/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20639737]

>"Science increasingly suggests that the world we perceive, the world that we have built up our scientific models around, does not exist outside our minds. Concepts like discrete things, space, etc. only exist in our minds."
>"There is a something out there. There is something our senses and reason refer to, but X, Y, and Z research suggests it isn't what we think it is and that we can never know it as it actually exists."

A lot of books like this have come out. Did we do 200+ years of science just to get Kant version 2.0?

We even have neorationalism / neo-neoPlatonism getting shopped around by physicists claiming reality is actually built up from abstract mathematical entities...

[Anonymous No.20639749]

If we've gone full circle back to Kant, how long until a new hero emerges and we get Neon Genesis Neo-Hegelianon to fit everything back together?

Once its fixed, how long until a neo-Russell tells us our ideas are all bullshit because they make his head hurt and filter too many people?

[Anonymous No.20639769]

>>20639737
And to think that I used to say genre fiction was the most useless piece of literature.

[Anonymous No.20639788]

>>20639737
blame Russell. he was a midwit. "reality" isn't actually real.

[Anonymous No.20639853]

I can't wait until science works its way to pessimism.

[Anonymous No.20639869]

Pseud niggas really is idealists outchea. Lenin destroyed this line of thinking already

[Anonymous No.20639875]

i hate this trend of idiots reducing kants view just to whatever view holds the general opinion that
>reality is modulated by brain
for example, im sure that book is not nearly as dogmatic about categories and their directions as kant

[Anonymous No.20639877]

>>20639737
like if you read a whole kant book and your thought is mostly along the lines of OP, you're an idiot

[Anonymous No.20639888]

>>20639737
>we can never know it as it actually exists
Why would that be?

[Anonymous No.20639953]

>>20639749
Somehow Brandom is both at the same time but not as remarkable.

[Anonymous No.20639998]

>>20639737
See Thomas Metzinger for the contemporary theory of mind counterpart.

[Anonymous No.20640003]

>>20639869
>naive realism
Yes Lenin, you really showed them big boy.

[Anonymous No.20640091]

Refutation of the idealism to solipsist pipeline by modus tollens:

P1: Solips -ism
> Break the word into its component parts, coherent grammatically correct sentences be fucked, this is logic, not grammar.
P2: No -ism
> "The One Truth" is a conceit which ignores that truth, down to its etymology of vows made under trees, requires at least some Two, for correspondence or coherence. Parmenides provided a refutation of "the One" in his seventh argument in Plato's dialogue with him. Furthermore, to suggest 'there is no external world' itself is an admission to this, because an 'external world' is necessary for 'thereness', which by common definition is about space and time. In turn, given no "thereness", there can be no -isms to be "there" in the first place.
C: No solip-.
> There is no self, only a variety of body-frames/body-windows out of which Being is peering (Averroes, Spinoza, Shankara, Schopenhauer). These body-frames have views which are the necessary reflection of their particular historical and material conditions (Marx, Hegel).

[Anonymous No.20640143]

>>20640091
>ideal -ism
>no -ism
>no ideal-

[Anonymous No.20640223]

>>20640143
And from there, there appears to be a steady progression from the philosophy of the "non-thingly" right back to Epicurus. There is a Kant to Berkeley pipeline, but there also is a Kant to Marx pipeline.

> Negate solipsism idealism follows
> Negate idealism, dualism follows.
> Negate dualism, monism follows.
> Negate monism, sunyata follows
>...

Reality appears best known by apophasis, by what it is not.

This is one of the unfortunate insights of Karl Popper.

It is a fucking ocean of Becoming.

[Anonymous No.20640556]

>>20639875
>>20639877
>You can't mention partial similarities. If you mention a big brain name like Kant then whatever you're talking about better be very close to what Kant wrote!

>I read Kant by the way so I know this is not that similar to Kant, it's just talking about one of the major questions Kant brought to the fore in Western philosophy, but only midwits discuss this and not all of Kant, who, by the way, I HAVE read.

Congrats Anon, you read Kant and samefagged about how you don't think other people have.

[Anonymous No.20640612]

>>20640091
>> There is no self, only a variety of body-frames/body-windows out of which Being is peering (Averroes, Spinoza, Shankara, Schopenhauer). These body-frames have views which are the necessary reflection of their particular historical and material conditions (Marx, Hegel).
All these variety of body-frames are revealed in exactly the same way by partless luminous witnessing pristine awareness which remains ever the same and which is our real self. Both reason and experience indicate that these body-frames are not self-aware of their own being but they are instead known by the self and it only makes sense to speak of a 'stream' or 'variety' in contrast to a persisting observer for whom they become united.

>>20640223
> Negate monism, sunyata follows
Citation needed; Advaita non-dualism has never been negated or refuted
>Reality appears best known by apophasis, by what it is not
> This is one of the unfortunate insights of Karl Popper.
I seriously hope you guys don't expect Karl Popper to have serious insights on metaphysics

[Anonymous No.20640626]

>>20639749
This is what Zizek is pushing for in Less Than Nothing

[Anonymous No.20640646]

>>20639737
>>20639998
Consciousness doesn't exist ergo idealism is false

>>20639788
Russell is the last great philosopher. After him science rightfully replaced philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20640657]

>>20639737
>Did we do 200+ years of science
>200+
American education

[Anonymous No.20641279]

>>20640646
Reddit post
If you're not conscious how about I bash your skull in with a rock

[Anonymous No.20641297]

>>20639869
He should have stayed in his desu

[Anonymous No.20641301]

>>20641279
Second this

[Anonymous No.20641389]

>>20639737
This guy is not a philosopher, and it shows in his book. It's filled with evopsych bullshit, and he ignores nearly all of the relevant philosophical literature on like everything he talks about. He tries to distinguish his FBT idea from Plantinga's similar argument, though his is just a weaker version, and he never engages with the criticisms of arguments like this that have been raised by philosophers. He also ignores that such arguments are obviously self-defeating. He makes the egregious claim that relativity of simultaneity entails that time isn't real. He never engages with any of the philosophy of time literature and doesn't even seem to be aware of the fact that the B-theory of time exists. His exegesis of Kant is extremely bad, and he claims that Kant thought we can have no knowledge of reality. He tries to resurrect Kant's claim that space and time are ideal, but he never explains how this is supposed to be reconciled with relativity and non-Euclidean geometry, nor does he even seem to be aware that this is a problem or of any of the Neo-Kantian attempts to solve it. He claims that our best scientific theories don't give us an ontology, but never gives us an account of ontological commitment, nor does he engage with any of the literature on the realism/anti-realism debate. It's just yet another terrible pop philosophy/science book.

[Anonymous No.20641432]

>>20639737
Nietzsche argued against this world isn't real nonsense 100+ years ago in Twilight of The Idols. I presume this author too values the "real world" more than the apparent one, without explaining why it should be ranked higher. The apparent/fake world is the most real thing humans experience and trying to deconstruct it is a cope for people who can't handle it. Moreover, it never works, thinking of your emotions as chemical reactions doesn't make them anymore unreal to you.

[Anonymous No.20641447]

>>20641432
Of course, from a purely scientific standpoint, studying the real world is interesting and important, but the types of people never seem to leave it at that.

[Anonymous No.20641454]

>>20640646
Top tier bait ngl

[Anonymous No.20641455]

>>20639869
AYO LET 'EM KNOW HEGELIANS WORSHIP SATAN

[Anonymous No.20641472]

>Donald David Hoffman (born December 29, 1955) is an American cognitive psychologist and popular science author. He is a professor in the Department of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, Irvine, with joint appointments in the Department of Philosophy, the Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, and the School of Computer Science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman

>>20639737
>"Science increasingly suggests that the world we perceive, the world that we have built up our scientific models around, does not exist outside our minds. Concepts like discrete things, space, etc. only exist in our minds."
Bold claim considering that even energy, previously believed to be continuous, was found to be discrete over a century ago. Does this mean we're not supposed to believe physicists? Does he claim that the scientific method isn't a good way to measure reality? If he does, why would he say science suggests anything?

>>20641389
>He makes the egregious claim that relativity of simultaneity entails that time isn't real.
Dude is about to go full David Icke

[Anonymous No.20641579]

>>20639869
lenin destroyed nothing but the people thrust under his control

[Anonymous No.20641614]

>>20641579
OK and you destroy your dick every night to anime porn, stay jealous

[Anonymous No.20641628]

>>20639737
Any analysis pursued deeply enough will lead back to the question of who analyzes. This has happened in physics. Science has pushed its analysis of the physical world to such a limit that it becomes recursive. You discover that you’re no longer talking about velocity and momentum and charge and spin, you’re talking about syntax and language and point-of-view and perspective and emphasis. The language of psychology emerges almost as a necessary consequence of examining matter at the very deepest level.

[Anonymous No.20641642]

>>20641614
I'm gonna destroy your moms pussy with a rented black dick

[Anonymous No.20641659]

>>20641472
>was found to be discrete over a century ago.
Nope.

[Anonymous No.20641703]

>>20639737
At what point do you just suspend the noumena-phenomena distinction altogether and reify shit?

For example, we talk of the "thing" to signify the naive realist sense of 'duh, there's an object in front of me', but then we go to Kant and say "thing-in-itself". However, even the thing-in-itself is not immediately known, but is viewed through the lens of our own perception and prejudiced reasoning and so we have a thing-in-itself-in-itself, a thing-in-itself-in-itself-in-itself, a thing-itself-in-itself-in-itself-in-itself, a thing-in-itself-in-itself-in-itself-in-itself-in-itself ad infinitum.

Personally, I reify shit for destructive nihilist purposes only. I do not care for mainstream language. I do not care for mainstream culture.

And so whatever the mainstream says, I smash it with the nominalist hammer. Whatever destroys it, I reify. It is irrelevant if what I reify is factually false, what matters is that I use what concepts I reify as destructively as possible - an active apophatic ontology. Reality used to be defined by what it is not, now reality should be defined by its notTING - active linguistic wrecking and sabotage.

[Anonymous No.20641714]

>>20641389
>self-defeating
No such phenomenon exists

[Anonymous No.20641759]

>>20639737
Read Ellul

[Anonymous No.20641821]

>>20641628
>you’re no longer talking about velocity and momentum and charge and spin, you’re talking about syntax and language and point-of-view and perspective and emphasis
Please link 2 physics papers that are arguing semantics in some sense.

>>20641659
Max Planck received the Nobel Prize "in recognition of the services he rendered to the advancement of Physics by his discovery of **energy quanta**".

[Anonymous No.20641846]

>>20641821
>by his discovery of **energy quanta**".
This doesn't mean what you think it means. In a particular scenario, namely with respect to electron orbitals, energy is best represented (for now) as a discrete quantity.

[Anonymous No.20641857]

>>20641389
>He tries to resurrect Kant's claim that space and time are ideal, but he never explains how this is supposed to be reconciled with relativity and non-Euclidean geometry
You're a pseud. These concepts have nothing to do with the transcendental aesthetic. They are just that - concepts, products of the understanding.
>and doesn't even seem to be aware of the fact that the B-theory of time exists.
He's probably ignoring it because it is manifestly ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.20642073]

>>20641389
good post, just letting you know it's not just retards reading it

[Anonymous No.20642085]

>Science suggests something science doesn't suggest

What did they mean by this?

[Anonymous No.20642086]

>>20642085
Rubbish transcendental arguments right out from Epictetus' ass.

[Anonymous No.20642087]

Platonism and its consequences has been a disaster for the human race. Imagine positing the existence of something you cannot directly observe, imagine being this retarded.

[Anonymous No.20642098]

>>20642087
Your suggestion is that Platonism (of natural language words) is somehow similar to Pythagoreanism of number, which sadly has now been misnamed 'mathematical Platonism'. Pythagoreanism appears perfectly excusable (because how else is financial accounting supposed to happen?). Pythagoreanism is what common arithmetic operates on.

Why would Pythagoreanism be retarded?

[Anonymous No.20642103]

>>20642098
Learn to read. I am criticizing the notion of "the thing in itself". Positing the existence of such a thing when it cannot be observed is completely asinine.

[Anonymous No.20642105]

>>20639737
>Hoffman
The Eternal German is back with his tricks again, to deceive and dismay you with his tricks, leading you into an endless maze of empty abstractions and suffocating sophisms.

[Anonymous No.20642111]

>>20639737
>Anekāntavāda (Hindi: अनेकान्तवाद, "many-sidedness") is the Jain doctrine about metaphysical truths that emerged in ancient India. It states that the ultimate truth and reality is complex and has multiple aspects.

>According to Jainism, no single, specific statement can describe the nature of existence and the absolute truth. [...] [S]tatements about absolute truth are incomplete, and at best a partial truth. All knowledge claims, according to the anekāntavāda doctrine must be qualified in many ways, including being affirmed and denied. Anekāntavāda is a fundamental doctrine of Jainism.

A lot of Oriental philosophy is outright ridiculous, but this single idea is worth being nailed into the mind of every single Western "intellectual".

[Anonymous No.20642128]

If the world was actually made of objects that we couldn't actually see and understand the "true" nature of, then how would we be capable of building buildings and curing cancer? Just the fact that we can gather empirical facts about the world and then build a bridge that doesn't collapse is proof that our assumptions about a given object is actually correct.

[Anonymous No.20642136]

>>20642128
>Just the fact that we can gather empirical facts about the world and then build a bridge that doesn't collapse is proof that our assumptions about a given object is actually correct.

Why would empirical sensations imply the material? You could have empirical idealism.

[Anonymous No.20642154]

>>20642136
>You could have empirical idealism.

You could, but that wouldn't give any more credence to the idea of the thing-in-itself either. The thing you see, is the thing that actually is there, if it wasn't, the world clearly wouldn't be comprehensible and we wouldn't be able to manipulate objects to our desire at all.

Like, if a chair *really* doesn't have legs, then why do our chairs appear to have legs? Is our mind trolling us?

[Anonymous No.20642176]

>>20639749
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.20642187]

>>20639737
There is no reason that the non-observable world should take precedence over the observable world.

[Anonymous No.20642194]

>>20639998
Wasn't Metzinger influenced by RAW?

[Anonymous No.20642223]

Science and Atheism are utterly retarded and super easy to debunk like a trumpian-russian fake news: you have atheists who claim that immaterial math formulas they themselves invented run the material universe every millisecond across billions of light years, since 13 billions years ago LOL. how is this not retarded.
Oh and by the way, when they are asked to say where do those immaterial formulas live and where they come from and how they act on matter, they can't fucking answer, can they?
Ask an atheist how a photon, stemming from the annihilation of an electrons (e–) and a positron (e+) , knows that it has to follow Maxwell's rules, as soon as the photon comes into existence. Just ask him. And I can tell you what you will observe, because it's cause and effect: the atheist will be in his most vulnerable state, drymouthed, sweating profusely, hands trembling, in a state of intense anguish, because he knows he has no comeback. Zero. Jack shit. At this point in time, the atheist is consumed by a fear that is darker than the terror of death and which will never leave him until he dies.
You know how atheists say a bunch of deformed illiterate inbreds rolling in shit, beating their children and women personalized Nature when they said gods were an amalgamation of the base fears of early humans. Well since the day a few atheist bugmen created computers, they are saying the universe is a computer too lol. That's their big brain idea and that's how dumb atheists are lol.

[Anonymous No.20642237]

>>20642223
Why would reality operate on natural language words rather than numbers?

[Anonymous No.20642280]

>>20642237
those are not the only two options, that was a lame attempt at a comeback in defense of physicalism

[Anonymous No.20642323]

>>20639737

"Science doesnt exist" is the kind of thing retarfs says who can't survive 48 hours in the woods because they've spent an entire lifetime remembering bad information.

[Anonymous No.20642426]

if i understand correctly the thesis is not "reality doesn't real", but rather "we don't see the world as it really is because our senses evolved to optimize our survival in it (thus for instance we only see/hear a very limited range of the sound and light spectrums) and not to accurately portray the world." the world is real, but we only see the parts that are relevant to us.

[Anonymous No.20642456]

>>20639737
Give them another 50 years and maybe "research" will be self aware enough to realize that Heidegger was right the whole time.

[Anonymous No.20642470]

>>20642426
In other words, Kant and Darwin, but we're wearing "glasses of survival", or rather there are populations with "survival lens"/"survival cornea" which are still here to this day.

Which raises the question of why anybody would abstract prefer Truth over survival. Why should a population prefer Correspondence/Coherence theories of truth over survival.

[Anonymous No.20642480]

>>20642187
Of course.

Pic related has all the tools you need for this question and more.

[Anonymous No.20642678]

>>20642223
holy shit you owned those bugmen

[Anonymous No.20642815]

>>20642223
>where do math live stupid atheists!?
The state of christcucks

[Anonymous No.20644034]

>>20642815
Well tell me who the God of science is mr. Live in a pod eat ze bugs