Why aren't you a Marxist historian, /lit/?

File: 31 KB, 570x456, hobsbawm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue May 7 15:53:00 2013 No.3733671 [Reply] [Original]

Why aren't you a Marxist historian, /lit/?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 15:59:59 2013 No.3733688 whats left to research about the hardcoded fate of capitalist society?

Anonymous Tue May 7 16:07:59 2013 No.3733713
File: 6 KB, 150x224, 150px-White-Metahistory.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3733671

Because then I'd have to do some actual work, like statistical analysis and shizzle. When you're a Post-Modernist you can just shout 'epistemic nihilism' and carry on sleeping 16 hours a day.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 16:17:59 2013 No.3733749 >>3733671 Because I'm not a pseudoscientist.

>>	omnihil !!GzNJ8pvzeQc Tue May 7 16:24:00 2013 No.3733775 File: 34 KB, 470x356, Julia Zemiro.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3733688 >Marxist historian >whats left to research about the hardcoded fate of capitalist society? >whats left Get it? Get it?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 16:25:59 2013 No.3733781 File: 27 KB, 460x276, EP-Thompson-010.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Dudes got some wicked hair too

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 16:26:59 2013 No.3733783 >>3733713 Made my day

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 16:26:59 2013 No.3733787 >>3733781 Oops, read that as who's your favourite Marxist historian. I'll be leaving /lit/ forever now

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 16:29:59 2013 No.3733795 Because it often amounts to becoming an apologist for Stalin.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 16:31:59 2013 No.3733799 >>3733671 Because I'm not a historian, silly billy. Though I do love to read and learn about history :)

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 16:32:59 2013 No.3733804 >>3733795 No. Now back to pol, plieb

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 16:36:59 2013 No.3733814 >>3733804 >No. Lol, okay.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 18:06:59 2013 No.3734133 >>3733713 >marxism >statistical analysis >marxism using any empirical facts haha good one

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 18:10:00 2013 No.3734147 >>3733749 This. Everything Marxist historians have claimed has proven to be wrong

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 18:13:59 2013 No.3734156 >>3734147 Please provide your list of every single thing Marxist historians have ever claimed.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 18:19:59 2013 No.3734173 File: 105 KB, 1045x535, hacks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Because being a lapdog for exploded political-economic theories is just stupid

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 18:20:59 2013 No.3734178 >>3733749 >>3734133 >>3734147 Looks like we got ourselves some real 'Murricans here. Yeehaw!

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 18:21:59 2013 No.3734185 Because it's bullshit like anything else associated with Hegel.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 18:22:59 2013 No.3734187 >>3734133 >statics >empirical facts rofl, bunch of unfalsifiable bullshit

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 18:24:01 2013 No.3734195 >>3733713 >Marxism >postmodernism pick 1, also enjoy that 9-5 either be unemployed or be a billionaire entrepreneur no exceptions

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 18:25:59 2013 No.3734199 If it's atheism it's wrong. also >implying it is a science or claims to be one >implying not being a science is a bad thign

Anonymous Tue May 7 18:31:59 2013 No.3734215

"There is no history of mankind, there is only an indefinite number of histories of all kinds of aspects of human life. And one of these is the history of political power. This is elevated into the history of the world. But this, I hold, is an offence against every decent conception of mankind." -Karl Popper

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 18:43:59 2013 No.3734260 >>3734215 karl pooper

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 18:45:59 2013 No.3734270 >>3733781 how do i get my hair to be like that i've noticed that Jewish intellectuals have awesome hair if they aren't bald and i have jewish ancestry so....

Anonymous Tue May 7 19:14:59 2013 No.3734401

>>3734147
And said claims are...?

There are tons of valid critiques of the Marxist school in history, but they are some damn good historians. See OP, Eric Hobsbawm. Pick up any of his books, and see if you are so interested in refuting his view of things.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 19:25:59 2013 No.3734443 >>3733671 I'm sure there are plenty of those Markist Histians or whatever already doing their thing.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 19:46:02 2013 No.3734510 Why do I have to give him credit for everything? Marx this Marxist that. I'm not serving the spectre of his ego anymore. He is dead.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 19:50:02 2013 No.3734528 >>3734510 Atheist detected

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 19:52:59 2013 No.3734537 >>3734510 He's alive in our hearts?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 19:55:59 2013 No.3734553 >>3734537 I think that's called an inmarxion

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:03:59 2013 No.3734588 >>3733671 I try to avoid anything kosher. >inb4 /pol/

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:13:59 2013 No.3734629 File: 155 KB, 576x1659, huehuehue.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] What's a marxist historian? Is it an historian with a certain type of facial hair? What's even the point of studying history?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:15:59 2013 No.3734635 Because economic class is a relatively poor utility for the analysis of historical civilizations and world-systems

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:17:00 2013 No.3734645 These days it's all about historiography

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:18:00 2013 No.3734649 >>3734629 >What's even the point of studying history? Come on now >your pic Oh, also don't go to /sci/ we don't want more science fans like you.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:20:59 2013 No.3734656 >>3734629 >What's even the point of studying history? Do judge society's progress and happiness relative to other times, so we can know what to change to make us happier.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:21:59 2013 No.3734659 >>3734656 >still believing in teleology >2013

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:24:59 2013 No.3734668 File: 56 KB, 475x624, walt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3734270 Fuckin' seriously.

Anonymous Tue May 7 20:24:59 2013 No.3734669

>>3734629
Basically a marxist historian concentrates on the role of economy in the development of historical events.

While liberal historians look for the role of character and culture and ideologies, and conservative historians focus on power struggles of the elite, the marxist historian looks at the relationship between economy and history.

Naturally today these are position that you rarely meet in isolation.

Anonymous Tue May 7 20:25:59 2013 No.3734675

>>3734649
That's not a reply dood.
This guy knows what's up for example: >>3734656

>Oh, also don't go to /sci/ we don't want more science fans like you.
Too late. I go wherever I want. Hahaha. The internets are mine.

>>3734656
Seems like bullshit to me.
Society doesn't exist in a vacuum.
You have to account for environmental variables and also human variability.
A society of dwarves won't behave the same as a society of giants if placed in the same environmental conditions.

Since human diversity is constantly evolving, why do you think knowledge of how ancient humans societies worked would help in any way with the current ones?
Your "us" isn't a constant sadly.

Also, why is "happier" a worthwhile goal?
Is hedonism at the root of the study of history?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:26:59 2013 No.3734680 >>3734659 Oh shut up, he asked me what it's telos was.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:26:59 2013 No.3734681 >>3734669 Why not just call them "historians of the economy"? What's the point of studying history or economics when you could be studying a science like human ecology and determine the actual parameters of the workings of an human population?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:27:59 2013 No.3734684 >>3734270 If I don't dry it my hair becomes like that. I think that's more of a mittel-european/balkans thing. I'm not jewish but my mother comes from eastern europe.

Anonymous Tue May 7 20:28:59 2013 No.3734687

>>3734680
I believe that's not what they mean.
Your view of what the goals of history is is teleologic.
Humanity isn't going in particular places. No such thing as "progress". It's all about struggle cracka.
i think that's the issue with marxism, or am I mistaken?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:35:59 2013 No.3734709 >>3734681 Scientism pls go.

Anonymous Tue May 7 20:36:59 2013 No.3734714

>>3734681
>Why not just call them "historians of the economy"?

Because Marx invented it and until the 1970s most people despised the idea of history being determined by market forces. Most of the right was either subscribing to the myth of the great personality or the self made man or to some sort of biological determinism.

Things started to change with the further mathematization of economics and, yes ironically, structuralism.

>What's the point of studying history or economics when you could be studying a science like human ecology and determine the actual parameters of the workings of an human population?

Because they are a fad with a theoretically shaky foundation and people will realize soon enough that:

1) Huge amount of data with very little ideas are useless.
2) What all schools sooner or latter learn: that one approach to humanity is never enough to explain appropriately.

Anonymous Tue May 7 20:36:59 2013 No.3734720

>>3734687

Yeah that's the issue with Marxism, and Hegelianism going even farther back, is that in the postmodernist condition we've become suspicious as fuck of teleology but we love hoop jumping so we've had some wonderful people jump through some wonderful hoops in order to reconcile Marx-Hegel with postmodernism.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:37:59 2013 No.3734724 >>3734659 >teleology >wrong ROFL

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:39:59 2013 No.3734731 The purpose of studying history is to know history. Stop questing things before I kill you.

Anonymous Tue May 7 20:42:59 2013 No.3734738

>>3734714
>mathematization of economic
Is this supposed to be a good thing? Game theory is also incredibly arbitrary and they don't seem to realize that. Stupid applied mathematicians.

>history determined by market forces
lol

>implying history is determined by anything and isn't emergent

Anonymous Tue May 7 20:43:59 2013 No.3734742

>>3734687
Well it's one of the problems, but then you would have to say that it's one of the problems of liberalism both in its progressive and conservative side.

Democrats tell you a story of greater and greater expansion of rights and republicans tell you that the market is making us richer and richer. These are as much teleological narratives as marxism.

But so are also other pessimist teleologies like the eco-disaster theories or the decline of civilizations that Spengler inspired conservatives declaim.

What I mean is: teleologies are suspect, but don't make a theory immediately wrong (for example I believe that an eco-disaster is foreseeable in the future unless we do a great leap in technology).

Rather the problem of Marxism is that it has, by our standard not the 18th century standards, a bad economic theory. Its whole value theory for example cannot be made sense of for example even if many incredibly talented economists have tried to (like sraffa).

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:43:59 2013 No.3734743 Marx was a bitter poor guy who invented a philosophy to explain why the world was fucking him.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:44:59 2013 No.3734745 >>3734731 what concern of mine is it to know what happened yesterday or a thousand years ago unless it is relevant to me in the present? history has multiple purposes, but must be attached to use value somehow.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:45:59 2013 No.3734747 >>3734743 >marx >poor

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:46:59 2013 No.3734752 >>3734738 My post did not make any value judgments. It just explained why it was called marxist and what factors brought that resistance down.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:47:59 2013 No.3734755 >>3734752 ur mom is a value judgement

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:47:59 2013 No.3734757 >>3734743 Marx died poor because he was in exile, but he was originally middle class.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:49:59 2013 No.3734762 >>3734755 yo mama's so fat that when she gave u birth she went into surplus-labor

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:54:59 2013 No.3734776 File: 80 KB, 400x400, 27692504.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3734762 I'm havin' a giggle m8.

Anonymous Tue May 7 20:55:59 2013 No.3734778

>>3734709
I should read into scientism. It seems like fun and to stick with my type of stuck-up, misanthropic, all-around-annoying personality.

>>3734714
Oh I guess that's a reason.
It just seems so impractical, linguistically-speaking.
I mean, x after an r, really?

>Most of the right was either subscribing to the myth of the great personality or the self made man or to some sort of biological determinism.
How come marxist history still exists?
I thought history was written by the winners.
Or is marxist history that one special part of history for sore losers who can't move on?

>1) Huge amount of data with very little ideas are useless.
There's never enough data.
A lot of ideas with no data is not only useless but dangerous.

>2) What all schools sooner or latter learn: that one approach to humanity is never enough to explain appropriately.
Say what?
Humans are just animals you know.
It's not like they were complex things, they've only been around since a few thousands of years, nothing like the complexity of geology or chemistry.

>>3734731
Hum... Okay...

>>3734742
Why not just stick to reality?
You don't need to make up things all the damn time. That's the issue with the humanities, they don't understand that, yes, reality is amazing enough on its own.
Reading all that fiction completely perturbed
them.

>implying a punny human being with an infinitely simple brain could develop something as incredibly complex as reality
All fiction writers are good for is pulling the strings that they know you're made of as much as they're made of, doesn't make them any more special than any other human compared to say, a biochemical pathway that existed millions of years ago and will keep existing after each of their writing has been completely forgotten.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 20:56:59 2013 No.3734782 >>3734778 No, humans are not just animals. How old are you?

Anonymous Tue May 7 20:59:59 2013 No.3734786

>>3734745
You cannot understand present conditions without exploring their pasts. History is less about "use value" and more about understanding how things work -- culture, economy, politics etc. -- and how these things emerged in particular ways, continuing to exert their legacies in the present.

If you're the type of person who believes that learning has to give you something other than a greater understanding of the world, well, there are few answers that will satisfy you.

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:03:59 2013 No.3734793

>>3734675
>Since human diversity is constantly evolving, why do you think knowledge of how ancient humans societies worked would help in any way with the current ones?
>Your "us" isn't a constant sadly
This, interestingly, is exactly what you learn by doing history. People, societies, thoughts, everything, change, and anyone advocating any kind of simplistic 'learning from the past' is probably trying to sell you something. 'Evolving' is an extremely loaded way of putting it, though- makes me think of Social Darwinism.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:05:59 2013 No.3734796 >>3734782 Prove it then. Humans conform to all the characteristics of Metazoa, they've evolved from them, hence they are animals. >2013 >evolution denial

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:08:00 2013 No.3734809

>>3734793
I didn't learn much history and I already know that.
Can I just skip the rest then since that's all you can learn?

>'Evolving' is an extremely loaded way of putting it, though
It just means what it means though.
Human beings evolve.
Expecting biologically different populations to behave the same way in the same environmental conditions is a strange thing to do.
Then there's the second issue of changing environmental conditions.
Of course you can approximate all of that while you fix your time period...

If societies are the emergent properties of human populations which are populations of biological objects, then societies are also biological objects, and evolution has effects on them, indirectly.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:12:59 2013 No.3734817 >>3734796 Not much for reading comprehension are ya? Btw reading dawkins doesn't you mean know shit about evolution, you dumbass neo-darwinist.

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:12:59 2013 No.3734820

>>3734778
>How come marxist history still exists?
>I thought history was written by the winners.
>Or is marxist history that one special part of history for sore losers who can't move on?

There are very few people today that call themselves marxist historians. But the idea of study historical development in the contest of economics was a good idea and people acquired the instrument learning how to use it for their own needs.

>There's never enough data. A lot of ideas with no data is not only useless but dangerous.

So what's the data to support this?

>Humans are just animals you know.
It's not like they were complex things, they've only been around since a few thousands of years, nothing like the complexity of geology or chemistry.

Humans are self-reflexive animals on which you cannot do reproducible experiments because you cannot control the background. What this mean: they are not only an object that behaves according to outside stimuli, but also by inside stimuli. The complexity is immense.

>Why not just stick to reality?

Because history books are books. They cannot stick with reality in the same way you cannot make a 1:1 map of the empire.

If you write a book you are already making a series of selective judgments, shortcuts and readings. Reality does not speak, when you write a book or coming up with a judgment you are imposing an interpretation on reality. Some are better some are worse, but there is no just giving reality.

>a biochemical pathway that existed millions of years ago and will keep existing after each of their writing has been completely forgotten.

Some pathways have existed for million of years, but every day you construct new pathways. That's what you ignore. Human being constantly reshape their brain both in deep and superficial degrees. If this was not so humans would never learn to bike. What is biking afterall? The construction of pathways so deep that allow us to make all the complex movements that allow us to balance on wheels.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:13:00 2013 No.3734824 >>3734809 There are no such things as a "biological object" Go back to /pol/ society is a social construct and not a biological construct.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:14:00 2013 No.3734828 >>3734809 >Can I just skip the rest then since that's all you can learn? No. Well, you can, of course... nobody's going to force you to learn history. But that's not all you learn, no.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:16:02 2013 No.3734834 >>3734796 >science >proving things rofl, dumbass positivist

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:16:02 2013 No.3734839

>>3734817
>implying I've read Dawkins
What's up with all the personal assumptions?
I've followed college classes on evolutions.

If humans are not "just animals", then what are they?
"Not animals".
"Animals but also something else" (which is completely idiotic as "animal" refers to "Metazoa" which is a large group including many different phylogenetic groups, and not a single organism can be classified as "only animal" or "just animal".
"Unjust animal"? As in unlawful? What does this have to do with my argument then?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:18:59 2013 No.3734847 >>3734839 >I've followed college classes on evolutions. It shows, quality education right there. Tell me, how old are you and where do you live?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:20:00 2013 No.3734852 >>3734847 Not that anon, but if you are going to argue on the internet could you maybe stop ad hominemming quite so hard and engage with something anon actually says?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:22:59 2013 No.3734861 File: 6 KB, 274x184, 1if only you knew how retarded you sound.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3734852 >dood

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:22:59 2013 No.3734866

>>3734839
We have self-consciousness and we have a history and we have written language and technology.
We can trick and deny instinct, we are not influenced only by our surroundings but also by what happened before we were even born.

The way I speak, the women I fuck, the money I make, the games, I play, the clothes I buy or even the cities I live and how many children I will have can be different from yours just because I was born in a rich family or a poor one, because my parents were first generation immigrants or natives, because I went to an elite school or barely graduated from hs.

That's what is different, and it's shortsighted to underestimate this.

Or for example I can decide, as I did, not to have children for moral reasons. Which is something animals don't do.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:23:59 2013 No.3734867 >>3734839 >>3734839 How's that low iq treating you? babby cant handle hard science. Enjoy your pseudoscience. Answer the question you dumb bitch! how old are you and where do you live?

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:23:59 2013 No.3734868

>>3734820
>So what's the data to support this?
Ironically it's historical data.
Ideas such as the ones underlying Stalin's, Mao or Pol Pot regimes, Lysenkoism, or Aryan vs Jewish science...

Ideas with no data support => bad science.

>Humans are self-reflexive animals on which you cannot do reproducible experiments because you cannot control the background.
>implying you can ever control the background of anything
You think humans have a control of the universe?
Didn't I tell you how puny we are?
It's all a matter of scales. Statistics help also.
More data = better, more solid results.

>The complexity is immense.
It's tiny compared to the complexity of the whole universe, or the complexity of the whole planet.

> they are not only an object that behaves according to outside stimuli, but also by inside stimuli.
Like everything else.
What's inside a molecule? Atoms. What's inside atoms? Protons, neutrons, electrons.
What's inside protons, neutrons, electrons? Quarks and shit probably. What's inside that? No fucking clue honestly.
=> everything has an inside and an outside except for exotic geometric bullshit.

>Some pathways have existed for million of years, but every day you construct new pathways. That's what you ignore.
I don't, I'm just saying that complexity is tiny compared to the rest.
Thinking you can find in a book what you can find outside of a book is silly.

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:25:59 2013 No.3734874

>>3734824
>society is a social construct
>what is society constructed of
>society
>hum okay
>nevermind

>>3734834
>implying science isn't all about proving that things are not true
>implying I didn't just ask him to prove me that humans aren't animals
>implying that's not exactly what science does, rejecting hypotheses with experiments

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:26:59 2013 No.3734876

>>3734809
Your first mistake is to think that biological evolution in human populations occurs quickly or dramatic enough to warrant the kind of historical cuts you are implying (EG: ancient history is no longer relevant because humans evolved). The last human biological evolution was lactase persistence, approx 10k years ago. The ability to digest dairy products doesn't mean historical knowledge is irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:27:59 2013 No.3734881 >>3734867 32 years old. New York, New York 304 Boerum Street. I will await you, nude. We will settle this like faggots.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:28:59 2013 No.3734883 >>3734847 22, France, near Paris. I study in an university tied to one of the oldest natural museum in the world, so I think they're pretty solid. Especially since classification was pretty much invented here.

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:29:00 2013 No.3734887

>>3734868
Hisortry never claimed itself to be a science and it not being a science isn't a bad thing. Science is overrated.

>aryan science
>jewish science
wat

>You think humans have a control of the universe?
Damn right.

>Didn't I tell you how puny we are?
Coming from a stupid little kid like you? rofl

>It's all a matter of scales. Statistics help also.
Scale is meaningless, we determine the meaning and relativity of scale. Statistics is overrated, and mostly misused.

>data
I don't think you know what that word means.

Who gives a shit about results?

We determine the complexity of things. If we say humans are more complex then they are more complex. Btw more complexity does not harder to explain.

>=> everything has an inside and an outside except for exotic geometric bullshit.
You're so fucking dumb. Please tell me where you live so I can find you and kill you.

>Thinking you can find in a book what you can find outside of a book is silly.
Shows with the fact you don't know anything more than 1 + 1 = 2.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:29:59 2013 No.3734889 >>3734881 10/10 yet another /lit/ argument ends in mansex.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:30:59 2013 No.3734891 >>3734874 >dood >hum okay >dood >hum okay >dood >hum okay Your IQ must be in the low 70s. You preteen retard. >rejecting hypothesises with experiments rofl

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:31:59 2013 No.3734897 >>3734782 A Platypus is not just and animal. It is also a platypus.

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:33:59 2013 No.3734905

>>3734866
>self-consciousness
So do non-human primates.
>history
So do a wide range of non-human animals.
>written language
Not a lot of non-human animals have hands, but plenty of animals have complex languages using things we are completely unable to use, for example ultrasons or chemical signals.

>We can trick and deny instinct
What does that mean?
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't even know how to define or delimit "instinct"?

>we are not influenced only by our surroundings but also by what happened before we were even born.
Because you think species which have evolved since millions of years weren't influenced by that past?
What is genetics?

>The way I speak, the women I fuck, the money I make, the games, I play, the clothes I buy or even the cities I live and how many children I will have can be different from yours just because I was born in a rich family or a poor one, because my parents were first generation immigrants or natives, because I went to an elite school or barely graduated from hs.
Protip:
All this boils down to (subtle) biological differences. Slightly smarter people make more money/are more capable of surviving in a given environment...

>Which is something animals don't do.
Animals have moral reasons. I'm not sure whether animals practice contraception or not, but I think that can be found.

You wouldn't have those choices if you weren't biologically-determined to have these.
If you didn't have as big a brain and as developed of a cortex you wouldn't give a damn about "morals" and you wouldn't even know what "morals" mean.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:33:59 2013 No.3734906 >>3734889 This is a satire. The poster (me) is implying that if you argue on the internet and act hostile then you must be a faggot.

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:33:59 2013 No.3734907

>>3734897
U mad evolutionist? how does it feel that biology does nothing to help humanity? the only thing from science that helps humanity is physics and engineering.

muh technology

>A Platypus is not *just* and animal. It is also a platypus.
That is also a legitimate argument, deal with it dumb evolutionist.

go live in a cave if you want to be an animal so bad

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:34:59 2013 No.3734909

>>3734868
>Ironically it's historical data.
>Ideas such as the ones underlying Stalin's, Mao or Pol Pot regimes, Lysenkoism, or Aryan vs Jewish science...
>Ideas with no data support => bad science.

But you are doing the same thing. You are cherry picking. What about the other ideas that weren't supported by data and where pretty successful. Humanism, democracy, traveling west to the indies. I want to see the data before you make any further statements. Give me a spreadsheet to prove this.

>More data = better, more solid results.

Except quantitative research is doing still really bad in sociology and thus this is another one of those "unproven ideas" that you were attacking.
And quantitative methods in sociology are doing bad not because we don't have enough data but because there are structural problems.

One structural problem is that human reality changes. You can do a study in the 80s about distribution patterns of subcultures and 20 years later thanks to the internet is not valid any more no matter how much data you had back then.

>It's tiny compared to the complexity of the whole universe, or the complexity of the whole planet.

No because rocks don't have an interiority. That's a very big problem. But you are not going to understand this.

>I don't, I'm just saying that complexity is tiny compared to the rest.

Then why can we make better predictions in physics than in sociology?

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:35:59 2013 No.3734914

>>3734876
>The last human biological evolution was lactase persistence, approx 10k years ago.
>The last human biological evolution (that you know of) was lactase persistence, approx 10k years ago.
Fixed that for you buddy.

Epigenetics are drastically changing who we are from one generation to the other.
Nutrition is incredibly important for the development of the brain, your height, your physical and intellectual capacity.
This means that two human populations submitted to differences in regimes during a short period will be drastically different.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:36:59 2013 No.3734917 >>3734881 Hahah you live near me. I live at the lorimer stop. I'm >>3734820

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:37:59 2013 No.3734923

>>3734905
Their self-consciousness is limited.

Instinct is an overrated term. The fact animals can do some things that humans can do (without a thought) doesn't mean anything.

>Animals have moral reasons.
No they don't.

>biological determinism
go back to /x/
that isn't a even a actual concept, what you are looking for is "genetic determinism" (more unfalsifiable bullshit)

>If you didn't have as big a brain and as developed of a cortex you wouldn't give a damn about "morals" and you wouldn't even know what "morals" mean.

How am I supposed to take your argument seriously when you don't even realize that it has to do with efficiency and not size of brain? I bet you still think a human with a bigger brain is smarter than another human with a smaller one.

Moral nihilism is for dolts and people who wanted to get killed by us righteous.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:38:59 2013 No.3734925 >>3734914 >what is neuroplasticity

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:38:59 2013 No.3734926

>>3734866
Your problem is one of two things:

1. you actually deny evolution, which means we are done here.

2. your definition of animal is arbitrarily limited to just below human. Can you justify why and animals cant have self consciousness, history, morals, games? This may seems obvious to you but really question why those things make something more than an animal. Animal is a big word, bro; embrace all its facets and complexities/

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:38:59 2013 No.3734927

>>3734887
>aryan science
>jewish science
wat

Nazi beliefs that the then-developing physics under the lead of certain Jewish people was "Jewish science" and hence less valid/not valid at all because not "Aryan science".

Typical example of an idea with no data to back it up...

>Damn right.
Call me when you manage to control all the molecules of your body.

>Scale is meaningless, we determine the meaning and relativity of scale. Statistics is overrated, and mostly misused.
I'm glad you manage to dismiss everything and anything as irrelevant.

>We determine the complexity of things. If we say humans are more complex then they are more complex.
That's not how reality works. That's called wishful thinking.

>You're so fucking dumb. Please tell me where you live so I can find you and kill you.
Man you're great at this "debate" deal, aren't you?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:39:59 2013 No.3734931 This thread confirms that people who live in big city are ivory tower retards with no real understanding of anything.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:40:59 2013 No.3734936 >>3734926 Evolution is a loaded term and no one is denying it. Some are just denying the pseudo-science of darwinism and the limits of natural selection.

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:41:00 2013 No.3734939

>>3734907
First off if engineering and physics can be separated out then so can chemistry. Really? Chemistry hasn't helped anything? Ok. you're obviously mental. For those of you who aren't masturbating in their own shit (and this from the man who ISN'T an animal) please see: Biological Chemistry.

Also... are humans who live in caves animals?

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:41:00 2013 No.3734942

>>3734927
>Call me when you manage to control all the molecules of your body.

I just took a shit all over you. There boom done.

>That's not how reality works. That's called wishful thinking.
Get a load of this retard objectivist. Look, if you don't accept I'll just kill you then.

Your low IQ is showing, debates for low IQ retards.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:43:59 2013 No.3734945 >>3734931 Could you label the Rural, urban, and suburban posts for me? I am having a hard time getting my 4chan GPS to work...

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:43:59 2013 No.3734946

>>3734939
>what is acting like an animal
Look, go ahead and claim monkeys have morals and self-consciousness, the still act like a bunch of monkeys.

Chemistry is just a bunch of bullshit memorization. Come back when it requires you to have an IQ above 140.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:43:59 2013 No.3734948 >>3734945 I'd shoot you in the groin area and make you suffer.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:45:00 2013 No.3734952 File: 862 KB, 500x500, 1361403148372.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3734907 MFW I realized this man is allowed to vote...

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:46:00 2013 No.3734955 >>3734952 >capitalizes "mfw" and doesn't even greentext it >posts a reaction image >thinks voting means anything le newfag face

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:46:00 2013 No.3734959

>>3734909

>But you are doing the same thing. You are cherry picking.
Everything is cherry picking and also opinion.

>What about the other ideas that weren't supported by data and where pretty successful.
Coincidences.

>Humanism, democracy
I don't see that as successful but if you say so.
I'd think somebody would have an hard time demonstrating that any sort of measurable success can be pinpointed on the vague idea of "humanism" or on the idea of "democracy".

>Except quantitative research is doing still really bad in sociology and thus this is another one of those "unproven ideas" that you were attacking.
How long has it been used?
Let's talk data now.
Sociology has been around since what, 200 years?
Quantitative sociology has been around since 30 or 40 years, as a guess?

>You can do a study in the 80s about distribution patterns of subcultures and 20 years later thanks to the internet is not valid any more no matter how much data you had back then.
It can still be valid.
Human cranes discovered in the 19th century can still be studied now to find out more things about the Neolithic or the ancestors of Homo Sapiens...

Human populations have changed biologically so of course the society itself has changed, it does not necessarily mean that the model you build from the data is wrong.

For example if you calculate the orbits of Mercury now you'll have a result which will not be the same as the one you'll have in 10 or 40 years. Man built a model to describe those orbits and which roughly works and will keep working...
That's physics for you.

>Then why can we make better predictions in physics than in sociology?
Physics has been around since way longer, and has started being quantitative since way longer.
You can't have models without data.
You can't have predictions without models...

>No because rocks don't have an interiority.
Rocks are made of smaller components which are made of smaller components which are made of smaller components...

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:48:59 2013 No.3734963

>>3734925
What's the relevance of your post to mine exactly?
How is neuroplasticity relevant to the size of one's brain?
How is neuroplasticity relevant to the weight of one's body?

Is a society of morbidly obese people equivalent to a society of average-sized people?
How does neuroplasticity come into play here, care to explain?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:49:59 2013 No.3734966 >>3734926 Thanks for that. Being an animal is pretty cool. We can't do cool stuff like pathogenesis but we still have a few tricks.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:49:59 2013 No.3734968 >>3734959 >Everything is cherry picking and also opinion. Exactly what I'd except from some teenager that calls himself a "misanthrope" Really your post (and posts) reeks of idiocy.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:50:59 2013 No.3734974 >>3734968 Can you point out the idiocy please? I see a lot of name-calling but I don't see a whole lot of arguments.

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:51:00 2013 No.3734977

>>3734963
size of the brain means jack shit when it comes to intelligence

you are misuing the terms epigentics and nutrtion

neuroplasticity you idiot, there have been studies that show that people who study for the lsat have changes in their brain

the fuck are you going on about you nutcase

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:51:00 2013 No.3734981 >>3734974 You call your posts "arguments"? Oh my, how debate has fallen.

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:52:00 2013 No.3734982

>>3734946
oh no... you didn't take any chemistry beyond junior high. I'm so sorry, I thought I was talking to an adult....

also you didn't address my point. You are making the claim that Doctors and pharmaceuticals haven't done anything good. GMO food saving billions of lives and refining (and creating) fuels in new and powerful ways pale in comparison the the value of a gameboy. And your evidence for such a bold claim? "Come back when it requires you to have an IQ above 140."................. yes... because this is relevant... come back when your testicles have descended. terefna persons

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:52:00 2013 No.3734986

>>3734905
>So do a wide range of non-human animals.
They have a historical conscience?

>Not a lot of non-human animals have hands, but plenty of animals have complex languages using things we are completely unable to use, for example ultrasons or chemical signals.

The part that it is important is that writing persists for centuries or even millennia. We wouldn't have modern medicine if the treaties of galen went lost.

>I'm pretty sure you wouldn't even know how to define or delimit "instinct"?

I don't believe that human beings have an instict because I think we have not found a way to apply ethology to humans.

>Because you think species which have evolved since millions of years weren't influenced by that past.

Yes but we are influence by genetics AND history. Two different stimuli. You cannot explain why kids in williamsburg wear skinny jeans and wayfarers through genetics.

>All this boils down to (subtle) biological differences. Slightly smarter people make more money/are more capable of surviving in a given environment...

I'm a smarter and more attractive person then my father and yet I make much less money than he does. That's because I decided to cultivate my freedom and culture instead of pursuing money. Also because I like to party and I don't like to work. As you see your statement is patently false.

>If you didn't have as big a brain and as developed of a cortex you wouldn't give a damn about "morals" and you wouldn't even know what "morals" mean.

I do agree. If you don't have a gaming system you can't play videogames. And while on some gaming systems (like the nintendo watches) you can play only one game (the game is determines) in other gaming systems you can choose the game.
Don't confuse the conditions of possibility with a determination.

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:53:00 2013 No.3734989

>>3734977
>size of the brain means jack shit when it comes to intelligence
[citation needed]

>you are misuing the terms epigentics and nutrtion
I haven't used these terms.
I don't even know what "epigentics" and "nutrtion" mean.

>there have been studies that show that people who study for the lsat have changes in their brain
So what?

Did they try teaching chimpanzees to see if they could learn nuclear physics?
Where's that neuroplasticity when you need it?

Anonymous Tue May 7 21:56:00 2013 No.3734996

>>3734989
chimps don't even have the capability to do it in the first place.

you're a stupid depressing determinist go fuck yourself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

If I want to be good at math I'll study it hard and boom changes in my fucking brain. No fixed intelligence you retard

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:56:00 2013 No.3734997 >>3734982 'terefna persons' was my captcha... I got distracted...

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 21:57:59 2013 No.3735001 >>3734989 >citation needed Macrocephaly

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:00:59 2013 No.3735013
File: 46 KB, 337x407, 1346567369593.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Why do history discussions always turn into discussions about the hard sciences ;_;

I mean sure, they overlap to some degree, but why can't we just talk about events, people, places, and ideas from the past and about the past?

(and it's not just /lit/, this seems to happen on a lot of forums)

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 22:01:59 2013 No.3735017 >>3734982 > ... > ... You obviously didn't take English beyond 6th grade, retard. Fuck Monsanto and f who gives a shit about saving "billions" of lives. You're the one advocating moral nihilism anyways because muh "data"

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 22:02:59 2013 No.3735019 >>3735013 >chemistry >biology >hard science rofl

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:02:59 2013 No.3735020

>>3734986
Define "historical conscience".
Non-human primates have been shown to understand and remember parental links, and elephants gather at the death of companions...

>The part that it is important is that writing persists for centuries or even millennia.
Genetics persist like that too.
Behaviours are transmitted too. Innovation is slow and written language did play a large part in helping modern humans adapt to a large array of environments.

>We wouldn't have modern medicine if the treaties of galen went lost.
How would you know?
Did you just look in your glass ball the alternative universe where everything is identical except we lost Galen's treaties at some point?
Maybe we would have had modern medicine later, maybe we wouldn't have had it and humanity would have went extinct, there's no way to tell.
Because we're not talking about reality, remember?

>I don't believe that human beings have an instict because I think we have not found a way to apply ethology to humans.
Human ethology goes by the way of "psychology", also "sociology" and some other shitty names like that.

>Yes but we are influence by genetics AND history.
Yeah, it's called environmental conditions.
The environment can be self-created. There are plenty of non-human animals who live in societies. Do you think a bee can built a hive by herself?
Nope, she deals with what the others have left behind.

>You cannot explain why kids in williamsburg wear skinny jeans and wayfarers through genetics.
I can, it's just not very interesting.
Genetics explain how they got limbs, legs and feet. They wouldn't wear jeans if they didn't have legs...
Also it codes how the eye develops and how those eyes respond to UV. Thus the development of tools to protect the eyes make sense.
It's a very rudimentary explanation, not very useful at this level.
It's more useful when you're talking about diseases, for example why some people wear all-black glasses, because they're blinds thanks to a genetic disease...

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:04:59 2013 No.3735025

>>3734959
Well basically you argument turns to an optimism of data collection.
I have exposed my doubts which stem from methodological faults I find at the basis of the project.
I don't deny evolution, and I don't deny that we are animals. But I don't deny either that we have something different that other animals don't have in the same way we lack other qualities that they do.

And what I assert is that this quality that we have give a level of complexity that can't be solved by data alone.
You can disagree with my conclusion and bet on quantitative sociology.
But the only way you can argue is through the use of those same historical and qualitative arguments that you were denying the utility early on.

I don't have anything else to add.

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:05:59 2013 No.3735030

>>3734986
Cont
>As you see your statement is patently false.
How is it not?
Do you really think those behaviours of yours are not at all influenced by your biology?
What you decided is a result of how your brain was built. Your brain was built from hardware that you got thanks to genetics and "software", what you put into it and how that hardware is constantly transformed, see crazy neuroplasticity guy.

>Also because I like to party and I don't like to work.
That's something that has to do with the biology of your brain.
How your reward system was at birth, how it got reinforced...

>Don't confuse the conditions of possibility with a determination.
Either way there are animals with a "gaming system" like ours and animals with a "gaming system" of the previous gen, which can't do as much things as ours can, or in different ways.
We're still animals either way.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 22:09:00 2013 No.3735042 >>3735020 Just because they do things that are similar to what humans do, do not make them as great or equal to what humans do and also does not devalue what humans do. >reality As if you know what reality is. Do you even ontology?

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:09:00 2013 No.3735043

>>3735020
>How would you know?
>Did you just look in your glass ball the alternative universe where everything is identical except we lost Galen's treaties at some point?
>Maybe we would have had modern medicine later, maybe we wouldn't have had it and humanity would have went extinct, there's no way to tell.
>Because we're not talking about reality, remember?

Because for almost a thousand year we had no advances than once we got Galen back through the arabs we started to do great advances.

>I can, it's just not very interesting.
Genetics explain how they got limbs, legs and feet. They wouldn't wear jeans if they didn't have legs...
Also it codes how the eye develops and how those eyes respond to UV. Thus the development of tools to protect the eyes make sense.
It's a very rudimentary explanation, not very useful at this level.
It's more useful when you're talking about diseases, for example why some people wear all-black glasses, because they're blinds thanks to a genetic disease...

No the question is: why wayfarers and not aviators. And why in the 90s aviators were popular and not wayfarers? I can give you a historical explanation for this. But what is the genetic reason?

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:10:00 2013 No.3735046

>>3734996
>chimps don't even have the capability to do it in the first place.
Exactly.
It's the same thing for human beings.
People with Down syndrome will never become theoretical physicists, despite all the neuroplasticity in the world.

>If I want to be good at math I'll study it hard and boom changes in my fucking brain. No fixed intelligence you retard
>If I want
You know your brain is the one deciding what you "want", right?
Your brain, which is an ensemble of biological cells, which developed under a genetic program.

>>3735001
How does that show anything in regard to intelligence and size of the brain?
"Macrocephaly" just means "large head".
Doesn't say anything about the intelligence of a person with a large head and brain.
In modern humans, there's a positive relationship between size of the brain and cognitive capacity.

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:13:00 2013 No.3735061

>>3735030
Epigenetics isn't as accepted as neuro plasciity.

Stop equating the brain to hardware/software you dumb dolt.

Determinism belongs to /x/. see http://www.amazon.com/The-Neural-Basis-Free-Will/dp/0262019108/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_i

>What you decided is a result of how your brain was built

Unfalsifiable assumption. You cant prove that.

Not everything needs a cause either. This isn't the 19th century, newton.

>Either way there are animals with a "gaming system" like ours and animals with a "gaming system" of the previous gen, which can't do as much things as ours can, or in different ways.

You are fucking retarded. there are no animals with fucking video game consoles or computers or anything

>We're still animals either way.
Humans are what they call themselves. Animal, just an animal, not animal. either way i will never accept your depressing conclusions

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:15:00 2013 No.3735070

>>3735025
My argument was that if you want to make predictions you need models and if you want models you need data in the first place to build those models, that is to verify your ideas.
You can't built a model out of thin air.
Your model has to verify reality, otherwise it's not a model, it's just a random thought you have on something.

>But I don't deny either that we have something different that other animals don't have in the same way we lack other qualities that they do.
Yeah so what.
Every single object is not identical to any other object, that does not mean that we can't group things in groups for the sake of convenience.

>that we have give a level of complexity that can't be solved by data alone.
That's silly.
Complexity can not be solved by drinking beers, hitting bongos and dancing naked at full-moon. Complexity can be solved by reason, using mathematical tools, among which modelisation and that involves data, facts...

>You can disagree with my conclusion and bet on quantitative sociology.
Physics is a model science.
Physics has been around since a long time, and has been doing quantification since longer than anything else, and on a finer level than any other science.
That's why physical predictions are so accurate, because humans have been working hard since centuries to make them accurate.
Saying sociology can't work after a few decades of trying is a bit silly.
Also expecting sociology to behave in a completely different way than anything else (that is anything else encompassed by physics) is very strange.

>same historical and qualitative arguments that you were denying the utility early on.
Oh no I'm using data.
We have data on how many physical models exist and how accurate those models are.
We also have data on how many papers in quantitative sociology and how many papers in quantitative physics exist, and we can clearly see the difference and make deductions...

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:16:00 2013 No.3735071

>>3735046
>genetic program
No such thing.

Let me guess, you're a racist from /pol/ as well? You stupid nihilist, stop spreading your cancerous beliefs.

>your brain
>your
Funny how you advocate mind-body dualism without even knowing it.

I/brain under your bellies is the same thing. I'll just stick with I because I'm not trying to sound smart unlike you.

Reductionism is bullshit and belongs to the 19th century.

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:18:59 2013 No.3735078

>>3735042
>Just because they do things that are similar to what humans do, do not make them as great or equal to what humans do and also does not devalue what humans do.
That's such an useless statement that it sounds like a tautology to me.
Humans are animals, like any other animals, they have their biological properties which one can find great or not...
I'm sure the human brain does not love bragging about how smart the human brain is.

>As if you know what reality is.
Judging on the replies in this thread I clearly know a lot more about it than most people in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 22:18:59 2013 No.3735083 >>3735070 How about you verify that we can verify reality? retard >complexity Doesn't mean shit. You'll never understand anything completely and you'll never be able to determine a human in any sort of way.

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:20:59 2013 No.3735090

>>3735043
>Because for almost a thousand year we had no advances than once we got Galen back through the arabs we started to do great advances.
Oh yeah nothing happened during 1 thousand year. I'm sure there's no coincidence possible and every single event afterwards is a result of the rediscovery of Galen's treaties.
This sounds like such a solid hypothesis...
Too bad we can't test it because we don't have an alternate universe where we could simulate events not happening.

>But what is the genetic reason?
We don't know enough about human genetics yet to tell.
I'm sure some day we'll find the variants that code how prone to peer pressure one can be and that sort of things.

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:22:59 2013 No.3735094

>>3735078
>tautology
Learned that from /lit/?
Why are you /sci/ idiots so ignorant?

Stop equating a human saying or doing something to the human brain. I wonder how someone likes you live by visualizing every person as *just* a brain.

Look, all your nihilism is going to bring is death and destruction. Go ahead and tell that person who is ready to break they are *just* an animal, like any other animal. You still they are going to give a shit about your hippie environmental bullshit? Give a shit about your "data"? Your "models"?

>'I'm a HUMAN BEING, God damn it! My life has VALUE!'

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:24:59 2013 No.3735097

>>3735061
>Epigenetics isn't as accepted as neuro plasciity.
Says who?
I didn't say neuroplasticity didn't exist.
I mentioned epigenetics for things such as nutrition, which doesn't have that much to do with the brain, and on which studies have been done.

Epigenetics is a very young field, does not mean that you can discard it.

>Determinism belongs to /x/.
Fuck off.

>Unfalsifiable assumption. You cant prove that.
Actually I can.
I can cut your brain off and prove that you're then unable to take a decision.
It is then necessary for you to have a brain to take a decision.
It's been done before, don't worry.

>You are fucking retarded. there are no animals with fucking video game consoles or computers or anything
>what is an analogy

>Humans are what they call themselves. Animal, just an animal, not animal. either way i will never accept your depressing conclusions
Reality moves on its way.
What you believe is pretty irrelevant to the course of the universe.
What will you ever amount to anyway?
Not much more than me or anyone else on this board, on 4chan or on Earth, that is, not very much of anything at all.

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:24:59 2013 No.3735100

>>3735090
>Oh yeah nothing happened during 1 thousand year. I'm sure there's no coincidence possible and every single event afterwards is a result of the rediscovery of Galen's treaties.
>This sounds like such a solid hypothesis...
>Too bad we can't test it because we don't have an alternate universe where we could simulate events not happening.

But that's why I was arguing that you cannot have a data based approach to history. Anyway trust me there is a lot of good proof about that.

>We don't know enough about human genetics yet to tell.
I'm sure some day we'll find the variants that code how prone to peer pressure one can be and that sort of things.

And yet it's perfectly explainable if you look at the intersection between fashion and music in those years. Bands were rediscovering the 80s and designers liking those bands started to look at the 80s again. In the 80s the wayfarers were popular that's why they were popular in the 00s.

Why give up such a good explanation (so good that nobody doubts it).

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:24:59 2013 No.3735101

>>3735090
Human genetics will not explain it. You just don't get it, you imbecile. Not everything is lab experiment and physicalism/materialism is a dead end.

The human genius will accurately discover reality without needing any sort of tests, you don't realize this because you aren't a genius.

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:27:59 2013 No.3735111

>>3735071
Every organism that we know of as a genetic program. It's coded in DNA or RNA, and it determines how the cells of that organisms will be formed.

>>3735071
>Funny how you advocate mind-body dualism without even knowing it.
I have to dumb down.
We have people who can't accept being animal, so telling them that they aren't alone in their body would not be easy.
There's actually 10 times more bacteria than human cells in your body, I'm talking to you, brain of the bundle of flesh and bones that go around under the name "Anon".

>Reductionism is bullshit and belongs to the 19th century.
What's in nowadays?
Postmodernism?
Did we go back to wishful thinking, magical thinking or what?

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:28:59 2013 No.3735113

>>3735097
Typical, you don't think for yourself. Your beliefs amount to no more than a false-understanding of science.

>Fuck off.
Nope, determinism belongs to /x/.

>Reality moves on its way.
Says you.

>What you believe is pretty irrelevant to the course of the universe.
Says you.

>What will you ever amount to anyway?
Funny how you imply that what humans think mean nothing to the universe (anthropomorphizing) and then make a value judgement by insulting my potential to amount to something.

>Not much more than me or anyone else on this board, on 4chan or on Earth, that is, not very much of anything at all.

The universe isn't a being, it doesn't make decisions, you are anthropomorphizing it. We make the meaning and value and so on.

Your nihilism is like that of a teenager, you obviously are a teenager, raised as an evangelical and now going through an existential crisis.

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:28:59 2013 No.3735115

>>3735083
>How about you verify that we can verify reality?
Why?

>You'll never understand anything completely and you'll never be able to determine a human in any sort of way.
True.
Humanity as a whole can understand it.
I'll just store my own tiny amount of knowledge into a data base which my robot brethens will then spread to the rest of humanity and the humanity to come.

You know, storing knowledge, books...?

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:32:59 2013 No.3735127

>>3735094
>I wonder how someone likes you live by visualizing every person as *just* a brain.
I'm studying physiology.
Of course it's not all about the brain.
There's plenty of important organs in your body.
Your intestines play a great role on your behaviours, I've even heard a theory that autism was caused by gut bacteria, so...

>Go ahead and tell that person who is ready to break they are *just* an animal, like any other animal.
...So what?

>You still they are going to give a shit about your hippie environmental bullshit?
Why not?
After all animals are the ones suffering form all that "hippie environmental bullshit".
Maybe if people knew they are animals they would stop being such dicks to whales, other primates, other mammals, fishes, rodents, etc, etc...

>Give a shit about your "data"? Your "models"?
Well they should if they have some common sense.

>>'I'm a HUMAN BEING, God damn it! My life has VALUE!'
Then give value to it instead of whining that reality is not how you'd like it to be.
Geeze. How do you think your ancestors have done?

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:32:59 2013 No.3735128

>>3735111
>There's actually 10 times more bacteria than human cells in your body, I'm talking to you, brain of the bundle of flesh and bones that go around under the name "Anon".

Your "philosophy" is so simplistic. Get with the times. that kind of reductionism isn't taken seriously be any philosophy-aware scientist.

Really, go ahead and go on about the benefits and specialness "science" (using qoutes because I mean what you think of science which is obviously not what it is) while downplaying a person, making a bunch of nihilistic statements. Expect them to still give a shit about your science then.

For a person who goes on about "complexity" you sure don't even understand it and emergence. Dumb reductionist kiddie.

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:33:59 2013 No.3735130

>>3735115
>Why?
Dolt.

>I'll just store my own tiny amount of knowledge into a data base which my robot brethens will then spread to the rest of humanity and the humanity to come.

Man you're such a dumb kid. Go read back to reading your popscience and stay off both /lit/ and /sci/

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:36:59 2013 No.3735143

>>3735100
>But that's why I was arguing that you cannot have a data based approach to history.
It's honestly hard to still argue about history when fighting with anti-science idiots like the rest on this board.

I think you can have a data-based approach.
We can have data on ancient humans so why couldn't we on modern humans?
Finding ways to quantify is the hardest thing about gathering data.
Data is all around you.
You could study the genetics of cattle to determine how exactly the farmers of then performed their artificial selection for example...

If we can know how the universe was >4 billions year ago we should be able to know how the earth was a few decades ago, even if with little precision...

>Why give up such a good explanation (so good that nobody doubts it).
It's useless.
Really, what does this bring?
Nothing.
No new knowledge for the future.
Maybe 1 data point for "fashion from one time period was made once again popular when ancient bands became fashionable again".

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:36:59 2013 No.3735144

>>3735127
In reality the way you are implying people are animals is showing that you think of being an animal as a lowly thing. Tell people they are meaningless and just animals will make them want to fuck over the environment, and everything in existence a lot more and harder.

>...So what?
Hopefully the person is a bit nutty as well so they'll skull fuck your brain after they kill you. I'd love to watch a video of that.

>Well they should if they have some common sense.
You sure do imply that your "reality" and "common sense" is objective

>reality
Again, as if you know

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:37:59 2013 No.3735148

>>3735101
>The human genius will accurately discover reality without needing any sort of tests, you don't realize this because you aren't a genius.
Right mate.
Keep waiting for your genius, I'll be over there with my tiny little science and reality-based expectations, okay?

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:38:59 2013 No.3735150

>>3735143
Who said we are against science? No, we are just against sciencetism and dumb science fan kiddies like you.

Really, all you are posting is a bunch of assumptions with no hard "data" and "facts" and "models" you speak of.

Who gives a shit about being useful? Stop hijacking science with your technophilia bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 22:39:59 2013 No.3735153 >>3735148 >reality-based Aww poor babby, cant handle thinking? must be able to see and touch it? YOUR reality sure is limited.

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:40:59 2013 No.3735154

>>3735017
Whoops! You seem to have combined me with 3 other people.
I never advocated any nihilism. I also never used the word data. As for saving billions of lives: Please look up Norman Borlaug who is widely credited with saving a billion lives. With increasing population (huh! DATA!) we actually can't sustain ourselves unless we have biologically altered crops.
If you are not measuring human progress by human lives than what, dear Mr. faggot, are you measuring it by? Or perhaps the idea of measuring it by anything (huh! data!) scares you.

As for my excessive dot dot dotting, which you claim is a sign of a poor education, I would ask that you cut your own bright red penis off.

also, if '....' means I have a poor education what does "and f who gives a shit about saving "billions" of lives," indicate? A bright red penis, thats what.

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:40:59 2013 No.3735155

>>3735113
>Funny how you imply that what humans think mean nothing to the universe (anthropomorphizing)
How is this anthropomorphizing?
Humans are just a minuscule part of the universe, that is all.
All they do is tiny compared to the size of the universe.

>and then make a value judgement by insulting my potential to amount to something.
I'm just trying to raise some humility in you, you need it.

>The universe isn't a being, it doesn't make decisions
Where did I say it does?
It doesn't make decisions yet things happen within the universe. Things on a larger scale than anything humanity has so far been able to accomplish.

>We make the meaning and value and so on.
Debatable.
We're just discovering what already exists.
Fire didn't start existing because a man managed to use it.
Pills didn't start working once we understood how they worked, medicine comes from way back that, non-human animals use medicine also... We're not the only ones to give meaning to the universe.

>Your nihilism is like that of a teenager, you obviously are a teenager, raised as an evangelical and now going through an existential crisis.
Why so angry?

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:45:59 2013 No.3735166

>>3735128
Right.
I'm all for reading philosophy but you're not providing anything, again.

You think I've never talked to a scientist or what?
All my teachers are scientists, you know that?
I've had chats with them on plenty of occasions, I think I have an idea of what scientists think.

>For a person who goes on about "complexity" you sure don't even understand it and emergence.
I actually already mentioned emergence in this thread.
See up there something about society as an emergent property.
It's all about terminology anyway.

Is your computer still a computer if nobody is using it?
Is your "mind" still useful if you don't have a brain?
The brain is necessary to the mind, whatever you mean by mind, so even if it's a little more than just the brain, which we have no evidence of, well there's nothing we can study about it, you know?
Again, I'll stick with reality.
I'll talk about the real thing, the brain in the head of the person, and you'll talk about what you think exist without actually being able to know whether it exists or not...

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:46:59 2013 No.3735169

>>3735130
Right.
It would be nice if we could put your kind of people in a nice little cozy room so that you can think deeply all day about whether or not we can verify reality.

Meanwhile everyone else will enjoy modern comfort and everything else that has been possible by the verifications of science.
Something that of course you refuse to partake in, until you've made your mind, right?

Wait, you've come out the room already, haven't you?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 22:47:59 2013 No.3735170 >>3735150 How old are you and where do you live?

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:51:59 2013 No.3735178

/lit/ezens might be whining, "Hey guys, this isn't lit. get back to >>/b/," or some such piffle upon reading this derailed thread, but in reality they should be pleased. You are confused... Well, you see, I am writing a short story where a bunch of retards shit their pants in unison and this thread is a veritable ocean of information for my story. All you have to do is go snorkeling a bit through this thread and you will understand the vast depths of human retardation. This...this thread is beautiful...

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:52:59 2013 No.3735181

>>3735144
>In reality the way you are implying people are animals is showing that you think of being an animal as a lowly thing.
Nope, I am not.
Why are you constantly trying to tell me what I think?
Think about what you are thinking first.
I've studied animals and they're pretty cool.
Human animals are cool too, in their own way.
Shame we don't know that much about them.

>Tell people they are meaningless and just animals will make them want to fuck over the environment, and everything in existence a lot more and harder.
I don't know honestly.
I don't think we have really tried that approach, while humans are already destroying the environment after being told since centuries that they are very special and that that environment belongs only to them and they can do anything they want with no consequences because some benevolent higher being will fix everything.

>Hopefully the person is a bit nutty as well so they'll skull fuck your brain after they kill you. I'd love to watch a video of that.
>>>/b/

>You sure do imply that your "reality" and "common sense" is objective
Oh no it's not, it's a social construct.
Science is a societal activity after all.
Science builds knowledge and that knowledge shapes our vision of reality, which at the end is a social construct.

We keep confronting that social construct to what our senses tell us, and that's a biological construct.
It's mostly a social construct though, very few people have actually seen the antarctic or the "universe", yet most people believe it exists...

>>3735150

Okay. I'm not here to teach you science, there's a board for that and big loads of books too.

>Who gives a shit about being useful?
People who are concerned about the future.
You know, whether there's something to eat in your plate, stuff like that, very trivial...

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 22:54:59 2013 No.3735184 >>3735154 So instead of solving it we just try to slow it down and avoid it for a while by the means of GMOs.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 22:57:59 2013 No.3735193 >>3735184 Maybe. Mass sterilization is actually the way to go. Hopefully eugenism will come back in full force soon enough.

Anonymous Tue May 7 22:58:59 2013 No.3735194

>>3735155
>Humans are just a minuscule part of the universe, that is all.
>All they do is tiny compared to the size of the universe.

As if size and scale of what we do means anything of the importance or meaning of it. And also what you are saying also self-refutes your own negative version of it. The universe doesn't say these things, we do.

So humility means nihilism now? Nah, I prefer religious humility. Seems a lot more attractive.

Things don’t need to be large for them to be meaningful in some sort of way. And what matters is if it is meaningful to us or not.

Meaning/value aren't the same as the existence of a thing. We make the meaning and value of this thing. Fire exists, we determine how meaningful it is or not.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 23:02:59 2013 No.3735206 >>3735184 You are upsettingly stupid.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 23:04:00 2013 No.3735214 >>3735184 When will they invent sarcastrophes? You are being ironic, yes?

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:05:00 2013 No.3735216

>>3735143
>It's useless.
>Really, what does this bring?
>Nothing.
>No new knowledge for the future.
>Maybe 1 data point for "fashion from one time period was made once again popular when ancient bands became fashionable again".

Let's say you manage to make a system that manages to predict next years fashion. As soon as you make that knowledge public designers will immediately do something different than what you predicted. So what is it going to happen?

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:07:00 2013 No.3735225

>>3735194
>And also what you are saying also self-refutes your own negative version of it.
I don't see how.

>The universe doesn't say these things, we do.
Doesn't change anything.
Whether you say these things or not they are here.
The universe existed before human beings existed and it will most likely keep existing after them.

>So humility means nihilism now? Nah, I prefer religious humility.
What do you mean by that?
Religion is just the way to good-feel for people who are afraid to think. Of course it's more attractive, more comfortable to think the universe was designed for you and that your mommy loves you and your daddy died, he didn't run away with the neighbour's wife while you were 5, which you do remember but try to forget.

Meaning is a completely subjective word indeed.
> And what matters is if it is meaningful to us or not.
I think it's been generally accepted that knowledge is important, and that it brings benefits.

>Fire exists, we determine how meaningful it is or not.
Not exactly.
You can't decide how useful fire can be for you.
You can't decide not to be cold so that fire won't be useful for you.

Cognition is about being able to use knowledge, ideas, and manipulate them.
That you think it's important that we are capable of manipulating ideas is just an artifact of that capacity.
That capacity to manipulate concepts is also in a way a curse, as we are unable not to look for meaning.
Depressed people suffer from anxiety, that is they constantly ruminate bad thoughts about themselves and are unable to focus on anything else.
That's cognition for you.
Also why artificial paradises are so popular. Just a way to get away from it.

People actually wish they were "lower" animals.
Which is why the words "animal" or "behaving like an animal" in a derogatory sense is so popular, because people are actually torn by that condition.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 23:09:59 2013 No.3735232 Oh for Christ's sake /lit/, you can't even argue against a scientist trying to apply its logic to social studies through 19th century imperialist ideology? I'm quite disappointed. I don't have time to read the whole thread, otherwise I would.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 23:09:59 2013 No.3735234 >>3735193 You first. And of course always through technological and corporate/government force means. never social change, never people en masse making the decision to stop overpopulating or to start living in a different way for better management.

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:10:59 2013 No.3735237

>>3735216
Yes.
I believe such a system could be made after studying the brain and how we react to fashion, stuff like that.
That field of studies already exists, it's sort of bullshit yet because it's all about companies trying to milk the novelty cow... Neuromarketing.

But then yeah that historical data will probably be useful for these studies.
History in itself is not the art of extracting trends out of data though, I believe.
It's more like analytical mathematics or whatever.

History as "study of what happened before" is such a large field that it's so strange that it's left to the historians...

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:12:00 2013 No.3735242

>>3735225

Those who are anti-religious are afraid of being accountable for their actions. Sure it's fun to think that there's no consequence to the evil you do. But we all have to open our eyes some time.

Who's really living in denial so they can be more comfortable? Pretty sure it's you bro.
>inb4 reply calling me an idiot

I've said all I needed to. See ya.

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:15:59 2013 No.3735246

>>3735234
>implying I'm not already socially-sterilized

>never social change
Duh. Good luck bringing the prosperity of the 19th-20th century colonialist Europe/US to the hundreds of millions of Africans who make the future.

You see, China did it. Why couldn't we do it?
Why is it so weird that we could prevent people from smoking because smoking is dangerous for other people in your vicinity, that we could prevent people from speeding up on the roads because it's dangerous for other drivers, but that we can't prevent people from having too many children because it's dangerous for everyone else?
Of course there's no religion (yet, okay maybe rastafarianism) that says you should smoke up as much as possible every day and that you should always go at least at 200km/h or 130mph on the road...

>never people en masse making the decision to
>he thinks billions of people can all agree to one thing that they all think is bad for their own personal interests

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:16:59 2013 No.3735248

>>3735225
The value judgement of the universe existing before and after is made by you, a human, and according to your beliefs is that human beliefs/values aren't objective and are meaningless to the universe. Self-refuting, a contradiction.

>Religion is just the way to good-feel for people who are afraid to think. Of course it's more attractive, more comfortable to think the universe was designed for you and that your mommy loves you and your daddy died, he didn't run away with the neighbour's wife while you were 5, which you do remember but try to forget.

Spoken like a true ignorant child. No wonder you're so nihilistic, you are quite the meaningless parasite.

>Meaning is a completely subjective word
Didn't imply that and also you are referring to its wordiness.

I said meaning, not use or usefulness of fire.

>
Cognition is about being able to use knowledge, ideas, and manipulate them.
That you think it's important that we are capable of manipulating ideas is just an artifact of that capacity.
That capacity to manipulate concepts is also in a way a curse, as we are unable not to look for meaning.
Depressed people suffer from anxiety, that is they constantly ruminate bad thoughts about themselves and are unable to focus on anything else.
That's cognition for you.
Also why artificial paradises are so popular. Just a way to get away from it.

You sure like to spew shit out of yoru ass.

>People actually wish they were "lower" animals.
Projecting.

>Which is why the words "animal" or "behaving like an animal" in a derogatory sense is so popular, because people are actually torn by that condition.
Or maybe by how animals in the wild may act compared to a person living in civilization?

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:17:59 2013 No.3735253

>>3735242
>reply calling you an idiot
I'm not the one doing the name-calling here.

>Those who are anti-religious are afraid of being accountable for their actions.
Are they?
I know I only have one life, I sure as hell don't want to spend half of it in jail.
Some religious people don't mind wasting their one life to bomb themselves to become martyrs and gain special points for their gods...

Get the difference?
YOLO, don't fuck it up!

>Who's really living in denial so they can be more comfortable?
Denial of what?
I've examined what I could of reality, besides some personal issues I'm keeping my denial to minimum level as possible.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 23:17:59 2013 No.3735254 >>3735246 oh,so you weren't being sarcastic...Gee, this is awkward.

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:19:59 2013 No.3735258

>>3735237
>analytical mathematics
That isn't even a thing. You are just pulling words out of your ass. You are ignorant about the world. Stop reading kurzweilai and actually try to be rational for once?

>History as "study of what happened before" is such a large field that it's so strange that it's left to the historians...

Idiot, this is what you sound like "Physics as "The branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy" is such a large field that it's so strange that it's left to the physicists"

See how ridiculous that sounds?

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:22:59 2013 No.3735266

>>3735253
>I know I only have one life, I sure as hell don't want to spend half of it in jail.

Admitting that a. you are too dumb to do a crime successfully and b. that you think of people not doing bad is because of the consequences and not them not being sociopaths.

>I've examined what I could of reality
Man you got a thick skull.

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:24:59 2013 No.3735270

>>3735248
>The value judgement of the universe existing before and after is made by you, a human, and according to your beliefs is that human beliefs/values
That's bullshit.
I don't really like you constantly distorting what I'm saying and turning it into bullshit.

What we know as humans is that the universe existed before we existed.
What I think is probably is that the universe will keep existing after us.
Either you can disprove me on whether or not this is true, or you don't have anything to say.

Whether we know what the universe is is meaningless to the universe, it's true.
Maybe in the future we will be able to impact the universe in such a way that one could say "Wow those humans, they sure did a lot of bullshit in that universe!".
Right now we've been one planet, maybe 2, and we know there are a lot more than that.

What's your idea of religion then?
Why is "religious humility" more attractive than "scientific humility" before everything that's left to discover?

>I said meaning, not use or usefulness of fire.
Usefulness is in direct relation with meaning.

>Projecting.
I'm never told such things so I doubt it apply to me, it's just something that I've observed, this sentence gets thrown around a lot.

>Or maybe by how animals in the wild may act compared to a person living in civilization?
I think that if I were a factory owner I would rather have workers like bees than workers who get drunk on the weekends and wake up late and have ill children...

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 23:24:59 2013 No.3735273 File: 13 KB, 259x194, 1ima2ges.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >muh science

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:26:59 2013 No.3735276

>>3735254
Explain to me why it's bad that the Chinese restrained poor people to 1 child and the rich to 2 (recently), besides the falling demographic issue.

Why we couldn't do a similar thing?
Oh yeah because Chinese people aren't as religious as the West as been since centuries.
That's all I see.

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:29:59 2013 No.3735286

>>3735258
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_analysis
Fuck off.

>Idiot
No, you are an idiot.
> is such a large field that it's so strange that it's left to the physicists"
The physicists actually know what they are doing.

>>3735266
>Admitting that a. you are too dumb to do a crime successfully
There is no successful crime. Most people are too dumb to commit crime without getting caught, and some even get caught several times, that's how dumb they are.

>that you think of people not doing bad is because of the consequences and not them not being sociopaths.
>implying you need to be a sociopath not to want to go to jail
>implying people ever do anything that goes against their self-interest

>Man you got a thick skull.
And you've got a thin one, and it isn't very full of much of anything.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 23:30:59 2013 No.3735287 >>3735273 >muh lack of science and freeriding on science

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:30:59 2013 No.3735290

>>3735270
So you think of meaning as "impact". Again, size/scale fallacy. So much for being knowledgeable about science, you don't even realize that the moon is a satellite.

>Usefulness is in direct relation with meaning.
No it isn't and if you're too thick to realize I am speaking of meaning in the existential sense then you are beyond dumb.

>it's just something that I've observed,
Yes, you should stick to your lab and experiment. You aren't the type for observing it seems.

>I think that if I were a factory owner I would rather have workers like bees than workers who get drunk on the weekends and wake up late and have ill children...
You're autistic, you take things literally.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 23:31:59 2013 No.3735294 >>3735276 Because we aren't a bunch of fascists like they are. Also they are horribly managed (what really matters and not population) and they also have one of the worst environmental records.

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:34:59 2013 No.3735299

>>3735290
There are several interpretations of "meaning".
None is interesting enough to discuss.

The moon is a satellite?
I wasn't talking about satellite, I was talking about planets.

>No it isn't and if you're too thick to realize I am speaking of meaning in the existential sense then you are beyond dumb.
I'm the dumb one for not making your argument when you're not making it?
You want me to write your posts for you now?

>You're autistic, you take things literally.
I'm interested in reality so I am autistic.
I'd rather be autistic then.
Tell me what's so good about non-autistic people?
Religion? Ability to feel good despite any sort of success whatsoever? Bonding over trivialities?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 23:35:59 2013 No.3735306 >>3735294 Hum I see. It doesn't say why it is bad. Why is it bad to be a fascist and to prevent people from having too many children? Why is it okay to be a fascist and to prevent people from driving too fast?

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:35:59 2013 No.3735307

>>3735286
Yeah, it's called "analysis" not "analytic mathematics" (all mathematics is by definition analytic)

>The physicists actually know what they are doing.
They both know what they are doing because.. you know what? fuck you are beyond fucking stupid I absolutely want to exterminate you. Really your physiology degree (does such a fucking thing exist?) doesn't take much intelligence because you are a fucking RETARD A FUCKING RETARD

>There is no successful crime. Most people are too dumb to commit crime without getting caught, and some even get caught several times, that's how dumb they are.
What the fuck are you going on about? And you self-refuted yourself by saying "most" and not "all"

>>implying people ever do anything that goes against their self-interest
It's called altruism/selflessness and is a highly debated topic. And plenty of studies and COMMON SENSE WHICH YOU LACK show you are wrong.

please go fucking die you mother fucking imbecile

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:37:59 2013 No.3735313

>>3735276
Because I don't want to live in china? Furthermore, the West has pretty flat birth rate anyways (2 kids per vagina).
Also I greatly resent you implying I am religious.

Also, please no. please please please no. This is not /pol/ i do not want to debate population control on a board where I should be discussing Joycean influence on Nabokov.

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:39:59 2013 No.3735318

>>3735307
No you are a fucking RETARD A FUCKING RETARD.

Funny game. I miss being 5 too.

>It's called altruism/selflessness and is a highly debated topic.
No?! I keep learning things with you.
I already learned about a dozen swear words my mom never wanted me to know but now you're teaching me what altruism is?!
Thanks Obama!

> And plenty of studies and COMMON SENSE WHICH YOU LACK show you are wrong.
All the studies I've seen show that "altruism" is beneficial to individuals.

>Please go fucking die you mother fucking imbecile
I will. It will be a pleasure in a few decades.
You seem like the patient type so it's alright.

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:39:59 2013 No.3735319

>>3735299
>There are several interpretations of "meaning".
There may be but I know that you don't know that for sure and are just pulling it out of your ass.

>None is interesting enough to discuss.
The fuck does that have to do with anything? And I don't find any of this interesting, you juts piss me off you fucking autistic pussy.

>I wasn't talking about satellite, I was talking about planets.
We haven’t landed on any, there are no humans on mars you fucking idiot.

You're on /lit/, what kind of meaning did you expect? No wonder you are on here, you're too dumb for /sci/.

I never said anything about your interest in "reality", you just took the analogy literally and you are making yourself appear to be autistic.

>Religion? Ability to feel good despite any sort of success whatsoever? Bonding over trivialities?
Wow aren't you the edgy little twerp.

>>3735306
Oh boy, so you think laws are fascist now? Fucking idiot. And they don't prevent them in any sort of humane way and they aren't obviously doing it for your hippie reasons either you idiot.

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:41:59 2013 No.3735323

>>3735313
I didn't imply that you are religious.
The West is way more religious than China. That is all.
Is your name "The West"? No?
Then I'm not talking about you.

> the West has pretty flat birth rate anyways (2 kids per vagina).
Yeah good thing the West has done its best to share his religions with Africa. They can enjoy the joys of underdevelopment and fruitful religions!
Arabs are guilty of that too of course.

>This is not /pol/ i do not want to debate population control on a board where I should be discussing Joycean influence on Nabokov.
I'm going to force you to discuss this and there is nothing you can do about it.
Tell me you have free will now...

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:42:59 2013 No.3735326

>>3735318
Yeah and all these hypothetical "studies" we both have seen say this or that you fucking mongoloid. Also it being a benefit to the individual doesn't mean they are doing it out of self-interest or calculated self-interest. And there's all kinds of different interpretations of selfishness, selflessness, altruism, self-interest. Either way fuck debating this topic with an idiot like you.

>I will. It will be a pleasure in a few decades.
Loser.

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:44:00 2013 No.3735330

>>3735323
HAHAHAH! You actually fucking think that china is more developed than the west because they are less religious? ROFL

Also atheistic is not the same as being secular. A society making itself atheistic is no different than being religious. It's still a dogma.

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:46:59 2013 No.3735333

>>3735319
>We haven’t landed on any, there are no humans on mars you fucking idiot.
We are on Earth. That's one planet.
"We" have landed on Mars. That is, robots that "we' have built.
That's 2.

It's hard to count for /lit/ hehe.

>You're on /lit/, what kind of meaning did you expect?
I dunno I thought you guys could think but from what I've seen in this thread it's an uphill battle.

You wanted a comparison and I gave you one:
>>Or maybe by how animals in the wild may act compared to a person living in civilization?
>I think that if I were a factory owner I would rather have workers like bees than workers who get drunk on the weekends and wake up late and have ill children...

>And they don't prevent them in any sort of humane way
Fining people who have too many children seems quite humane, just like the West fines people who speed too much.

>Oh boy, so you think laws are fascist now?
I'm not the one who started using the word "fascist".
I'm still waiting for a reason not to limit the number of children the citizens of a society can have.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 23:46:59 2013 No.3735335 >>3734401 I got a claim for ya. >"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Now tell me what the Roman persecution of the early Christians had anything to do with class.

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:49:00 2013 No.3735340

>>3735333
No humans on mars means no humans landed on mars. Deal with it.

You are ignorant of the way china does things. Really you are a fucking dumbass and are the one who cant think. Stick to your lab and experiments, it's obvious our IQ is too low to be able to think.

>I'm still waiting for a reason not to limit the number of children the citizens of a society can have.

If you cant figure that out on your own then you're a retard. That is all.

Blood Rainbow !!6ueS4TJTaQw Tue May 7 23:51:59 2013 No.3735345

>>3735335
dogmatic early marx is worst marx. if you really closely read Capital vague propagandistic statements like that get thrown into the trash heap.

I'm not a roman historian but I think it's probably obvious that Christian persecution was tied to the requisite ideological control that the Roman empire needed to maintain in order to maintain a particular economic system

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:51:59 2013 No.3735351

>>3735326
Here's one:
http://www.biology.ufl.edu/courses/pcb4044/2009fall/mayor/Downloads/Downloads/Wilkinson%20on%20vampire%20bats%20(small)%20-%20Sci%20Amer%201990.pdf

>Also it being a benefit to the individual doesn't mean they are doing it out of self-interest or calculated self-interest.

If it benefits the interests of a person it benefits the interest of a person, that is their self-interest.
Acting in your own interest is quite straightforward for me.

Of course there's kin altruism also, which is even more evolutionary-loaded, since it deals with the fitness of the group of genes that you share with your family members...

>Loser.
You're a double-loser.

>>3735330
Where did you see that I said that China is more developed than the West?
You need to learn how to read.
The thing about satellites and now that, it's pitiful really.

>A society making itself atheistic is no different than being religious. It's still a dogma.
A society can not be atheistic as "atheist" is a word that describes a person's lack of belief in something.
Societies don't have beliefs, they're not sentient.

A society can be secular or anti-religious, with actively enforced laws against religions.

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:54:59 2013 No.3735355

>>3735340
I didn't say humans landed on Mars.
I have said that "we" have been on two planets.
We have been capable of taking pictures from the surface of Mars, of exploring Mars.
We are chatting right now without seeing each other, doesn't mean that we're not doing anything with one another.

>You are ignorant of the way china does things.
I doubt that I'm as ignorant as you are. How much Chinese people do you know?

>If you cant figure that out on your own then you're a retard. That is all.
You know that calling somebody a retard isn't a very efficient method of argumentation, right?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 23:55:00 2013 No.3735359 >>3735345 What have the Romans ever done for us anyway? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

>>	Blood Rainbow !!6ueS4TJTaQw Tue May 7 23:56:00 2013 No.3735360 File: 172 KB, 500x380, kerl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3735359 lel that was in the back of my mind the whole time

Anonymous Tue May 7 23:57:59 2013 No.3735364
File: 13 KB, 329x106, YOLO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means of subsistence and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.
>But that is not all. Marx also discovered the special law of motion governing the present-day capitalist mode of production and the bourgeois society that this mode of production has created. The discovery of surplus value suddenly threw light on the problem, in trying to solve which all previous investigations, of both bourgeois economists and socialist critics, had been groping in the dark.
>Two such discoveries would be enough for one lifetime. Happy the man to whom it is granted to make even one such discovery. But in every single field which Marx investigated -- and he investigated very many fields, none of them superficially -- in every field, even in that of mathematics, he made independent discoveries.
--Engel's speech at Marx's funeral

>>	Anonymous Tue May 7 23:59:00 2013 No.3735369 >>3735364 Lol

>>	Blood Rainbow !!6ueS4TJTaQw Wed May 8 00:00:00 2013 No.3735372 File: 18 KB, 460x276, engelsyoucanfuckmybitch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3735364 agh fuck Engels that handsome idiot

Anonymous Wed May 8 00:01:00 2013 No.3735376

>>3735351
Yes, a fucking study. big whoop.

>Of course there's kin altruism also, which is even more evolutionary-loaded, since it deals with the fitness of the group of genes that you share with your family members...

Oh yes, the unfalsifiable gene-centric bullshit.

>Acting in your own interest is quite straightforward for me.
Oh yeah it is you dumbass selfish autist.

"A society can not be atheistic as "atheist" is a word that describes a person's lack of belief in something.
Societies don't have beliefs, they're not sentient.

A society can be secular or anti-religious, with actively enforced laws against religions."

And you're the one who says I cant read? fucking idiot, really go back to /r/atheism

>>3735355
Yeah and act like you haven’t insulted me.

Really you are the reason people still hate atheists. Go die . Everything you have is completely false and I wont even debate it.

I'm done dealing with your idiocy, go fuck yourself, imbecile.

Oh and if I had to chose between saving the humanities or sciences from ultimate destruction I'd choose the humanities :).

>>	Anonymous Wed May 8 00:04:59 2013 No.3735381 >>3735364 "In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence." -- Friedrich Engels

Anonymous Wed May 8 00:10:59 2013 No.3735398

>>3735376
There are other studies, that was an example of what you can find in the wild.
I haven't heard of anything like "true altruism".
Kin selection also has a bunch of supportive studies.

>And you're the one who says I cant read?
A society can't make itself atheistic. That's nonsensical.

>Yeah and act like you haven’t insulted me.
I started insulting you to reciprocate. I'm nice like that.

>Go die.
I am.

>Everything you have is completely false and I wont even debate it.
Okay. Why bother writing all these posts then?
You're not very good at this I think.

>I'm done dealing with your idiocy, go fuck yourself, imbecile.
No you go fuck yourself imbecile ;)

>Oh and if I had to chose between saving the humanities or sciences from ultimate destruction I'd choose the humanities :).
Is that what you're going to wank to now?
Remember you're out to fuck yourself...

>>3735381
Damn I wanted to say this at some point in this thread but I forgot to include it.

Anonymous Wed May 8 00:22:09 2013 No.3735435

>>3735345
>the requisite ideological control that the Roman empire needed to maintain in order to maintain a particular economic system

Oh god this is so full of shit I can't help but post.

The Romans were polytheistic. Not only was there no "state religion" as we know it now, but religious diversity was actually encouraged as part of the multiculturalism that epitomized Roman rule. (The Empire spanned from Gaul to Morocco to Egypt to Anatolia to Dalmatia)

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature