/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19737586]

Anyone else throw out all their philosophy books after reading books on science? It speaks so much more about reality than any philosophy I've read even from the best philosophers. It makes philosophy seem so infantile in comparison like teenagers making up cool philosophies like personalities while scientists are finding the actual truth of the world. Understanding the start of the universe will do more for you than all the Kant and Hegel you can read.

[Anonymous No.19737697]

>>19737586
>truths about the universe
>big bang retardation
>placeholder "dark energy"
ok

[Anonymous No.19737738]

>>19737586
for me its the other way round

Used to be into a lot of physics and mathematics but found philosophy and sociology to be way more insightful for my daily life

[Anonymous No.19738067]

>>19737586
basically agree

[Anonymous No.19738136]

>>19737586
how provincial. your mind is a backwater

[Anonymous No.19738146]

>>19737586
>dude le binge bange lmao
>ends up believing in god
Science is a farce.

[Anonymous No.19738182]

>>19737586
>can't think beyond the average workday much less a year
>thinks he can understand 13.7 billion years ago or thinks it has any relevance
sounds about right

[Anonymous No.19738185]

>>19738067
why

[Anonymous No.19738215]

>>19738185
the map is not the territory.

[Anonymous No.19738303]

>>19738215
Is that you, Borges? Get back in the grave.

[Anonymous No.19738313]

>>19738185
>understanding the start of the universe
The map is not the territory? Get the fuck outta here. OP thinks that everyone needs to know how something works for it to be useful to them. I do appreciate the science types but holy fuck. What does he think: yes, let us do away with the infantile philosophies and religion and become super rational gods? You'd get a bunch of pop-science pseuds who had been dunning-krugered to death.

[Anonymous No.19738318]

>>19738215
>understanding the start of the universe
The map is not the territory? Get the fuck outta here. OP thinks that everyone needs to know how something works for it to be useful to them. I do appreciate the science types but holy fuck. What does he think: yes, let us do away with the infantile philosophies and religion and become super rational gods? You'd get a bunch of pop-science pseuds who had been dunning-krugered to death.

[Anonymous No.19738323]

For me, it’s both.

/sci/ is a worse board, though— or at least it used to be. At least /lit/ doesn’t have 50 threads up at any given moment dedicated to IQ wanking.

[Anonymous No.19738337]

>>19738318
all that is irrelevant to the conversation. we're comparing the value of deleuze to the value of physics and biology. we're comparing the virtues of deleuze, heidegger, hegel, lacan, derrida etc with science as a way to learn things about the world and gain a higher understanding.
that's all this thread is.

[Anonymous No.19738407]

>imagine believing in that

[Anonymous No.19738421]

>>19737586
>Understanding the start of the universe will do more for you than all the Kant and Hegel you can read.
>Understanding the start of the Universe
1. Implying the Big Bang was the "start" of anything when all the matter was already there
2. Implying the Big Bang is hard to understand for a layman
3. Implying understanding the Big Bang gives you any real insight into anything even though it just opens up big questions and answers none
Retard

[Anonymous No.19738447]

>>19738337
Ah yes 20th century French theorists comprise the totality of philosophy. fucking retard

[Anonymous No.19738570]

>>19738337
Hurr durr 20th century not as educated, they provide no insight about the objective world, let's burn our philosophy books. Scientific method is a good way to examine the natural world but it can't provide jack shit in ways of conclusions or what we should do with it. Like why the fuck did Oppenhemier look so shocked after his nuke was dropped, did he think that people would just look at it?

Also get the fuck out of here with your 'able to see the objective world' bullshit. You see everything through a biased lens and if we didn't we wouldn't need peer reviews to examine properly executed experiments and their conclusions, because 9/10 times we can do everything right just see what we want to see.

[Anonymous No.19738935]

>>19737586
I'm opposite but not throwing out any books. They're intertwined. Read both.

[Anonymous No.19738956]

>>19737586
Science is applied philosophy. They were one and the same centuries ago but divorced recently.

[Anonymous No.19738957]

>>19737738
This. I am a PhD. I have no respect for scientists or the scientific method. Once you have been through the gauntlet you know that most science is an extension of politics. Physics gets a pass.

[Anonymous No.19738993]

>>19738957
yes we know that most of academia these days is about activism and intellectual dishonesty.
why the fuck do you think having a phd in critical race theory or deleuze gives your opinions any weight?
>>19738421
you're an embarrassing retard with no understanding or knowledge of anything. your entire worldview comes from memes.
>>19738570
we're not taking about ethics.
>You see everything through a biased lens and if we didn't we wouldn't need peer reviews
that's not what peer review is for.

[Anonymous No.19739001]

You could set fire to every single university and it would be a net positive for humanity at this time.

[Anonymous No.19739025]

>>19737586
Science is FAR more valuable to understanding the world than philosophy. I genuinely have no clue how one could think otherwise.

[Anonymous No.19739054]

>>19739025
Philosophy will point out the right use and methodology of science. For example it will reveal that most science today is merely prodding over the mere body-nature of life, ignoring the spirit and higher dimensions due to the observers lack of a developed perception, and that quite a great many scientific "marvels" are really just dire offenses against the human spirit and the creatures we share this planet with.

Science is a great tool, but in the wrong hands and minds it's only accelerating our self-destruction, when it should instead be bringing us closer to God through revealing his glory within manifestation, and making it easier for us to do so.

[Anonymous No.19739063]

>>19739025
fucking anglo! anglo pleb! we hate anglos here! only anglos care about dork stuff like science or math omg if you try to be logical you're just a wannabe-mathematician. anglos don't get laid! we're chads here we love deleuze and heidegger we're not anglos

[Anonymous No.19739074]

>>19737586
Science is contained within the great expanse called philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19739406]

>>19737586
Is it actually possible to understand how the world is? Let us assume that the naive realist materialist view is completely correct, though I’m not sure that it matters. Can you actually conceive of what an electron IS? You might say things like it is ‘negatively charged’ or a ‘particle’ but these are just concepts in your mind, built on other concepts which in the end rest on nothing. Try to imagine what a tree is like. Are you imagining form, colour, perspective? In truth the object in itself is completely inconceivable. Sciencefags think that by applying their models and mathematics they can actually understand something. They’re wrong.

[Anonymous No.19739457]

>>19739054
>ignoring the spirit and higher dimensions
so ignoring things that doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.19739480]

>>19739406
>They’re wrong.
the fact that they can do accurate predictions and give concrete and indisputable results in the form of technology that can only be made by understanding the nature and properties of the things you are working with points that you are the one who is wrong

[Anonymous No.19739493]

>>19739457
Case in point

[Anonymous No.19739496]

>>19739063
This.

Fuck anglos
Fuck niggers
Fuck jannies
Fuck trannies

[Anonymous No.19739520]

>>19737586
1. The scientists are the ones who facilitate not only our understanding of the world but our potential destruction of it as well.

2. Philosophers warn you of the danger of #1

At the end of it all if we end up blowing up the world or we die off die to AI will we look back and think that all of that knowledge and all of those material comforts were worth it?

[Anonymous No.19739548]

>>19739480
I don’t dispute the success of the models, but I don’t understand why you say that a correct model requires ‘understanding the nature’ of what is modelled? All you need is mathematical foundation and some empirical data. ‘Negative charge’ is inconceivable. ‘Particle’ is inconceivable. ‘Spin’ is inconceivable. So on and so forth.

[Anonymous No.19741250]

>>19739548
>All you need is mathematical foundation and some empirical data.
to have a accurate mathematical description you need to understand the nature of what you are discribing at some level and the empirical data is what informs about the nature of something

> is inconceivable
it isn't

[Anonymous No.19741386]

>>19738337
> He doesn't understand how the autopoietic function of the given is at the basis of all ontology.
Brainlet

[Anonymous No.19741463]

>>19737586

[Anonymous No.19741560]

lmao no

[Anonymous No.19741576]

[Anonymous No.19741598]

>>19737586
>It speaks so much more about reality than any philosophy I've read even from the best philosophers
Nonsensical unless you can find a way to quantify amounts of reality (and good luck with creating a reasonable definition so that science analyzes more reality than philosophy when the former is a subfield of the latter).
>It makes philosophy seem so infantile in comparison like teenagers making up cool philosophies like personalities while scientists are finding the actual truth of the world.
Scientists utilize empirical induction whuch is not certain. Philosophical propositions can actually be potentially certain.

[Anonymous No.19741600]

>>19741463
Kawaii desu ne~

[Anonymous No.19741649]

>>19737586
>Anyone else throw out all their philosophy books after reading books on science?

Yes. Throughout high school I was a huge philosophy nerd. I read books by Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Nietzsche, Hume, etc. Then when I got to university, I started out with the intention of double-majoring in philosophy AND one of the hard sciences (physics or chemistry).

But after two years of philosophy courses, I realized that science was -- by far -- the best method we have for investigating reality. Taking a deeper dive into philosophy made this clear to me. Furthermore, I found that philosophy uses a lot of unnecessary jargon... which tends to make interdisciplinary communication needlessly difficult. It can be really fucking painful to read academic philosophical papers. Holy shit.

Physics, on the other hand, takes the exact opposite approach. Most of the time.

On a practical level, science >> philosophy.

>>19737697
>big bang
>placeholder "dark energy"
Right, physicists decide to label an unknown force "dark energy"... instead of "the a posteriori epistemologically-consistent, non-teleological cosmological conjecture" or whatever the fuck a philosopher would come up with instead.

[Anonymous No.19741736]

>>19737586
worst bait ever
if you type out a paragraph in response to this you are legitimately a sub 80 iq autist
S A G E D

[Anonymous No.19741740]

>>19739406
>another pseud fag who can't into map vs territory

[Anonymous No.19741749]

>>19741736
imagine

[Anonymous No.19741832]

>>19737586
>the actual truth of the world
Slapping a sticker on a salamy will not turn the sticker into the salamy.
>the start of the universe
>bruh like there was this infinitely small point and than one day for no reason at all that point decided to just blow up and that explossion gave us gasses and shit wich then formed into rocks and trees and water and rats and cows and shit
Physics are a hoax and a wellfare system for rich and phisically weak kids who would fucking die working a regular job.

[Anonymous No.19741847]

>>19741600
Have another one.

[Anonymous No.19741852]

>>19741649
except Science is based off of repeatable observations, not spiritual gobbledygoop

[Anonymous No.19741884]

>>19739406
I'd say that reality is made up of shifting material that has no one set state or objective form, and fluctuates in realtime without end. You can imagine a tree as a loose set of characteristic in your head based off of your experience with trees; wood, branches, sticks, leaves, bark, stump, sap etc but this idea of a tree comes from a fixed image in your head that is frozen in a certain state, while real trees are constantly changing due to the countless physical minutia they are exposed to at all times. So a tree will not be the same after 100 years and in a 100000 years it may not be a tree at all but a piece of driftwood or flotsam. everything shifts all the time and the human mind must make snapshots of things ossified in a moment in time.

[Anonymous No.19741941]

>>19737586
Yeah neuroscience and evolutionary biology

Sapolsky is more useful than nietzsche and plato

[Anonymous No.19742021]

>>19737586
against method

[Anonymous No.19742069]

You can use scientific equations to tell you specific facts about a car being driven but science can't tell you that this car will be driven to New York tomorrow. Reality is a little bit like that, you can construct a scientific model of reality, but science will never tell you what reality actually is.

[Anonymous No.19742073]

>>19737586
What’s outside of the universe?

[Anonymous No.19742113]

>>19737586
>He’s still trying to understand reality
Oh no no no

[Anonymous No.19742242]

>>19738956
>Science is applied philosophy
philosophy is just applied theology

[Anonymous No.19742259]

>>19737586
You can gain insight from both, no need to choose

[Anonymous No.19742338]

>>19741941
Ironic, since modern neuroscience proves Plato's psychology.

[Anonymous No.19742550]

>>19742338
How?

[Anonymous No.19742722]

>>19742069
And deleuze will?

[Anonymous No.19743789]

>>19741847
Awesome pictures, anon, thank you. Is there a way I can find more of theese hyperbolic birbs?

[Anonymous No.19743828]

>>19737586
Why draw such hard lines?

[Anonymous No.19743834]

[Anonymous No.19743836]

>>19743789
google False Knees.

[Anonymous No.19743851]

Red shift is not real. Space is a manifestation of humans' desire for something beyond understanding. Space isn't real.

[Anonymous No.19743857]

>>19737586
They go hand in hand. Science and Philosophy also concern themselves with separate areas

[Anonymous No.19743860]

>>19737697
>realize that everything we know about the theory of gravity is wrong
>invent dark matter to cover for it
“science”

[Anonymous No.19743883]

>>19739063
>that picture
feels = reals

[Anonymous No.19743921]

>>19741250
>to have a accurate mathematical description you need to understand the nature
There is a non-sequitur here you're not perceiving. Mathematical models can perceive the "nature" of the phenomena, but nothing else. It doesn't give you a further glimpse than that. The nature of objects behind phenomena are still as far away as they will ever be.

[Anonymous No.19744215]

>>19737586
Another fucking retard.
Science explains HOW. Philosophy explains WHY.