/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12001588]

I'm fucking crying /lit/.

I finally figured it out, I finally understand this madman.
After years of reading the Greeks, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Kripke, Quine... I finally understand what's happening. I realize the pursuit of truth is pointless. There's no truth, no meaning, no a priori, no necessity. All that is is whatever I want.

That's it lads, that's it. I'm finally free.

[Anonymous No.12001605]

based

[Anonymous No.12001632]

>>12001588
>tfw religion is done for

[Anonymous No.12001646]

[Anonymous No.12001662]

>>12001588
You're free to do what you want but not to want what you want.

[Anonymous No.12001664]

>>12001588
now that richard dawkins absolutely destroyed religion, what do we do now?

[Anonymous No.12001742]

>>12001664
Embrace Fideism

[Anonymous No.12001757]

>>12001588
nice

[Anonymous No.12001760]

This book pisses me off, and I'm not even a theist. It's just that he clearly hasn't seriously studied the thinkers he writes about and ends up grossly mischaracterizing their thought.

[Anonymous No.12001765]

>>12001662
Whats your point?

[Anonymous No.12001766]

>>12001760
>ends up grossly mischaracterizing their thought
give examples

[Anonymous No.12001774]

>>12001664
Become Jewish

[Anonymous No.12001775]

>>12001662
>You're free to do what you want
any old tiiiiiime

[Anonymous No.12001780]

>>12001588
lol the god delusion was cool at the time but it has been greatly surpassed. I'm guessing your a redditor

[Anonymous No.12001796]

>>12001766
>In Why there almost certainly is a God: Doubting Dawkins, philosopher Keith Ward claims that Richard Dawkins mis-stated the five ways, and thus responds with a straw man. Ward defended the utility of the five ways (for instance, on the fourth argument he states that all possible smells must pre-exist in the mind of God, but that God, being by his nature non-physical, does not himself stink) whilst pointing out that they only constitute a proof of God if one first begins with a proposition that the universe can be rationally understood. Nevertheless, he argues that they are useful in allowing us to understand what God will be like given this initial presupposition.
Eastern Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart says that Dawkins "devoted several pages of The God Delusion to a discussion of the 'Five Ways' of Thomas Aquinas but never thought to avail himself of the services of some scholar of ancient and medieval thought who might have explained them to him ... As a result, he not only mistook the Five Ways for Thomas's comprehensive statement on why we should believe in God, which they most definitely are not, but ended up completely misrepresenting the logic of every single one of them, and at the most basic levels." Hart said of Dawkins treatment of Aquinas' arguments that:
Not knowing the scholastic distinction between primary and secondary causality, for instance, [Dawkins] imagined that Thomas's talk of a "first cause" referred to the initial temporal causal agency in a continuous temporal series of discrete causes. He thought that Thomas's logic requires the universe to have had a temporal beginning, which Thomas explicitly and repeatedly made clear is not the case. He anachronistically mistook Thomas's argument from universal natural teleology for an argument from apparent "Intelligent Design" in nature. He thought Thomas's proof from universal "motion" concerned only physical movement in space, "local motion," rather than the ontological movement from potency to act. He mistook Thomas's argument from degrees of transcendental perfection for an argument from degrees of quantitative magnitude, which by definition have no perfect sum. (Admittedly, those last two are a bit difficult for modern persons, but he might have asked all the same.)"

[Anonymous No.12001841]

>>12001796
I doubt he's ever read on or taken any courses on Aristotelian metaphysics. I, as a matter of fact, had many of the same misconceptions as him during my first year of college. Because of the difference in the way the natural sciences are taught (as constantly revising their theories and keeping only that vocabulary which has all throughout described the same phenomena or processes) against philosophy (which is more of an evolutive, historicist chain), I wouldn't be surprised if he believed that he could perfectly understand Aquinas using his contemporary, ahistorical understanding of words.

[Anonymous No.12001867]

Richard Dawkins believes in aliens and has adopted the ball Earth religion. He has wasted his oxford education in proving the unprovable and unverifiable but I'm glad redditors love his fiction

[Anonymous No.12001883]

>>12001867
>ball Earth religion
Every flat-earther is pulling a really elaborate joke on everyone else and you can't convince me otherwise

[Anonymous No.12001885]

>>12001867
>aliens aren’t real
>the world isn’t round

[Anonymous No.12001897]

>>12001883
>>12001885

Prove mass attracts mass, and prove how you can have a high pressure system adjacent to a low pressure system with no container.

With a scientific experiment of course should be easy enough for you religious zealots

[Anonymous No.12001904]

>>12001760
Kind of the wrong way of looking at it, he didn't write the book to refute high level theologians. He wrote it to sort of rebut the common peoples views of god, namely the "my magical sky daddy does things for me when i pray and he's real cause i feel he's real". Its a popular book, why did you expect it to refute summa theologia?

[Anonymous No.12001913]

>>12001897
Dude just stop. Stop stop stop.

The Earth is round. The Koran confirms it.

[Anonymous No.12001927]

>>12001885
>>12001883
You only believe in aliens and a ball earth much akin to those whom believe in a god. Ask your high priest Catholic friends of who "invented" the theory of evolution

>>12001913
Prove it without using faith and belief

[Anonymous No.12001929]

>>12001897
I’m not a scientist.
I however can go outside and see the curvature of the Earth in the sky and horizon.

[Anonymous No.12001942]

>>12001927
No aliens are real because it’s a statistical certainty (there being at least 1 billion trillion stars) that there are other habitable planets in the universe that would have life

[Anonymous No.12001944]

>>12001927
Not them, but what's to gain by lying about the shape of the Earth?

[Anonymous No.12001955]

>>12001929
Appeal to authority then? No I said prove mass attracts mass and prove how a high pressure system adjacent to slow pressure system with no container is possible. Scientifically of course, you don't need a white dress the pope wears to do an experiment.

There is no curve when it's possible to use infrared on an airplane and see impossible sight distances of up to 1000mi. The "curve" would not allow this to be possible.

>>12001942
Proof?

>>12001944
Control, a system of belief, containment, these are theories of course but again you can ask yourself "why do people lie?"

[Anonymous No.12001967]

>>12001944
And again when you have people under an assumption like if your parents told you what the shape of the earth was are they lying? Probably not but it was what they were taught and what only they know.

Also just an fyi a flat earth does not imply a disc floating in space but the floor of the universe.

[Anonymous No.12002101]

>>12001967
Prove that Australia exists, if you really believe that it does

[Anonymous No.12002109]

>>12002101
Think you're falling for the flat earth society you know the ones with "members all over the globe" that's a controlled disinfo corporation. Australia does indeed exist.

[Anonymous No.12002113]

>>12001588
>There's no truth
Is that true?

[Anonymous No.12002119]

>>12002109
Prove it then. No appeal to authority or using faith/belief. You haven’t proved anything.

[Anonymous No.12002136]

>>12002119
Oh ok, sure take a plane trip to Australia make sure the theory of gravity holds you to the plane as well
Taking the plane is repeatable.

Or I could say I have a friend in Australia and just take my word for it since that seems to be what your brain is capable of, assumptions.

You still have not came up with any evidence with above so you may continue with your system of belief

[Anonymous No.12002156]

>>12002119
Now I have some homework for you (making a greater assumption you're not a brainlet) look into evidence of the radius,
Sigma octantis
Molten metal producing magnetism
Axial rotation
North to south circumnavigation
Water conforming to the exterior of an object(that is not surface tension)
Curving of space time
Location and distance of the sun
Orbital velocity
Thrust in a vacuum

[Anonymous No.12002187]

Vaguely related. I've been an atheist since I first read a children's version of the bible around age 4 or 5. I'd really like to be able to believe in a god. What should I read to convince me? I've already read Dostoevsky. Should I go with Christianity or something else? I've skimmed the Avesta and it seemed nice.
I have various reasons for desiring this. tl;dr
>>12002101
If ausfailia doesn't exist, where do shitposters come from? Checkmate atheists.

[Anonymous No.12002216]

>>12002136
Take a plane to the massive theme park filled with actors, which isn't a real place it's all a massive hoax like the Truman Show but bigger.

I'm actually Australian, but maybe I'm not because there's no such thing and I'm actually an actor. Ever noticed there's a disproportionate amount of us Aussies in Hollywood? Really makes you think huh

[Anonymous No.12002220]

>>12001632
To quote this, religion is unfortunately not done for many have just adopted another.
>>12002187
If you wish Christianity seems to be the most tame, but I don't simply believe in a book of man, I do myself believe in a concept of a creator because of how Earth is intelligently designed.

[Anonymous No.12002230]

>>12002187
Go with Islam, the one true religion. Make your own choices

[Anonymous No.12002263]

>>12002230
>religion of goatfuckers, child rapists, and incestuous lazy criminals
Nah
>>12002220
"intelligent design" is just mathematics. what's bothering me is that every aspect of reality seems to be a slap in the face to concepts of beauty, truth, justice, fairness, love, etc. Reality is inhumane. You could say, human values have merit because they are counter to natural order and are aspirations, but that isn't satisfying. Everything beautiful will wither and rot, everything pure will be corrupted, everything good and just will be destroyed over time. For example, tragedy of the commons. If you had to ask me it seems like this world was created specifically to be counter to human values, it's like we live in hell itself.
Or there's "without god, everything is permissible." That's also been bothering me. Really other than practicality and laziness there's no reason not to do horrible things, as there's no tangible consequence.
I would just like to believe something beautiful can exist.

[Anonymous No.12002276]

>>12002263
Mathematics is a philosophical concept, it does not prove reality.

[Anonymous No.12002288]

>>12002276
I'm a casual but for example, descartes. I feel like the "everything emerged from cascading ramifications of simple mathematical truths" bit is likely the most reasonable explanation for existence.
However, it's cold and lacks beauty and humanity.

[Anonymous No.12002299]

>>12002263
>religion of goatfuckers, child rapists, and incestuous lazy criminals
None of this is true. Bestiality, adultery, incest, and criminality are all expressly forbidden in Islam

[Anonymous No.12002324]

>>12001588
>no a priori

There is 1 a priori -- the mathematical monad -- and everything else flows from it.

[Anonymous No.12002349]

>>12002324
no, that is still a posteriori, since you only know of it following empirical experiences

[Anonymous No.12002363]

>>12002349
>implying its existence is not derived a priori

Philistine. It's the material version of "I think therefore I am".

[Anonymous No.12002367]

>>12002349
It’s what the experiences were derived from. In order to experience things, certain principles had to exist first.

Read some Aristotle you fucking pleb

[Anonymous No.12002372]

>>12002324

Always nice to see someone who isn't retarded in these threads.

[Anonymous No.12002381]

>>12002363
>>12002367
no, there is nothing that does not derive from a prior experience. do not try and devolve things into semantics. basic scientific laws can more than show that everything you are is nothing but the data you have received from the outside world and without that you wouldn't exist. you are entirely dependent on empirical experience.

[Anonymous No.12002388]

>>12002381
So nothing existed before we experienced it?

That’s an incredibly unscientific view

[Anonymous No.12002395]

>>12002372
Thanks. I'm really into mathematical ontology recently. I wrote (fairly poorly) a short story about someone who "gets it" and goes mad trying to explain it. It got rejected by sci-fi magazines so I put it online. If you're interested I can give you the link.

[Anonymous No.12002401]

>>12002395
>I'm really into mathematical ontology recently
not that anon but I'm interested in whatever books you think explore this subject

[Anonymous No.12002411]

>>12002401
Check out 'Our Mathematical Universe' by Max Tegmark and 'A New Kind of Science' by Stephen Wolfram.

[Anonymous No.12002413]

>>12002381
>If someone is born without any of the 5 senses, they don't exist in themselves
Really?

[Anonymous No.12002422]

>>12002395
>mathematical ontology

[Anonymous No.12002425]

>>12002422

[Anonymous No.12002440]

>>12002411
appreciate it

[Anonymous No.12002494]

>>12001796
exampleS
also, fuck aquinas, he believed in literal broomstick-flying witches and would be considered a loony outsider today. not even sure why catholitards cling on to his nonsense so hard

[Anonymous No.12002993]

>>12002494
There is no evidence that sorcery does not exist, and it is something that is definitely not aligned with God

[Anonymous No.12003463]

>>12002395

Keen for that link and whatever sources you've been reading.

[Anonymous No.12003491]

>>12001775
Nice

[Anonymous No.12003522]

>>12001588
You can be an atheist mystic, like the accelerationists.

[Anonymous No.12003538]

>>12001942
>it’s a statistical certainty
No its not.
Suppose there are N planets and the probability of intelligent life is 1/N
Then it would be expected that we are alone in the universe.
Nobody knows the probability of intelligent life and to the extent that there arent infinite planets its not certain. You cant simply round a very big number to infinity especially when you dont know the probability.
Its possible that the odds of life on a planet is 1/2 and yet were still alone but its unlikely.

[Anonymous No.12003544]

>>12001904
i don't find that to be a particularly noble pursuit

this is why deplorables like christopher hitchens anger me

[Anonymous No.12003547]

>>12003538
anon have you never heard of the drake equation
it's true that "nobody knows" really but we can have a go at working it out

[Anonymous No.12003564]

>>12001955
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

This is how they proved that mass attracts mass. Took me two minutes to find.

[Anonymous No.12003575]

>>12001780
the book is so bad i almost turned into a theist

[Anonymous No.12003823]

>>12001765
Fuck bitches, get money.

[Anonymous No.12004170]

>>12002263
Try Chesterton if you want an example of a Christian worldview in contrast to the view of the world you portray there.

[Anonymous No.12004222]

>>12001588
Nice repetition of the same thread like a day ago except with a meme book instead of Nietzsche.

It's important to realize that that conclusion isn't completely accurate to what Nietzsche was saying. He did say:

>there are no facts, only interpretations
>all things are subject to interpretation
>whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power, not truth
>we all have our own way but there is no true way for all

However, what lies at the heart of these statements isn't merely a rebellious Dawkins-like atheism. It's not a denial of truth in its entirety. It carries with it the understanding that higher truths require higher bodies; that there IS a foundation, and it is the body itself, and therefore the body must be taken care of and examined. Rebellious hedonists who reach a Dawkins-like conclusion and use it to justify their drug addictions have nothing to do with what Nietzsche thought. God is definitely real, but he is now the Overman, aka he is whoever among us have striven the farthest, worked the hardest on his own body, and reached the highest and deepest interpretations of the world as a result. The Dawkins atheists would never want to admit that, because they are actually just Christians at heart, what Christians look like in an environment where the church has lost its meaning to the people, petty little people who ultimately seek to degrade society and its will towards greatness and an increasing gulf of inequality between its members.

[Anonymous No.12004246]

>>12001588
So if truth has no value for you now, is anything else has some? You're just turn extreme subjectivist. Enjoy living like a dog and eating your shit.

[Anonymous No.12005112]

>>12002494
Aquinas started his exercise in assuming his conclusions and formulating non-falsifiable propositions by stealing the impersonal, ineffable, all-knowing, all-powerful "Prime Mover of the Universe" from Plato and didn't even file off the serial numbers.

You can see this in modern Christian pop-theology. All the New Testament stuff is presented from this perspective, despite the Old Testament YHWH being basically Zeus but bipolar and with a personality disorder. A close reading of the Old Testament shows that you can lie to YHWH and fool Him, that He is subject to human emotions, that He regrets, He changes His mind, He is petty and cruel, He is utterly merciless to those who violate His arbitrary rules except when He isn't (story of Esther), so He isn't even consistent. These are very much not the traits we would expect in an impersonal Deity whose existence transcends universes.

As for why Catholics take him seriously, you'd have to ask them. Maybe the Bible is such a dog's breakfast that it's impossible to do better without discarding it all and starting from scratch.

[Anonymous No.12005116]

>>12003547
>drake equation

[Anonymous No.12005123]

>>12003522
>everyone missed the best *zing!* of the thread

post more zingers beautiful drifter

[Anonymous No.12005248]

>>12005112
>close reading
>what even is personfication
Some people don't have a pedantic need to take every sentence they read literally

[Anonymous No.12005384]

>>12005248
When the people selling it say that it's a literal description of how the universe and life came to be, and of the guiding force behind history, I take them at their word. ("Says so, right here on the label.")

[Anonymous No.12005431]

>>12005384
Not every Christian is a biblical literalist

[Anonymous No.12005442]

>>12005431
If they're not Biblical literalists, in what sense are they Christians?

[Anonymous No.12005484]

>>12005442
They believe there is truth in Bible behind the stories but the stories themselves are metaphorical. Look at Augustine's interpretation of Genesis at the end of his Confessions

[Anonymous No.12005775]

>>12002187
Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.12006183]

>>12005484
"Cafeteria Christianity," in other words--pagan New Agers with the faintest drop of Christian cultural flavoring. People who want that warm 'n' fuzzy unconditional Jeebus love, but don't like that old-fashioned, inconvenient, fuddy-duddy rules, or sin, or Hell stuff. Religion as fashion statement.

It's dishonest, facile, and intellectually lazy, when the source material explicitly states that it's all of a piece, "whosoever addeth one word or taketh away," and all that. I have more respect, intellectually, for an illiterate Third World mullah who knows who and what he is and what he believes than for any "Christian" whose "faith" is malleable and continuously changes to meet the circumstances. "Oh, that part? It's just symbolism."

[Anonymous No.12006840]

>>12006183
There's a huge difference between picking and choosing doctrine and reading something in context instead of in the most hamfistedly literal sense any southern baptist has ever screamed from the pulpit. It really shouldn't need to be explained on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.12007086]

>>12006840
Not him, but multiple parts of the Bible only make sense if read in a literal fashion. For example, people claiming direct decent from Adam would demand Adam to be an actual individual rather than just a character in a story.

[Anonymous No.12007387]

>>12006183
If none of it has dual meaning, then the book is fucking trash that only wingnuts could take seriously.

[Anonymous No.12007410]

>>12003564
No, it proved that two lead balls (which are made of metal and can easily hold an electromagnetic charge) attracted each other.

[Anonymous No.12007511]

>>12001588
Satan's strategies are truly weak.
--Qur'an

[Anonymous No.12007512]

>>12002263
Read the Bhagavad Gita.

[Anonymous No.12007514]

>>12002299
>T-that's not REAL islam!!!!1

[Anonymous No.12007555]

>>12007514
>when atheists say they don't believe there's an old man with a long beard sitting on a cloud, chucking down the odd thunderbolt, who also created existence from nothing

[Anonymous No.12008520]

[Anonymous No.12008534]

>>12002101
The only unbelievable part of that is that Britain would bother covering up a genocide.