[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 6 KB, 480x360, 0-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3276719 No.3276719[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Apparently we can never be objective, science is based on assumptions, logic isn't logical, philosophy doesn't go anywhere, we can't know anything for sure, we can't be certain of anything.

What's the point of anything then? What's the point of trying to seek knowledge then? What's the point of it all? Should we all just forget this reasoning/logic/experimentation thing then?

>> No.3276728

>>3276719
sounds like you need to read some Camus or something.

>> No.3276730

Someone should make an existential crisis sticky

>> No.3276731

Better off just learning about yourself as well as you can, all for the building a better life for yourself and others around you. Infact I would slide away from all the reasoning stuff, relying on it makes you inert. Learn to pay mind to your intuitive side, don't ignore your emotions.

>> No.3276732

>>3276719
I fucking love you for using a picture from Limmy's Show.

>> No.3276734

What, so it's pointless because we can't find out everything?
Fuckin scientists. Only you could be this aspie.

>> No.3276742

Even if we could be objective, science was a science, logic was and there was an end to philosophy - what then? Why would it be any more or less meaningless? The "point" is no less arbitrary.

>> No.3276749
File: 221 KB, 1366x768, haghhh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3276749

>>3276719

>dee dee on /lit/

fuckin' . . .

>> No.3276753

>>3276749
dee dee is too deep. true /lit/izen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83ZFu1B4ZpQ

>> No.3276757

Am I the only person who didn't have an existential crisis after they began reading philosophy? I've read from the Greeks through the (early, very early) post-modernists and none of it really bothered me.

>> No.3276765

>>3276728
I guess I'll look that up

>>3276731
Not really interested in that stuff to be honest. I'm not ignoring my emotions, they're alright, but not as interesting as learning about reality

>>3276732
>>3276749
>>3276753

Always thought Dee Dee would fit right into /lit/

>>3276730
>>3276757
I don't think I'm having an existential crisis, I'm just a science student not wanting to waste my time on an apparently pointless endeavour. I'm just trying to figure out what the point of logic is, not the meaning of living/existing/doing anything

>>3276742
Sure but that's not my point. I mean if you were wanting to gain truth, apparently it's a meaningless endeavour (if you define meaningful as 'going somewhere'). You can give any kind of meaning to your life

>> No.3276774

>>3276765
Technically, no, you can't know that your senses aren't deceiving you.

But the same drive that makes you want to do science comes from those experiences you can't know are real.

So the urge you feel to do science in the first place? Equally real to the stuff you can't be sure about.

Also, worth noting: If you can't be sure about anything, you can't be sure you're doing science.

So basically, go for it. If it turns out none of the shit outside of yourself is real, then you weren't really wasting your time on science anyway, since you weren't doing anything at all.

>> No.3276783

>>3276734
No, not 'can't find out everything', but 'can't find out anything' (emphasis on 'anything'), which makes it seem pointless.

>>3276774
...I don't know, fuckin'...

What exactly am I doing? If reality doesn't exist, what's going on? (besides 'lel the matrix') what are the possibilities?

>> No.3276792

>there is no objective reality
stop with this nonsense

>> No.3276795

>>3276792
Who said that?

>> No.3276796

>>3276765
just because something is objectively pointless doesn't mean it has to be subjectively pointless.

>> No.3276797

>>3276765
It ain't a waste, nigga'! Did you stop at Hume? Get to Kant, he'll make you feel better.

>> No.3276806

>>3276757
My existential crisis was in its proper temporal location, when I was an angsty twelve year old.
Then I read the first meditation and was like "I totally could have wrote this"

And then I read the rest of the meditations. And then my existential woes were washed away by a pathos so pure and so clearly overwhelming that I devoted the rest of my life to science in the hopes that I could one day use my empirical knowledge to go back in time and have every philosopher to ever exist ever ridicule Descartes the entire time he was in isolation.

I would light a long tallow candle and dribble sweet hot wax unto Plato's sweet hot ass while softly reaming his immaculate Form. All the while screaming "HAS THIS WAX CHANGED? THIS WAX HAS CHANGED. WHERE IS YOUR GOD? WHERE THE FUCK IS YOUR GOD NOW, FAGGOT?"

And then I'd bring the big D to the future so he could witness a trainwreck, while I whisper softly into his ear "This is your brain on Christ."

>> No.3276872

>>3276796

The brigthest thing ever said.

>> No.3276901
File: 74 KB, 646x445, universeakinator.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3276901

OP, frustration only comes from the expectation not met.

Try to address the problem from a different angle. The issue is not that we can't get to a solid precise point, the issue is how come we ever thought we could?

We live in a utilitarian society, that came from an industrial context and snowball effects. You do things to "get somewhere" and the thing is that we take that from granted, we accept it as the only way. So when you realize there is no utility to utility and no logic to logic and no reason to reason and no emotion to emotion, it's a shock!

That is the absurd of death, that is the absurd of life. That is the very point in which you turn to do anything from the perspective of doing that something, not from what might come of it in the future. The effort is the result, the risk is gambling and playing, your life is for your own life.

When God died, when we cut some fantasies out of our frame of mind, other ones spawned, because we didn't understand what made the first one so strong. And then we feel naked and we are. You just have to overcome your frustration, that is, let go of the expectations you had before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uto0KeDsZ7A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8aIYX0TKxQ

>> No.3277065

>>3276901
So we just spend the rest of our lives as slaves to our pleasure chemicals in our brain, satisfying our need to play and be happy? Like animals.

>> No.3277077

>>3277065
We're animals, but aware that we're animals.

>> No.3277078

>>3277077
I thought we couldn't be aware of anything. Saying statements like 'we're animals, just that we're aware we're animals' means nothing, because apparently we can never grasp objective reality. It just makes any kind of belief meaningless.

>> No.3277081

i fucking hate when people use nihilism to justify hedonism. scum.

>> No.3277083

>>3277081
>i fucking hate when people use nihilism to justify hedonism.
"Life's a bitch and then you die, so fuck this world and lets get high."
-Diogenes

>> No.3277086

>>3277078
beliefs aren't objective, and what they're built on aren't objective
>animals
is just an arbitrary use-based set, ie subjective, and your relegating man to it or not is also based on subjective judgements and criteria

>> No.3277093

>>3276719
>Apparently we can never be objective, science is based on assumptions, logic isn't logical, philosophy doesn't go anywhere, we can't know anything for sure, we can't be certain of anything.

Nope. TL;DR: relativism is self-defeating nonsense.

"Relativism reduces every element of absoluteness to relativity while making a completely illogical exception in favor of this reduction itself. Fundamentally it consists in propounding the claim that there is no truth as if this were truth or in declaring it to be absolutely true that there is nothing but the relatively true; one might just as well say that there is no language or write that there is no writing. In short, every idea is reduced to a relativity of some sort, whether psychological, historical, or social; but the assertion nullifies itself by the fact that it too presents itself as a psychological, historical, or social relativity. The assertion nullifies itself if it is true and by nullifying itself logically proves thereby that it is false; its initial absurdity lies in the implicit claim to be unique in escaping, as if by enchantment, from a relativity that is declared to be the only possibility.
The axiom of relativism is that "one can never escape from human subjectivity"; if this is the case, the statement itself possesses no objective value, but falls under its own verdict. It is abundantly evident that man can escape subjectivity, for otherwise he would not be man; and the proof of this possibility is that we are able to conceive of both the subjective and the surpassing of the subjective. This subjectivity would not even be conceivable for a man who was totally enclosed in his subjectivity; an animal lives its subjectivity but does not conceive it, for unlike man it does not possess the gift of objectivity."

>> No.3277117

>>3276901 here

>>3277065
No. That's just hedonism that we create to oppose utilitarianism. That's extreme thinking once again, because of a hurry to find an answer on what leading a good life might mean. A hurry because we feel we cannot afford to "waste time", that is, still believing that it is possible to waste time, still utilitarian. So if I criticized an expectation, we ought to immediately go to the other extreme? Calm down.

And we are not slaves to the chemicals in our brains, we are those chemicals themselves. There is no relationship of authority between the abstractions of words, the emotions we feel and the physical counterpart of those things. They are analogue, parallel, not one telling the other what to do, but one and the same.

>> No.3277161

WAS FUCKIN', WATCHING THE TELLY,

AND THAT NEECH FELLA CAME ON, TALKIN ABOOT, FUCKIN' HOW THERE WASNAE A POINT TAE ANYHIN'

AND A SAYS TAE MA SEL', 'AYE YER RIGHT THERE PAL'

CAPTCHA: GAINLESS, FUCKIN' LIFE-GIVING

>> No.3277174

>>3277093
I don't understand this train of thought. Relativism doesn't have to be an objective truth, in fact, I think it shouldn't.

If everything is relative and subjective, then, as it is said, the knowledge that everything is subjective ought to follow that assumption too. And even though man has the ability to make an object out of his own vision, relativism merely advises one to be aware of how this object was first formed, from that relative point, so that, if something shows itself to be a different thing or if discussion arises, then one can be prepared to change its position without a traumatic shock. That is, blind objectivity can backfire, for the idea of an external object also makes an object out of us.

If "relativity is relative", then great, that's it. Maybe one day we'll grow tired of it and say fuck to relativity, but while we are at it, it is true. And I think a lot of the rejection towards relativity is also self-defeating and circular, because it puts a weight into words like "true" that is not to be seen for the other perspective. Objective truths are "heavy", they "matter", they impose themselves. And so when someone look at relativity as a claim based on "one can never escape...", one is also projecting that weight in those words, even though it's something that describes itself as weightless.

>> No.3277793

Is it true to say that science never claims to seek knowledge and truth, but to find predictive models of reality which grow more accurate or are tossed away if a more predictive model is found? Science never claims to seek truth or 'logic'? And it's based on the assumptions that reality exists, and that things can be repeated predictively, among other things?

>> No.3277804

>>3277117
Well, no I think we are slaves to the evolutionary algorithms that have shaped us, the intellectual part of us, the thing that differentiates us from animals, is always shackled by the need for pleasure, through reproduction, eating to survive, social bonds etc. We're a slave to our physical bodies. Instead of exercising intellect we'd just be living our lives as the vessel of genetic information that we are, instead of making more of ourselves.

What do you propose we do, if you don't like 'hedonism' and 'utilitarianism'?

>> No.3277831
File: 1015 KB, 300x240, 1356275558953.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3277831

>>3277793
Dude, it's all about what works. Religion, science, philosophy, broscience, whatever.

If you think it works, you'll stick to it. You pray and your happy and it's alright, then it's alright and that's the truth.

Science is about checking every little detail and being meticulous and stuff, so that you are "more right", which is just ridiculous. It's not more right, it just works more. And then it works so well because microwaves heat food like magic, that you begin to believe that's what reality is. Then an alien comes and tell you it's not like that at all and your microwave is child play and they fry you with a death ray.

Reality is what you can get away with. People are just mad that you can turn your tv and see a muslim, a christian, a buddhist, a scientist, a teenage singer sharing the same space. They are so confuse they need to be arseholes and so everyone needs to nitpick and be "just perfect" and make it work not just for themselves, but in a Fordian-like utilitarian mass structure of industrialization of your own petty little life.

If magically everyone thought Harvard sucked, your Harvard diploma wouldn't mean shit. If you were born in kansas and had creationism classes and saw Jesus riding a dinosaur when you were 2 years old, you'd probably accept it, because you are a dumb 2 years old.

We accept reality as it is presented to us. And the one we get now is a miscelaneous confusing thing, so you have to go around calling things bullshit to survive

>> No.3277887

>>3276792
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IVSmFC-rW0

>> No.3277933

>>3277831 here
>so you have to go around calling things bullshit to survive
I forgot my point: but you actually don't have to.

>> No.3278019

>>3277831
No I don't think that's what science is all about, science is about curiosity, first and foremost, and trying to figure out how things works, but a lot of science does have to do with checking every little detail (not all of it though)

>> No.3278045

>>3276719
>Should we all just forget this reasoning/logic/experimentation thing then?
The instrumental results of behaving "as-if" are beneficial, such as increased quality and length of life.

>> No.3278054

>>3278019
Yeah, sure, I was cutting it short for the most anal part of it. Just to make my point in a hyperbolic way.

>> No.3278069

There is freedom in pointlessness.

>> No.3278089

>>3278069

Pointless freedom

>> No.3278092

>>3276719
It works just fine for practical stuff. Other than that you should seek ataraxia.

>> No.3278103

Don't ask yourself what's the point of anything, ask yourself why anything is the point.

>> No.3278140

can we keep the angsty teen shit on /b/ please

>> No.3278148

>>3276719
>What's the point of anything then?

>he needs a predetermined function in life
>laughingexistentialists.jpg

>> No.3278155

>>3278140
>>3278148
Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, but I'm not looking for the meaning of life, but the meaning of seeking knowledge, 'all of it' referring to science and reasoning.

>> No.3278170

>>3278155
>the meaning of seeking knowledge, 'all of it' referring to science and reasoning.

Utility.
Survival.
Curiosity.

>> No.3278190

>>3278170
>utility
>survival
Not that interested in that

>curiosity
Yes that's why I'm interested, but apparently curiosity about how things work and the nature of reality will never be satisfied if knowledge and logic is impossible to grasp.

>> No.3278192

>>3278190

>never be satisfied

So what? It's the journey, cowboy.

>> No.3278201

>>3278192
The journey seems meaningless if what we're doing is all wrong.

>> No.3278207

>>3278201

If meaning and right/wrong go out the window, who cares? All we've got is the journey. You either enjoy it or find it miserable

>> No.3278205

>>3276719

>logic isn't logical

how so?

>> No.3278209

>>3278205
I don't know, it's what all these 'philosophers' say. Doesn't it seem contradictory to come to the logical conclusion that you cannot come to logical conclusions?

>> No.3278210

>>3278201
>The journey seems meaningless if what we're doing is all wrong.

what do you mean by meaning and meaningless? What do you imagine a meaningful journey would be like

>> No.3278216

>>3278210
One where what you're doing is the right way to go about trying to discern truth and reality (whether you get there or not).

>> No.3278232
File: 2.83 MB, 400x225, kinninarimasu2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3278232

>>3278155
Curiosity, motherfucker.

>> No.3278234

>>3278216

How would we know which way is right?

How do we know there's somewhere to get to?

>> No.3278240

>>3278232
Yes, and I'm saying you can't satisfy curiosity if you don't know how to go about trying to figure out how things work, since science is apparently wrong and completely uncertain.

>>3278234
Exactly

>> No.3278243

>>3278240

>Exactly

Exactly. We don't know. There's no way to answer those questions. There is only the journey and how you react to it.

>> No.3278251

Certainty is just a state of mind, anyone can be certain, religious people are certain all day.

Science isn't "all wrong", obviously it's onto something and understands something about reality...

>> No.3278257

>>3278243
But what journey? There doesn't seem to be a journey to take, the map's wrong. How can I enjoy the journey knowing that I don't know where the fuck I'm going and I'm apparently going the wrong way? Curiosity isn't satisfied unless you know how to try to figure things out

>>3278251
Religious people are certain based on nothing but feelings, and apparently, according to certain philosophers no one can ever come to even attempt to understand reality, and the scientific method is 'flawed', and my question was, if there's no chance, no certainty, no way, then what's the point of trying?

>> No.3278270

>>3278257
>what journey

It's called 'experience'

You're living it right now.

You don't have to know where you're going to enjoy it. The fact that you can't know where it's going simply means you either enjoy the ride or find it miserable, as I'm beginning to repeat ad vomitum

>> No.3278275

>>3278270
Eh? I'm not talking about life...I'm talking about the journey of trying to figure things out.

>> No.3278296

>>3278257
>.I'm talking about the journey of trying to figure things out.
>what's the point of trying

What makes something a "point" for you?
What does something have to have in order to be "meaningful"

>> No.3278301

>>3278296
I guess by meaningful I mean 'going somewhere', rather than just believing in fantasies.

>> No.3278307

>>3278275

The two are part of the same

>> No.3278316

>>3278301
>I guess by meaningful I mean 'going somewhere', rather than just believing in fantasies.

Then you are treating knowledge as a means to an end, what end? Power? Wisdom? Money?

All these will come to an end and will be lost.

If you value the knowledge just for itself then the journey is good, if you are using knowledge as a means to something else, then you are just building castles in the sky.

The world will end, all your failures and successes are nothing but transient experiences.

>> No.3278320

>>3278316
I just want to know for the sake of knowing, I'm curious, "how does this work?" "what's going on?" "What's really going on" I don't mind if this knowledge dies with me/the rest of humanity, I just want to know

How is the journey good? And what journey am I meant to take anyway? Apparently all paths are false.

>> No.3278325

>>3278320
>How is the journey good?

It's good by definition if you like it for itself.

>And what journey am I meant to take anyway?
>meant
>meant

Up to you. Nature will both influence and thwart your ambitions.

> Apparently all paths are false.

How do you figure? Is this a token of faith?

>> No.3278333

Stop trying to satisfy yourself, and the path will become clear.

All you're saying is "me, me, me , me me me"

>> No.3278339

Sing to the mystery of his blood.

>> No.3278341

>>3278333
Satisfying others is satisfying yourself too, you have just reprogrammed your selfishness into thinking that being altruistic is not selfish, when in truth it is even more selfish than base selfishness.

>> No.3278347

>>3278341
>Satisfying others is satisfying yourself too

Never said to satisfy others, that's the same bullshit as before.

Still thinking in terms of quenching desires, achieving knowledge, and trivial bullshit like that, just be.

Just be.
It's enough.
Or kill yourself, this is also acceptable.

>> No.3278348

>>3278347
You seem to think that you have "achieved knowledge" better than mine.

>> No.3278349

We try to do what makes us happy, OP, but most of us think too little about what it is that *really* makes us happy, and too much to seek happiness without deluding ourselves. Science, logic, philosophy, all these things are great tools for understanding ourselves and our world better, so that we may better use it to make ourselves happy. You can use meditation to cut through the bullshit you've been taught like that there is a 'point' to anything or that you have to succeed at some arbitrary thing to be happy, and you can use science and logic and philosophy to deepen your ability to gain happiness from experience.

>> No.3278355

Words make us forget what we really want.

We just want these things:

Knowledge of God, food, sex, shelter, comfort. Words complicate it all. As Derrida would say, death to philosophy and death to language will make mankind thrive.

>> No.3278358

>ITT
>Implying anything matters

>> No.3278359

>>3278355

Why bring God into it?

>> No.3278362

>>3278359

Cuz he's stupid. Notice he also mentioned Derrida. So mayhaps he's also a troll

>> No.3278363

>>3278359
Even animals think about God.

>> No.3278365

>>3278363

What?

>>3278362

Derrida was occasionally brilliant

>> No.3278369

>>3278365
You haven't read Derrida obviously.

>> No.3278373

>>3278369

I've read quite a bit of his work

I suspect much of what he says is satire

>> No.3278414

>>3276728
/thread

>> No.3278435

>>3276757
What if I had existential crisis long before reading philosophy?

>> No.3278460

>>3277804
But the thing is, you only think we are slaves of it because there is an idea that we could be "free" of it. That we could feel or think, that we could be who we are, outside of those "evolutionary algorithms". But that's not possible, that's us, that's the name of our freedom, so to speak. You're not obeying it as a law, you genuinely want this, you want to eat, you want the sex, you want to live. You feel it, you live it. The chemicals in your brain are you, they are your thoughts.

The pointlessness that OP points out is exactly the shock that comes when we find out what we really want. And so we can rationally imagine how it is to have it. Ok, so I had a great life, lots of women, lots of happiness, worked with what I wanted to work, knew what I wanted to know, it was all I ever wanted. So what? But my point is that this is a shock, not a permanent feeling and to make it so that one needs to go full hedonism is a regression. However, from now on, one can't go back, because one will be different even in that mundane pleasure.

What I propose is, first of all, not to propose anything and to settle down. Not to hurry up on having a solution, not expecting to know, not expecting to get "there", because "there" does not exist. And from this point, the things of life(whether it is the routine or the surprise, the pleasure of the now or the plan of the future) will hit you and you'll adapt yourself, not in conformity, but in a new way focused on what you reallywant.

>> No.3278479

>>3278460 here

One more thing on brain chemistry. It's all about identity. You know the selfish gene from Dawkins? Same thing. The species doesn't really what wants to survive, the individual is not really who wants to survive, the gene wants to survive and in the long run that affects how the individual functions and that will then affect how the collective will work and... survive. So even if you cant understand what death means, you'll avoid the fire instinctively.

With our own bodies it works in a similar way. You are not in a master-slave relationship, because your body chemicals is not of your concern, they take care of themselves as long as you take care of your attitude as an individual. You don't have sex to have kids, you do it because it's good and it's only good because it's important to the process of having kids. So you trick yourself, you wear a condom, you get the individual pleasure, but you deny the "pleasure" to your genes. And everything is alright. So if you're not studying neurology and you don't have an actual disease deserving of altering your brain chemistry through pills, then you shouldn't worry about who is the boss, as long as you take care of yourself. Not your brain, but your mind. Your brain will cover for you.

>> No.3278503

>>3276719
thinks absolute certain is even needed to get 99.9% of stuff done

phil can not into science, or spin/spout, statistically significant tails

>> No.3278522

Welcome to post-modernism OP, you're 40 years late.

>> No.3279407

>>3278460
I think you misunderstand what I meant by pointlessness, I didn't have a 'shock', I didn't mean it in the existential crisis kind of way, I meant what's the point of trying to figure things out if we don't even know how to go about figuring things out, rendering experimentation and reasoning 'pointless', this wasn't a discussion about nihilism and whatnot. I got over that 'so what?' feeling many years ago.

>>3278479
No, you are in a constant battle with your brain over cognitive biases, urges to do stupid stuff, illogical reasoning, addictive behaviour, distorted reality, that's what science is all about, scientists are in a constant struggle against their own brain in search for objectivity. Our brain is in control of us

>> No.3279463

>>3276719
You're not for Yoker. You've got no business being on this bus

>> No.3279588
File: 1.09 MB, 2048x1366, Baby's first existential crisis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3279588

>> No.3279601

>>3279407
I think you misunderstood what I said, man. It's not about nihilism, it just serves right what you are dealing with now as well. The drive for reason and experimentation is the same as the drive for everything else. That's why I say it's a shock, you are expecting a "point" in reason and experimentation that is not there.

It's not a battle against the brain, it's the brain against itself. But then again, it is still not a battle, not really "against", but a matter of making the best use of it. One of the strongest cognitive biases is exactly the one that wants to objectify things, know them, control them and maybe then we will be safe from their effect. That's the shock that I'm talking about. As one runs from "distorted reality", it creates a distorted reality: the idea that reality is straight and square, objective and true.

It's a huge endless discussion. If you allow me to use the word here in a new way, there is no "point" to it all, but there is a "field" in which you can live and study and learn and unlearn.

>> No.3279617

>>3279407
>No, you are in a constant battle with your brain over cognitive biases

unless you are suffering from some sort of brain damage, your brain doesn't work against you and it gives you will power to point it which ever way you want

>> No.3279623

>>3279588
This is a great chart in a terrible thread.

>> No.3279644

so much good points raised, bumping to read later

>> No.3279660

>>3279588
I'm not having an existential crisis though...

>>3279601
I don't doubt my drive to learn or be curious (and I accept that these are 'pointless'), I'm saying that there are no paths to doing it, not that there is 'no point' in doing it. I'm saying, 'doing what exactly'? That is my question, how do you learn about the world and reality, when apparently there are no ways to do so.

>>3279617
Simply not true, if you look into it most of your decisions are heavily influenced by subconscious factors you aren't even aware of.

>> No.3279681

The point is that you are human.

Even though we seek meaning, it is just a survival mechanism.

Of course, there isn't any "real" logic or meaning, but there is no shame in forming your own or going by normal human beliefs any more than there is shame in eating or breathing.

Does it make you happy to look for meaning?

Is is wrong for a dog to chase his tail if it entertains him?

All you can do is find what you like and build your mind around it. You don't HAVE TO do anything. It is a liberating feeling, really. There is no duty to seek knowlege. Just do it if you like to and enjoy the high you get from it. If you don't like it, take comfort in the fact that you are in no way inferior for not seeking it.

The journey is the objective. Relax and enjoy the ride (or tense up if you like thrillers, there is no correct way to live).

>> No.3279690

>>3279681

Eh? But my point is there are apparently no ways to seek knowledge, even though I want to (for fun and to satisfy curiosity, not for meaning in my life or because I have to). How do you seek knowledge when there are no ways to do so? Was my question.

>> No.3279693 [DELETED] 

>>3279660
>influenced by subconscious factors you aren't even aware of.

So? They're also influenced by the external world..."oh its raining, I dont feel like going out today"

suck it up

>> No.3279700

>>3279660
Sorry, I hadn't read this.

Anyway. it is true that we have very limited tools for leaning and thinking.

It is difficult to explain, but you just have to let it go.

There isn't really a purpose for human thought to be objective. We get results, and that is good enough. Arguably, there is no "real" universe for us to learn about. The real universe is nothing without beings to interpret it. You just have to take what you can get and treat the true truth as something to be sought after.

You can never have a full truth because things aren't single things. I believe that the closest to truth is in abstractions from logic. It is like seeing the world. You can travel and see most of it, but you won't ever see everything. That is fine, though, because even through your skewed view point, you can see something beautiful.

I suggest you read Bertrand Russel. He proposes a very good argument for your problem in Problems of Philosophy.

>> No.3279703

>>3279660

subconscious is a sunk-cost, it doesn't factor into decision making, it doesn't matter at all.

>> No.3279712

>>3279693
...But the other factors I talked of are the external world. And it's not you thinking it, it's completely behind the scenes. Your decisions are completely influenced by your environment interacting with your genetics, mostly in subtle ways you can't be aware of, but you feel as though you made those decisions solely on what you were aware of at the time.

>>3279703
This is just wrong. Look into it. Environmental factors that you're not aware of influence you and your decisions in strange and interesting ways, everything from the colour of a pill to what other people look like, to the weather, to what you ate, the list is endless. Scientists can tell what decision you're going to make around 6 seconds before you're even aware you came to a decision.

>>3279700
Very interesting, thanks

>> No.3279722

>>3279712
>Environmental factors that you're not aware of influence you and your decisions in strange and interesting ways

You're missing the point. The point is if it's a subconscious influence it means you aren't consciously aware of it, it doesn't factor into how you make your conscious decisions.

So if I'm choosing between A and B, I don't ask myself "well what are the subconscious influences operating here".

You can't know. By definition you can't become conscious of them. They don't factor into your overt decision making.

OF course they factor into it implicitly, without your knowledge, but they are a sunk-cost, they happen despite your efforts.

So you don't make decisions that take "subconscious" into account, you operate as if it doesn't even exist, it doesn't matter.

>> No.3279835

Even if scientific theories are doomed to always be incomplete and flawed, they still provide a useful model for explaining some aspects of our universe and predicting future behavior. When the model breaks down, we make a new one. There probably will never come a day when all of the scientists stand up and say "okay, we're done, let's all go home", but that's okay, nobody expects that anyway. All they really aspire to do is bring their flawed and incomplete models a little bit closer to reality.

>> No.3280076

>>3279690
Why not be complacent with "fake" knowledge?
Serious question - let's say you use scientific method to acquire surrogate of hypothetical-real™-unacquirable-knowledge. What's wrong with that?

exemplary argument why you could do just that:
because it's your subjective, personal wish(value), an expression of your will

>> No.3280081

>>3280076
(cont.)
also you seem distressed by not having something that never existed

it's like being angry with Santa

>> No.3280094

Have you seen 12 Angry Men?

Watch it. Truth and knowledge are like that.

>> No.3280657

>>3280076
>>3280081
What's wrong with it is that I may as well just make up stories about things, if it's not 'reallly real almost' knowledge, which makes the entire exercise of the applying the scientific method/logic pointless if I'm only going to get stories.

>> No.3280664

>>3280657
The scientific method may be an assumption, but it's an assumption that works very well in practice. Isn't that enough?

>> No.3280672

>>3280664
It could do, but as you can see my mind isn't entirely satisfied and content with that.

>> No.3280712

>>3280657
Knowledge is meaningless without missing that knowledge. We don't know just to know, we have a mystery to solve and we solve it when we are satisfied. When you face yourself with a problem, you think about it, you try a solution, you forget about it and try something else, until one day, it's no longer a problem in one way or another.

Today we clash with each other too much. You can't have your religion without someone clashing with your beliefs. You can't not have a religion without someone knocking at your door to preach. You can't have an opinion on life and feel good if on tv you see people with absolutely different and disgusting opinions talking about it.

You're not at ease because of that. It's not just to know or to find something that embraces everyone and everyone should agree, it's just about finding things out that can actually make us happier or at least satisfied. It's more of a solace than anything else.

Reality, life, whatever you call, hit us at once and no abstraction of the mind can go on about it with accuracy. That is, it doesn't matter if you don't know, things will happen around you and to you and from you. So if you can't find solace in the seek of knowledge anymore, then just don't go that route and enjoy life through other ways. And there are just too many other ways.

>> No.3280723

>>3280712 here

Let me put in another way. Focus on your satisfaction (not only talking about pleasure, but intellectual or perhaps spirtual satisfaction as well) and why you can't get it.

The question contains the solution. You are unsatisfied because
>What's the point of trying to seek knowledge then?
and you ponder:
>Should we all just forget this reasoning/logic/experimentation thing then?
And I'll say: would that suffice? Would forgetting reasoning and logic satisfy you? Maybe yes, maybe not. But either way, you don't need to be prescriptive about it, you can do that and other's won't subscribe to it and it's fine for them too.

If it doesn't satisfy you, what would? Forget about what's possible or not, what would satisfy you? If I said to you "the point of it is x" and I'm able to convince you, would that be enough and you would follow x?

Think on how the answer to your questions might appear like and it will be easier for you to find out the answer yourself.

>> No.3280737

>>3280712
But it's not the seeking of knowledge anymore.

No, nothing else will do, nothing else will make me enjoy life more than finding things out and solving things, but apparently we can't do that. What I want, at the end of the day, is to gain understanding and knowledge, I want to know how things work and at least be certain that I'm making increasingly accurate models of reality rather than not know at all if all that I learn about reality could well be far from the truth

>> No.3280773

Op. One thing of possible encouragement. Every individual works like a scientist in the world, in their own life. See every person's development from infant to adult. And it's the same with society. From ancient times to now and into the distant future. We definitely can't evolve meaningfully or constructively without some kind of a scienctific principle. How much does certainty and objective certainty really matter?

>> No.3280804

>>3280657
>What's wrong with it is that I may as well just make up stories about things,
yes, you could
yes, it's the end of my argument

It's all about subjective, artificial values.
I value scientific method because it satisfies my aesthetic sensibilities the most out of all modes of inquiry (is 'fun' in a hedonistic kind of way - satisfaction of curiosity, actual RL application and the like) and scientific method's status in our society gives the whole, lets call it fashion of inquiry, very good perspectives of continuing to satisfy me in the future. One thing is sure - scientific method discovers SOMETHING - some kind of relations, rules that create a system that can be explored. How this system relates to some hypothetical Ultimate Truth™ is of no interest to me. I like what I got.

>makes the entire exercise of the applying the scientific method/logic pointless
>pointless
By pointless you mean not leading to some Ultimately™ Meaningful™ point. That's because there is no such point. But scientific method can lead ELSEWHERE, just not that one pet thing which for, all we can tell, is nonsensical.