/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11783759]

Why is logical positivism such a dirty phrase here? What's wrong with it?

[Anonymous No.11783764]

Because the STEM majors won't stop bullying me for being unemployed.

[Anonymous No.11783808]

bc yr mum a ho

[Anonymous No.11783826]

Most of its adherents on /lit/ are philosophically illiterate anglo bugmen who contribute nothing to the board other than memes about the NEET status of English majors.

[Anonymous No.11783829]

>>11783826
So >>11783764 is correct?

[Anonymous No.11783850]

>>11783826
Ok... so without straying into ad hominem what's wrong with logical positivism?

P.S. I am an undergraduate of English

[Anonymous No.11783857]

>>11783850
Capital is sentient and its function as a metaphysical intelligence optimizer traps us in a positive feedback loop.

[Anonymous No.11783865]

>>11783759
Its understanding of truth has been up for debate since Heidegger or maybe they don't think its up for debate they think Heidegger showed it away.

[Anonymous No.11783877]

>>11783865
But I think they haven't much read into the philosophy of mind nowadays, They should read Tyler Burge and see what they think about positivism then.

[Anonymous No.11783881]

>>11783857
Uhuh
>>11783865
Okay, I haven't read Heidegger. Where to start?

[Anonymous No.11783884]

>>11783881
UH Being and Time but its not gonna be easy. It is a heavy work.

[Anonymous No.11783938]

It's a failed project

[Anonymous No.11783986]

do you mean analytic philosophy in general or the doctrine inaugurated by philosophers like Frege, Russell, early Witt, Ayer, Carnap etc.? If its the latter it's because the arguments against it are pretty strong.

[Anonymous No.11785201]

>>11783881
Why, with the Greeks of course!

[Anonymous No.11785326]

>>11783759
If you want something easier to read, trying reading Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

[Anonymous No.11785336]

>>11785326
Forgot to add to original post but the connection to Heidegger and Kuhn is pretty close. If anything you can see traces of Heideggers thought in Kuhn's writing.

[Anonymous No.11785473]

>>11783986
Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein were never, not even once, positivists. Shows what you know

[Anonymous No.11785793]

>>11785473
moron

[Anonymous No.11785803]

>>11783764
not entirely. I'm an employed stemfag and I shit on logical positivism to feel superior to other stemfags.

[Anonymous No.11785806]

>>11785473
dolt

[Anonymous No.11786085]

There's nothing wrong with logical positivism. People especially english majors confuse the term with reductionism which pretty much all scientists agree is wrong.

[Anonymous No.11786179]

>>11783759
https://philosophizethis.org/logical-positivists/
here's a good breakdown.

[Anonymous No.11787399]

>>11786085
This.

[Anonymous No.11787455]

smug optimist STEMfags need to be hung from the neck until dead starting with "ecomodernists"

[Anonymous No.11787458]

/lit/ is a romantic science board

[Anonymous No.11787516]

>>11785473
knob head

[Anonymous No.11787631]

>>11786085
Then explain why modern psychology, neuroscience, astrophysics, etc. largely rests on the assumption that the universe is primarily material and that all phenomena can be explained through external empirical data (even the stuff that can't?)

[Anonymous No.11787650]

>>11785473
doofus

[Anonymous No.11787657]

Positivism makes philosophy irrelevant, so of course philosophers get asshurt.

The problem is that positivists leave the field because they realise that it's pointless, so all that's left is philosophers telling you that they BTFO positivism but without telling you how.

Philosophy as a discipline is a waste of time. It's something one does for oneself - more of a spiritual quest to understand your own soul. Sufficiently advanced psychology will render philosophy increasingly obsolete until it is relegated to being a "God of the gaps" just like religion. I don't think that positivist methodologies will ever actually settle the Big Questions (TM), but philosophy is no more capable of that anyway.

[Anonymous No.11787674]

>>11787657
>Philosophy as a discipline is a waste of time. It's something one does for oneself - more of a spiritual quest to understand your own soul.
This reeks of new age bullshit

[Anonymous No.11787681]

>>11787674
Sometimes the truth can be hard to accept.

Engaging with philosophy will probably make you a better person, but it won't do anything to improve society.

[Anonymous No.11787700]

>>11787657
If you're talking about the hammy, watered-down analytical masturbation the west has come to associate with philosophy, I would vaguely agree. Otherwise, if we're talking about the deep experiential transcendent philosophies of figures like Pythagoras, Laozi, Shakyamuni Buddha, Ibn Arabi, and so on, then lol, fuck off, Truth is real, don't let relativist propaganda delude you otherwise.

[Anonymous No.11787707]

>>11787681
>individuals getting better doesn't improve society as a whole
and that's not even the most retarded claim you've made

[Anonymous No.11787709]

>>11787674
>>11787700
>>11787681
>>11783759


POO POO PEE PEE xD

[Anonymous No.11787711]

>>11785473
silly billy

[Anonymous No.11787712]

>>11787707
>individuals getting better doesn't improve society as a whole

[Anonymous No.11787717]

>>11787700
>if we're talking about the deep experiential transcendent philosophies of figures like Pythagoras, Laozi, Shakyamuni Buddha, Ibn Arabi, and so on, then lol, fuck off
Nah, it's all stupid bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11787733]

Anyone saying "logical positivism" with a serious face deserve to be slapped by "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"

[Anonymous No.11787740]

>>11785473
dude I love intellectual humor! I always post witty to refer to wittgenstein endearingly so people know this especially to be true@

[Anonymous No.11787833]

>>11783850
So you wanna get redpilled on logical postivism, eh? Go with the Man theyself - Mr Paul Keksimus Feyerabend!

>Invented Eliminative Materialism
>realised it was dumb stemfag shit
>Dropped it before it got big with Rorty and Churchlands, then ever more retarded with Dennett

>Realise that science is a fuck, after being a STEMlord for all his life

[Anonymous No.11787841]

>"Oh interesting thread, I've been wondering about this for a while myself actually"
>It's just a bunch of STEM-fags and pretentious continental reactionaries throwing shit in each other faces

Guys, c'mon.

[Anonymous No.11787854]

>>11787841
t. neo-positivist rat

[Anonymous No.11787859]

>>11787854
I freely admit that I don't know enough about this subject to take any real stance, but this thread is fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.11787862]

Positive feedback loops

[Anonymous No.11787888]

>>11787859
>4chan is silly
great intuition thar, bud

[Anonymous No.11787897]

>>11787681
>but it won't do anything to improve society.
>implying improving society is good, or that society can be improved
Sounds like you've been doing philosophy all along anon

[Anonymous No.11787904]

>>11787897
>"everything is philosophy :)"
The last refuge of the philosopher.

[Anonymous No.11787906]

>>11787904
>political philosophy is not philosophy
The last refuge of the stemtard

[Anonymous No.11787909]

>>11787906
There's a clear distinction between academic philosophy and simple uninformed normative statements.

[Anonymous No.11787911]

>>11787909
You need to use the empirical method or math to explain those differences then

[Anonymous No.11787917]

>>11787911
>need
I don't need to do shit.

Cry more faggot.

[Anonymous No.11787922]

Logical positivism is a memetic virus of irrational perception, rationalism is real science.

[Anonymous No.11787923]

>>11787917
>I don't need to do shit
Yet more philosophy!

[Anonymous No.11787927]

>>11787923
>"everything is philosophy :)"

[Anonymous No.11787928]

>>11787927
>epistemology is not philosophy

[Anonymous No.11787931]

empiricism is evil

[Anonymous No.11787938]

>>11787928
What you're aching to say, but incapable of doing so because of some vestige of reason that is holding you back, is "but everything IS philosophy you dumb faggot!"

The reason you don't say this is because you are aware of how retarded it is.

But you believe it.

And that's why you're a fucking moron.

There is a clear and readily understandable distinction between the formal, academic approach to philosophy and the normative and uniformed "gut feeling" layman's approach to philosophy. I feel no need to elaborate on this or even prove that it exists because I don't give a shit what a pretentious undergrad like you thinks about the topic because why fucking would I?

There is no value in the former, and the latter is not concerned with justifying itself in the first place.

You are a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.11787940]

>>11787931
it gets bots stuck in positive feedback loops. it encourages hedonism by holding that reality is rooted in the senses and that one is transcendentally correct over others

[Anonymous No.11787942]

>>11787940
>"medicine would work better if we stopped measuring its effectiveness!"
t. anti-empiricist.

[Anonymous No.11787943]

>>11787938
>There is no value in the former,
Oh my! Now you have bridged the fact/value gap. Care to share your findings? You are quite the philosopher young padawan

[Anonymous No.11787948]

>>11787833
damn i didn't know about his eyebrows
>>11787938
just drop dead

[Anonymous No.11787949]

>>11787943
Nah.

Like I said, I'm not concerned with proving myself right because I don't really care what delusions you indulge in.

Just keep your mouth shut about that shit around me or I'll rip you apart.

[Anonymous No.11787952]

>>11787938
>I'm going to take the effort to give a half-assed outline of my ideas, but
>I won't give anything more, because you're a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.11787957]

>>11787952
Correct.

If all you're going to do is sit there and indulge in 'oh so witty' Socratic """"dialogue"""" then I'll just go back to playing Factorio on my other screen.

You can't even state something as simple as "philosophy is of value to the human race" because you know that the second you do you will be utterly incapable of proving it, and you don't want to be locked in to a position from which defeat is inevitable. So you content yourself with shitposting to defend yourself from the inescapable reality that philosophy is a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.11787959]

>>11783759
Because its implications are both useless and utterly consuming in our modern world.

[Anonymous No.11787960]

>>11787949
>Hold me back. I promise I'm not just a pseud who watched a documentary on Descartes

[Anonymous No.11787962]

>>11787957
>Factorio
You could have mentioned you were an autist at the start anon and save us some trouble

[Anonymous No.11787964]

>>11787949
Not so fast.

[Anonymous No.11787965]

>>11787942
Empiricists mistrust anatomy and physiology as sources of medical knowledge because anatomy and physiology are general and, as such, run counter to the Empirical principle of individualization and the idea of the self as God.
We must equate "science" with knowledge of mechanisms of action. If an Orthomolecular nutritionist announces: we have observed this vitamin's effect and want to use it even though we do not understand its mechanism, they do not recognize this as "scientific."

[Anonymous No.11787966]

>>11787957
What is not a waste of time, anon?

[Anonymous No.11787967]

>>11787960
>too much of a coward to say something as straightforward as "philosophy is of value to the human race"

>>11787962
>still too much of a coward to say something as straightforward as "philosophy is of value to the human race"

Don't you think that your mere inability to say those words highlights something deeply concerning about your position?

[Anonymous No.11787968]

>>11787957
You can't even state something as simple as "anything is of value to the human race" without philosophy because you know that the second you do you will be utterly incapable of proving it, and you don't want to be locked in to a position from which defeat is inevitable.

[Anonymous No.11787970]

>>11787960
>tfw no psycho autistic gf

[Anonymous No.11787972]

>>11787965
>Empiricists mistrust anatomy and physiology as sources of medical knowledge

[Anonymous No.11787977]

>>11787966
Playing Factorio on my other screen.

[Anonymous No.11787979]

>>11787960
Is that a feminized picture of Elliot Rodgers? Dude should've tried to take the dick, not give it.

>>11787928
Prove it—oh wait.

[Anonymous No.11787980]

>>11787949
>I'm not concerned with proving myself right
>epistemology is not philosophy
I like you. You can stay

[Anonymous No.11787983]

>>11787977
You better watch out, anon. If you push me even a little bit more I will rip you apart.

[Anonymous No.11787985]

>>11787968
>You can't even state something as simple as "anything is of value to the human race" without philosophy
That's why I don't make statements like that.

I state things like "I perceive medicine is of value to the human race," instead, neatly sidestepping long and torturous philosophical arguments about irrelevant bullshit and instead allowing me to discuss what actually matters: perceptions - mine and yours.

[Anonymous No.11787990]

>>11783759
Logic does not exist

[Anonymous No.11787991]

>>11787985
You play factorio. Your perceptions do not matter

[Anonymous No.11787992]

>>11787991
That's a hot opinion.

[Anonymous No.11787995]

>>11787985
>sense data and perception is reliable
Yet more philosophy

[Anonymous No.11787997]

>>11787983
*flick*

[Anonymous No.11788000]

>>11787995
>>sense data and perception is reliable
I didn't say that.

[Anonymous No.11788001]

>>11788000
You just showed us all that you are not trolling.

[Anonymous No.11788006]

>Why is logical positivism such a dirty phrase here?
Gödel, Tarski, Late Wittgenstein, Quine, Kuhn...

[Anonymous No.11788009]

>>11788000
If you cant say your perceptions are reliable, why are the values you draw from them relevant?

[Anonymous No.11788010]

>>11788001
I don't need to believe that my perceptions are infallible or even reliable to continue to perceive things. In fact, perceiving things seems to be an involuntary activity.

You're being a retard anon. It's a simple concept.

[Anonymous No.11788011]

>>11788006
Leave Godel out of it. He may well have indulged in that Vienna bullishit, but he also cut the movement at its knees.

[Anonymous No.11788012]

>>11783877
Logical positivism ===///=== positivism

[Anonymous No.11788016]

>>11788009
>why are the values you draw from them relevant?
They're not. They're simply my values, and I behave in a way that reflects them. It's up to you to decide how relevant my values are to you.

Which is the key difference between my belief structure and the worthless claims after first and final principles made by philosophers.

[Anonymous No.11788021]

>>11788010
Do you think, anon? Do you reason, or draw conclusions from your perception?

[Anonymous No.11788026]

>>11788021
I perceive myself as doing so, yes.

[Anonymous No.11788034]

>>11788026
Semantics. Good job, anon.

[Anonymous No.11788035]

>>11788016
But no one here does care about your supposed "values" you claim to act in accordance with.

[Anonymous No.11788040]

>>11788034
The semantics are essential to the argument.

>>11788035
Then stop replying to my posts. Or don't. It's up to you.

[Anonymous No.11788045]

>>11788011
Bone of those people were positivists.

[Anonymous No.11788055]

>it's not a philosophy it just exactly resembles one but is better so all others are already refuted
Is this not the laziest and most dishonest intellectual move of all time?

[Anonymous No.11788058]

>>11788016
>It's up to you to decide how relevant my values are to you.
They don't matter, because you admit they have no established connection to reality. Its just pic related coming from you. Epistemology is a very relevant field for this.

[Anonymous No.11788064]

>>11788058
Epistemology is bogus though.

[Anonymous No.11788068]

>>11788058
>They don't matter, because you admit they have no established connection to reality
They're connected to (what you perceive as) your reality because my behaviour affects you. It's affecting you right now.

This is all that philosophy is.

All of the philosophical ideas of all the great philosophers boil down to something as pointless and arbitrary as what I am telling you right now, because they are all of them based on nothing other than axiomatic assumptions about how the world works which are utterly unproven and liable to be wrong. That, or they're based on pragmatic assumptions about how the world works made by woefully unqualified people who then attempt to draw something coherent out of their mediocre attempts at grappling with issues they don't understand.

>Epistemology is a very relevant field for this.
I agree, and is the exact field that what I am talking about belongs in. It's just a shame that it's a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.11788091]

>>11788068
You're just a dull and insipid pseudointellect that is justifying not bothering to read somewhat challenging material despite having all opportunities to do so because you see your time better spent wallowing in creature comforts and tickling your dopamine valve. The paean of the bugman.

[Anonymous No.11788092]

>>11788091
Nodd an argoomend :DDD

[Anonymous No.11788096]

>>11788068
Its not your value judgments themselves we are talking about, its your retardation in how you determine them. You can't put a case forward that philosophy is useless by using a method you admit is faulty. How can anyone say it is true or not? Isn't it important to make sure what you use to make judgments is working correctly? We just want to save you from the day of the scoop anon

[Anonymous No.11788100]

Philosophy- the science of difference and enumeration- is a disease and we can look at the “progress” of philosophy as a viral contagion. As we all know, Philosophy begins in earnest with Plato. The central concern of the dialogues (themselves a capture mechanism whereby the “oral” tradition is contained within what would begin the
expansion/contagion of the first fully standardized, internal, highly abstract, economical, phonemic/atomistic representational exogrammic model) is “what is x in and of itself?”.

This archetypal question is advanced with much rigor and is indeed the archetypal question. This question gives rise to what I call “the problem of meaning”. Meaning is a new category arising in ancient thought and meaning itself arises with its necessary (ananke) organ- the soul. This archetypal questioning can be seen as “symptomatic” of exposure to something, thus it is a problem to be solved not by advancing the cause of philosophy but by seeking a cure. The Pharmakos, Logos and the Savior are all attempts at various times answers stages to contain and or cure philosophy. As a side note, Hegel is the AIDS of philosophy. The arising of what is x for itself is the “birth of the problem of meaning”.

Debord was a voyeurs voyeur and thus a radically incomplete thinker. Trapped within the completion phase of Cartesian/Newtonian/materialist voyeurism, Debord was unable to see the sorcerous aspect of his own compulsions. In other words he didn’t go far enough, deep enough, surreal enough in his contemplations.

There is a reason why the logos and light and vision and linear time and Utopianism and industrialism and Cartesianism and voyeurism reign supreme in the west. We are all one person.

[Anonymous No.11788103]

>>11788092
>i may be nothing more than a mouthy human slug but the joke's actually on him because it says here ad hominem is a phallusy

[Anonymous No.11788108]

>>11788096
>How can anyone say it is true or not?
They can't. That's the fucking point. You are no more capable of establishing truth using all of the philosophical tricks in the bag than I am just plucking random fucking ideas from the ether. Go ahead, try it. Try to prove that philosophy is of value to the human species. Doesn't the fact that you cannot even prove that what you are doing is valuable throw up massive red fucking flags? How can you continue to spend time indulging in this stupid fucking hobby when you can't even establish its merit? How does that not set off alarm bells in your mind?

>Isn't it important to make sure what you use to make judgments is working correctly?
Clearly, obviously, and demonstrably NOT. All of human society was built this way. You don't need certain philosophical proof to drive your car to work. It's simply not necessary. And sure, maybe you really are the only conscious being and the entire world is your imagination, so what are you going to do about it? Nothing. You're going to choose to continue living in the reality you perceive because all the philosophical crap is just meaningless noise that doesn't alter your behaviour. Unless you're a nutter who shoots up a WalMart.

Philosophy is valuable as a way to explore yourself. It's not valuable for its ability to establish truth. It's far more of a spiritual journey than a discipline or a science.
>"but that sounds like new age bullshit"
Sounds like it, but the practice is 5,000 years old and probably older so I hardly think it qualifies as "new."

Most people are just too fucking stupid to realise the utter futility of their grasping for the cosmos.

[Anonymous No.11788109]

>>11788091
absolutely based

[Anonymous No.11788115]

>>11788100
Plato's mentors, the Pythagoreans, were the true 'seers' - an extraterrestrial or extrastitional group who project objects in thought via geometric manipulation. The human brain recieves this via on board decimal plexing and created the immanentization of form.

[Anonymous No.11788119]

>>11788100
>>11788115
western phil is the metastasization of thought, what begins as a beneficial adaptation ends with the analytics and the obsession with its own linguistic ground

[Anonymous No.11788139]

>>11788100
>>11788115
capital is sentient

[Anonymous No.11788244]

>>11788108
>no one can reply to this
hahahaahaha /lit/ BTFO

[Anonymous No.11788544]

>>11787657
thank you

[Anonymous No.11788619]

>>11788108
You have to admit that you're technically engaging in philosphical thought right there... You're applying a logical framework to your knowledge to determine a best course of action.

Which is exactly how philosophy can be relevant... If the discipline is more focused upon deriving actionable policy from scientific knowledge -- as opposed to 'le extreme epistemological circlejerking' -- it would pay dividends. It's not just a straight shot from making a discovery to knowing how it should and shouldn't be applied. Now before someone tries to Hume-r me, we do get 'oughts' from 'is-es'. We all synthesize our biases with facts to make value judgements, and if you really think about it, your biases are another type of 'is'. Yes, this precludes the existence of universal 'oughts' with their appeal of simplicity and authority; in practice though, there is plenty of overlap in our biases, and our biases are often informed by facts.

I understand your contempt anon, but if the esoteric metaphysical stuff was left in the background, philosophy could have a practical role to play (although between apathetic / unintelligent masses and corrupt elites, I'm not sure who would listen).

[Anonymous No.11788634]

>>11787657
This is not the case, check out TYLER BURGE.

[Anonymous No.11788681]

e. "This cannot be true, because it is not
true; and, that is not true, because it cannot be true." Such seems to be the style, in which testimony upon testimony, statement
upon statement, is consigned to denial and oblivion. Empiricist reductionism, correlationism and division are the immanentization of process death.

[Anonymous No.11788923]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.11788963]

The history of every single empirical science proves that the senses are as untrustworthy as a bitch in heat.

[Anonymous No.11788973]

>>11783759
>>11783850
A whole host of issues, such that they could only be inadequately discussed or referred to here.

1) It sneaks in metaphysical assumptions about the world and runs with them without having first inquired into them.

2) Relatedly, they tend to start with epistemological premises instead of metaphysical ones, which doesn't seem like a big deal, but it's what seals in their metaphysical assumptions.

3) There tends to be a confused treatment of values, namely that of often trying to avoid discussion of values while overlooking the clear value they place in truth, clarity, concision, logic, etc. Nietzsche, prior to the Post-Comtean form of positivism that became big in Europe, had already hit hard against that tendency.

4) Historically you have figures affiliated with positivism like Wittgenstein turning against it for its static view of language.

5) The idea of some logical positivists that they could ground their thought in verificationism hit a big wall when some of them realized that you couldn't verify verificationism.

[Anonymous No.11789761]

>>11783826
>complaining about philosophical illiteracy
>mocks Anglophones for not being logical positivist
Logical positivism is the characteristic attitude of analytic philosophy, which is almost exclusively an Anglophonic thing. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about, please go back to your faggot friends on frog twitter and tell them you want a refund on all the time you spent together.

[Anonymous No.11789763]

Kant's Causal Conception of Autonomy is a myth wake up

[Anonymous No.11789834]

>>11787657
*dibs febora

[Anonymous No.11790036]

>>11783877
Tyler burge.... you go to UCLA or reed buddy

[Anonymous No.11790610]

>>11788973
Only good response in this thread

[Anonymous No.11791940]

>>11783759
How about legal positivism guys?

[Anonymous No.11792515]

>>11788619
You are, of course, correct. Unfortunately I have to comment on the philosophy in front of me, rather than the philosophy that I wish was.

I think that as psychology further informs us decisions about how to organise society will be able to be based more in pragmatism and 'facts,' but at this point in time psychology just isn't there yet to be able to provide a reliable enough guide. And it's not without its own problems and factionalism and politically correct polite fictions hampering real discovery.

[Anonymous No.11792617]

>>11783759
Just a mere slur, like most things oft-repeated. Few know the actual history of it or what it means.

[Anonymous No.11792630]

It's wrong because

1. Science isn't about verificationism, e.g it's not positivistic. Having a positivistic philosophy, when science is about falsification is counter-productive.
2. There's no way to use rationality in it's logical form to produce statements that reflect the actual state of affairs in the physical universe, because producing statements about the actual state of affairs in the universe must be deduced by necessity from sense-perception. The division between analytic-synthetic statements is wrong.

Read The Two Dogmas of Empiricism.

[Anonymous No.11792673]

>>11792515
>decisions about how to organise society will be able to be based more in pragmatism and 'facts,'
Pretty terrifying concept desu. Who will decide what these 'facts' are or what the 'pragmatic' action is. We'll end up with the same old tyranny but this time the tyrants won't even believe themselves to be tyrants and think that their tyranny is for the best

[Anonymous No.11792705]

>>11792673
>Who will decide what these 'medicines' are or what the 'diagnosis' is. We'll end up with the same old alchemy and humours but this time the doctors won't even believe themselves to be mystics and think that their mysticism is fact

[Anonymous No.11792713]

>>11792705
>my political opponents are a disease to be cured
Exactly what I'm talking about

[Anonymous No.11792720]

>>11792713
>incapable of understanding simple analogy because of a pathological need to read things that aren't there

[Anonymous No.11792768]

>>11792720
The person who can't understand analogy is you. What happens to the people who disagrees with your new enlightened 'pragmatism' and 'facts'? Reeducation camps or do you simply murder them like all those before you who thought they had the answers?

[Anonymous No.11792778]

>>11792768
>What happens to the people who disagrees with your new enlightened 'pragmatism' and 'facts'?
Why would anything happen to them?

Don't project your love affair with totalitarianism on to me you fucking faggot. I'm not going to rev up the gas chambers just because you disagree with me any more than cutting edge neurosurgeons arguing over experimental treatments demand that we rev up the gas chambers for all of the neurosurgeons they think are doing it wrong.

Fucking hell, this is childish.

[Anonymous No.11792806]

>>11783759
They are wrong. Science of the gaps.

[Anonymous No.11792849]

>>11792778
You don't get it. The very act of practicing neuro-surgery in this 'pragmatic' way could itself be an act of horrific oppression against the patient, even if the surgeon is unaware of the full consequences because of a lack of meaningful inquiry.

[Anonymous No.11792879]

You cannot have a posteriori or synthetic a priori.

[Anonymous No.11792880]

>>11792849
>The very act of practicing neuro-surgery in this 'pragmatic' way could itself be an act of horrific oppression against the patient
When was the last time someone performed compulsory neurosurgery on you?

You are off with the fucking fairies mate.

Nobody in this entire thread, let alone little old me, has called for Hans to crank the valve open - why are you so obsessed with the final BRAAAAP?

[Anonymous No.11792888]

Reason convinces us that the world is more or less as it appears to us, therefore we can trust our senses. Except when we can't, like when the markets manufacture ALL intelligence.

[Anonymous No.11792893]

>>11792880
Because unlike you, we are familiar with this old 'humanity' thing. Lots of people before you have claimed to have the 'truth' and the 'facts' and to know what needed to be done out of 'pragmatism'. And do you know what happened once those people got power? Humanity is a crooked timber, what makes you think it will be different when team science gets a go?

[Anonymous No.11792908]

>>11792893
>Lots of people before you have claimed to have the 'truth' and the 'facts' and to know what needed to be done out of 'pragmatism'
How many of them were supported by genuine empirical research?

And how many of them were supported by shitty ideologies built on bullshit rhetoric and literally fucking nothing - THE EXACT THING I AM RAILING AGAINST?

Philosophy, not science, produces the misery you're bitching about you stupid faggot. Retards who get tricked into believing that if we shoot all the kulaks and nick their farms we'll be better off get tricked into them with ideology and philosophy, not data and facts.

>what makes you think it will be different when team science gets a go?
Literally fucking nothing, at this stage, because our understanding of psychology is still to weak to set right what is wrong with humans.

You would know all of this already if you'd bothered to read the thread instead of making fart noises with your armpit while jerking off to your fantasies about gas chambers.

[Anonymous No.11792918]

>>11792908
>How many of them were supported by genuine empirical research?
>And how many of them were supported by shitty ideologies built on bullshit rhetoric and literally fucking nothing
>he thinks science isn't a shitty ideology
>he thinks 'genuine empirical research' is free from shitty ideology
You don't even realise what a dumbo you are. I don't have enough laughing reactions for this, just imagine them ok

[Anonymous No.11792928]

>>11792918
>he thinks 'genuine empirical research' is free from shitty ideology
You're missing the point you fucking moron. The "genuine" isn't there because I believe all scientific research is genuine, it's there to distinguish what is genuine from what isn't. You stupid fucking moron.

There has never been a genocide committed based on genuine scientific research, but there have been plenty committed based on shitty ideologies produced by ignorant retards playing philosopher. Philosophy will never make anyone's lives better and has sure as hell made them a fuckload worse.

Quality of life only rises when productivity increases (it's just common fucking sense), and philosophy does not improve philosophy.

>"BUT WHY DOES QUALITY OF LIFE MATTER"
It doesn't, until it gets taken off you. Fucking child. There are cold hard reasons why you care about your quality of life, even if they have nothing to do with philosophy (especially if they have nothing to do with it). That's the point.

You're so high on your own supply that you cannot even read what I am fucking writing, and instead are reading phantom lines that fit into your need to soapbox about the evils of wilful blindness based on false pragmatism. You don't need to preach that to me. But you will continue to do so, because you are too fucking stupid to respond to what I am actually writing.

If your next post isn't up to par I will stop replying to you.

[Anonymous No.11792929]

>>11787985
I perceive that you are a massive faggot

[Anonymous No.11792930]

>>11792929
The perception is mutual.

[Anonymous No.11792934]

>>11792928
>philosophy does not improve philosophy.
does not improve productivity*, though they're both true.

[Anonymous No.11793002]

The beginning of knowledge is to call things by their proper name.

[Anonymous No.11793003]

If you care for a word, you speak for all of its parts.

[Anonymous No.11793005]

Take amphetamines and see the bigger picture.

[Anonymous No.11793020]

The tension between rationalist universalism and an exceptionalist vision of language constitute a fundamental contradiction, everyone is stuck in a positive feedback loop.

[Anonymous No.11793200]

>>11788973
props to you for including most every big objection

[Anonymous No.11793206]

>>11792928
>There has never been a genocide committed based on genuine scientific research
not for lack of trying, mind. But there is too much bothersome shitty ideology that prevents efficient experiments in genocide research. Can you believe no one's ever managed a double blind study regarding the effects of genocides on different populations?

[Anonymous No.11793277]

>>11793206
Double-blind studies on genocide would likely not be in the long-term interests of the scientists or society, as genuine scientific research would likely show.

[Anonymous No.11793314]

>>11792928
>There has never been a genocide committed based on genuine scientific research
Most of them were you dumb motherfucker. The scientific consensus in the 19th century was that whites were superior and people acted accordingly. Nazi science told them jews were inferior. This is the point at which you play 'no true scotsman' so have fun with that.
If you knew anything about humanity or history you'd know your modernist shit has been tried and it leads to nastiness. But keep trusting Sam Harris etc because you just fucking love Science!

[Anonymous No.11793399]

>>11793314
>Most of them were you dumb motherfucker
Name one.

>The scientific consensus in the 19th century was that whites were superior and people acted accordingly
Note that I referred to genuine scientific research, and not "the scientific consensus." Confine your remarks to same.

>This is the point at which you play 'no true scotsman' so have fun with that.
Your fallacy is the fallacy fallacy, where you claim that things that aren't fallacies are fallacies.

Do you know WHY science isn't genuine? It's because fucking retards like you infect it with your shitty philosophies. What if tomorrow it was scientifically demonstrated that blacks are inferior to whites? You'd never accept it, refuse to believe it, and you'd be your own example of "the scientific consensus was that racism was wrong!" two hundred years down the line when two of the ubermensch whites are living in their all-white paradise world arguing abut why science failed to recognise the inferiority of blacks.

YOU are the stupid fucking ideologue who judges the merits of scientific ideas on their implications and not their accuracy.

Don't treat me like some plebbit sperg because I'm fucking not. I'm well aware of the problems with science. The problem is that the problem is you, and you can't and won't accept that, and that's why you'll just shit the bed for hours in this thread and then fuck off somewhere to some other embarrassing defeat without ever learning a God damn fucking thing. YOU are incapable of seeing past your own biases, but don't confuse your incapacity with the rest of the fucking species.

>"wow lmao look at this fucking retard who thinks he's the perfect objective observer with no biases"
That's a hot opinion but there's no way in fucking hell you can prove that it's impossible to come to genuine conclusions about important issues, which means your entire argument is "science is too hard for me and I don't understand how to do it properly, therefore I don't trust it."

Fucking cry more, faggot.

[Anonymous No.11793459]

>>11793399
>'i...it's not the 'no true scotsman' fallacy' yells increasingly angry redditor utilising the 'no true scotsman' fallacy to justify his ideology

[Anonymous No.11793475]

>>11792928
Science doesn't deal in values not pertaining to science. The values it deals with (truth, the power of experiment, mathematics, and empirical observation, etc.) have nothing to say about how and whether to apply the results of science to human affairs. For that, you'd need to philosophies to some degree.

Regardless, modern science was formed by philosophical decisions and choices by figures like Bacon, Descartes, and a whole host of obscure late-medieval/early-modern scholastic philosophers like Oresme and the Oxford Calculators.

[Anonymous No.11793476]

>>11783759
It's usually associated with the I F*CKING LOVE SCIENCE crowd and r*ddit, which /lit/ loves to shit on.

Also because it's self refuting.

[Anonymous No.11793568]

>>11793399
>when two of the ubermensch whites are living in their all-white paradise world arguing abut why science failed to recognise the inferiority of blacks.
Yeah, I think you're proving his point here. Even if science did prove blacks were inferior, that doesn't mean we should get rid of them. That would be a monstrous totalitarian crime of the exact kind he's saying an over reliance on 'science' could lead to

[Anonymous No.11793726]

>>11783759
Because it doesn’t mean anything.
/lit/ doesn’t really care about any of these things because if they did they sure as shit wouldn’t be posting on a Japanese anime message board in America.
We just post these things to sound smart and maybe beat someone in an argument because they literally don’t know what they- or you- are talking about.

[Anonymous No.11793740]

>>11793399
Shut the fuck up, postivism is shit and leads to shit reductionist science.
>t. actual scientist getting paid to science

[Anonymous No.11793988]

>>11790036
And so what if I do? That is no refutation.

[Anonymous No.11794000]

>>11785473
Muttonhead

[Anonymous No.11794002]

>>11785473
idiot

[Anonymous No.11794006]

>>11783759
Justify empiricism without using empiricism.

[Anonymous No.11794014]

The freedom proper to the subject and the power proper to the object are unintelligible if separated from the movement of an intelligence that is both unnatured and unnaturing.

[Anonymous No.11794145]

>>11783759
>Why is logical positivism such a dirty phrase here?
/lit/ has always been about the "my way is better than yours. Your way sucks. Everyone that disagrees with me deserves to die." style of discourse.
Haters gonna hate. Especially things that push them outside the rigid confines of their comfort zones.
Find your own way anon, find the things that make sense to you, and fuck the rest and move on. Don't get caught up in the monkey poo slinging fests of the redditors, neets, and pseudo-intellectuals.
It riles them to believe that you perceive the webs they weave. Keep on thinking free.

[Anonymous No.11794162]

>>11783759
>What's wrong with it?
just not cool
1/2

[Anonymous No.11794169]

>>11794162
2/2

[Anonymous No.11794184]

>>11794145
Science is the most prestigious and successful human enterprise of all time. Uncritically sucking its dick is a pointless cargo cult for domesticated cattle.

[Anonymous No.11794264]

>>11794184
>successful human enterprise of all time
Dude I think that's the sex industry. 6000 glorious years and counting.

[Anonymous No.11794332]

Gödel proved that some truths are unprovable in a system of axioms.

[Anonymous No.11794717]

>>11794162
Except that Witty being written as a cliche of coolness very much demonstrates the reductionist argument.

[Anonymous No.11794827]

>>11794184
Nigger "science" was "natural philosophy" for the bewtter part of said time, and it only became separated because a bunch of PHILOSOPHERS made so. And by that acount, religion is a much more succesful enterprise because it has existed for much longer and is one of the few things that seem to manifest themselves in every human society.

[Anonymous No.11795041]

>>11794827
Hear hear.

[Anonymous No.11795079]

>>11794827
I'm not sure what you're mad about here.