[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2022-11: Warosu is now out of maintenance. Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
View page     

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 144 KB, 1280x720, booktok.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21803079 No.21803079 [Reply] [Original]


>> No.21803094

nigga just read who cares what teenagers are doing

>> No.21803101

reading is a fashion statement
it doesnt make you intellectual
knowing how to build semiconductor microchips is intellectual
predictive power is intellectual
philosophy isnt, neither is law, politics, gossip, fashion, sociology, psychology, etc etc
these things have no predictive power, they are pseudo intellectual, they are for people who cant build nuclear reactors but want to feel smart without ever earning or proving it

this is why 'my updated hot sad girl reading list' doesnt matter, books arent inherently a priori intellectual, if you are reading but not increasing your predictive power empirically and measurably, you are doing a fashion statement, shallow, vapid, pseud fashion statement

>> No.21803109

The scientific is just a tool of the philosophical and political. It has no purpose outside of those.

>> No.21803112

Read Kuhn on the structure of scientific revolutions and then Feyerabend's against method because you're talking horseshit at total odds with the standard of scholarly knowledge.

>> No.21803115

Focus on children books or the classics or both, but know you’re fucking up if you delve on anything else.

>> No.21803117

> knowing how to build semiconductor microchips is intellectual
No. That’s just engineering. Not an intellectual pursuit.
t. Engineer

>> No.21803132

It has a purpose. Predictive power. Advancement of mankind.

Meanwhile, the purpose of the philosophical is a pyramid scheme cargo cult vanity degree mill that creates debt cattle out of 90 iq population.
Philosophy books are 21st century snake oil. Philosophy is categorically equal to gypsy fortune telling, especially in predictive power.

>read flavor of the month buzzword generator
Why? Do you think the guy who built hypersonic scramjet engine did so because he read Kuhn? Which of the most important 21st century patterns directly cite Kuhn and Fayerabend? In what part of the transistor are Kuhn and Fayerabend equations used?

>> No.21803191

Son, you're looking particularly 2nd year undergraduate today. I'm afraid for you that your engineering "degree" lacks disciplinarity.

>> No.21803209

finna booktok then booktube tho

>> No.21803210

>ad hominem
>no arguments
lmao even
son, u re stoopid
haha owned xD

>> No.21803260

Anon is reccomending you read these books because youre making a strange argument over what I assume you belive the worthwhile pursuit of knowledge is. You say it is that which predicts things, you make a vague reference to empericism. I think it's all very clumsy and a lot would be gained from reading the philosophy of science authors he mentioned.

Although that being said what you're saying is similar to Lakatos. He makes an argument for what counts as science though. Reading philosophy and literature, while rarely leading to 'productive scientific discovery', imbues the soul with the Good and the Beautiful.


>> No.21803294

You don't understand what disciplinarity is do you?

>> No.21803298

>philosophy of science
These authors have no equations, no laws, no patents. They havent spawned a single industry. Their 'work' can not be applied or used. They gossip about science. Gossiping about science =/= science. Their gossip is not testable, not empirical, not falsifiable.

Why should I read their gossip? Why are these people right about anything? What makes you believe their gossip is some a priori gospel truth?

>> No.21803301

Thank you for being kind to the idiot. I lost my patience.

>> No.21803308

Maybe cause every recommendation I got off of booktok sucked

>> No.21803313

>I don't understand it so it's useless

>> No.21803324

I don't care what zoomers do so long as they get pregnant and increase the total fertility rate

>> No.21803325

>Advancement of mankind.
What part of man am I advancing when I count marsh birds for a biologist?

>> No.21803328

Philosophy of science is stuck in the same historical moment-based paradigmatic form of thought analysis as that which it predicates upon the sciences.
It claims that all of the sciences have a distinctive way of thinking and constructing knowledge based upon great moments and distinctive epochs ruled by a certain way of acting or speaking about things, and yet that is all philosophy of science in the 20th century and the 21st century has turned out to be.
There is no objective truth for contemporary philosophy of science. There is no world to be discovered. There is no immediate, rational approach towards investigation. There is only what society and the community demands of each researcher to look into, to produce an uninsightful report about, and publish without putting a mark on the world, unless they happen to be one of the extremely rare paradigm breakers. Paradigms are broken not because the truth is unveiled, but rather merely as fashions change, that is, as some people die and others get to spread their ideas, those who have stronger influence prevail over the ones whose influence is weaker.
It's merely a power play involving various actors who dress up in lab coats and are financed by great research institutions. There are no attempts at collaborating or building one thing upon another, only scientific hypotheses that have either been proving wrong or will be proven wrong any day now.

And of course, humanities students, being obsessed with the times and the fashions and other such effeminate modes of historical analysis, will of course hail Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper, and Paul Feyerabend for turning the narrative of the development of the sciences into what amounts to popularity contests and controversies between big names.

>> No.21803333

No physicist of note has ever Read Feyerabend or Read Kuhn lol, these people are irrelevant to scientific practice and only describe things after the fact using their pet frameworks

>> No.21803340

>i-its useful because... it just is!!!
Its your job to demonstrate its usefulness in this discussion. But you cant. Hence ad hominem.
Once you start resorting to ad hominem, you lost the argument.

>> No.21803342

>he thinks you can lose an argument

>> No.21803358

Imagine wanting Zoomers to breed and raise children.
I'd rather have every single one of them become incel trannies than see more of them produce more triracial dysgenic retards who will be incapable of keeping a conversation about literally anything going for more than 15 seconds but will try to stick their bullshit opinions informed by social media posts in your face as an absolute truth that you have to respect and bow down to.

>> No.21803389

Erm, actually if you read the Lakatos blog he is in agreement with you. So would Popper do a certain extent.

Also wtf is contemporary philosophy of science. The big three were famous like 40 years ago and nobody has said anything new since then

>> No.21803400

They are the ones who need to have children. Millennials are almost past normal fertility and will have even more autistic children due to old eggs and degraded sperm.

Zoomers, get to it. We can call it babytok.

>> No.21803406

Funny impersonation of a reddit man haha XD

>> No.21803452

Anything from Hegel onwards is contemporary philosophy. That's how most major history of philosophy books treat it.

>> No.21803463
File: 15 KB, 554x554, 44ED1F3E-91C8-4A06-8B07-B74EDA145496.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>my updated hot sad girl collection

>> No.21803466

Don’t go on tiktok. Read a book. Don’t worry about others. Reading not ruined. Too many fags here just care about the image of reading. A bunch of tumblrinas

>> No.21803468


>> No.21803503

>Also wtf is contemporary philosophy of science.
History of Science and Sociology of Science as Science and Technology Studies won out. Philosophy of Science is taught but rarely practiced because they demonstrated that there's no non-arbitrary ontology. Lakatos couldn't write _For Method_ and nobody else can either.

This means that without a secure ontology all that can be done is the study of science as it actually is, which means historiography and sociology. I find it much more interesting because scientists are vapid infighting nomenklatura fucks and I love me vapid nomenklatura infighting as a historical process.

On the other hand it means that I need to read a fair number of "for the public" science popularisation "books" written by "scientists" which are…well coming from a discipline that can actually write…they make /a/ look cogent.

>> No.21803507

>predictive power
>advancement of mankind

retard cant understand that those fall under the political and philosophical. Nothing funnier than these retards who make a political or philosophical debate for why politics or philosophy is stupid

>> No.21803522


>> No.21803578

tiktok is like a hyperaccelerated form of capitalism where everything is turned into a consumable product, squeezing every last drop of marketability and views out of it, then forgetting about it once its lost the edge of novelty.

the same thing happened/is happening with classic music where "classictok" young musicians are "popularising" and making classical music "accessible for everyone" and how it's about "having fun", by making novelty videos performing Bach's toccata or Mozart's turkish march. The BBC is of course overjoyed at this development, and they even wrote an article about the phenomenon, but ultimately it'll rape music, spawn some pop cultural graphic tees featuring a portrait of Vivaldi in sunglasses and a chromatic aberration effect applied, and eventually die once the trend dies. And then you are left with young people whose only knowledge of Bach and Mozart comes from 10 seconds tiktok videos, with a completely different point of reference than those who experienced it in a less commercially savage milieu.

>> No.21804227
File: 104 KB, 572x621, 1496423319029.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I want to have sweet consensual sex with Leonie with lots of kissing and eye-contact, but sometimes also wild and unrestrained sex as well.

>> No.21804309

She looks like an aunt that never got married and tries to trick her nieces into following her destructive decisions.

>> No.21804314

I hope so. Literacy isn't a good thing and I hate the public.

>> No.21804321

>I'd rather have every single one of them become incel trannies than see more of them produce more triracial dysgenic retards who will be incapable of keeping a conversation about literally anything going for more than 15 seconds but will try to stick their bullshit opinions informed by social media posts in your face as an absolute truth that you have to respect and bow down to.
Go outside, and take your meds.

>> No.21804325


>> No.21804326
File: 564 KB, 1481x607, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

uhhhh /lit/bros...?

>> No.21804335

every single faggot on thus board who has participated in a Stack or Shelf thread (including myself) is guilty of the same bullshit as a zoomer tiktok book person

Delete posts
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.