life?

>>9484762
>FFS do not pretend you understand the world by studying physics. At best, what you understand are relationships among objects you can't even define in standalone.
>What is a photon? What is force? What is energy? What is work? I dare you to define any of these concepts without relating them to one another or to other concepts. It all goes in a circular motion where there is no ontology being done. We can only measure atoms insofar as we can relate them to other atoms or photons by colliding them together. Likewise, we can only "understand" movement at all by relating change in movement to forces being applied, and so on and so on. There is no underlying "meaning" apart from the statement "When x changes, y also changes according to such rule" and we could even switch all the names around, and it still would yield the same equations.
>Contemporary physicists like Krauss and Tyson do a huge disservice to physics by claiming we are undergoing questions about the meaning of things. WE ARE NOT. As a physicist, all I do is establish relations among objects and measure how these relations unfold as time passes or as some other variable changes. I am not set out to find "why" anything happens, nor could I claim to be doing so, in any instance whatsoever.
>Now physics is absolutely beautiful, and it's done a more than astounding job in helping us grasp at the world, and also to establish relations among all things around us (but I repeat, without bothering as to the proper nature of these things). But philosophy is where you should actually go to think about how can things be as they are. Do not fall into the empiricist trap.

restated/re-threaded

>>9486532
good post

fun things are fun

>>9484313
Ayyyy

>>9484313

>>9484313

Explain why physics is important.

Congratulations, you're now engaging in philosophy.

>>9488596
>lets say not all knowledge can be secured empirically
>therefore shamans, crystals, religion, spiritualism, astronomy...

>>9488626

Astronomy is a credible empirical science. You probably meant astrology.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy

We already knew, through means of a-priori reasoning, that you were stupid. There was no need to provide a demonstration as proof.

>>9488654
>typo
>look how stupid you are even though I understood what you meant to say

>>9488626

Nice try, but no! You're wrong.

>>9488676
Give me an example of knowledge that can't be empirically tested for, but that is still relevant in some way.

>>9488683

Ethics.

>>9488670

>"science fuck yeah!"
>can't differentiate between astronomy and astrology
>"i-it was just a typo I swear!"

>>9488696
Ethics aren't knowledge. Ethics are constructs designed to ensure social stability.

>>9488683

Empirically define relevance.

Empirically define worth.

Empirically explain how one type of knowledge is of more worth than another.

>>9488713
Non of those are knowledge. They are subjective. You can choose (!sic) criteria to judge these on and test for those criteria empirically.

>>9488712

Prove that empirically.

>>9488724
Prove what exactly?

>>9488713
Definitions aren't knowledge

Philosophy can't do anything you listed and science doesn't need to

Again, what relevant knowledge (not definition of a word) is achieved by philosophy?

>>9484700
>Putting Shill Nye and NDT on the same image as Bohr and Schrodinger

ITT: Brainlets not recognizing the equal importance of philosophy and science.
>not transcending the humanities/stem dichotomy
Sad!

>>9489104
Philosophy has no importance. Philosophy that is useful is called science.

Philosophy's a fun hobby like fantasy football but people who claim it has importance are just embarrassing themselves

>>9489104
>le smart centrist

Sup reddit

>>9489110
Define importance

>>9489112
Define importance

>>9489104
In what way is philosophy important in modern days? Not to mention as important as science?

>>9489153
That itself is a philosophical question. You obviously felt the need to answer it.

ask not answer* sorry

>>9489160
No, I am asking for your opinion. Importance is subjective.

>>9488721
>>9489085

You're doing (very bad) philosophy even just arguing this. You're determining the worth of a field of knowledge by way of argument.

>>9489160
neither philosophy nor science answers that question so philosophy is still worthless unless you have another point

christ, philosophers embarrass themselves not even slightly trying to defend the waste of their lives

>>9489119
One of the products of philosophy. One which undercuts your decision to get out of bed every morning

>>9489168
No, that's not philosophy. This is philosophy:

>Since thought is seen to be 'rhizomatic' rather than 'arboreal,' the movement of differentiation and becoming is already imbued with its own positive trajectory.

Philosophy is a waste of time which generates long books with no information

>>9489169
>neither philosophy nor science answers that question

How do you know, what if it does?

>>9489168
Knowledge describes objective truth or at least the best possible approximation. Everything else isn't knowledge.

Relevance is subjective.
Worth is subjective.

Please tell how this is "very bad philosophy".

>>9489173
What's wrong with what you quoted? Is that Deleuze? That's probably one his more sensible statements.

>>9489173
I don't see your problem with that sentence, do you not understand it?

>>9489181
It was bad argumentation for philosophy, which is of course what you would expect when arguing on a forum. I meant no slight, friend.

Truth is troublesome concept that needs philosophy to be made sense of.

What exactly is truth and how does it function?

>it's another thread where hordes of English lit majors and underage edgelords try to assess the relationship between two spheres of knowledge they're equally incompetent in
>>9484762 is the only good answer. Now fuck off and try to do something worthy with your life.

>>9489200
>Truth is troublesome concept that needs philosophy to be made sense of.
Agreed. The post you quoted >>9488721 wasn't arguing against philosophy though. It was arguing against subjective concepts being classified as knowledge.

>>9489201
>it's a butthurt redditor attempts to make himself feel smart and superior by posting a smug reaction pic and taking condescendingly neutral position

>>9489288
>anyone who doesn't shitpost with me is just pretending to be superior

>>9489200
Whats wrong with defining truth as something that could be tested and verified? This goes for both statements about physical reality (verified via experiment/observation), statements about ethics (verified via observation and historical analysis), and statements about truth itself (verified by logic and mathematics).
For example
>Gravity is real, because all observable objects attract each other
>Marxism is retarded, because all attempts to apply it ended in disaster
>the amount of natural numbers is infinite because any number M can be expressed as ((M-1)+1)

>>9489288
>le rayddittor
>everything not edgy is neutral
This board is 18+. Please, leave.

>>9484313
literature is a way to appear smarter/cooler than you are all you need are the trendiest names and get your opinions from faggot-infested boards like this

For those of you who haven't read Wittgenstein; this is why people love him, he basically said 99% of philosophy is meaningless---and how did he do it? He did it by philosophical argument. How beautiful. It's like making someone punch themselves in their head with their own hand.

>>9489356
>he basically said 99% of philosophy is meaningless
You mean only to to realise how much of a fucktard he was later in life and retract almost the entirety of Tractatus?
This is why STEMkeks should stay silent and do their calculations meekly so I can have a new iPhone

>>9489356
he was dumb enough to fall into it in the first place though.

>>9489367
>starbucks employee
>can have a new iPhone
This isn't a post your dream thread, anon.

>>9489380
This isn't of your concern, STEMslave. Your job is to stay at work overnight and find out how to make the device faster and more functional, so I can continue my philosophical musings in absolute comfort.

>>9486092
> Being this solipsistic

>>9489416
>frantically masturbating and crying yourself to sleep in your parents' basement
>continue my philosophical musings in absolute comfort
At least you have a decent rationalization to stave off suicide, my infinitely intellectually superior friend.

>>9486146
Fucking white men, amirite? xD

>>9484700
Bill Nye is not a scientist.

>>9484313
>>9484775
>>9484781
>>9485001
>>9485010
>>9485931
>>9485950
>>9486083
>>9486592
>>9486595
>>9486922
>>9487071
>>9488626
>>9488670
>>9488702
>>9489098
>>9489104
>>9489112
>>9489173
>>9489201
>>9489288
>>9489299
>>9489327
>>9489338
>>9489380
>>9489421
>>9489446
Who are you quoting?

>>9489177
What, how do I know philosophy hasn't proven that it is as important as science? Because there's no definition for "important" where that statement isn't trivially false. And all the philoheads here respond with "Define important" instead of providing their own definition where it's true.

>>9489193
It doesn't mean anything. People are here saying "Atomic physics aren't important because you don't know what an atom is" but "atom" is just as arbitrary as "rhizome". You can define "rhizome" and talk about it and you can define "atom" and do measurements on it, but nobody on the planet can do anything useful with "rhizome" and everyone on the planet does useful things with "atom" every single day.

>>9484313
posts like these remind me that most people on the internet are simply dumb

>>9489495
Who are you replying to?

science is literally nothing but finding the most useful formulas to manipulate the world around us. anything beyond that is not science. it does not search for some underlying "truth" and it by definition cannot find one.

empirical observation can only show you so much

>>9490072
Philosophy can't find any underlying "truth" either. It just describes the search for that truth (while introducing a lot of gibberish in the process)

Since neither philosophy nor science can find ultimate truth, the one that finds the most truth overall given the available definitions and assumptions (science) is to be preferred. Philosophy has its own definitions and assumptions but it does nothing useful with them at all.

>>9490127
Philosophy has nothing and should have nothing to do with utility.

>>9490141
So you agree with OP. Me too.

>>9490176
You obviously don't want to have an actual discussion and just want to feel superior by throwing snarky remarks, count me out.

>>9484313
I learned how to make gun powder from sulphur and devil's piss by reading Blood Meridian.

>>9490197
OP said learning science is more useful than learning philosophy. Reply said science is limited because it doesn't reveal the underlying truth of things. I pointed out philosophy doesn't reveal the underlying truth of things either. You said philosophy has no utility (so it is less useful than science). So you agree with OP and with me. What's the discussion you want to have?

>>9490127
>Philosophy can't find any underlying "truth" either. It just describes the search for that truth (while introducing a lot of gibberish in the process)
it gets a hell of a lot closer than science. at least it uses deductive rather than inductive reasoning.

science is literally "this has happened a lot so it will probably happen in the future". philosophy tries to reason out which truths are worth believing

>>9490280
The question should even be framed in terms of utility to begin with, utility has to do with mundane and immediate objects while philosophy and science with concepts and universal laws.

>>9490313
*Shouldn't, ffs.

>>9484762
but philosophy can't define any physical things either. You can make a philosophical argument one way or another but so can I and neither of our arguments are falsifiable. At least physics leads to useful inventions like this website that youre polluting.

>>9490343
You are conflating science with technology.

>>9490306
Sounds better than philosophy:
>lemme analyze history in my totally objective, unbiased way by drawing some tortured metaphors about penises, bulls, bears, and wills to power or some shit fampai

>>9490348
>implying they aren't inextricably linked

>>9484313
God fucking damn it threads like this makes me hate /lit/ with all the power of life I have in me. If /lit/ was a little kid and it said something like this I would whip it with pic related and then rub my dick cheese all over its wounds. Everyone in this thread is so stupid that I am literally pulling my hair out right now. You were supposed to be the chosen ones you fucking walls, you were supposed to be the last bastion of intellectuality in this degenerate world and yet you still only post idiotic shit like this. You know what would have been a better question, one that I would have giggled and clapped at? Whether the Complete Works of Aristotle volume is better for rubbing your dick in than the Complete Works of Plato volume. Instead you post shit like this that is neither funny, nor insightful, nor respectful in any way towards our time and our lives even. Nobody will ever remember your shitty thread you fucking bottle dweller. It's as if you gave us a glimpse into death itself. FUCK.

>>9490313
So half the philosophers say OP is wrong; the other half say he's right but he shouldn't make the statement. So this is the power of philosophy?

>>9484313

>>9490352
>>lemme analyze history in my totally objective, unbiased way by drawing some tortured metaphors about penises, bulls, bears, and wills to power or some shit fampai
not philosophy

>>9490362
That graph is irrelevant. Anyway, we are comparing natural and traditional philosophy in the way which one accomplishes to better know the truth, not to produce anything.

>>9490363
>FUCK
So is this the power of philosophy?

>>9489504
So essentially you're saying the only means by which to infer philosophy has no means to provide a definition of importance is through the use of philosophy

You see the issue here, its like Lawyers, things might be better off without them but when someone else comes at you with one you want to be able to counteract theirs with your own. This is kind of how philosophy functions but not really

Try successfully modelling any complex phenomena mechanically, good luck dweeb the real world is a nonlinear process

>>9490392
No, I'm not. Defining a word is not philosophy, and deciding something is important is not philosophy. Both of those things are useful (and as we hear from our philosopher friends in this thread, philosophy is not about useful things).

reminder that most of our best scientific theories have been wrong in the past and most of our theories now will be proven wrong in the future

reminder that there's no way to prove the existence of unobservable entities

reminder that Newtonian physics is the most valuable thing to come out of science ever

>>9490408
>reminder that most of our best scientific theories have been wrong in the past and most of our theories now will be proven wrong in the future
Thats the point of science. Refining knowledge through research and technology, giving humankind the best possible answer at the moment.
>reminder that there's no way to prove the existence of unobservable entities
What is dark matter
What is black holes
>reminder that Newtonian physics is the most valuable thing to come out of science ever
Doesn't compute with your first statement, since newtonian physics was BTFO by modern developments

>>9490429
>Thats the point of science. Refining knowledge through research and technology, giving humankind the best possible answer at the moment.
there's no guarantee that any of our theories are even remotely close to correct

>>9490429
>What is dark matter
>What is black holes
that's my point. there is no way to even prove the existence of protons or electrons

>>9490429
>Doesn't compute with your first statement, since newtonian physics was BTFO by modern developments
newtonian physics is the most useful set of theories ever. einstein only proved that it falls apart at near light speeds and across giant distances (which don't apply to any of our practical uses for it). people got to the moon using only newtonian physics

>>9490406
>deciding something is important is not philosophy.

Of course it is, any designation of value will be founded on an array of philosophic assumptions.

>>9490447
Don't be that guy. Saying that everything that has to do with thinking deeply is philosophy is the same as scientism acolytes claiming that science can solve every possible issue through reason.

>>9490447
nah, it's just how I feel about it

>>9490458
Yeah but the difference is the former is correct and the latter is wrong.

>>9490461
"Feeling" is merely intuitive reasoning, you operate on philosophic assumptions whether you recognize it or not

>>9486227
You can't verify a lot of things, doesn't mean they aren't worth thinking about

Reminder to designate that there is in existence anything but a single object and moment is a philosophic distinction

>>9488626
Yes, most of that is also empirical. Go read a book on epistemology.

>>9486181
t. never read any philosophy

>>9488683
>empirically
>tested
No such process exists. Testing is a rational process. A rock cannot do such a thing.
>>9489104
Philosophy and science are both worthless.

>>9490406
Valuation is axiology, which is a branch of philosophy. You are evaluating.
So yes, you are doing philosophy to say philosophy is useless and science is le epic. Good job you twat.

>>9484313
>implying a-posteriori necessity, gettier cases, ontological commitment and empirical violations of local realism are not infinitely more valuable contributions to our understanding of the world than anything science has ever produced

>>9484700
>philosophers think thought be action, but it don't tho - ndt

>>9484700
I don't see why people hate on Dawkins so much. At least he has some integrity and hates on Islam and Judaism as well Christianity

>>9491707
Axiology studies value, doesn't mean that one is 'doing philosophy' when evaluating, no more so than throwing a rock at a certain angle is 'doing physics'. Stop posting and kill yourself, you worthless cockgobbling contrarian pseud.

>>9491720
Not really. None of those things have any value outside of philosophy texts just as baseball statistics don't have value outside of baseball statistics. How would your life be different, today, without naming and necessity? How would your life be different without baseball statistics? How would your life be different without the development of wireless internet? Which of those is science?

>>9493430
I was responding to OP's assertion that he understands more about the world by reading physics as opposed to philosophy. I don't deny the enormously beneficial practical applications of scientific progress, but for someone who IS interested in actually understanding what there is, why it is, and how it is, philosophy is by far the more profound and worthwhile study.

>>9486151
Is that not telling of a certain deeper mystery?

>>9484327

>>9484313
isnt that the vvitch girl

>>9486532
is this even legal?

>>9486278
>without relating them to one another or to other concepts
You literally used the word energy, retard

>>9493414
>Axiology studies value, doesn't mean that one is 'doing philosophy' when evaluating, no more so than throwing a rock at a certain angle is 'doing physics'.

Both of these are self evidently true though. What you think the mind is able to throw rocks accurately based on magic?