/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3139453]

so.. who is your least favorite philosopher and why? try to keep it interesting and don't go for the typical Nietzsche/Rand bashing.

[Anonymous No.3139461]

>>3139453
Heidegger without a doubt, not merely because his political views, but because of the consequences of his writing. I pretty much blame him for all the ontological nonsense post-1930

Sartre
Focault

etc...

[Anonymous No.3139459]

What, Rand Bashing isn't your favorite philosopher?

[Anonymous No.3139473]

>/lit/
>bash Nietzsche
>praise Nabokov

[Anonymous No.3139480]

>>3139473
wut? Do you know who they are? One is a Kraut philosopher who thought he was Clark Kent, The other is a Russian novelist and poet with gorgeous prose.

[Anonymous No.3139484]

Plato

niggah's boring.

[Anonymous No.3139486]

[Anonymous No.3139487]

>>3139480

One informed the other.

[Anonymous No.3139495]

>>3139459
hue hue

(I actually laughed though)

[Anonymous No.3139499]

>>3139486
>neutral good
>die adoring god
>detesting supersitition
mysides.jpeg

[Anonymous No.3139511]

>>3139486
Zizek should be Chaotic Lawful

[Anonymous No.3139519]

>>3139511

That isn't an alignment.

[Anonymous No.3139522]

Least favorite

Paul Bogosian

He is a parody of analytic arrogance coupled with scientism (Worse than Ayer). John Searle is not much better. From the Continental side Derrida contributed nothing.

[Anonymous No.3139530]

>>3139519
>Philosophy isn't an ordered field

>>3139486
>Philosophy ist an ordered field
>What is good, what is evil? The alignment completly depends on defining those two words.

[Solid Truth No.3139532]

>>3139522
>Derrida

ohlawd.jpeg


My leas favorite philosopher was J S Mill.

Utilitarianism is bunk.

[Anonymous No.3139545]

>>3139532

Are you implying Derrida was not a sophist? Are you defending him? Your attempt to be humorous through metaphor is clumsy (and facile eg. greentext and .jpeg on 4chan, how drole).

[Anonymous No.3139546]

>>3139532

Utilitarian ethics are industry standard. They might strike you untenable but they MUST be learned for pragmatic reasons due to their bearing on the world we live in.

[Anonymous No.3139551]

I love philosophy in general, and can see some greatness, something worth exploring, in almost every thinker - even in Derrida.

I cannot stand analytic philosophy, both I don´t hate it - indifference is a more accurate expression.

I would probably say Benjamin, because he was hardly able to write coherently for more than one paragraph. Alternatively someone really stupid, who is nevertheless adored and exalted (Jeremy Bentham, I´m looking at you. Also Mill.).

[Solid Truth No.3139556]

>>3139545

It is not what you argue that makes me upset, it is how you say it. 4chan is not the place to display your A - in Lit 207

>>3139546
Utilitarianism is the philosophy of the weak.

[Anonymous No.3139557]

>>3139546
Not the guy, but as far as I can tell, the greatest advantage of utilitarian ethics is that every idiot can understand it.

[Solid Truth No.3139563]

>>3139545

And the reason you're an idiot is because Derrida is about textual analysis, not philosophy. That is incidental. Lrn2pharmakon

[Anonymous No.3139570]

>>3139556

You are making a very bold assumption. I would not be where I am now if I received A- grades in humanities courses during undergrad. Utilitarianism might be problematic but it is folly to avoid reading it. If you want to understand how ethics are implemented in late capital it is necessary to study them. They simply are what is used. When is the last time you saw a deontological pharmaceutical firm.

I reccommend going back to school (or getting a few more years under your belt) before making further recommendations. It appears as if you do not know what you are talking about. If further study is not an option then find the syllabus from a few PhD seminars from elite universities online and read what they recommend.

[Anonymous No.3139571]

>>3139563

the reason you are an idiot is that you don't consider hermaneutics to be philosophy.

Just so you know. The whole field disagrees with you.

[Anonymous No.3139578]

>>3139570

>Implying morals matter
>Implying that corporations care about morals
>Implying you have an education
>Implying I don't have an education
>Implying ad hominem attacks ever worked
>Implying implications implicitly implicated


>>3139571

>The whole field disagrees with you.

Okay stud.

[Anonymous No.3139585]

>>3139578

You started the ad hominem attacks friend and it is a fair assumption to make that philosophers consider hermaneutics a subfield of philosophy. I bet you cannot find a single department that doesn't cover it.

[Anonymous No.3139592]

>>3139461
Agreed

>>3139484
>Implying philosophy would exist without Plato
>Implying dialogues are boring
The republic is boring, granted, go read Protagoras or Symposium

>>3139532
Bentham was worse, at least Mill was an actual philosopher and there is at least some credibility to his claims/theories

>>3139551
>Love philosophy
>Hate analytic
Seems contradictory, analytic philosophers were great at the turn of the C19th

>>3139570
This guy is right, as shitty as they are, Utilitarian ethics consitute a majority of all moral standpoints in modern society. You also can't overlook their position as a strong normative moral system or the fact that it opens the gate to a lot of hedonism

As for my most hated?
>William
>MOTHERFUCKING
>James

[Anonymous No.3139605]

>>3139592

Very pragmatic assessment for a hater of pragmatism ;)

[Anonymous No.3139609]

>>3139585
You are right, I apologize for the name calling.

Did you ask the people involved in textual analysis whether they consider themselves part of philosophy?

It does not matter much what philosopher's think. To them, everything is under their parlance

>>3139592
>Implying that the philophies of society are in any way, shape or form, related to the philosophies of the self.

[Anonymous No.3139612]

>>3139605
Don't hate it, just not a fan of James and his ridiculous epistemological views. Believing something doesn't make it true unless it is, first, true. What a ridiculous man. And his beard is just terrible

[Anonymous No.3139614]

>>3139609

Textual analysts are not necessarily philosophers however theories of analysis/interpretation normally are created from within philosophy departments especially on the continent.

[Solid Truth No.3139615]

>>3139612

Who are you to know what truth is?

[Anonymous No.3139616]

Locke.

He's completely fucking full of shit. Hobbes is pretty close, too.

[Anonymous No.3139617]

Why would I bash someone as perfect as Nietzsche? I would let him cum in my mouth.

[Anonymous No.3139618]

Siddhārtha Gautama

[Solid Truth No.3139621]

>>3139614
Because I use a screwdriver and a hammer when I redesign my house, does that make me a workman? What if I also use a level and saw horse, am I now a carpenter as well?

[Anonymous No.3139626]

>>3139621

but if you construct tools you are a designer. Same with theories of interpretation and analysis. All those who theorize on interpretation are hermaneuticists (which are necessarily philosophers) but not all those who use hermaneutics are.

[Anonymous No.3139629]

>>3139486
These charts really serve no purpose outside of /tg/ or arguably /v/.

[Anonymous No.3139631]

>>3139486
Schops isn't Neutral Evil, he's true neutral.

[Solid Truth No.3139632]

>>3139626

I fundamentally disagree with you

[Anonymous No.3139634]

>>3139629
>what is 'fun'

[Anonymous No.3139651]

>>3139615
I don't, that is my point, claiming to know truth strongly (see: Belief) is no guarantee of things according with what you say. Truth is referential to the subject of the claim, not just the individual propounding a belief.

>>3139617
This is /lit/ personified

[Solid Truth No.3139656]

>>3139651
>Wikipedia

[Anonymous No.3139658]

>>3139480
>One is a Kraut philosopher who thought he was Clark Kent

Maybe you should read about him before saying anything about his world view.

[Anonymous No.3139683]

>>3139658
>Missing the ubermensch joke

[Anonymous No.3139685]

>>3139616
Locke's political writings are god-tier though. With no Locke you get no Rousseau and also no Hume.

[Anonymous No.3139686]

>>3139683
But Nietzsche didn't think he was the ubermensch.

[Anonymous No.3139691]

>>3139686
>Implying Nietzsche identified himself as one of the 'Bungled and the Botched' and not at the top of the intellectual aristocracy, fighting nationalism, socialism and theology while wearing a cape.

[Anonymous No.3139693]

>>3139691
That wasn't what you said. He didn't consider himself a member of the herd, but he also didn't consider himself the ubermensch.

[Anonymous No.3139696]

>>3139632

Are you implying those that perform philosophy are not philosophers. Just so you know, you don't have to be in a philosophy department to do philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3139701]

>>3139453
>Dat ass.
Would tongue.

[Anonymous No.3139705]

>>3139701
Why would you tongue a hole that shit comes out of? Disgusting pleb.

[Anonymous No.3139706]

Deleuze.

Seriously. You work really hard to figure out what he's trying to say, and then realize what he's saying and you're like "really? that's it?"

What the fuck do people see in this guy?

[Solid Truth No.3139713]

>>3139696
>those that perform philosophy are not philosophers.

I am saying that textual analysis is not philosophy.

Textual analysis and philosophy are two separate branches of knowledge.

Just because they have overlap and share certain characteristics does not mean one is subordinate to the other.

>you don't have to be in a philosophy department to do philosophy.

This is what I would call the modern 'Philosophical Fallacy,' ie; mistakenly believing that everything that isn't math, science, history, or art must be philosophy. The pursuit of knowledge is actually diverse.

>>3139705

Because it feels amazing. Nothing equals the finesse, the softness, or the fluidity of a tongue. No matter how skilled your digits are.

[Anonymous No.3139716]

>>3139705
>He doesn't enjoy rimjobs.

I guess you hate the part of the body part that piss comes out of too

[Anonymous No.3139717]

>>3139716
>>3139713
3D women are disgusting.

[Anonymous No.3139755]

>>3139717
Putting your dick in a mouth, vagina, or anus is, objectively, pretty disgusting.

But it feels great.

[Anonymous No.3139760]

>>3139755
I would never defile myself with a 3D woman's body.

[Anonymous No.3139764]

>>3139717
Cartoon and real women are both disgusting. Rubber master race is best woman.

[Anonymous No.3139767]

>>3139713

Bud, I am saying that theories of analysis and interpretation are a branch of philosophy called hermaneutics and those that create and critique those theories are a type of philosopher called hermaneuticists. I am not saying that textual analysts are philosophers.

Secondly, by your criteria for the "Philosophical Fallacy" Ranke would just be a historian and Nietzsche would just be a philologist. This position is problematic.

Furthermore, philosopher is, technically, the love of wisdom. Meaning it is the study of wisdom. However, in modern academic usage it is the study of phenomena at the paradigmatic level. Hence, theories of interpretation even when done in an english department can be considered part of the philosophy of english...theories of culture are part of the philosophy of anthropology etc.

Also, many people that work on this stuff, even from within lit crit will call themselves philosophers and critics...Case and point, Avital Ronell.

[Anonymous No.3139787]

>>3139713
The problem with Derrida is his followers.

Derrida is concerned with ethics primarily.

To turn deconstruction into a literary theory is retarded (Paul de Man is a dumbass) and to further take Derrida's ideas and push them into some kind of leftist politcally correct identity politics is to miss Derrida's point entirely.

So few people understand Derrida. If it weren't for his followers, I think he'd be loved.

[Solid Truth No.3139796]

>>3139767

>theories of analysis and interpretation are a branch of philosophy

What if they pertain only to a single work?
Is a screwdriver the same thing as a power-drill?

>those that create and critique those theories are a type of philosopher

You are still artificially constraining yourself to a historical notion.

>this position is problematic.

Why? You haven't given me a necessary reason to believe this

>Philosopher is the love of wisdom. Meaning it is the study of wisdom.

What is love? How does one study abstract ideas? What is wisdom? Define your terms if you wish to make a point.

>In modern academic usage

I am already weary of anything that comes after such a generalization

>the study of phenomena at the paradigmatic level.

Some philosophy might be about this. It's important to realize that the philosopher's that get read/are influential =/= all of the philosopher's around. The reader's whim determines the legacy of a work.

>theories of interpretation . . . English department . . . theories of culture . . . anthropology.

This is exactly what I meant by the Philosophical Fallacy. You are grouping "seemingly" (at least to you) unrelated fields together because you see an underlying pattern that may or may not be there.

>many people . . . will call themselves philosophers and critics.

I can call myself the king of the world or I could start up a blog critiquing movies, and call myself an art critic. Do either of these make it true? Just because you say/believe yourself to be one thing, does not mean other people will.

[Anonymous No.3139810]

>>3139796

I am unsure that you know what work at the theoretical or paradigmatic work is.

I am referring to coherent generalized systems of explanation. There is no theory for a single work but single works are understood by appeal to theory.

[Anonymous No.3139816]

>>3139796

Good luck succeeding in academia. Your private understanding of terms will not get you far. I recommend taking the pragmatic approach and see what everyone else is doing.

[Anonymous No.3139823]

>>3139810
>There is no theory for a single work but single works are understood by appeal to theory.

How do you know this to be true?

>>3139816
>Your private understanding of terms will not get you far.

Command of jargon =/= command of knowledge

[Anonymous No.3139848]

>>3139796
Oh look another namefag to filter.

[Anonymous No.3139850]

>>3139823

1. That is the accepted definition of theory.

2. Why do you think there is knowledge beyond experience?

I was unaware I was arguing with a Platonist (who thinks you shouldn't read Plato).

[Anonymous No.3139881]

>>3139850

>single works are understood by appeal to theory.

This is what I was asking.

>Platonist

Lol okay.

We should not be surprised that we find meaningless noises in the foundation of many old ‘philosophies’, and that from them arise most of the old ‘philosophical’ fights and arguments. Korzybski

>Why do you think there is knowledge beyond experience?

That's a complex question.

there are certain objects of perception which are within the scope of its nature and capacity; on the other hand, there are, amongst things which actually exist, certain object which the mind can in no way and by no means grasp: the gates of perception are closed against it.
Maimonides

Metaphysics is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct; but to find these reasons is no less an instinct. Bradley

With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Darwin

• When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind . . . Walt Kelly

‘You’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. Crick

Nature, so far as it is the object of scientific research, is a collection of facts governed by laws: our knowledge of nature is our knowledge of laws. Whewall

If we spoke a different language, we would perceive a somewhat different world. Wittgenstein

The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you control the people who must use the words. Phillip Dick

[Anonymous No.3142349]

>>3139486
>Schopenhauer
>evil
>not the gentleman Bodhisattva of the 19th century

[Anonymous No.3142351]

I thoroughly dislike Kant for his autistic, systematic ethics that are wholly incompatible with life.

[Anonymous No.3143742]

>>3142349
Seriously. How could you call the man who so thoroughly understood and made understood suffering "evil"?

[Anonymous No.3144115]

>>3139461
Yes. Heidegger was to Nietzche like a dumbass Rabbi is to some particularly horrendous Bible verse.

[Anonymous No.3144149]

>/lit/ hates Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, and Foucault

:(

Anyway, I don't hate him, but I respect Descartes much more as a mathematician than a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.3144158]

>>3139592
>Plato
>Staring philosophy
>Not the Hindis

Do you even unto history?

[Anonymous No.3144934]

>>3142351
Well he tried at least.

[Anonymous No.3145291]

>>3142351
oh I just love this attitude. autistic ethics incompatible with life? and who are you to objectively know what life is and isnt? Kants system is much more compatible with human life than the bullshit laws we shove down our throats.

[Anonymous No.3147101]

>>3142351
>mfw Kant was the first basement-dweller

But seriously, you're wrong,

[reservoirxxxThe Etymology of Painxxxreservoir No.3147141]

xxxLudwig Wittgensteinxxx

xxxI hear he liked the dickxxx

[Anonymous No.3147192]

>>3139461
Heidegger beyond any doubt.
Plato gets second place

their stupidity cost us years of scientific progress

[Anonymous No.3147204]

>>3147192
>scientific progress

[Anonymous No.3147206]

>>3139563

oh god, this guy again.

you seem to ignore your sexy Derrida frequently considered himself a (very important) philosopher

[Anonymous No.3147208]

>>3139570
authority much?

[Anonymous No.3147216]

Most important philosopher of all time: Thales of Milete

Any fucker here who doesn't know/understand why comes from a zero-value shit-tier university

[Anonymous No.3147221]

>>3147204
yes. you know, as in: "computers are the result of progress in scientific research".

GTFO relativist, you're worse than Islam

[Anonymous No.3147224]

>>3147206
But Derrida was a philosopher. Even if he didn't consider himself a philosopher he would still be a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.3147231]

>>3147221
Computers are most certainly not the result of scientific research; but even if they were, I missed where "progress" comes in to that statement. And I am not a relativist. And I am not even sure why you'd use that as a pejorative.

[Anonymous No.3147233]

>>3147224
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry49Jr0TFjk

check 2:00 he refers to himself as a philosopher

[Anonymous No.3147240]

>>3147231
>Computers are most certainly not the result of scientific research

I lol'd on so many levels

[Anonymous No.3147241]

>>3147233
I know that he considered himself a philosopher, but even if he didn't ~.

[Anonymous No.3147251]

>>3147231

>computers are the result of progress in scientific research
>result of progress
>progress

>I missed where "progress" comes in to that statement.

>And I am not even sure why you'd use that as a pejorative.

either you are a genius troll or the biggest retard on this whole website

[Anonymous No.3147262]

>>3139511

This is absolutely accurate.

Many of those who keep bashing Derrida are those who felt castrated after trying to read him.

> Derrida
> not philosophy
are you mentally handicapped

[Anonymous No.3147268]

>>3147262

>Many of those who keep bashing Derrida are those who felt castrated after trying to read him.

I'd be pissed off too, if a book tries to cut off my balls. Apparently you feel this is rather okay and have lost your balls..

[Anonymous No.3147269]

>>3147251
You can use the word "progress" in that sentence, but you don't actually mean anything. You can't. Science cannot make progress. Computers do not come from any kind of science.

[Anonymous No.3147273]

>>3139486

Why is Zizek on this chart? His mere presence is an insult to everyone else on it. I don't understand how Americunts can be so captivated by a con artist.

[Anonymous No.3147277]

>>3147269

Are you implying electricity was not discovered by scientists? Or that science does not exist, merely because you feel like it?

[Anonymous No.3147279]

>>3147269
>says science does not exist
>writes on a computer

idontwanttoliveonthisplanetanymore.jpg

[Anonymous No.3147283]

>>3147269
>Science cannot make progress.

Science progresses, though. One conclusion fitting upon the next, leading to practical application of said theories.

I'm not sure what you're trying to concoct with your "meaning" strawman.

[Anonymous No.3147285]

>>3147277
lolno.

Electricity was not discovered by scientists. Science "exists" I guess, but you don't seem to realize what science is really like. It doesn't discover things or invent things. It creates fictions and uses metaphors to account for things. Tell me what electricity is. Then tell me what electrons are. Then tell me what it means for them to "flow." Then tell me... Do you understand now?

[Anonymous No.3147287]

>>3147279
I never said science does not exist. I thought maybe the people on this board could comprehend English?

[Anonymous No.3147307]

>>3147285
No you don't understand. Even if they were fictions and metaphors, such fictions and metaphors could still progress.

Quit acting all edgy with your postmodern relativism. It doesn't produce anything new, nor does it aid humanity, nor did it produce anything worthwile. It is merely useful to those who support the massive influx of immigrants into Western nations (i.e. the neoliberal elites).

Grow up.

[Anonymous No.3147309]

>>3147283
Science does not progress. It just uses different figures of speech and different methods, none of which is justified or objective. How can you call that "progress" without redefining "progress?"

[Anonymous No.3147315]

>>3147309
tell me then, what is your definition of objective and justified. how can you help me know whether something is justified and objective?

[Anonymous No.3147319]

>>3147307
>No you don't understand. Even if they were fictions and metaphors, such fictions and metaphors could still progress.

winning

[Anonymous No.3147329]

>>3147307
Ouch I am so hurt lol you called me a relativist. Science doesn't produce anything worthwhile. Tell me about medicine and biology, but then forget about how no matter how many "advances" or "revolutionary techniques" they develop, we have to continually create more names for problems those advances and techniques create. Go on.

[Anonymous No.3147348]

>>3147329

Are you referring to penicilline or the bible one could write about your stupidity?

[Anonymous No.3147352]

>>3147348

Penicillin

>allowing poor people to live long enough to starve to death since 1928

[Anonymous No.3147354]

>>3147352

Didn't expect Malthusianism in a thread such as this. Good thing we've lost the relativist postmodernist, on to the next pseudoknowledge.

[Anonymous No.3147356]

>>3147307

/thread

[Anonymous No.3147361]

>>3147354

>Implying that my post has anything to do with population studies whatsoever

[Anonymous No.3147364]

>>3147354
Pseudo knowledge? Well then I guess you mean science, right? Tell me again what electricity is without playing games and using nothing but metaphors.

>>3147348
I hope you don't mean sarcastically, because penicillin is a great example of what I'm talking about. Give penicillin to tons of people who would for the most part survive without it, and then create stronger infections for which we have little remedy.

[Anonymous No.3147366]

>>3147361

I'm implying it has nothing to with anything whatsoever, because you live in magical lalaland where science is the boogyman.

[Anonymous No.3147367]

>One of the only philosophers who isn't pretentious
>Writes clearly and beautifully
>Offers detailed explanations for his positions and assumes as little as possible (in keeping with his philosophy)
>Everyone who knew him thought he was a pretty cool guy
>Also, dat swag; motherfuckin' Macaroni up in this bitch

[Anonymous No.3147369]

>>3147364
>Give penicillin to tons of people who would for the most part survive without it, and

And ONCE AGAIN you use strawman arguments.

Babby's first philosophy?

[Anonymous No.3147374]

>>3147369
>strawman

Babbys first buzzword?

That is not a strawman. It is an example.

[Anonymous No.3147375]

>>3147366
Implying that I am >>3147364

>magical lalaland

Lol nice explanation of your position. Your argument is vastly beyond my capabilities.

>2012
>Still riding the bandwagon of SCIENCE IS EVERYTHING HORRY SHITE

I bet you got your degree in Communications

[Anonymous No.3147376]

>>3147364
>Pseudo knowledge? Well then I guess you mean postmodernism, right? Tell me again what your opinion is without playing games and using nothing but metaphors.

repaired your mistake there fellah

[Anonymous No.3147379]

>>3147374

it's a strawman, cuz your argument is similar to "if we nuked hiroshima, science is bad"

No you are bad. (and stupid)

[Anonymous No.3147380]

>>3147376
K I asked you to not play games. What is electricity? Go on...

[Anonymous No.3147385]

>>3147380
You're missing the point again. Science doesn't need to be more than a metaphor to be useful and practical.

As usual, you're acting as if you're making revolutionary statements about the meaning (or rather lack of meaning) of words, as if it mattered in any way. You're merely attacking scientism, which I am not even trying to defend.

You're a retard.

[Anonymous No.3147389]

>>3147379
Those are similar only if you are a barbarian and you can't work out the subtleties in an English sentence. And before you say ad hominen, just remember that invective is one of the most beautiful ways to express oneself.

[Anonymous No.3147391]

>>3147380
>What is electricity?
>What is 1+1?
>WHat is babby's first philosophy?


You dear sir, are a retard

[Anonymous No.3147394]

>>3147389
I lol'd. You're a very funny troll.

I enjoyed debating your absurdities though

[Anonymous No.3147396]

>>3147391
see >>3147389

My asking that question is not an intro-level philosophy "is your blue my blue?" If you haven't read the thread, just don't post. And if you have, try again.

[Anonymous No.3147400]

>>3147396
>My asking that question is not an intro-level philosophy "is your blue my blue?"

Why not?

[Anonymous No.3147401]

>>3147285
>I don't understand electricity, so no one could possibly understand it!

Here you go: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity

[Anonymous No.3147406]

>>3147285

Could you please become a tripfag so I can ignore your posts. /lit/ is supposedly a board for smart people

[Anonymous No.3147409]

>>3147406
ps: I'm not trolling or joking.

[Anonymous No.3147413]

>>3147400
Because you should read the thread. Someone tell me what electricity is, and then tell me how using nothing but metaphors that reference only themselves constitutes knowledge. If you can do that, then laugh at me for calling science a pseudoknowledge.

>>3147401
Right.

[Anonymous No.3147418]

>>3147413
>If you can do that, then laugh at me for calling science a pseudoknowledge.

Why?
You're the one making statements here. The onus of proof is on you.

Good god you are annoying.

[Anonymous No.3147424]

>>3147401
>Electricity is a type of energy.
Excellent. Then what is energy? Please tell me it is the ability to do "work," so I can laugh heartily then ask what work is.

>Scientists have observed that electricity seems to flow like water from one place to another

MMMMM delicious similes and metaphors. So electricity flows like water. But what is it?

[Anonymous No.3147425]

>>3147413
>and then tell me how using nothing but metaphors that reference only themselves constitutes knowledge

It does because they are practical. We can, for example, use "babby's first philosophy" to describe your general lack of education.

[Anonymous No.3147429]

>>3147424

Perhaps you should read some Carnap. I doubt you have. It will resolve almost every one of your "problems"

[Anonymous No.3147431]

>>3147418
You didn't read the thread, did you?

[Anonymous No.3147435]

>>3147424
SIMPLE.wikipedia.org uses similes and metaphors for people of lesser intellect like yourself to help you gain a basic understanding. Once you have that, you might want to check out the grownup page.

[Anonymous No.3147438]

>>3147424
This, gentlemen, is why morons like Derrida should never again be allowed to breathe.

Whilst this fag is masturbating on the meaninglesness of words, real men were busy sending people to the Moon.

[Anonymous No.3147447]

>>3147435
That page uses nothing but more metaphors which are just more complicated but just as self-referential. I am not a moron when it comes to physics.

When you talk about onus of proof (lol), the fact that no one is able to show how science is knowledge IS my proof that is is pseudo knowledge.

>>3147438
And if you will admit finally that science is not knowledge, we can start to talk about the last holdout of you people, that it is useful. But even that is up in the air. Tell me why the moon landing was so great?

[Anonymous No.3147452]

>>3147438
>2012
>Still thinking USA landed on the moon.

[Anonymous No.3147456]

>>3147447

It was a huge propaganda victory for the West against the dictatorial regime in Russia.

But I'm sure you dislike that, cuz liberty and human rights have no "meaning" and "value" for you, because they don't exist, and "knowledge" is impossible.

FUck oFf

[Anonymous No.3147459]

Noam Chomsky has argued that postmodernism is meaningless because it adds nothing to analytical or empirical knowledge. He asks why postmodernist intellectuals won't respond like people in other fields when asked:

"Seriously, what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious, etc? These are fair requests for anyone to make. If they can't be met, then I'd suggest recourse to Hume's advice in similar circumstances: to the flames."

Lol, even Chomsky thinks you're a retard.

[Anonymous No.3147461]

>>3147456
Thanks for letting us know that your grasp of history is high school-level. Liberty and human rights mean plenty to me, and knowledge is possible, just not through science.

[Anonymous No.3147465]

>>3147461
> just not through science.

please explain

[Anonymous No.3147471]

>>3147461

> just not through science.

?

[Anonymous No.3147472]

>>3147459
I'm not a post modernist. I may not think that science makes progress, but I do think that we can have progress in other ways. Don't be so eager to strawman me. (This is how you use it, guys). In any case, Chomsky's approach as far as you outline it is what I am doing to science right now. So don't lose your wits just because you can't answer them. Consider this a learning experience. Consider it progress.

[Anonymous No.3147474]

>>3147465

in b4 Jesus

[Anonymous No.3147477]

>>3147472

so you gonna explain your non-scientific method to gain knowledge or what?

[Anonymous No.3147483]

>>3147477
Nope. I only entered this thread to ridicule the guy who said something about heidegger and plato hindering scientific progress. As soon as you all admit that science does not make progress and is pseudo knowledge, I'll be done here.

[Anonymous No.3147484]

>>3147459

"Seriously, what are the principles of their theories [science provides principles], on what evidence are they based [both analytical and empirical], what do they explain that wasn't already obvious [almost everything in wikipedia], etc? "
>>3147472

[Anonymous No.3147485]

>>3147447
>not a moron
>argues over babbys first wiki page

[Anonymous No.3147490]

>>3147483

I fear you may have only ridiculed yourself

[Anonymous No.3147494]

>>3147483
>I'll be done here.
>be done here.
>here.

You gonna be here for a long time, troll

[Anonymous No.3147498]

>>3147485
Wouldn't I be a moron if I just didn't understand it? The reason I can argue about it is because I am not a moron and I understand how it tries to explain science using no real knowledge.

>>3147484
Fine. But the question stands. How is this knowledge? Science has evidence (what constitutes evidence and empirical data are constantly in flux, though) but the theories, like I said earlier, are nothing but metaphors that stand in for the data science already possesses in the form of the empirical data. Is it really explaining something that isn't already obvious if I just give you a network of metaphors?

[Anonymous No.3147503]

>>3147483
>science doesn't understand electricity
Says the guy trolling people on the other side of the planet, on a computer composed of trillions of circuits, powered from a power plant miles away.

[Anonymous No.3147504]

>>3147498
>Wouldn't I be a moron if I just didn't understand it?

This guy keeps getting better and better. :D

Please define "no real knowledge"
Please enlighten us with your non-scientific method?
Please explain whether you are truly retarded or a very clever troll (whose ruses we have foiled once again).

[Anonymous No.3147509]

>>3147498
>but metaphors that stand in for the data science already possesses in the form of the empirical data

no.
Which is why Einstein's prediction was tested, then proclaimed genius.

[Cellis !eTB.HcnPbU No.3147512]

Benthem
Rand
Derrida
>that generic taste in least favourite philosophers

Also, Nietzsche isn't all that bad. The reputation of him isn't favourable, because of his fanbase, but it's likely most people who cite him, don't understand what he was saying anyways.

[Anonymous No.3147514]

>>3147498
Science only uses metaphors to explain things to people like you. It's not science's fault that's all the more you can comprehend.

[Anonymous No.3147516]

>>3147504
I already defined that. I said the metaphors and word games science plays do not actually tell me what electricity is. Again, I invite you all to try to explain to me what electricity is without using metaphors (ones as simple as the basic wiki article AND as complicated as the ones in thegrownup wiki). If you can't do this, you should realize that it is because science is not knowledge. Metaphors are not knowledge. They are ways or restating and comparing things.

[Anonymous No.3147519]

>>3147498
>Wouldn't I be a moron if I just didn't understand it?
You'd be more of a moron to pull shit out of your ass; like you're doing. No one will ridicule you for not understanding electricity. Promise.

[Anonymous No.3147521]

>>3147498
>Is it really explaining something that isn't already obvious if I just give you a network of metaphors?

Try explaining how to make your computer to an aboriginal and see how "obvious" it is. I bet you don't even know what the CRT2Y is.

[Anonymous No.3147522]

>>3147472
This is the legitimate, non-retard version of the ideas you think you're getting at. Please read it and stop being a retard.

[Anonymous No.3147527]

>>3147519
>>3147514
K well the ball is in your court guys. Do your best to tell me what electricity is without using metaphors. And realize that the reason I am asking you to do this is because I know what I am talking about. I will be able to show you how everything you think you know about electricity and physics is nothing but sneaky figures of speech.

[Anonymous No.3147531]

>>3147522
I've read Against Method, love. Despite what the angry people in this thread believe, I am not just pulling things out of my ass.

[Anonymous No.3147532]

>>3147516
>Again, I invite you all to try to explain to me what electricity is without using metaphors

Again I'm telling you this is besides the point. Science, even if you consider it merely metaphors, still produces knowledge about the real world.

Language of math =/= math

[Anonymous No.3147535]

>>3147531

He's pulling things from someone else's ass.

[Anonymous No.3147536]

>>3147532
Do you admit that science is nothing but metaphors? Or are you just saying that I should come to that conclusion no matter what you actually believe?

[Anonymous No.3147545]

>>3147527
Electricity is the movement electrically charged particles.

This is not a metaphor.

[Anonymous No.3147547]

>>3147535
No, like he said: My version of it is different than his and I should defer to it because I do not have a brain of my own. So I either cheat by vomiting Feyerabend all over you all, or I "be a retard" and illegitimize the established works.

[Anonymous No.3147550]

>>3147531
Loving Against Method doesn't keep you from being a moron.

[Anonymous No.3147551]

>>3147545
And what is an electrically charged particle?

[Anonymous No.3147553]

>>3147536

This troll should urgently read David Stove's critique and leave us be. I'm beginning to feel sorry for him.

[Anonymous No.3147560]

>>3147547
Seriously bro. Against method is the second to last book I read and the bile you're spewing has about as much relation to it as puke has to actual food. Process it however you must but don't try feeding it to other people.

[Cellis !eTB.HcnPbU No.3147564]

>>3147550
I don't believe you comprehend what he posted, love.

[Anonymous No.3147567]

>>3147307
>No you don't understand. Even if they were fictions and metaphors, such fictions and metaphors could still progress.

still winning

[Anonymous No.3147572]

>>3147472
>I may not think that science makes progress, but I do think that we can have progress in other ways.
>other ways

still waiting

[Anonymous No.3147576]

>>3147551
That depends what your definition of "is" is.

[Anonymous No.3147578]

>>3147551
>And what is an electrically charged particle?
An electron. Electrons are negatively charged and are attracted to positively charged matter. Opposite charges attract, causing the electrons, since they're lighter, to move towards positively charged matter.

[Anonymous No.3147579]

>>3147576

Carnap (as mentioned above) again rears his exquisite head.

[Anonymous No.3147582]

>>3147572
I won't bring this up at all in this discussion. If I do, you all will focus your efforts on disagreeing with me in that area, even though I am still waiting for someone to successfully show that science is knowledge and doesn't rely exclusively upon metaphors to trick people into thinking they understand things. We have to remain focused.

[Anonymous No.3147586]

>>3147572

Next: babby's first politics

[Anonymous No.3147588]

>>3147582
And we're still waiting on your definition of "knowledge" in order for us to communicate with your clearly silly and petulent brain.

[Anonymous No.3147591]

>>3147582
>I won't bring this up at all in this discussion. If I do, you all will focus your efforts on disagreeing with me in that area

Depends on how stupid your alternative is. However, we could be dealing with the next Galileo here!!

[Anonymous No.3147598]

>>3147582
>I won't bring this up at all in this discussion. If I do, you all will focus your efforts on disagreeing with me in that area

oh noes! people gonna disagree with me :'(

[Anonymous No.3147599]

>>3147576
That is the ugliest thing I have ever read.

>>3147578
LOL God. Where to start... So is there any way to tell me what an electron is without using a metaphor? The metaphor here is negatively charged. I have seen magnets. But you will not be able to explain what a negative charge is. Other than saying it is something that is attracted to a positive charge. Keep piling things into you circle of metaphors and you won't get anywhere.

[Anonymous No.3147606]

>>3147599
>But you will not be able to explain what a negative charge is. Other than saying it is something that is attracted to a positive charge.

>what a negative charge is. Other than saying it is something that is attracted to a positive charge.

>what a negative charge is. it is something that is attracted to a positive charge.

perhaps you should just start censoring yourself no? if we can weed out the stupid, perhaps we'll get somewhere

[Anonymous No.3147607]

>>3147598
No. The oh noes is that people will use it to wriggle out of the bind our current discussion has put them in.

>>3147588
I won't play the scientists definition game any longer. You know that what I mean by knowledge may be many things, but it is NOT a bundle of figures of speech which reference nothing but each other. Just show me that science is not that, and you win.

[Anonymous No.3147611]

>>3147606
Perhaps you could stop trying to sound smart and try to realize why that is a horrible definition.

[Anonymous No.3147615]

>>3147582
Empirical data is simply a record of instances, such as "the temperature is X at Y time" and such. Theories and analysis done by scientists are necessary to correlate the data into patterns of behavior/meaning for the physical properties of things. These correlations are what provide knowledge and progress as without them we would have a bunch of independent things happening without any idea why or how.

[Anonymous No.3147619]

>>3147599

you're the one building circles here. we are providing you with empirical evidence, which you reject. we are simultaneously providing you with analytical evidence (which you reject, considering such reasoning merely "metaphors" and therefore unworthy of respect).

However, you as yet were unable to counter the fact that metaphors (even if they were unworthy of your respect) can indeed produce knowledge and practical applications in the real world (i.e. reality). Therefore I conclude you are and remain a retard.

Not to mention the fact that we are still waiting for your definition of knowledge. And to a far lesser degree (mostly as a reward for our suffering) your alternative method for progress.

[Anonymous No.3147621]

>>3147599
You're confusing electronegativity, a chemical property, with electric charge, a physical property of matter.

Oh my. Where should I start? Perhaps leaving you in your ignorance.

[Anonymous No.3147623]

>>3147582
>metaphors
What are those?

[Anonymous No.3147626]

>>3147599
Welcome to language dickhead.

[Anonymous No.3147627]

>>3147619
this

[Anonymous No.3147628]

>>3147599
Definitions (Metaphors don't work as you claim them to) are used to provide context and categorize phenomena. They are intrinsic to language as we communicate utilizing societally defined terms and norms for linguistics. To have an explanation without "metaphors" is to engage in an infinite regression of "what is x" given that humans must use terms to explain a term.

[Anonymous No.3147630]

>>3147599
HAY guys! Look at all these electrons I collected with the positive side of my magnet! I'll never need to buy electricity again!

Thread over.

[Anonymous No.3147634]

>>3147599
>I have seen magnets.

I'm done.

[Anonymous No.3147637]

good night sweet prince

[Anonymous No.3147643]

>>3147621
lol I am not confusing electronegativity with electric charge. I am asking you to explain what electric charge is without just its relation to a positive charge. I know the difference. I am not talking about electron affinity or anything chemical.

>>3147619
K well you didn't answer my question earlier. I asked if you admit that science is nothing but metaphors. But if a metaphor helps me understand something, it does so ONLY when I know what x is and you tell me y is like x. Then how is science objective? This means that if science is nothing but figures of speech, it is only ever relational, not grounded. The fact science considers its observations and theories objectively grounded is what justifies the inferences scientists make, but if those are primarily relational because of the figures of speech needed to understand them, then you don't have knowledge.

[Anonymous No.3147650]

>>3147599
I have to wonder. Have you tried plugging magnets into your dildo before?

That's literally where your terrible comprehension of electricity is leading.

[Anonymous No.3147656]

>>3147650
>>3147634
>>3147630
When I mentioned the magnet I meant that as the ordinary template for understanding positive and negative. I am not dumb. But I mean that I want someone to do a good job of explaining what a positive charge is without reference to a negative one. Don't be so petty just because you are in a bind with your scientism.

[Anonymous No.3147662]

>>3147643
a) Who is to knowledge itself isn't relative
b) The data is objective, and the data would disprove any socially constructed theories/observations
c) Science checks the partiality of terms and overall subjectivity
The example for this can be seen in magnetism. I see negatively charged particals moving away from similarly charged particals. You may call "negatively charged particals" "poisific smeerps" and instead of moving away/repulsing you can say "cosmodificating"; th point still stands that the phenomena is the same, so the science/correlation still exists and provides some form of forward progress towards a greater understanding of the universe.

[Anonymous No.3147666]

>>3147643
>The fact science considers its observations and theories objectively grounded is what justifies the inferences scientists make, but if those are primarily relational because of the figures of speech needed to understand them, then you don't have knowledge.

Strawman again; Not all scientists consider their stuff objectively grounded.

And as stated above, anyone can understand math, disregarding figures of speech.

[Anonymous No.3147671]

>>3147656
>I am not dumb.

troll detector on maximum velocity

[Anonymous No.3147680]

>>3147656
>But I mean that I want someone to do a good job of explaining what a positive charge is without reference to a negative one.

Sure, after you explain what darkness is without mentioning light.

[Anonymous No.3147683]

>>3147662
I am not talking about science's beautiful and all-knowing and perfect system of reviewing itself. I am saying that the theories science constructs on so-called objective data, because they are nothing but fancy figures of speech, are not a grounding for further use and theorizing.

>>3147666
If you don't consider science objectively grounded, then I guess we are talking about different things. But if you are just introducing a minority view among scientists that science is not objective, then it doesn't matter that I am "strawman"ning here. What I am talking about is science which claims to be objective. Anything else can wait until I get to it.

[Anonymous No.3147687]

>>3147680
OOH so you admit that science is purely relational? How can science get out of that circle then? Can you say you know what electricity is then if you boil it down to talk about charges and all you can do is say this is the best metaphor I can come up with?

[Anonymous No.3147698]

>>3147683

Good, I'm off then. Since you've just proven that you are not up to date with philosophy's current views on the matter.

Enjoy attacking empiricism. But please educate yourself...

[Anonymous No.3147703]

>>3147687
he doesn't admit it, it seems that way because you've rejected the empirical.

did you notice you're losing ground more and more, though?

[Anonymous No.3147708]

>>3147687

If I ever meet you in real life, I'll make sure you'll feel what electricity is.

[Anonymous No.3147714]

>>3147687
Because it's a law of the universe, but saying science hasn't made progress with electricity is ignorant.

[Anonymous No.3147715]

>>3147703
Nah I'm just going to leave. You people are all just easily enraged and not willing to have serious discussions. Have fun telling each other to educate himself.

[Anonymous No.3147717]

>>3147698
I don't need to appeal to any authority to be right.

[Anonymous No.3147718]

>>3147683
>Anything else can wait until I get to it.

Be sure to mail it to the Nobel Prize committee. I'm sure they'll invite you to dinner.

[Anonymous No.3147725]

>As soon as you all admit that science does not make progress and is pseudo knowledge, I'll be done here.
>Nah I'm just going to leave.

Science 1 - 0 Trolls

[Anonymous No.3147727]

>>3147683
But the data IS real and can't be relational. At worst we all have a consensus of what is real. The thing is, the reviewing system that works (how do you tihnk you are typing your response out) and checks for relational fancy figures of speech. A quark is a quark, regardless of the term because no matter what language anyone uses. The language is merely a categorization for phenomena, and therefore as long as the base explanation for abstract concepts is there via diagrams, text, and so on; as well as phenomena to disprove "fanciful language"; theories are reliable methods. Assuming reality is real there is a way up to modern diction, you are merely looking for an infinite regression of terms despite signs and signification being inherent from irth as to why things mean what they mean (that's Vygotsky). If I were to say "You know when things fall down towards the Earth? That's what I call gravity" and theories were based upon that, then the bae phenomena would be explained and understood. Communication may be relative but the data isn't.

[Anonymous No.3147729]

>>3147683
You're right. Protons and electrons are just metaphors. Go eat a block of potassium. It's healthy like in bananas. You definitely won't find out what positive and negative (or mostly neutral, in your body's case) charges are.

[Anonymous No.3147737]

>>3139453
And, here we go. Another completely unrelated philosophy-based thread. This is a literature board, not some board where idiots can brag about indulging to their whims.

[Anonymous No.3147745]

>>3147687
>Easily accepts darkness/light
>Unable to comprehend positive/negative

[Anonymous No.3147746]

lol,
>because of political views

could you be anymore gay /lit/?
>mfw this thread

[Anonymous No.3147749]

>>3147650
Batteries go in vibrators. unless they light up, dildoes don't need power.

[Anonymous No.3147757]

>>3147745
>>3147729
>>3147727
>>3147725
>>3147718
>>3147714
>>3147703
>>3147698
>>3147680
etc

>Conversations_with_Illiterates.epub

[Anonymous No.3147758]

>>3147749
I wouldn't put it past him to have tried putting a magnet in his dildo though.

[Anonymous No.3147760]

>>3147725
>fanatics of scientism get extremely buttmad, call him a troll and tell him to kill himself
pretty much the opposite of a troll losing

science remains with nothing

[Anonymous No.3147772]

>>3147760

you're right, science has clearly lost this one. guess we'll just need to throw it on the garbage bin of history then..

[Anonymous No.3147777]

>>3147586

[Anonymous No.3147783]

All this talk about scientific progress vs. otherwise wouldn't be happening if ya'll were well read in heidegger's techne, enframing, etc.

[Anonymous No.3147874]

>>3147760

There's being a fanatic of scientism, and then there's disagreeing with the demonstrably false notion that science isn't knowledge/cannot impart knowledge/is basically a null concept with no meaning

[1488 No.3148043]

>>3147783

das ist gu, mein furher

[Anonymous No.3148081]

>>3139453
>open favorite philosopher thread
>mention rand
Cunning, OP. Cunning.

[Anonymous No.3148430]

wow my thread is still alive? neat.

[Anonymous No.3148438]

Theodor W. Adorno.

He's a cocksucker.

[Anonymous No.3148469]

>>3147760

Shh, you're done here.

[Anonymous No.3148474]

>>3148430
Why did you bump it, you insufferable faggot.

[Anonymous No.3149108]

>>3139532
Yes

[Anonymous No.3151659]

>>3148474
because im an insufferable faggot

[Anonymous No.3151682]

Sartre. Fuck Sartre. Bland philosopher, there's something about his personality that irritates me deeply. He also happens to be babby's first existentialist, and is commonly liked among posers and hipsters.

[Anonymous No.3151690]

>>3139453

why do you say that about Nietzsche and Rand? They are the two most influential philosophers of the last two centuries.

[Anonymous No.3151693]

>>3151690
they make bleeding heart liberals(most of /lit/) butthurt

[Anonymous No.3151710]

>>3139499
>I cannot into deism.

[Anonymous No.3151730]

If you didn't answer Foucault then you're an idiot

/thread