/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15357980]

Physics/Math/etc courses:
>Look some guy wrote this book 200 years ago but since then we found better, more concise and accessible ways to present his ideas.
>Plus a lot of shit written then was just wacky babble that is safe to disregard.
>With this you can learn calculus in 3 months instead of spending 20 years deciphering this.

Philosophy/Literature/You:
>HAHAHA YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HEGEL AND LACAN WITHOUT AUXILIARY TEXTS?
>START WITH THE GREEKS BRO, IN GREEK.

Why do you do this? If people studied calculus using the principia in 2020 the entire scientific world would literally go to the trash. Why can't you improve things over time?

[Anonymous No.15358002]

>>15357980
>Philosophy/Literature/You:
Philosophers would never say that. Only the pseuds on /lit/ say such nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15358376]

Honestly philosophy the way it's practiced is kind of retarded.
The only successful field of philosophy is mathematics.
t. disillusioned STEMfag

[Anonymous No.15358421]

>>15358376
Mathematics is older than Philosophy. Even Plato made reference to the importance of learning philosophy after after one had mastered geometry.

[Anonymous No.15358440]

>>15358376
Using the term "STEM" tells me you are full of shit.

[Anonymous No.15358455]

>>15358421
Distinguishing math from philosophy is the mark of the pseud.

[Anonymous No.15358459]

>>15357980
Math and Literature are consumed in very different ways. With math, there is always(most of the time) an objectively correct answer, so it can be reworded and revised with other wording to be more easily digested. However, literature is more up to interpretation, and changing around the original author's wording and implications could change how the text is perceived.

[Anonymous No.15358470]

>>15358376
As a STEMfag I really cringe when philosophy majors say science is a philosophy. It is superficially true, but it is like a historian claiming he builds empires, or a religious studies major claiming he is Muslim. The studying of a philosophy is not the same as the execution of a philosophy. They are no more scientists, or know what scientists do, then they do Stoics or Taoists.

99% of them don't even have a superficial understanding of science. They constantly reject the very basis of science, which is that all theories are clear, verifiable hypotheses verifiable by empricial evidence. Each "philosopher" evaluates their ideas in their own way according to their personal whims, in philosophy logic means what seems to each as correct. Instead of clear hypothesis verifiable to all, modern philosophy are obscure volumes of word salad, each tossing up a dozen or so new phrases.

I mean, one of your most famous philosophers wrote about how most modern philosophy are problems of language, something basically any STEM student could've told you.

[Anonymous No.15358490]

>>15358455
They're literally different things. 99% of philosophy majors can't do math at a college level.

[Anonymous No.15358517]

>>15358459
This. More specifically, art is about feelings; science/philosophy is about Truth.

[Anonymous No.15358539]

>>15358490
In your dreams, pseud.

[Anonymous No.15358571]

>>15357980

When will you realize that this board reads books for status amongst their retard friends and not actually for knowledge and purpose?

If you tried to learn calculus by reading Newton's hand scrawls you are a meme.

And calculus is easy.

[Anonymous No.15359072]

>>15358440
How so?
I'm academically M, and professionally T.

[Anonymous No.15359163]

>>15358470
Scientists miss the forest for the trees. Current scientists have been using an ideological framework set up by philosophers between several to two centuries ago

[Anonymous No.15359169]

>>15359163
Forgot the photo and link https://philosophynow.org/issues/59/Richard_Feynman_Accidental_Philosopher

[Anonymous No.15359185]

>>15359163
One of my favorite photos but positivism, their answer to the problem of induction (you can't prove something and it takes only one disapproval to get rid of the theory), the scientific method (francis bacon), the realism of objects vs the idealism of them or abstract objects. We take these as perfectly normal propaganda but they were hard fought for for quite a long time and are still an ideological system. I think ivory tower philosophy took a ridiculous route but you lose more than you gain by forgetting this and building upon these foundations

[Anonymous No.15359413]

>>15359163
>>15359169
Natural philosophers set up the framework of science two centuries ago. They were a community of men who use empirical evidence to support their explanations, because they wanted a systematic way to build knowledge, with mathematical precision and verifiability, which was true and could be shown to be true regardless of what people said.

Modern philosophy, like a greedy bride at a gift registry shop, likes to lay claim on every significant intellectual accomplishment. But modern philosophers are not the intellectual descendants of natural philosophers, they are the descendants of Wittgenstein and Kant, who did a great deal of talking about science but not any actual science itself.

And there lies the fundamental problem of philosophy, which is that talking about a subject is considered the same as understanding. This isn't the fault of STEM, philosophy as a whole has willingly divorced itself from any empirical evidence. If you're a philosophy major and you want to write a paper you don't need to conduct any experiments. In fact people would probably look at you very strangely if you do. What passes as evidence in philosophy is citing other works of philosophy.

It is like intellectual incest, people making studies based on studies. There's just no comparison here to science. There are meta-studies, which combine the data and conclusions of many other studies, but there are no scientific studies that just made by talking about previous studies.

And because of the absence of any objective way to evaluate the truth of statements, people default to a system where statements are true because they sound true and vice versa. Great works of philosophy are then decided by how many people talk about it. An experienced physicist is a physicist who has studied some part of the field for decades, an experienced philosopher has decades of experience talking and writing philosophy.

Philosophers claim to understand the problem of language but they don't actually apply it. If they did, they would know that philosophy is a term they like to stretch to encompass much more than it actually does. Philosophers don't actually study the truth as they claim. They study things people have written about things people have written about other people. So no one is ever wrong in philosophy, as long as they manage to associate themselves strongly enough with another famous philosopher.

If we were to do an experiment to prove that philosophy is really just a never ending chain of incest, we can see whether it produces anything knowledge about the world, ie anything that isn't philosophers talking about philosophers. I hypothesize that philosophy will continue to drift further and further away from reality and so will never produce any knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15359457]

>>15359185
I know that image was made by a philosophy student, because someone who understood what the men on the left researched would understand the false equivalency.

The men on the left are all quantum physicists. They were people who understood and created a huge amount of data and mathematics describing that data. And they are all talking about the fundamental problem of researching matter at the quantum level, where it is very difficult to get experimental data. And they adapted certain ideas from metaphysical philosophy of the past, like how Darwin adapted certain Malthusian concepts, but they actually had evidence to back it up.

When Heisenberg says there are only forms, he means the quantum world can only be modeled by abstract mathematics because it obeys a whole different set of rules that what you and I observe. He is in no way saying you will understand anything about the physical universe by reading Plato or Vedantic philosophy.

And by the way some theories of those men were proven wrong.

[Anonymous No.15359497]

>>15358470
>stemfaggot
>anime pic
>uneducated opinion
what a surprise

[Anonymous No.15359507]

>>15358440
this.
only engineers, programmers, etc cram together the noble science of mathematics with their petty crafts

[Anonymous No.15359546]

>>15357980
this happens because philosophers aim (legitmately or not) to explain the whole reality, while physicists don't.
it's very simple.

[Anonymous No.15359560]

>>15357980
this happens because any philosopher aims (legitmately or not) to explain the whole reality in a finite system, while a physicist doesn't, he finds specific truths for specific phenomena.
it's very simple

[Anonymous No.15359984]

>>15359457
>The men on the left are all quantum physicists
>Einstein
kek, he opposed it for as long as he could

[Anonymous No.15360000]

>>15359457
>in no way saying you will understand anything about the physical universe by reading Plato
Good thing they are talking about metaphysics, and how Plato's previously-thought-outdated metaphysics are perfectly compatible with quantum physics, unlike objectivism (which you probably still cling to)

[Anonymous No.15360035]

>>15359457
>the quantum world can only be modeled by abstract mathematics
It's not just a model. You presume that there's actually an explanation that doesn't defy realism, "but oh well, it's beyond our grasp, so this will do". Make no mistake, quantum physics smashed realism into pieces and every top phycisist readily agrees. Their praise of Plato isn't superficial.

[Anonymous No.15360039]

>>15359185
the bill nye quote is perfectly fine though. the people that disagree are the eliminative materialist types.

[Anonymous No.15360343]

>>15359984
Yet he became the very thing he sought to oppose

[Anonymous No.15360399]

>>15360000
No, they are talking about quantum physics, which unlike metaphysics has a considerable body of evidence in the natural world and explains many natural phenomena. Plato has theories which, while passable in philosophy, are vague, unverifiable and unproven by the standards of physics.

And by the way, all their results derive from the physical universe.

>>15360035
This is what I mean when I say philosophy students are just tossers of word salad. Quantum physics only models matter on the atomic and subatomic scale. They cannot be used to model the universe on a larger scale.

Here I deliberately use the word model because I know philosophers have more funny meanings of the word explain than Inuits have for snow. Model is the accurate word, because quantum physics applies mathematical models to predict quantum phenomena.

[Anonymous No.15360442]

>>15357980
Most successful mathematicians devoted considerable time to the study of the history of mathematics. (And yes, they read Euclid, Archimedes, Apollonius, and Pappus. In Greek.)

People who learn calculus in 3 months and never bother with Newton are the cogs in the machine who get technical jobs or become high school teachers. The people who make actual contributions will spend years studying in detail the works of the great mathematicians of ages past. There is no great mathematician who didn't bother with the history of mathematics. Even the autistic Bourbaki group with its abstract and modern approach published a book on the history of mathematics.

[Anonymous No.15360454]

>>15358470
>I mean, one of your most famous philosophers wrote about how most modern philosophy are problems of language, something basically any STEM student could've told you.
Wittgenstein was a STEM major (he studied engineering and even designed a jet motor), so what did you expect?

[Anonymous No.15360557]

>>15358470
Your whole post is retarded. Like this,
>The studying of a philosophy is not the same as the execution of a philosophy.
Any other lame tautologies you care to enrich our wisdom with, Sophocles? Are you talking about people in a classroom learning philosophy? Because I'm sure they would need to "philosophize" to get a degree in it.
>in philosophy logic means what seems to each as correct
That's just a lie. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It has different notations and systems when given symbolically, but the axioms are essentially the same.

>As a STEMfag I really cringe
>one of your most famous philosophers
>problems of language
[That's a bullshit simplification]
> basically any STEM student could've told you
Nobody cares. No one assigned you spokesperson. And not on behalf of the complex administrative and institutional system wrapped in academics and financial interests that we call "science" these days, the very same thing made up of thousands of disciplines, most of which have important but limited industrial and technical uses. Your mere study and career participation in something empirically related doesn't grant you some ultimate truth license.
All you've proven is that you enjoy jerking yourself off over your college major, when many people interested in philosophy have no interest in studying academically. Frankly, none of your pontificating means shit when you divorce it from wanking your undergrad. Which is all this post really is. Because you're not making any actual truth investigations by it.
And I'm fucking sick of seeing this board swell up with this shit because of it. We're not all college kids, you faggot. We're not all here to pontificate on the relative values and importance of educational departments. I care about philosophy because it concerns truths, of living, values, etc. And I've never seen a convincing truth based argument on why I should abandon the study of it. Least of all because it happens to share a name with a series of university departments, and those departments aren't economically contributing to the world order or putting out any decent material.
And frankly, I don't care about 99% of science, because it's fucking irrelevant to developing the fundamental truths of life and it won't relate to me. How a draw bridge holds its weight, the nocturnal habits of dung beetles, the chemical composition of an acid, electron orbitals, frankly I don't care about any of those things. Maybe if I wanted to jerk myself off to scientists, I would.

[Anonymous No.15361415]

>>15360442
Source: Your ass. Scientists use every modern visualization tool to help their learning process. Snap out of your fantasy.
>>15359560
Making it harder on yourself to learn helps describing reality how, exactly?

[Anonymous No.15361425]

>>15360557
Please, the search for truth? There is no standard for truth in philosophy. As much as you want to believe what you're doing is searching for truth, what you're really doing is coming up with agreeable sounding things to say in your own insular context.

Philosophy logic isn't about axioms, it's about slurries of words people invent to try and sound original. Long ago a few philosophers were actually mathematicians or logicians who practiced logic, but the word has been so corrupted in philosophy now logic means what sounds passable. The average major grad couldn't do set theory, one of the most basic forms of logic, to save his life.

And as much as you accuse me of jerking off, it's philosophy whose jerking off. Philosophy and their majors love talking about maths, physics, chemistry and politics. This thread too, look at all these people talking about quantum physics when they clearly know nothing about it. Chemists don't feel much of a need to lecture philosophy on why there is no external reality. Computer scientists don't feel like they should talk about objectivism. But philosophy majors seem to think they're the experts on everything on the basis of having read a lot of what their friends said about something.

Its not that scientists think empiricism is the absolute truth. In fact we have discovered very clear boundaries on what can and cannot be discovered. It's just that we do not think what something is true because lots of people read it.

[Anonymous No.15361438]

>>15357980
Best part of this is that you can't even learn calculus from the principia. Newton was concerned that people wouldn't accept calculus so all of the physical arguments in the principia are done in a geometrical style. That's why Newton and Leibniz had a fight over who invented calculus even though the principia was well known

[Anonymous No.15361455]

>>15361425
It is truly amazing how people just fucking LOVE to be so confident about something they don't know shit about. It's beautiful.

[Anonymous No.15361467]

>>15361455
All a mathematics department needs is pencil, paper and erasers but the philosophy department is cheaper because they don't even need erasers

[Anonymous No.15361472]

>>15361467
Good one, I'm going to remember that

[Anonymous No.15361478]

>>15359072
Im a maths undergrad on my first year
Is it hard to find a job?
Also, can I find jobs on small cities or only big cities?

[Anonymous No.15361490]

>>15359169
>philosocucks are even trying to claim feynman now
pathetic, there really are no depths to which you won’t sink

[Anonymous No.15361493]

>>15361478
You should do a CS minor or double major. That's where all the jobs are and it's only growing. Outside of tech and academia or teaching a math major is not worth much

[Anonymous No.15361499]

>>15360442
Lol you’re such a posturing pseud, shut the fuck up retard

[Anonymous No.15361524]

>>15358539
cope

[Anonymous No.15361536]

>>15360442
imagine being this confident while having this little clue.

[Anonymous No.15361542]

>>15360557
>Nobody cares. No one assigned you spokesperson
lmao he's getting angry!

[Anonymous No.15361559]

>>15361478
don't fucking ruin the thread with your career questions, you faggots make me sick.

[Anonymous No.15361676]

>>15359413
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

[Anonymous No.15361706]

>>15359457
Schrödinger literally told everyone to read vedantic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15361744]

>>15360442
Bourbaki did not publish such a book. The historical notes are collected from their Elements of Mathematics. They did a historical section at the end of every chapter. Then, some editor just put those together. At least read the preface of that book.

[Anonymous No.15361791]

Principia Mathematica was a disaster that was debunked

[Anonymous No.15361829]

>>15361791
You're getting the two of them mixed up Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica is by Newton and the Principia Mathematica is by Russell and Whitehead. And Russell/Whitehead's wasn't debunked so much as ignored as useless due to the complexity of types in it

[Anonymous No.15362167]

>>15361415
it's not a matter of hardness. point is there is no such a thing a "the philosophy" , while we have "the physics".that's beacuse every physicist adds something, a brick, to the ONE system, ONE building, so that newton's principia mathematica , for instance, is useless, because its content is included in the newest version of the entire system. in short, physics is progressive.
philosophy isn't. every single philosopher is per se a whole system, a whole independent building. therefore a philosophy consisting in something of spinoza, something of wittgenstein and something of jünger: that would be a whole new philosophy independent from spinoza, wittgenstein or jünger. this is why if you want to know what wittgenstein has to say, you have to read wittgenstein. you don't have to start from the beginning (ie the greeks), just, greek philosophy was necessarly simpler than wittgenstein's. on the other hand, if you want to learn relativity you must learn classical physics before.

[Anonymous No.15362176]

>>15361706

[Anonymous No.15362191]

>>15362167
Relevant Guenon(PBUH) quote;

It would seem, indeed, as if the philosophers
are much more interested in creating problems, however artificial
and illusory they may be, than in solving them; and this is but one
aspect of the irrational love of research for its own sake, that is to
say, of the most futile agitation in both the mental and the corporeal
domains. It is also an important consideration for these philoso-
phers to be able to put their name to a 'system', that is, to a strictly
limited and circumscribed set of theories, which shall belong to
them and be exclusively their creation; hence the desire to be origi-
nal at all costs, even if truth should have to be sacrificed to this
'originality': a philosopher's renown is increased more by inventing
a new error than by repeating a truth that has already been
expressed by others.

[Anonymous No.15362196]

>>15357980
>Why do you do this? If people studied calculus using the principia in 2020 the entire scientific world would literally go to the trash. Why can't you improve things over time?

As a society we need to go back to classic or great texts of the past, because of two reasons:

1. There is such a thing as genius, which is hard to define, but can be explaned as having a personal relationship with a text, which is more then the sum of its parts.

2. If we dont look with a wide eye at history and science, we are very likely to stay stuck in fads and fashions that dominate an age.

These are my 2 cents.

[Anonymous No.15362208]

>>15362196
>implying learning history doesn't just make you get obsessed with old fashions and dead trends instead of new ones

[Anonymous No.15362211]

>>15362167
You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.15362238]

>>15362208
>>implying learning history doesn't just make you get obsessed with old fashions and dead trends instead of new ones
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15362241]

>>15362191
>Guenon
That's the dumbfuck who thought there were fewer even numbers than whole numbers.

[Anonymous No.15362252]

>>15361829
PM was used to prove Godel's theorems, asshat. It was not ignored.

[Anonymous No.15362270]

>>15360039
It isn't, and if you think it is, I would suggest you read Optics by Al-hazen, one of the oldest scientific texts on vision and perception.

[Anonymous No.15362278]

>>15362252
Stop talking about stuff you have no idea about. Godel's theorems used ZFC which was developed to be easier to use than PM

[Anonymous No.15362300]

>>15362278
The name of Godel's paper is literally "Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme, I", pseudboy.

[Anonymous No.15362316]

>>15362300
What does "verwandter Systeme" mean in German?

[Anonymous No.15362356]

>>15362316
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Formally_Undecidable_Propositions_of_Principia_Mathematica_and_Related_Systems

[Anonymous No.15362363]

>>15362356
I know what it means I just wanted him to say it. The related system in question is ZFC

[Anonymous No.15362369]

>>15362363
You haven't read the paper, have you?

[Anonymous No.15362381]

>>15362369
Oh did I misunderstand it? What was the related system in the title referring too?

[Anonymous No.15362410]

>>15362381
Supersets of PM.

[Anonymous No.15362447]

>>15357980
This isn't a field problem, it's a boomer mindset problem.

There are math profs ABSOLUTELY insist on doing things the hard ways they were forced to deal with when they were in schools. They do it either because they assume their way is correct, or resent younger people for having better options, so they play keep-away.

[Anonymous No.15362449]

>>15362410
You didn't even bother to read the first page

[Anonymous No.15362494]

STEM plebs getting mad their degree in web design doesn't mean anything to anybody and they aren't even good at the math they worship

[Anonymous No.15362508]

>>15362447
There are no math professors requiring students to read the Principia to learn calculus. You can't learn calculus from the Principia because there is no calculus in it. There are plenty of philosophy professors requiring students to read Plato and Aristotle. This obsession with original text is something philosophy shares with literature and religion and indicates most of it is made up

[Anonymous No.15362537]

>>15362494
Cope