/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12856377]

There is a lot going in that image.

One is tempted to say that the difference in perspectives is the difference between serious geniuses and pop scientists.
On the other hand, one could say that difference is due to changing attitudes towards religion between the early 20th century and the early 21st century.
Of course, you could say that the difference between the Anglo tradition and the continental tradition of philosophy.

What do you think /lit/?

[Anonymous No.12856396]

Changing attitudes towards philosophy I think is what you meant to say rather than changing attitudes towards religion.

[Anonymous No.12856416]

>>12856396

cont. In general I think it's unfair to compare century defining geniuses to mediocre intellectuals who have gone into the public sphere to stay relevant.

[Anonymous No.12856435]

It’s because the people on the right are more popularizers than discoverers. It’s barely a comparison.

[Anonymous No.12856439]

>>12856396
>Changing attitudes towards philosophy I think is what you meant to say rather than changing attitudes towards religion.

No. I meant to say religion.
Take Heisenberg's thoughts on Plato. People were more comfortable with the possibility of metaphysical reality back in the early 20th as society had not yet moved away from religious thought.

[Anonymous No.12856446]

>>12856435
Eh... Stephen Hawking has criticised philosophy and described the discipline as 'dead'.

I think there is something more going on to do with the changing culture.

[Anonymous No.12856447]

there's nothing wrong with either of the things Dawkins said

[Anonymous No.12856471]

>>12856447
'Common sense' is a useless synonym for intuition. Intuition tells us very little and is often very misleading.

The second quote is just a dumb and obvious platitude.

[Anonymous No.12856483]

>>12856471
>'Common sense' is a useless synonym for intuition. Intuition tells us very little and is often very misleading.
so you agree with Dawkins
>The second quote is just a dumb and obvious platitude.
would you say it's common sense?

[Anonymous No.12856501]

>>12856439

What makes you think the 20th century was any more religious than our current time? Opinions on religion have nothing to do with opinions on philosophy in an academic sense unless you're talking about philosophy of religion. Skepticism towards a metaphysical reality doesn't stem from an anti-religious mindset.

All of the people on the right were bron and educated in the 20th century my man.

[Anonymous No.12856505]

All these niggas need to shut up.

[Anonymous No.12856530]

>>12856483
>so you agree with Dawkins
Read what Dawkins said. Read what I wrote. Dawkins disapproves of philosophy because he thinks those who study the discipline ignore 'common sense'. The whole 'I means it as a compliment' is obviously tongue in cheek, meant as a dig.

>would you say it's common sense?
No. I would say that it's about as meaningful as saying: 'just be yourself' or 'treat women like people'. It doesn't fucking mean anything. What does it mean to 'be yourself' who else am i going to be? What if my natural persona is that of a neurotic serial killer what am I to do then? What does it mean to treat someone 'like a person'? What does that entail? These questions are usually answered by 'oh it's common sense' by cunts.

OK, I went on a bit of a tangent there.

[Anonymous No.12856538]

it's just that capitalism has convinced people that
philosophy = (unprofittable =) bad
science = (profitable =) good

[Anonymous No.12856549]

>>12856538
Actually, many of these guys are always on the brink of suffering from budget cuts. Do you think the market rewards astrophysics?

[Anonymous No.12856552]

>>12856530
>The whole 'I means it as a compliment' is obviously tongue in cheek, meant as a dig.
no it's not
>it doesn't mean anything blah blah blah
it's funny because the second one actually is an obvious dig

[Anonymous No.12856586]

>>12856501
>What makes you think the 20th century was any more religious than our current time?
I specified the early 20th century. Pre-WW2 and pre-sixties counterculture.
European society was more religious back then. Church attendance was very high (dropped after WW1 and WW2 in Europe, not North America), and religion/religiously inspired morality held sway over people's lives in a way that it does not today.

>Opinions on religion have nothing to do with opinions on philosophy in an academic sense
Errr. yeah, they kinda do. A lot of people are instinctively hostile to arguments and ideas about reality that are not capable of being verified or disproven by empirical experiments, for the simple reason that such arguments are typically arguments for religion.metaphysical beliefs.

[Anonymous No.12856596]

The men on the left aren't even scientists with exception of maybe Black Science Man. Bill Nye has a fucking engineering degree, your plumber is as much of a 'science guy'

[Anonymous No.12856602]

>>12856549
>Actually, many of these guys are always on the brink of suffering from budget cuts. Do you think the market rewards astrophysics?
No. But it does reward Geophysics (my degree field). Thank God for the oil industry!

[Anonymous No.12856604]

>>12856596
>left
Right***
fugg

[Anonymous No.12856612]

>>12856505
fag

[Anonymous No.12856651]

>>12856505
Reddit tier post.

It's no more different than a teenage flexing his muscle and thinking he's Goku.
That's how you look when you post Witt in that context.

Cringy fuck.

[Anonymous No.12856659]

>>12856549
No, but it rewards technique over everything. Philosophy and art are shunned.

[Anonymous No.12856678]

>>12856659
>No, but it rewards technique over everything
it rewards profit over everything brainlet

[Anonymous No.12856683]

>>12856678
Am I contradicting that?

[Anonymous No.12856688]

>>12856683
yes.

[Anonymous No.12856705]

>>12856688
Technique is preferred because it obviously lead to profit.

[Anonymous No.12856714]

>>12856596
Krauss is a theoretical physicists

[Anonymous No.12856728]

>>12856538
Why wouldn't the same incentives exist under socialism? From the perspective of a central planner I have no use for a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.12856736]

>>12856705
profitable techniques, yes

[Anonymous No.12856748]

The faggots on the right.....Heidegger was right all the time

[Anonymous No.12856828]

>>12856377
Most of those on the left have been more influential in the analytic sphere. They are never mentioned by continentals so I don't know what that divide has to do with it

[Anonymous No.12856869]

>>12856748
>Heidegger was right all the time
about what?

[Anonymous No.12856873]

>>12856377

[Anonymous No.12857040]

>>12856869
the jews

[Anonymous No.12857391]

the ironic thing is dawkins is a cultural christian, he´s a deluded fool

[Anonymous No.12857446]

>>12856377
I think people simply realized that philosophy can’t be proved by science so they just moved on, at best taking what works. For instance people in the past would believe in something like Plato’s forms, but today? We would say “sure, where’s the evidence? Why should I believe in something that can’t be proved?”. Of course you still find morons who haven’t woken up to the superiority of science, but generally these people are brainwashed and circumvent asking for evidence. Just because some smart European men believed otherwise doesn’t make it less true, most likely it was some remnant of childhood brainwashing they couldn’t get over

[Anonymous No.12857463]

>>12857446
Prove any morale or ethical theory with science. Pro tip you can't.

[Anonymous No.12857475]

>>12857463
We don’t need to, morals are literally just common sense. If I went to Timbuktu and pissed in my pissed the locals wouldn’t say “shit we better tell him about teh morals”, no they would assume that I know better than to piss in my food

[Anonymous No.12857481]

>>12857475
>pissed in my soup*

[Anonymous No.12857487]

>>12856377
This picture honestly makes me cry. I don't know when it happened but political leaders to public intellectuals have become so lacking in any true intellectual depth that i truly want to die. I mean compare Donald Trump and George Bush to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

[Anonymous No.12857489]

>>12856377
I think that /lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/. Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.

[Anonymous No.12857520]

>>12857391
>the ironic thing is dawkins is a cultural christian
I think he has admitted this.

[Anonymous No.12857530]

>>12856416
> century defining geniuses
These days it's only projects and think tanks. Rockefeller got his wish; not a world of thinkers, but of workers. Everyone is a pleb now.

[Anonymous No.12857534]

>>12857475
Pissing in your food is not really a moral action. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.
And using "common sense" a word that has almost no meaning.
When in Rome do what the Romans do is really terrible attitude. It's completely devote of ant thought and just blindly follows the pack.

[Anonymous No.12857538]

>>12857530
>"> "

[Anonymous No.12857551]

>>12857487
>I don't know when it happened but political leaders to public intellectuals have become so lacking in any true intellectual depth that i truly want to die.
Destruction of intellectual traditions and classical education.
Rise of mass visual media has ruined the written word.
Real power is no longer held with offices such as the presidency; banks are far more powerful.

[Anonymous No.12857563]

>>12857534
>When in Rome do what the Romans do is really terrible attitude. It's completely devote of ant thought and just blindly follows the pack.
It’s simply the collective thought of humanity. Everything you believe about “morals” is prebuilt into our genes, just like how fetching a ball in built into a golden retriever

[Anonymous No.12857580]

>>12857563
Proofs

[Anonymous No.12857588]

>>12857580
https://philpapers.org/rec/MCKTSE

[Anonymous No.12857615]

>>12857588
>evolutionary game theory, the theory of bounded rationality
This is not science it's a philosophy at best. So yea you are falling for the spooks you don't like.

[Anonymous No.12857643]

>>12856377
The central point that has been lost is that the process of observation and the underlying theory define what is observed. It is not limited to quantum physics, it is valid everywhere.

For example, a numerous and constantly changing set of animals exists on Earth, and is classified into species (with various methods). Species themselves don't “exist” — “cats” and “dogs” are living creatures we have declared “cats” and “dogs” because it was convenient. Sets of edible and inedible mushrooms vary greatly across cultural and geographical borders, and it can be explained by different cooking methods, susceptibility to rot before being picked up in warmer climate, local poisonous types that get too similar to common ones, etc. However, these are working and convenient systems. We can go full “scientific” on that, and turn to chemical and DNA analysis, but that just gives us lots of data to process and systematize without any instant answers (those are edible, those aren't).

In ancient times, arrows flew according to the archery rules, and planets moved according to the rules of astronomy. Practice proved these rules true. No sane person would think these objects are similar until Newton, in his search for God's plan of Universe, classified them as similar in his unified theory of gravitation. However, he didn't find “how nature is” (Newtonian physics is valid only in certain conditions, as we know now), he created a powerful theory that tells us how to observe nature. In the same vein, desire to find “real” properties of atomic and subatomic particles that were imagined as, to a greater or lesser extent, balls of matter did not provide decent explanation of experimental results. Only a theory that redefined them from scratch as phenomenons that have certain properties and interact with fundamental fields based on certain equations was successful. Note that these new particles are not any more or less “imaginary” or “physical” than the old ones, both are convenient ideas about certain properties of the universe, “what we can say about nature”.

Philosophy and art have always been aware of that. Borrowing from the author from other thread:

> And then her warm imagination
> Perceives herself as heroine —
> Some favourite author's fond creation:
> Clarissa, Julia, or Delphine.
> She wanders with her borrowed lovers
> Through silent woods and so discovers
> Within a book her heart's extremes,
> Her secret passions, and her dreams.
> She sighs… and in her soul possessing
> Another's joy, another's pain,
> She whispers in a soft refrain
> The letter she would send caressing
> Her hero…

Modern science has degraded, as it generally believes in studying the “real” thing, and in automatic application of “scientific method” that coagulates complexity into a system. Data, and data, and lots of data is gathered, and it is expected that some tricky processing method turns it into a theory. 3Kc

[Anonymous No.12857648]

>>12856377
>>12856586
>>12856439
>metaphysical reality

You are a fucking imbecile who has no idea what he is talking about, Philosophy and religion have nothing to do with each other and Metaphysics in philosophy has nothing to do with the new age bullshit you think Metaphysics is about.

Your third question is also retarded because
a) the charlatans on the right don't even know what analytic or continental philosophy is
b) the distinction between analytic and continental is a fucking anachronism in this day and age

[Anonymous No.12857660]

>>12857563
>Everything you believe about “morals” is prebuilt into our genes
You haven't read philosophy of ethics. For instance, Kant said that morals should be tested against the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative normalizes an action that one wants to test for its morality. To fail the categorical imperative is to imagine a hypothetical scenario where the action is normalized. If the result of normalizing this action results in a world where it would be impossible to perform the task or contradict society in some way then one would be able to reject the action as not moral. This is by no means a genetic approach to morality.

[Anonymous No.12857701]

>>12857534
Even if he is using simple language I think he refers to what Aquinas would call natural law. This is not moral relativism.

[Anonymous No.12857729]

>>12857660
Another popular example is an imaginary drug that makes everyone do good. You've taken it, is the good you do moral?

“It's in genes” means the same. Various “biological sources of altruism” make that altruism cease to be altruism. It is sad that people who talk about these things don't understand that.

[Anonymous No.12857761]

>>12857643
> Human is
> A social construct
>
> Rupi Pushkin, 1820s

[Anonymous No.12857768]

>>12856439
>Metaphysical reality
Yeah I'm with the other guy, this is just a stupid thing to say in general. :3

[Anonymous No.12857984]

>>12856873
There's a quote from him moaning about how dreadfully boring he found sitting in church was as a child. I know it's a dumb strawman, but I can't help but feel virulent atheists just have bad experiences with religion or found authority figures frustrating and developed a kind of resentment.

[Anonymous No.12858036]

>>12856736
oh right, you're retarded

[Anonymous No.12858301]

>>12857643
good post

[Anonymous No.12858322]

>>12856377
The pop scientists(Dawkins is an actual scientist though, or at least he was) are obviously out of touch with the old tradition that bridged philosophy and science, but postwar philosophers are just as out of touch with science. Scientism is one side of the decay, the other is a Deleuze.

Who was the last man to make original contributions to both a hard science and philosophy?

[Anonymous No.12858333]

>>12856869
Quote from The Origin of the Work of Art:

"The stone presses downwards and manifests its heaviness. But while this heaviness weighs down on us, at the same time, it denies us any penetration into it. If we attempt such penetration by smashing the rock, then it shows us its pieces but never anything inward, anything that has been opened up. The stone has instantly withdrawn again into the same dull weight and mass of its fragments. If we try to grasp the stone's heaviness in another way, by placing it on a pair of scales, then we bring its heaviness into the calculable form of weight. This perhaps very precise determination of the stone is a number, but the heaviness of the weight has escaped us . Color shines and wants only to shine. If we try to make it comprehensible by analyzing it into numbers of oscillations it is gone. It shows itself only when it remains undisclosed and unexplained. Earth shatters every attempt to penetrate it. It turns every merely calculational intrusion into an act of destruction. Though such destruction may be accompanied by the appearance of mastery and progress in the form of the technological-scientific objectification of nature, this mastery remains, nonetheless, an impotence of the will. "

[Anonymous No.12858366]

>>12856377
People on the left lived in (and caused) times of big paradigm shifts, people on the right in times of settled dust. Also most relevant physicists today, like Maldacena or Witten are unknown to people.

[Anonymous No.12858401]

>>12858036
75 IQ cope

[Anonymous No.12858415]

>>12857643
>dude science isn’t even real lmao
bad post

[Anonymous No.12858432]

>>12856377

the primary difference is the philosophers are attempting to EXPLAIN through process, while the scientists are attempting to DESCRIBE through mathematics. as the scientists move further away from philosophical thought, it requires more and more tedious and deep description of what they're talking about (see the entire quantum cult and our current form of atheistic materialism). but the universe is not made of math, and never will be.

so now you have a group of individuals who not only see themselves as philosophers, but also superior to the real ones at the same time. while science allows continual progress and obvious results that we use every single day, there is very little understanding of how it actually works on a universal level. these universal misunderstanding have gotten so bad that they continually make new math to balance their crude equations, which only causes them to describe the phenomena, but going no farther in doing any kind of explanation of that phenomena.

the resulting horror that we face is obvious, since it allows our minds to be poisoned with crackpot theories regarding the virtual particles. these are things that are clearly not real, but they have to be considered as such in order to get the math to work. the funny thing is that this line of thinking is essentially blind faith in god. a photon or a higgs boson has never been the input or output of any experiment ever done, but most people are inclined to think that these things actually exist, the scientists included. as taleb would say, they are intelligent yet idiots.

i do believe that there is a sinister motive behind our current scientific dogma...the relativistic thinking moves up to our morals and our personal judgements, giving us no centering framework to work through, since everything is relative. god isn't real, your brain and your will are the same thing, and nothing matters once the despair takes over that you end once you die. makes you even easier to control than being a blind christian. tl;dr: fuck every brainlet on the right

[Zosimos !oXKxF8G2qo No.12858463]

>Philosophers write books that people actually read and study.
>Pop physicists talk about the more successful natural philosophers (ie physicists) for their entire lives.
Gee, I wonder why they're salty.

[Anonymous No.12858487]

>>12858463
>Philosophers write books that people actually read
0.1% of them do
the rest write the 400th dissertation on hegel

[Zosimos !oXKxF8G2qo No.12858510]

>>12858487
I was pretty lucky, professors at the school I went to actually wrote. Too bad they were a bunch of analytics.

[Anonymous No.12858557]

>>12856377

>Why are you concerning yourself with the meaning of meaning?

I think this one by Tyson is a good sampling of the overall feel of scientists in the 21st Century. Let me give you a bit from my anecdotal observations as a physicist who "only barely" scraps by due to not enjoying the publish or perish market as he expected:

Most of my immediate colleagues are either experimentalists or what I like to call "Hamiltonian pilots". For anyone to understand, a Hamiltonian is basically a "prescription" (i.e a function and at times some other more general rule of set transformation) that attempts to fully describe the interactions of a given system by means of the potential energies and momentum of the elements inside said system. Regardless of how abstract this is, it allows us to turn almost anything into a neat differential equation that has a neat existence theorem and has even nicer numerical ways of solving without ever holding up a pencil. Someone else versed in physics might say we are all using "Density Functionals" now, but the essence is always the same: come up with a proper description of interactions and your job is over, just put that shit in Matlab or some Python routine. There is some room for interpretation but it mostly boils down to whether or not it fits experimental data: even if you don't quite understand the experimental data itself. Furthermore most of these models have to be "truncated", i.e, they actually wield infinities many times over but we conveniently ignore them because a partial version of the solution matches the thing we want to match. The philosophy to these folks is "shut up and calculate".

As for the experimentalists, they provide the things our numerical models have to match, Usually, "things" mean only spectrum: put a sample inside a chamber, blast it with your favorite wavelength, and measure the resulting dispersion of light; sometimes you'll want the frequency of the re-emitted light, sometimes a resulting temperature, but the means of acquiring it is roughly constant in spite of the absurd technical deviations. Thanks to the streamlining of this process I have PhD candidate colleagues who are absolutely marvelous lab technicians that would probably struggle to convince anyone that light is just a traveling form of oscillating electric and magnetic fields. Even worse, what we interpret in a experiment as being those "fields", and the many conceptual problems such as the fact that it's transporting well localized energy in spite of existing all across space, are completely above and beyond this sect of my peers; if it's not directly related to the particular measurement they're doing at the moment, they won't be able to think about it without consulting Google.

IMO I kind of agree with Ted and Ellul in here (not the blowing people up part) - like most others, physicists are now tools of Technique, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.12858913]

>>12856377
As a spiritual mystic, with no religion, it's funny knowing that I used to be anti-science due to the materialistic worldviews found therein, alongside all the nihilism too. But after realizing that these are just one camp of views, and not ones I have to agree with, or ones that will be here forever - I've since realized that the scientific revolution is among the most profound achievements that our species has yet made, and that the past few hundred years have contributed more to human knowledge than the previous three thousand. I've also started to read actual scientific books now, and the subjects are so interesting, I'm finding myself so enthralled by them. I'm learning about DNA right now, for example, and find it so neat. I can't wait to read into all the various realms - biology, physics, chemistry (well, physics and chemistry I studied in highschool, and found them so difficult, I barely grasped a thing, and might decide not to revisit them because they're too difficult for me), archeology, geology, meteorology, astronomy, and all the rest - I can't believe how much there is to learn. It's so daunting, yet so wonderful at the same time.

That said, I'm not giving up my mystical disposition, and firmly believe that consciousness and intelligence are all-pervasive, that both are eternal, reincarnation is a real mechanism, that ghosts and many other "supernatural" phenomena are real, and so on - it's merely that I now no longer feel an antagonism towards the scientific disciplines, and hopefully intend to connect their truths to my mystical pursuits, finding the synthesis between them. That said, I feel so grateful now to all the scientists before me, who I class as being some of the most noble humans to ever live, helping more humans than almost any kind before them. Science has benefitted our world more than anything earlier than it. I love you, scientists. Thank you so much, for making everyone's lives immeasurably easier, by your inventions. Be them medical, agricultural and every other kind - you have helped us forever. Also thank you for doing much to uproot religious irrationalism from our world, and introducing us into an era of humanism and reasoning unlike anything seen before it. The Greeks, though the original humanists and rationalists, still killed people on the basis of religious irrationalism.

Anyways I'm not trolling here. I used to unironically be "anti-science" without even knowing what exactly science involved or how impactful it has been to me and my species, and I've since come to love it and find it so compelling. To see what DNA looks like, for example, is so cool.

So sorry to any STEMchads if I ever argued with you on here. Your discipline is unironically among the greatest in this world, but it's finally time for you to abandon your incoherent materialism and take the panpsychist (involving the all-pervasiveness of both consciousness and intellect) and pantheistpills.
>pic attached is unironically me

[Anonymous No.12858943]

>>12858463
>self-styled philosopher tries to claim the results of science for himself because he has nothing of his own to show
it's all so tiresome

[Anonymous No.12858950]

>>12858913
Also guys I know I'm not very intelligent, please don't insult me for that. I just wanted to share my heartwarming transformation for being a supreme-brainlet, to now being merely a mega-brainlet. Someone who unironically was against science, to now being able to unironically say the catchphrase "dude i f*cking love science!!!" because I really do. Scientists are truly the wizards and deities of the modern world. They've reduced more problems of ours than we could even name, because we've grown up in the aftermath of their dissolution. Diseases never seen again, for example.
Anyone who works in STEM, as long as they remain humble and remember to expand their mind by reading philosophy (and not merely empirical textbooks), is undoubtedly a sage of knowledge and deserves to be respected for their contribution to humanity. You guys are truly awesome.

[Anonymous No.12859018]

>>12858913
>>12858950
As a STEMlord these were genuinely kind posts to our tribe, thank you anon. Abrahamics on here are sadly not always so kind to us...

[Anonymous No.12859178]

>>12856377
It reminds me of Weininger's comment that men of science are geniuses only so far as they are philosophers. He said the same concerning artists.

[Anonymous No.12859377]

>>12857648
Well aren't you just a ray of sunshine

[Anonymous No.12859430]

>>12858557
You described modern physics departments pretty well. I got memed into this and now I'm completely tired and disillusioned.

[Anonymous No.12859475]

>>12856377
Half of these quotes are just jokes.

[Anonymous No.12859679]

>>12857984
>I can't help but feel virulent atheists just have bad experiences with religion or found authority figures frustrating and developed a kind of resentment
They absolutely do

[Anonymous No.12860072]

>>12857648
>calls people imbeciles
>claims that philosophy and religion have nothing to do with each other

[Anonymous No.12860362]

>>12857648
>Philosophy and religion have nothing to do with each other

yikes

[Anonymous No.12860487]

>>12858913
its good that you have not been to university to get all your enthusiasm flushed out of you.
Science is fine but there a answers it cant find and that is that.

[Anonymous No.12860491]

>>12856377
Dawkins' quotes in this picture aren't at odds with the quotes on the other side.

[Anonymous No.12860624]

>>12858415
This is what I'm talking about. Schools teach knowledge and application of knowledge because it's practical, but don't teach critical thinking or reflection on how the knowledge is gathered. As a result, people have delusional, primitive ideas that science makes you into universal observer that gets the “reality” (instead of it being an effective set of methods of how to abstract and approximate to make quasi-universal theories that can be applied to practice), and that the rest is “fantasy” and “interpretation”. If you think about it, the belief that “true”and “real” laws of nature exist on their own, and scientists just need to dig deep enough to uncover them is basically religious.

Men on black and white photos understood how their process of scientific thinking produces knowledge, and thus were able to invent a different one when it was required to advance science.

[Anonymous No.12860654]

>>12856377
the dawkins and nye quote don't seem out of place. Krauss and BSM on the other hand sound cringey.

[Anonymous No.12860749]

>>12856377
Also, monochrome text will never be crisp on JPEG image, even if you blow the quality up to make the file almost the same size as original 2 MB PNG.

Here's a proper smaller lossy version (pngquant does wonders).

[Anonymous No.12860921]

>>12857648
>Philosophy and religion have nothing to do with each other
The absolute state of/lit/

[Anonymous No.12861130]

>>12858322
Depends what you call a hard science. If mathematicians are allowed, it goes at least as far as Tarski. But for empirical science, the drop happened much earlier and more decisively.

[Anonymous No.12861299]

>>12860487
>dude u can’t know nuffin XD

[Anonymous No.12862123]

>>12858333
what did he mean by that

[Anonymous No.12862200]

>>12858913
You would love henri bergson if you haven’t read him already

Try creative evolution

[Anonymous No.12862214]

>>12856728
Communism isn't profit driven

[Anonymous No.12862219]

>>12856586

You're still implying that somehow the world is less religious today though. It's not. If anything it's more radicalised and fervent in this century than it was in the entire 20th century.

Nobody is instinctively hostile to any argument. Intuitions come from a basis of prior knowledge and experience. There is a greater emphasis on science and technology in today's world which is at odds with Philosophy that is not analytic. That's the primary opposition between the people in the picture. Just because the people on the right don't like religion and are then also critical of philosophy does not mean that Philosophy and Religion are the same. As I said before, opinions on religion do not then apply to philosophy. The two are seperate entities. Philosophy is and always has been concerned with the acquisition of knowledge through reason. The methods and ways in which this reason is used differs. Religion is and always has been concerned with belief in assertions from an authority figure who gives them truth. Knowledge from divine revelation. Not reason.

This argument of them being opposed to ideas about reality that are not capable of being verified or disproven based on empirical experiments is silly. Mathematics is not an empirical science and yet everyone you are referencing would likely swear by it.

[Anonymous No.12862231]

>>12860921

They're only linked in terms of ethics.

[Anonymous No.12862245]

>>12862231
>They have nothing to do with each other
>They're at least linked in terms of ethics

[Anonymous No.12862248]

>>12862123
Science isn't revealing the true nature of reality but merely establishing a frame to describe it. There isn't "true nature" to begin with, reality is experienced as a whole thing.

[Anonymous No.12862252]

>>12862245

That wasn't me who said the second part but the link between religion and philosophy is not as substantial as OP is making about to be. Theologians and Philosophers are more often than not opposition.

[Anonymous No.12862425]

>>12856728
socialism is state capitalism you noob

[Anonymous No.12862830]

>>12857489
I think if you want to post bullshit like that you should go to /reddit/
edit: Thanks for the likes stranger, this place feels just like home now.

[Anonymous No.12863303]

>>12862248
see >>12861299

[Anonymous No.12864691]

>>12858557
No, I think you’re just at a shit school

[Anonymous No.12864737]

>>12856377

Difference between open and closed minds is probably part of it. To be able to conceive of ideas that go beyond the everyday world around us takes an openness to new and differing interpretations of reality. The men on the left were just more well read and willing to see the bigger picture. There's many who see science as that which it is meant to be investigating, forgetting that's it's a heuristic. It's like looking at a painting and saying "I saw the man put that paint on the canvas, therefore I understand it"
Heisenberg's book on physics and philosophy is actually a nice read, and shows the respect he had for philosophy, especially the presocratics. He makes the point that Heraclitus' idea of an immanent fire moving through the universe has striking similarities with what we know about energy and matter

[Anonymous No.12864999]

>>12856435
>>12856446
Even Hawking became more of a popularizer towards the end of his life. This seems to happen in a lot of disciplines, where those who can't gain social capital in the field itself try to gain social capital outside, which often means attaching or over playing certain implications that are philosophical, and of course, making deflationary remarks about philosophy's contributions only add impact to their points in the eyes of someone taken in.

[Anonymous No.12865019]

>>12856377
Science has become more and more of an industry. Its purpose has become to supplement production of capital in any way it can.

[Anonymous No.12865028]

>>12865019
/thread

[Anonymous No.12865067]

>>12865019
/retarded

[Anonymous No.12865093]

>>12862200
:) i'll look into him, thanks anon

[Anonymous No.12865125]

>>12865067
Where do you think grants and research funding come from you turnip

[Anonymous No.12865344]

>>12856728
all economies are planned; what matters is who plans them.

the central planner isn't driven by profits, but by quotas and statistics.

under socialism, the artist or the philosopher (and others who occupy fields that aren't strictly profit driven) are able to, at the very least, subsist from their work.

[Anonymous No.12865349]

>>12865344
>are able to, at the very least, subsist from their work.
if the state approves of their work. Unless you're talking about the memey stateless socialism we have yet to see

[Anonymous No.12865426]

>>12865344
The central planner won't be driven by profit because... what? He's just too nice to do something like that?

[Anonymous No.12865483]

>>12856446
Hawking is not that important. His master work was casually done by Feynman in ten minutes in front of a graduate student. Feynman remarked that it was interesting and then erased it. Hawking is a cut above the people on the right. He was a great scientist. But he doesn't come close to anyone on the left. If he wasn't handicapped no one would have heard of him.

[Anonymous No.12866441]

>>12861299
you probably cant, yea, with that reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.12866450]

>>12858366
>string theorists
>relevant physicists
Oh no no no

[Anonymous No.12866504]

>>12865344
>let's dilute responsibility and concentrate decision making
Perhaps you hate the plebs so much you want the great czar to decide everything in the hope he will back up your pet project, but that's really setting your whole country for failure.

[Anonymous No.12866544]

>>12865344
>under socialism, the artist or the philosopher (who agree with the status quo) are able to, at the very least, subsist from their work.

[Anonymous No.12866620]

>>12857446
You're an example of the smug philistine presented in the OP's image who has no idea what they're even talking about and couldn't even articulate any of the Philosophical ideas that you just laid bare. Just shut up, you vacuous turd.

[Anonymous No.12866624]

>>12857475
>We don’t need to, morals are literally just common sense.
Begging the question, outright incoherent and absolutely without any argumentation to support your assertion.

[Anonymous No.12866633]

>>12857563
>It’s simply the collective thought of humanity. Everything you believe about “morals” is prebuilt into our genes, just like how fetching a ball in built into a golden retriever
There is no scientific evidence that beliefs are reducible to genetics. Even if we assume this, there are differences between what is moral between cultures, societies within the past and currently. Who is truly moral then? Even then, saying morals are genetically coded is a naturalistic fallacy and not what is necessarily right or wrong just what is.

[Anonymous No.12866648]

>>12858557
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEorqJCQ2k
This is covered in the first part of the lecture. I've been trying to learn physics for fun and to challenge myself. God speed.

[Anonymous No.12866679]

>>12856736

Spastic

[Anonymous No.12866697]

>>12856377
They're all just occultists tricking retards into esoteric materialism.

[Anonymous No.12866720]

>>12856377
At least one can say that Einstein was the most straightforward writer among these, in that his statement, typical for him, is winningly unambiguous, and not at all nutty, intentionally or otherwise. As for what this chart was intended to demonstrate, as with all artifacts nearer the tiers of meme and bait, I must take it with a trainload of salt, and proceed to philosophical provocations less facetious in tone.

[Anonymous No.12866864]

Theology is philosophy in which certain steps or reasoning draw in, or are described as, acts of god, and faith is something independent from both.

[Anonymous No.12867771]

>>12857643
High tier anon. Glad to see introspection isn't dead.

[Anonymous No.12867780]

>>12866679
retard

[Anonymous No.12867783]

>>12865125
government agencies mostly dumb brainlet

[Anonymous No.12867789]

>>12857648
You're the reason people don't pay attention to philosophy anymore.

[Anonymous No.12867813]

>>12856377
>Which way white man

[Anonymous No.12867840]

>>12857643
>and that mystery knows...

[Anonymous No.12867879]

>>12858333
Holy shit. This. I want to have a tattoo of this on my back. This explains my fucking life.

[Anonymous No.12867898]

>>12857475
>We don’t need to, morals are literally just common sense
It really pisses me off when people say this. No, morals are not common sense, and most of the morals you adhere to right now are built on the fundament of abrahmic religions. You only think they are common sense because you were brought up in an environment where they were never questioned. If you went to Timbuktu and tried to hook up with a girl youll face repercussions, do the same thing in Berlin, Paris or New York and at most youll face rejection. Try to hike or sunbath naked in the USA and face repercussions, try the same in Germany, nobody bats an eye. Morals are taught and differ.

[Anonymous No.12868158]

>>12858913
you are a sweet person anon, and i wish more could balance viewpoints like yours, instead of the ideological warfare that we're presently seeing, with people spiting science and siding with religion, or vice versa

[Anonymous No.12868220]

>>12865344
They can subsist off that in a capitalist system as well. The consumers just have to see if what they produce is worth the capital they are willing to trade. It is is not that philosophers or artists haven't produced anything that could be considered valuable, they just need to sell it first.