/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16978266]

Hey /lit/, need some advice

My husband and I are both academics. We've been married for 3 years, and been together for 6. He is an academic philosopher and I am a physicist. He has recently expressed displeasure that I've never seriously engaged with his work. Now, I've read a bit of the classics of philosophy, but my husband's work is more in what I'm told is called the "continental" tradition. Unfortunately, everything he's shown me has just seems completely insane.

Here's the problem: his work apparently involves claims about physics that are just wrong, and wrong in a very embarrassing way! I'll admit, I'm a terrible person, but I had never read his thesis before. I tried reading it and it's riddled with talk about for instance the necessary relationship between matter "extension" and possessing mass. He also talks about the "shape" of fundamental particles. This is obviously nonsensical/wrong; electrons have mass and are point particles (they don't take up space really). In the thesis and some other papers he wrote he seems to think of himself as "scientific" and a "materialist" but his entire idea of what these words mean is stuck in like, outdated 19th century ideas about atoms as little billiard balls flying around in space. I've gently tried to help him and explain how he might start to engage seriously with contemporary physics (he has never read a book on the subject and is by his own admission "bad at math"), but he just gets angry with me and explains that Hegel's system is presuppositional and the basis for all possible rational thought so there is no need at all to read other texts in the first place (I have no idea what this means). He will throw out terms like "speculative propositions" but when I ask him to explain what this means or give me examples he just starts giving me more inscrutable jargon that makes no sense. On top of that, he will repeatedly say German phrases or terms that he uses (and pronounces) incorrectly (I am a native speaker) or nonsensically. He claims to understand the language (he doesn't) and tells me that Hegel can only be understood "in the original German" but he clearly can't read the language and when I've tried to read the original texts they make even less sense.
1/2

[Anonymous No.16978269]

2/2
On top of this, his obsession with Hegel himself has reached the point of creepiness. At one point he literally told me that all other work either agrees with Hegel so is redundant, or disagrees with Hegel and is redundant. He keeps a framed picture of Hegel on the nightstand in our bedroom. In fact, he even changed his phone's background from a picture of me to this same picture of Hegel. I feel like I am competing with a 200 year old philosopher for my husband's attention.

Recently we got in a huge fight because he was trying to demonstrate an example of the Hegelian concept of the "unity of opposites" (whatever that means) by claiming that right and left hands are opposite but also identical. I told him this is just wrong and that right and left hands are not "identical" in any meaningful sense (chirality is a basic concept in geometry/group theory: left and right hands are not superimposable). He kept putting his hands together and tried to show how they were "identical" and kept failing (because they're not) and then got angry and stormed out of the house. I haven't seen him since (this was about a day ago) and texted him and haven't heard back.

What do I do /lit/? Do I just let this go? It's immensely frustrating that my account of my own field is not being taken seriously. He asked me to engage with his work, so I did. But it seems like he won't repay me in kind. He has told me repeatedly that Hegel makes empirical science unnecessary and implied that my work is a waste of time and that I should just be studying German idealism instead and read people like "Fichte" and "Schelling" (who are apparently very popular in Germany but I've never heard of them). Why is it okay for him to belittle my field but I can't offer mild criticism of his?

TL;DR: My husband's academic work is embarrassingly wrong and can't take any criticism.

[Anonymous No.16978280]

>>16978266
suck his dick

[Anonymous No.16978281]

Post tits

[Anonymous No.16978294]

>>16978266
>>16978269
Damn this is really worked-out bait

[Anonymous No.16978305]

Didn’t sneed lol

[Anonymous No.16978311]

>>16978266
>>16978269
You have to go back, Redd*t is down the hall and to the left

[Anonymous No.16978333]

>>16978266
As a physicist you surely had math. Philosophy is pretty much exactly the same as pure mathematics, but with words. It's a game, not to be taken seriously. It's chess. To try to apply metaphysics to real life is a misunderstanding of the game that philosophy is. Just like you wouldn't apply chess strategies to real warfare. i guess killing the king is a good startegy and I am sure the queen fucks pieces across the board in real life, too. however it would be very unwise trying to collapse a tower to bury a measly rook -except if the rook was just about to transition into a queen, that is.

[Anonymous No.16978361]

>>16978266
>>16978269
kek

[Anonymous No.16978375]

Posting in epic bread

[Anonymous No.16978382]

>>16978266
>>16978269
Old meme but still funny

[Anonymous No.16978390]

>>16978266
most boring pasta ever

[Anonymous No.16978391]

>>16978333
What the fuck are you on about?

[Anonymous No.16978418]

>>16978391
Philosophy is about riddles, mind-benders and clever arguments and has nothing to do with reality, just like pure mathematics.

[Anonymous No.16978447]

>materialist
Should’ve read more Fichte and Schelling

[Anonymous No.16978715]

>>16978418
They make you go cook-a-doodle doo, like a fine British dandy in spring. Really revvs the juices, opens the heart.

[Anonymous No.16978740]

>>16978266
German idealism kind of shares territory with spirituality, theology, and metaphysics. It's a very neurotic path, neurosis which only increases until either regression, progression to higher consciousness, or suicide. I'd assume he's somewhere like this. So it's a vulnerable liminality, not that it excuses anything.

Science is generally more a hindrance than companion to idealist philosophy, as it cuts off at the unobservable and ineffable. His gestalt reality isn't based upon particles or matter. Things can only be experienced only in relation to our consciousness, and all that exists in relation to consciousness is idea. Particles and matter are simply ideas, not like.. Real things. He does work with Real things, and I can understand why he'd put more importance on those., despite how personal and impractical it is in our society. Unlike your work, which is straightforward and practical.

It shouldn't be surprising that your objective, observable, testable, effable practices, which are acceptable, understandable and respectable in society, would be fairly.. threatening. Not because his is inferior by any means, but much of it can't be conveyed to others due to occult or higher-order nature, often ending at a concept where "you can't understand this because you're neither developed nor conscious enough." Not that I see this in your case, but it's quite common and frustrating.

He's trying to explain sound concepts in an overly casual manner, and yes a little wrong. Unity of opposites would have been better explained as "one hand is left, the other hand is right, but they're unity: They're both hands." Not identical, but the same thing. Or to a very simple 'up and down are in unity: They're both vertical.' Up and down are the same thing, the difference only exists in the objects related to the vertical.

In situations like that you should just whip out Wikipedia. It'll either back him up and provide you with understanding, or you can both learn the concept correctly together.

To be very blunt: His studies can lead to expansion of consciousness, self development, spirituality and divine experiences. Heck even magic, mysticism, psychic phenomena/development, Siddhi, miracles, contact and commune with higher-density entities. That's stuff it can provide you. What can yours provide him? That's not to say your work isn't serious nor beneficial to society, but on a personal level the only value I'd see in learning physics is a deeper archetypal and alchemical understanding.

You totally gave his work a chance. That's not reason or exchange for him to try yours, but it is reason for him to put effort into something in alliance with you.

A good troll would be telling him you have a newfound appreciation for his work and start reading Kant or Schopenhauer.(Who are very much rival to Hegal, and superior.) Get a picture of Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.16978783]

>>16978266
Read more Hegel.

[Anonymous No.16978896]

>>16978333

Based wittgenpseud

[Anonymous No.16979154]

>>16978333
rooks can't be promoted, faggot (sorry in advance, that was rude)

[Anonymous No.16979286]

>>16978266
My dad works for nintendo and my mom is the top Husserl scholar in NA. He says philosophy is dead but not Husserl.
HELP!

[Anonymous No.16979315]

MODDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[Anonymous No.16979431]

>>16978266
> electrons have mass and are point particles (they don't take up space really)

Yeah, you’re not a physicist

[Anonymous No.16979559]

>>16979154
You're right. I confused rook with pawn, hence I called them "towers" in the same post.

My excuse: English isn't my first language. Or was it just a brain-fart? Anyway, won't make the mistake again.

[Anonymous No.16979698]

>>16978418
please tell me what reality is without resorting to philosophy
>>16978740
yeah, Hegel is retarded, but someone like Kant isn't threatened by scientific enquiry. I would even argue that you need Kant to understand why modern physics hesitates with cutting off the object from subjective experience.

[Anonymous No.16979850]

>>16978266
>>16978269
Based husband

[Anonymous No.16979873]

>>16979698
>please tell me what reality is without resorting to philosophy

I can't.
But neither can philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16979884]

>>16979873
(... as evident by the many philosophical takes on what reality is, without a clear consensus)

[Anonymous No.16981560]

>>16978740
>expansion of consciousness, self development, spirituality and divine experiences. Heck even magic, mysticism, psychic phenomena/development, Siddhi, miracles, contact and commune with higher-density entities.
I want this so bad, man.

[Anonymous No.16981656]

>>16978266
Get a load of this faggot and his faggot husband.

[Anonymous No.16982174]

>>16978382
kek

[Anonymous No.16982262]

>>16978266
>>16978269
incredibly based copypasta

[Anonymous No.16982273]

>>16979698
no not at all kant is hyper irrelevant to anyone but acel copers. Imagine stanning copenhagen interpretation because you just don't like every other physical phenomenon

[Anonymous No.16982368]

>>16982273
what exactly does a quantum mechanics interpretation form have to do with kant

[Anonymous No.16982458]

>>16978266
Philosophy is and will always be inferior to natural sciencies. As an example, think about how you can clearly understand the point when you read philosophy, but, as
>>16978333
>>16978418
show, "philosophers" have no freaking idea what mathematics and physics is.

Honestly though, your first mistake was marrying another academic. What is the point of being a good earner and a high status member of society if you are not going to marry someone submisive to raise your children? You women always end up unhappy when pursuing careers because you never understand that the career itself wasn't the endgame.

[Anonymous No.16982527]

>>16978333
This guy

[Anonymous No.16982534]

>>16982458
>science is possible without epistemology

[Anonymous No.16982565]

>>16982534
>epistemology:you only know that you don't know anything. The end.
>philosophers study for years to realize this. This is taught in the first class to every natural science course.
>philosophers think scientists don't know what their relationship to truth is.

[Anonymous No.16982691]

>>16982458
All scientific advancements have been guided and aided by philosophy. Indeed, the natural sciences more often than not simply verify what philosophers had theorised in the past.

[Anonymous No.16982727]

>>16979884
Physics and mathematics, meanwhile, have always progressed in a streamlined and linear fashion. There has never been any paradigm shifts or upsets. Is this what you are suggesting?

[Anonymous No.16982731]

>>16982691
>Philosopher 1: A is the answer because I say so
>Philosopher 2: B is the answer because I say so
>Philosopher 3: C is the answer because I say so
>Scientist: B is almost certainly the answer and here is the proof
>Masses: Philosopher B really was ahead of his time huh? Philosophy is the queen of all sciences
Having an opinion is worthless if you can't produce reasonable evidence that that opinion is right

[Anonymous No.16982736]

How many newfags do we have? Or are you ironically playing along?

[Anonymous No.16982763]

>>16978269
>>16978266
10/10 laughed my ass off

Never marry a relativist. You should have married a Kantian.

[Anonymous No.16982765]

>>16978418
This is the belief commonly held by the plebiscite. Those truly in the know understand that philosophy is everywhere, is the ultimate intellectual field, and inescapably appears in and is relevant to every intellectual endeavor.

[Anonymous No.16982771]

>>16982691
What really bothers me about this is that Krauss and Tyson are accomplished physicists, but Dawkins and Nye can fuck off.

[Anonymous No.16982776]

>>16978269
>>16978266
fellow physicist/cs/ee here. human language is too vague. if he wants to play physicists, but can't cast his ideas into concrete mathematical terms, he's being a pseud.

[Anonymous No.16982783]

>>16982273
I am a Kantian that subscribes to de Brogile-Bohm and rejects Copenhagen

[Anonymous No.16982791]

>>16982731
Do we criticise the entirety of medicine, when a doctor fails to cure his patient? Of course not, because we don't call someone a doctor by virtue of his failure. Likewise, philosophy's reputation ought not to be tarnished for that same reason. If a so-called philosopher produces an answer which is later disproven by science as false and absurd, he should no longer be considered a philosopher, but a fool or a sophist. My point still stands.

[Anonymous No.16982803]

>>16978333
OP's husband is here

[Anonymous No.16982813]

>>16982731
I'd be more likely to discredit B if the (((scientists))) want us to believe that theory.

[Anonymous No.16982834]

>>16982763
>You should have married a Kantian.
This. Kant scholar here. If op wants to get into some chad philosophy I'm available.

[Anonymous No.16982875]

Lol

[Anonymous No.16982897]

>>16978269
divorce him and marry an analytic instead

[Anonymous No.16982901]

>>16978266
>>16978269
Great posts. Great fiction. Deserving of publication.

[Anonymous No.16982910]

Imagine marrying a fraud

[Anonymous No.16982955]

>>16982771
>Tyson is an accomplished physicist
Is he? He seems to be more of a bureaucrat-type who administrated over the successful reconstruction of a planetarium than a serious scientist.

[Anonymous No.16983233]

>>16982731
Physics:
Describing a painting, nothing to do with reality

[Anonymous No.16983325]

>>16978266
>Hegel can only be understood "in the original German" but he clearly can't read the language
kek
>and when I've tried to read the original texts they make even less sense.
top kek

[Anonymous No.16983577]

>>16978266
10/10 LARP addict

[Anonymous No.16983583]

Amazing pasta. Mind if I save it?

[Anonymous No.16983591]

>>16982765
What does that refute? Mathematics is said to be everywhere as well and is also the ultimate intellectual field. It's still just thought experiments. Both Philosophy and Mathematics. Thought experiments that need to fit an argumentative foundation or proof.

[Anonymous No.16983762]

>>16978266
>My husband and I are both academics
Stopped reading there

[Anonymous No.16983834]

>>16978266
>>16978269
an outstanding post

[Anonymous No.16983844]

>>16978266
probably should fuck him more often.

[Anonymous No.16983931]

>>16978294
/thread
>>16978266
this HAS TO BE bait

[Anonymous No.16984451]

>>16982955
You would probably have to have received your degrees first before working as a director of a planetarium.