Functionalism Versus Vitality

[Anonymous No.15759781]

We must keep in mind that the exactness which the natural sciences have achieved, or are trying to achieve, no matter how far it is carried, refers only to the mechanical exactness of both the process and the subject of perception. Such exactness does not give us certainty beyond the certainty of facts found in repeatable experiences. Exactness in this sense is in fact correctness, but it is not truth, for it is meaningless to talk of truth where merely something mechanically repeatable has been ascertained. Truth is not identical with repeat ability; on the contrary, it is what absolutely cannot be duplicated. Hence truth has no place in any kind of mechanics. The term "scientific truth" is therefore quite equivocal. It is based on experiments, and it is used where some mechanically exact phenomenon has been made intelligible, provable, and capable of being repeated.

But the fact that something can be proved, tested, and repeated is no criterion of truth. If the scientist asserts that this exactness is synonymous simply with truth, or with a higher truth, the assertion shows only that the scientist's terminology itself is inexact. What sense does it make to call the proposition, "Two times two equal four," a proposition memorized by firstyear school children, a truth? Truth is not learned; one does not become more truthful by learning and by knowing much. Nor do we become truthful by exact thinking. A mathematical proposition does not become true just because it describes a fact with exactness, not even if it gets repeated a million times. The apodictical certainty of mathematical propositions lies entirely and completely within the field of exactness and correctness; but their content of truth equals zero, like that of any arithmetical proposition. Scientific truths are not "higher" truths. Where they claim to be, these claims are usurpations by the mechanical exactitude. It would be better to discard the term scientific truth altogether because its validity is merely descriptive.

The striving for exactness characteristic of the natural sciences must here be gauged in a different manner – not with those measuring instruments developed for the purpose, but from a point of vantage entirely beyond all science and scientism. No one will deny that it is needful and legitimate to seek such a point of vantage, unless, of course, we make science our religion, surround it with walls of dogma, and sanctify all its methods. But this would render all investigation and analysis impossible.

[Anonymous No.15759786]

We will start from an observation which no one who has ever made it can forget. For to observe our modern civilization means to raise the question: Is there not a direct connection between the increase of knowledge concerning mechanically exact processes and the fact that modern man, in a strange manner, loses his individuality, loses his balance, his grip upon life, feels increasingly endangered and susceptible to attack in the security that is his due? This inner security, of course, means something different from the security which can be bought by any kind of measurable method. For it concerns man's place and role in life and is related to human freedom. No methodical science can ever give to man that kind of security, not even the most systematic kind of exactitude. The trend of our exact sciences is not toward purely intellectual knowledge. On the contrary, it has been sharply opposed to the way Parmenides strove after knowledge; it is typically analytical, inductive, dividing. Thus, causality and, in its train, functionalism push to the fore, and all individuality is lost. Thus too, all things mechanical predominate, and with them that brutal optimism and conceit of civilization which characterize the course of the technological age; until eventually the point is reached where a man is broken by his blind lust for power, is punished, and thereby forced to change his way of thinking.

[Anonymous No.15759788]

Welcome to /lit/
/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.15759839]

>>15759781
Unironically murder all scientists. Scum. Led to:
>Industrial revolution
>Ww1 and by extension Ww2 and the cold war
>Communism and then Fascism
>Imperialism
>Mass surveillance
>Rapid climate change
>social media
>Etc etc
I see NO argument for not murdering scientists. Polpotkaczynskism NOW

[Anonymous No.15759841]

>>15759788
Hi nub. The 'post' is from the most important thinker regarding the philosophy of technology, and one of the best writers of the 20th century.
Way to out yourself.

[Anonymous No.15759843]

Good post despite the soi image. Science is a useful methodical tool but does not and cannot lay bare the truth of reality alone, natural philosophy is only a facet (Albeit an important one) of philosophy as a whole. A concept such as “species” is necessary in biology to categorise and evaluate biodiversity, but in truth the concept is arbitrary and does not reflect the complexity of evolution and antecedently the beauty of God

[Anonymous No.15759859]

>>15759839
>Polpotkaczynskism
HOLY BASED

[Anonymous No.15759866]

>>15759788
You posted exactly a minute after the OP. Obviously didn't even read.
These are the reddit bots infecting lit and spamming reports.

[Anonymous No.15759873]

>>15759841
>'post'

[Anonymous No.15759885]

>>15759839
Based and tedpilled

[Anonymous No.15759890]

>>15759873
>>gvhvdv
>downvoted

[Anonymous No.15759958]

>>15759890
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/43n53g/why_is_science_focused_on_quantitative_data/czjxkjn?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

[Anonymous No.15759975]

>>15759839
Also, thanks to them you are able to post in 4chan.

[Anonymous No.15759986]

>>15759975
4chan is probably worse than all the things I mentioned combined

[Anonymous No.15760027]

>>15759958
ew

[Anonymous No.15760063]

>>15759839
>Industrial revolution
Ok
>Ww1 and by extension Ww2 and the cold war
How scientists cause that? Do you even know history? They only created better military technology and weapons. WWI & WWII are mostly related to historical, political, economic and cultural factors. Science wasn't the cause.
>Communism and then Fascism
Communism was mostly caused by humanities. Marx, Engels, etc were not scientists. Plus, cultural and economic factors were really important in exponential growth of this ideology. If by facism you mean "'Nazi ideology" which includes eugenics, racial science, etc then yes. However, facism in their traditional meaning has little to do science.
>Imperialism
Not related to science. It actually precedes modern science. Unless you are talking about how people used science to commit atrocities then yes.
>Mass surveillance
Technology made mass survalience possible, but scientist were not the ones that advocate for this. Goverments are the ones. Scientists just develop the technology. Technology isn't bad or good. It depends how is used.
>Rapid climate change
ok
>social media
ok

[Anonymous No.15760103]

>>15760063
Scientists led to the industrial revolution which led to Ww1, brainlet

[Anonymous No.15760115]

>>15760063
Oh btw read "Imperialism" scientists led to the industrial revolution which led to imperialism as we saw in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

[Anonymous No.15760171]

>>15760063
Science is inherently technological. You can't do geometry without pencils, a compass, and a protractor. Politics is the same deal. You can't write political constitutions with ink and a quill. Read Ellul and Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.15760196]

>>15760063
Communism was a response to the industrial revolution and fascism was a response to communism.

[Anonymous No.15760245]

>>15760103
>Scientists led to the industrial revolution which led to Ww1, brainlet
Philosophy led to science. Can we now blame philosophy for all what happen to the world? Science is nothing than a tool retard. "If X used Y to achive Z that means Y is to blame for X actions" that is how retarded your argument is.
>Science is inherently technological. You can't do geometry without pencils, a compass, and a protractor. Politics is the same deal. You can't write political constitutions with ink and a quill. Read Ellul and Heidegger
So literature is technological as well? We use ink and pencil. Printing is technologt as well. Philosophy as well? People use technology in one way or another. Language is literally a way of technology.
>Communism was a response to the industrial revolution and fascism was a response to communism.
Again see the first reply.

[Anonymous No.15760256]

>>15760245
>So literature is technological as well? We use ink and pencil. Printing is technologt as well. Philosophy as well? People use technology in one way or another. Language is literally a way of technology.
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15760275]

>>15760245
>>15760256
being was a mistake form the start

[Anonymous No.15760624]

dodo

[Anonymous No.15760642]

>>15760275
True detective is an ok show

[Anonymous No.15760692]

>>15759781
>2+2=4
hey that's pretty true!

[Anonymous No.15760726]

>>15759839
>fuck you science for making our lives better in an ever-changing and ever-insecure world.

more like fuck you people for not being ready for the advancements and the tech always ends up in the hands of few and rarely well intentioned individuals.

[Anonymous No.15760733]

>>15759781
What is a Higher Truth?

[Anonymous No.15760757]

>>15760726
yikes

[Anonymous No.15760778]

>>15760757
face me bitch, what did I say wrong

[Anonymous No.15760845]

>>15760733
A fair question
>Let us study the relation of technology to quite another field, the organization of schools and universities. As the technician enters this field, he converts all institutions of learning to his interest; that is, he promotes technical training, which as he claims, is the only up-to-date, useful, practical knowledge.

>The significance of reforms in this direction must not be underestimated. They constitute a direct attack against the idea of a "rounded education" (encyclios disciplina) that prevailed in classical and medieval times. The consequences of this attack do not, obviously, consist alone in the decline of the role of grammar in education, in the retreat of astronomy and music, in the disappearance of dialects and rhetoric. This slashing, whereby of the seven classical "free arts" only arithmetic and geometry have survived, is by no means all. The technical science which comes to a position of supremacy is both empirical and causal. Its inroads into education mean the victory of factual knowledge over integrated knowledge. The study of ancient languages is pushed into the background, but with them there vanish also the means to understand a culture in its entirety. The logical capacity of the student, his capacity to master the form of knowledge is weakened. Factual knowledge is empirical and thereby as infinite as are the endless rows of causes and effects whereby it is described. We often meet with a pride in the boundless accumulation of factual knowledge, which has been likened to an ocean on which the ship of civilization proudly sails. But this ocean is a mare tenebrosum ("a dark sea"); for a knowledge that has become boundless has become also formless. If to the human mind all things are equally worth knowing, then knowledge loses all value. Therefore, it may be concluded that this factual knowledge will eventually drown itself in the ocean of its facts. Today the most valiant human efforts are swamped by the rising tide of facts. It would not be surprising if we were to become as weary from this vastness of knowledge as from a crushing weight which burdens our back.

[Anonymous No.15760847]

>>15759781
This post demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of scientific practice. Within science there is no such thing as scientific truth or proof.
Science does not prove anything. It transacts in a purely probabilistic, conditional field. As soon as the empirical results trend differently the theory must oblige. This is the basis for the whole falsifiability criterion. Empirical propositions are not proved, they are merely not disproved.

[Anonymous No.15760883]

>>15760845
all knowledge is important, because the amounts and complexities are difficult for you that your problem, anything that can bring protection and stability, wether it's facts or a way to use these facts, should have the priority.

[Anonymous No.15760907]

>>15760845
Okay, but where's the higher truth in that passage? The author seems to express disdain for the decline of the seven classical arts in favor of math or science, however, he doesn't really give an example of what "integrated knowledge" is. Why does learning e.g. ancient greek constitute a higher truth or a form of integrated knowledge while e.g. algebraic topology doesn't?

[Anonymous No.15760978]

>>15760847
If that were the case, then scientists would be detached from their theories and "discoveries", and not married to them.

[Anonymous No.15760998]

>>15760847
go back

[Anonymous No.15761004]

>>15760907
A higher truth is contained in that passage, the problem is that you want simple factual knowledge, which is not higher truth. That was already established but you can't even accept this basic problem.

[Anonymous No.15761086]

>>15761004
then what you would accept as higher truth is stuff like escaping the universe?

like some 100% right direction to go?
that just doesn't exist..

if u keep being objective there will never be a direction beside everywhere anywhere

[Anonymous No.15761089]

>>15761004
Do there exist higher truths that can be written down? Can you write one?