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

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 106 KB, 459x387, 1410121937976.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6015861 No.6015861 [Reply] [Original]

Daily reminder that this pseudo-intellectual hack once worked in Abercrombie & Fitch's marketing department. Why do you worship this fraud, again?

>> No.6015874

>>6015861
when did this happen

>> No.6015878

people have had shit jobs in the past. i have. you have. get off his slav dick son.

>> No.6015881

I don't, I'm not an obfuscating, unscientific continental.

>> No.6015883

Why are you spreading your mental poison? You smell like farts

>> No.6015885

>>6015874
http://www.critical-theory.com/that-time-zizek-wrote-for-abercrombie-fitch/

>> No.6015889

>In 2003, Žižek wrote text to accompany Bruce Weber's photographs in a catalog for Abercrombie & Fitch. Questioned as to the seemliness of a major intellectual writing ad copy, Žižek told the Boston Globe, "If I were asked to choose between doing things like this to earn money and becoming fully employed as an American academic, kissing ass to get a tenured post, I would with pleasure choose writing for such journals!"[57]

Writing text for a single catalog is not really "working in" a department

>> No.6015892

>>6015861
>If I were asked to choose between doing things like this to earn money and becoming fully employed as an American academic, kissing ass to get a tenured post, I would with pleasure choose writing for such journals

Zizek 1 you 0

>> No.6015895

I know a girl who charged a dollar for a kiss when we were kids and she is an academic now.

>> No.6015902

>>6015885
i thought that was a joke site

like the onion for pseudo-intellectuals

>> No.6015903

>>6015889

>"If I were asked to choose between doing things like this to earn money and becoming fully employed as an American academic, kissing ass to get a tenured post, I would with pleasure choose writing for such journals!"

OP makes thread to hate on Zizek but all he does is create another opportunity to show people how based he is.

Mein gott.

>> No.6015905

>>6015861
Daily reminder that underage users are not allowed on this website

You need to navigate back to >>>/reddit/, kid

>> No.6015911

>>6015885
>>6015861
>''If I were asked to choose between doing things like this to earn money and becoming fully employed as an American academic, kissing [EXPLETIVE] to get a tenured post,'' he growled, ''I would with pleasure choose writing for such journals!''

Zizek is more based than you will ever be, bro.

>> No.6015918
File: 146 KB, 803x688, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6015918

>>6015903
>pseudo-intellectual charlatans with no work based in fact rather than baseless posturing
>based

>> No.6015937
File: 282 KB, 640x810, 640x810_16223.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6015937

>>6015861
all the tumblrettes love his memes

>> No.6015939

>>6015918
>pseudo-intellectual
>charlatans
>no work based in fact
>baseless posturing

if i wrote this i would not hesitate to shoot myself in the head

>> No.6015943

>>6015918

>with no work based in fact

ITT: An adolescent who has read little to no philosophy shows his hand.

>> No.6015954

>>6015937
Samefag, please go back to your containment board.

>> No.6015955

>>6015885
They also claim the host tried to use hash to bribe Foucault into wearing a red wig when he talked with Chomsky.

>> No.6015956

>>6015918
>with no work based in fact

I bet you LOVE SCIENCE

>> No.6015959

>>6015939
Edgy.
>>6015943
I've read every major work from Frege to Kripke and have a master's in mathematics. I know just about everything about philosophy. Zizek isn't a philosopher, though, he's a social commentator.

>> No.6015962

>>6015902
>>6015885
was just the first link when i googled zizek abercrombie fitch.

>> No.6015964

>>6015956
science has advanced humanity and created the modern world, what has women do?

>> No.6015969

>>6015956
I am a rational person, so I am not opposed to science.

>> No.6015970

>>6015964
>what has women do?
then who was phone?

>> No.6015971

>>6015959
>Edgy.

is it opposites day?

>> No.6015974

>>6015861
Un trabajo es un trabajo.

>> No.6015977
File: 163 KB, 410x300, slavoj.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6015977

Zizek is a meme, literally.

>> No.6015979

>>6015970
who was phony god's blessing?

>> No.6015980

>>6015861
Daily reminder to use the report function for when you see a shitpost.

>> No.6015981

>>6015971
Why? I'm not the one brooding over death and attacking knowledge.

>> No.6015983

>>6015974
un villariba es un villabajo

>> No.6015985

>>6015959
>has read nothing more than formal logic from a period spanning roughly 70 years
>thinks he knows everything
Not bad, that, as they say, is the spirit.

>> No.6015986

>>6015959
Also I don't know how to have sex.

>> No.6015990

>>6015969
>>6015964
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcnWysA9gxo

>> No.6015993

>>6015981
>pseudo-intellectual
>charlatans
>no work based in fact
>baseless posturing

>not edgy

fool me twice, won't get fooled again

>> No.6015995

>>6015985
That's philosophy. All your Zizek, Hegel, and French shit is useless. It is nothing but opinionated tripe used for securing jobs at universities for crafty idiots.

>> No.6016000

>>6015995
>le roger scruton face

>> No.6016002

>>6015993
I'm merely stating a fact. Zizek's work is totally meaningless.
>>6015990
>I'll call him euphoric, that'll justify continental 'philosophy'.

>> No.6016006

>>6016000
Scruton needs to realise that beauty is mathematical.

>> No.6016016

>>6016002
>merely
>stating a fact

pls no more

>> No.6016019

>>6016006
I usually feel bad for people like you, but you're making it really hard. Do you enjoy every episode of The Big Bang Theory?

>> No.6016044

>>6016019
It is generally the accepted model, but I don't 'enjoy' things, I study them.
>>6016016
You've been BTFO, continental, now leave.

>> No.6016055

>>6015995
>In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony French philosophy

>> No.6016058

>>6016044
>but I don't 'enjoy' things, I study them
Alright, now you've triggered my pity. Everything is going to be fine.

>> No.6016059

>>6016044
>continental

what? i just think you write like trash

>> No.6016065
File: 360 KB, 1300x957, grinning-man-fedora-hat-28126280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6016065

>>6016044
>I don't 'enjoy' things, I study them.

>> No.6016069

>>6015959
>I've read every major work from Frege to Kripke and have a master's in mathematics. I know just about everything about philosophy.

And you still aren't as smart as me. :(

>> No.6016087

>>6016055
>>6016058
>>6016065
Is this the height of continental argumentation? I'm not surprised, it's only marginally better than Zizek's arguments against Chomsky.
>>6016059
I'm stating facts. It matters not how I write and what your juvenile opinion of my writing is.

>> No.6016094
File: 3.00 MB, 400x311, 1375055144843.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6016094

>>6016044
>but I don't 'enjoy' things, I study them.

>> No.6016096

>>6016069
>How Can Our Senses Provide Data If The Other Isn't Real?
Yep, you're so smart, continental.

>> No.6016098

>>6016087
>I'm stating facts. It matters not how I write and what your juvenile opinion of my writing is. M'lady

>> No.6016100

>>6016087
you thought i was a continental dude i don't think you know what facts are

>> No.6016104

>>6016098
>>6016094
It's like I'm actually reading a continental debate transcript.

>> No.6016109

>>6016096
Whose position are you even strawmanning right now?
Also, sense-datum theories have been BTFO by Sellars.

>> No.6016110

>>6016100
A fact is empirical evidence grounded in reproducible experiments.

>> No.6016114

>>6016104
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rp2aZ4vAhs

>> No.6016116

>>6016044
>tfw philosophers can't even respect each other

You realise that all philosophers are the same, right? Analytic, Continental, it is all unfalsifiable crap.
It is quite amusing when analytic philosophers pretend that they are somehow sanctioned by the sciences or that scientists respect them any more than the continentals.
Analytic philosophy is scholasticism come again.

>> No.6016117

>>6016110
In other words, none of the things mathematics or formal logic actually deal with.

>> No.6016121

>>6016110
you experimented on zizek?

>> No.6016122

>>6016104
Hey, >>6016094 here, I wasn't even part of this thread until I posted that gif. I just read that statement and started retching from the stench of euphoria. Good luck with your argument.

>> No.6016132

>>6016110
Facts are elements of Scientific theories, they are not empirical evidence.

>> No.6016133

>>6016122
logic dictates that if you respond to someone's posts making fun of them, you're attempting to debate them by taking on the opposite position in a dichotomy determined only by the person you are responding to

fact

>> No.6016135

>>6016121
Zizek. not even once.

>> No.6016138

>>6016117
it's easy to spot people who only studied mathematics in high school.
>>6016121
>>6016109
>>6016116
>>6016114
You all need to read The Logic of Scientific Discovery. It astounds me that such utter tripe can come from the mouth of a civilised ape.

>> No.6016141

>>6016116
Most things are unfalsifiable, including mathematics. Every time one of you retards rears their ugly head, I try to summon Karl Poppers spirit so he can take revenge for what you're doing with his legacy.

>> No.6016144

>>6016132
>capitalising 'scientific'
You're either a continental or a 14 year old, probably both. This is further demonstrated by your lack of knowledge in the philosophy of science.

>> No.6016146
File: 284 KB, 507x647, SLAVOJ ZIZEK RE TWINS.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6016146

>>6015861
>pseudo-intellectual hack

HOW IS HE A "PSEUDOINTELLECTUAL HACK"?

>[SLAVOJ ZIZEK] once worked in Abercrombie & Fitch's marketing department.

1. HE DID NOT WORK IN IT; HE COLLABORATED WITH THEM.

2. WHAT IS YOUR "POINT"?

https://mega.co.nz/#!lglgCAyb!XdY0GH4EfpVphpWnLSicjIpspWK30U-kU5Q579hhPNA

>> No.6016147

>>6016138
Sir, verily, I declare you to be a pseudo-intellectual charlatan.

>> No.6016149

>>6016133
>logic dictates if you respond...
Where about does formal logic dictate this?

>> No.6016151

>>6016138
So, mathematics is an empirical science that proceeds by experiment. That's a good one.

>> No.6016153
File: 72 KB, 500x500, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6016153

>>6016141
>Most things are unfalsifiable, including mathematics.
Are you retarded?

>> No.6016161

>>6016151
Essentially yes. The method of experimentation is just theoretical instead.
>>6016146
That image sounds like bullshit. Have there been studies on twins to determine that that is the case?

>> No.6016162

>>6016149
well you reached those conclusions yourself and elsewhere you have aptly demonstrated yourself to embody the objectivity of formal logic

it's a safe conclusion to make, if i am to trust you

>> No.6016166

>>6016153
Okay, give me a falsifiable mathematical prediction. You know, something that needs to be tested in an experiment.

>> No.6016168

>>6016149
Page three of the So You Want to Pretend to Know About Analytic Philosophy pamphlet that you're quoting from.

>> No.6016170
File: 185 KB, 900x900, 1394493974202.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6016170

>>6016138

>> No.6016172

>>6016166
Go read Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica, you utter imbecile.

>> No.6016175

>>6016161
>The method of experimentation is just theoretical instead.
Dude, are you high?

>> No.6016177
File: 179 KB, 480x944, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6016177

>>6016170

>> No.6016179

>>6016161
>Have there been studies on twins to determine that that is the case?

YOUR MATERIALISTIC MIND IS INCAPABLE OF COMPREHENDING PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS.

>> No.6016181

>>6016144
Why would I bother studying philosophy of science? That would detract from my actual scientific (no capital, happy?) studies. Philosophy of science does not grant legitimacy to science, science does not need philosophy. As far as philosophical statements are true, they are trivial, as far as they are complicated, they are false.
Facts are elements of our models, empirical evidence is a component of the scientific method which overall allows us to arrive at models.

Scientists don't have any more respect for you "analytics" than your "continental" rivals.

>> No.6016188

>>6016175
I don't cloud my judgement with mind altering substances like continental charlatans. You have obviously never studied mathematics past high school.

>> No.6016189

>>6016172
>reading words, in books
Unfalsifiable nonsense, just take me to the math lab and make some numbers crash into each other in the quantity accelerator.

>> No.6016192

Holy fuck I have never seen an analytic get btfo so hard

>> No.6016196

>>6016192
he's still going tho

>> No.6016198
File: 63 KB, 490x480, uirl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6016198

>> No.6016205

>>6016179
You mean baseless posturing? Just because a person like Zizek said it doesn't mean it is true. How can you verify that statement?
>>6016181
Good thing logicians are above the inferior natural sciences.
>>6016189
You'll be reading numbers as much as words.
>>6016192
>posting pictures of hats and calling people euphoric is grounds for one to be btfo

>> No.6016207

>>6016138
Physics grad student here. Why would you waste time reading philosophy when there is science to be done? Why should I listen to someone like Popper who never actually, you know, did science?

>> No.6016211

>>6016207
>physics
The crippled kid of the sciences.

>> No.6016212

>>6016205
>>posting pictures of hats and calling people euphoric is grounds for one to be btfo

Nah m8 it's the posts you haven't responded to

>> No.6016213
File: 32 KB, 728x500, 0625_lady_gaga_g1.jpg_1853027552.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6016213

>>6015861
He is edgy and I am 17.

>> No.6016215

>>6016205
>the inferior natural sciences
And at last the philosopher shows his true colours. Stay mad, you will never understand the intricacies of nature.

>> No.6016216

>>6016212
I've responded to every post.

>> No.6016220

>>6016215
Nature is based in mathematics and logic.

>> No.6016222

>>6016216
Funny because I can't see that

>> No.6016228

>>6016220
>the world is based on a fictional system running on mammal neurons

>> No.6016232
File: 28 KB, 308x479, Laughing Feynman.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6016232

>>6016172
>Reading a book that got btfo by Godel decades ago
Nah I will stick to category theory, thanks though.

>> No.6016236

>>6015895
This is an underrated post.

>> No.6016237

>>6016222
Which posts haven't I responded to?>>6016228
>fictional
*tips bust of Hegel*

>> No.6016249

>>6016205
>You'll be reading numbers as much as words
In that case, continental philosophy works equally well as mathematics. Unless of course you can prove that in the philosophies you dislike, things do not function along consistent rules. Which, in turn, would require you to read all that stuff, which you won't do.

>> No.6016251

>>6016220
>nature is based in mathematics and logic
>mathematics not a part of nature
>abstract models not inspired by nature

Good one Plato.

>> No.6016256

>>6016237
>he thinks Hegel considered mathematics to be fictional
>doesn't even realize how close his own understanding is to absolute idealism

>> No.6016259

>>6016237
The ones that blew you the f*ck out

Prove me wrong

>> No.6016266

>>6016205
>You mean baseless posturing?

NO, I MEAN PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS.

>Just because a person like Zizek said it doesn't mean it is true.

AND?

>How can you verify that statement?

BY THINKING.

>> No.6016268

>>6016232
I don't think you've actually read it. Only a small, insignificant after thought of a possible conclusion has anything to do with the incompleteness theorem.
>>6016249
If it was worth reading it would be part of mathematics or the sciences.
>>6016251
Good argument.
>>6016256
Hegel was a charlatan.
>>6016259
You made the claim. Show me the evidence for it.

>> No.6016274

>>6016266
>NO, I MEAN PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS
it sounds like you think this is the same as baseless posturing.
>BY THINKING.
Then demonstrate.

>> No.6016283

>>6016268
>has not read the entirety of PM
you got me, how did you figure it out?
>incompleteness theorem
Yeah because Godel's total contribution to logic was proving two theorems. You should read his specific take down of Russell's program.

>> No.6016284

>>6016268

>>6016168
>>6016162

>> No.6016296

>>6016283
>you got me, how did you figure it out?
Your idiocy.
>>6016284
Those weren't directed at me, you idiotic faggot.

>> No.6016297

>>6016268
>Hegel was a charlatan
Says a guy who hasn't read him. Your adherence to empirical science is already dubious, do you really think you also need some inconsistency in mix?
>If it was worth reading it would be part of mathematics or the sciences
Did you just say that these two things are necessarily complete and all-encompassing? That's not just dubious, that's actually not possible.

>> No.6016302

>>6016297

>>6016147

>> No.6016305

>>6016296

>>6016147

>> No.6016312

>>6016297
>Did you just say that these two things are necessarily complete and all-encompassing?
No, but they're our only way of knowing anything.

>> No.6016314

>>6016296
I bet you consider flipping through PM once in the library as reading and understanding it.

>> No.6016316

>>6016268
well said, m'fellow gent. Lets head back to /pol/ to have a good chat with the boys then eh?

>> No.6016322

>>6016312
So why does analytic philosophy matter again? God damn philosophers.

>> No.6016325

>>6016312
That's pure dogma, and not provable by way of either method.

>> No.6016330

>>6015878
>>6015883
>>6015902
>>6015905
>>6015937
>>6015964
>>6015970
>>6015979
>>6015986
>>6016000
when i'm in da thread, all i do is shitpost shitpost shitpost shitpost

>> No.6016333

>>6016314
Good argument.
>>6016316
>eh
What
>/pol/
Politics is for idiots.
>>6016322
For maths and logic.

>> No.6016335

>>6015977
>asbestos removal memes

I was not aware of the particular brand of memes. There can't be that many of those, can it?

>> No.6016337

>>6016305
confirmed btfo

>> No.6016338

>>6016297
>does not consider mathematics a science
>muh platonic heaven

>> No.6016340
File: 117 KB, 320x263, fingerless-gloves-fedora.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6016340

>Analytic philosophy wins against continental philosophy
>Analytic philosophy is very important.

>> No.6016342
File: 478 KB, 500x375, 239.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6016342

>>6016333
>Math and logic a part of analytic philosophy

>> No.6016346

he left the thread

>> No.6016352

>>6016338
Mathematics does not deal with observable phenomena. If that doesn't make it unscientific, neither is any particular branch of philosophy, unless you refute it by philosophical argument.
And no one even mentioned plato afaik.

>> No.6016359

>>6016342
Yes, that is correct.

>> No.6016363

>>6016352
Mathematics does not deal with phenomena at all.

>> No.6016367

>>6016274
>it sounds like you think this is the same as baseless posturing.

TO WHAT ELSE IN MY POST WOULD YOU BE REFERRING WITH "BASELESS POSTURING"?

>Then demonstrate.

I WILL EXPLAIN WHAT IT MEANS, IN THE SIMPLEST TERMS, SO YOUR MATERIALISTIC MIND CAN COMPREHEND —THIS IS PHILOSOPHY, NOT SCIENCISM (DOGMATIC MATERIALISM, OR DOGMATIC EMPIRICISM) —ONE DOES NOT PROVE THE VALIDITY OF A CONCEPT BY EXPERIMENTING IN THE CONCRETE WORLD:

THE TWINS ARE TWO ASPECTS OF ONE WHOLE; THE CLOSEST THAT TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES CAN BE WITHOUT BECOMING ONE.

THEIR IDENTITIES ARE SO INFORMED BY ONE ANOTHER, AND OVERLAPPING, THAT THE ONLY WAY FOR EACH OF THEM TO PRESERVE THEIR UNIQUENESS AS INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITIES IS TO KILL THE OTHER.

NEITHER OF THEM HAS THE CAPACITY TO BEFRIEND, OR TO BETRAY, THE OTHER SINCE THEY ARE SO ESSENTIAL CLOSE, AND FOR FRIENDSHIP, AND BETRAYAL, (CONNECTION, AND DISCONNECTION) TO OCCUR, MUTUAL DIFFERENCE, OR DISSIMILARITY ARE PREREQUISITE.

>> No.6016381

>>6016363
Indeed. So what does it deal with? Quantities, sets of quantities, sets of sets of quantities. Mathematics is the philosophical investigation of quantities.

>> No.6016383

>>6016367
>... THEY ARE SO ESSENTIAL CLOSE...

I MEAN "ESSENTIALLY".

>> No.6016398

e-celeb

>> No.6016401

This argument is like watching ice melt. No one has enough insight to speak any more than one or two sentences as a time.

>> No.6016405

>>6016381
>philosophical investigation of quantities
Have you even studied mathematics? Go tell a mathematician he is undertaking a philosophical investigation of quantity and he will laugh at you.

Mathematics deals with proving theorems. Mathematicians don't sit around wondering "what is quantity?", they sit around wondering "What can I prove about this?".

>> No.6016407

>>6016367
>TO WHAT ELSE IN MY POST WOULD YOU BE REFERRING WITH "BASELESS POSTURING"?
The image about twins.
>THE TWINS ARE TWO ASPECTS OF ONE WHOLE; THE CLOSEST THAT TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES CAN BE WITHOUT BECOMING ONE.
Fraternal twins are not. Just because twins are identical does not mean they are 'one' they have developed separately.
>THEIR IDENTITIES ARE SO INFORMED BY ONE ANOTHER, AND OVERLAPPING, THAT THE ONLY WAY FOR EACH OF THEM TO PRESERVE THEIR UNIQUENESS AS INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITIES IS TO KILL THE OTHER.
I don't see how that follows and there is no evidence for that. Twins are not the same person, not even identical twins.
>NEITHER OF THEM HAS THE CAPACITY TO BEFRIEND, OR TO BETRAY, THE OTHER SINCE THEY ARE SO ESSENTIAL CLOSE, AND FOR FRIENDSHIP, AND BETRAYAL, (CONNECTION, AND DISCONNECTION) TO OCCUR, MUTUAL DIFFERENCE, OR DISSIMILARITY ARE PREREQUISITE.
No evidence, and you don't seem to understand genetics very much.

>> No.6016423

>>6016401
including you it seems.

>> No.6016436

>>6016423
Learn how to use the shift key you fucking moron.

>> No.6016448

>>6016405
The question of what a quantity is wouldn't be part of such a philosophical investigation, but of either epistemology or ontology, depending on your philosophical perspective. If a mathematician would laugh at such a characterisation, then only because he, like you, doesn't get what it means to philosophically investigate something.
And everybody in philosophy tries to prove theorems, it just happens to be a very clear-cut affair when dealing with sets and quantities, as those lend themselves to being depicted by nonverbal symbolic systems.

>> No.6016453

>>6016436
Control your autism.

>> No.6016460

>>6016407

THE QUOTATION IS DEALING WITH CONCEPTS, NOT WITH BIOLOGY, OR GENETICS.

YOU ARE MENTALLY IMPAIRED.

>> No.6016461

>>6016448
>philosophy tries to prove theorems
kek, you should seriously consider a career in comedy.

>> No.6016471

>>6016460
Just because 'it's philosophy' doesn't mean you can say whatever you like and pass it off as true.

>> No.6016481

>>6016453
Shut the fuck up.

>> No.6016494

>>6016471

AND?

>> No.6016503

>>6016461
And here we have a prime example of the risks of exclusively relying on formal symbolic systems, you forget that you're also just talking, at the end of the day.

>> No.6016507

>>6016494
That's what you're doing. I have no reason to believe your baseless posturing on twins.

>> No.6016523

>>6016507

It is a philosophical exploration of a subject.

Stop misappropriating the word "posturing" you parrot-happy moron.

>> No.6016526

>>6016181
This is an analytic position. The Churchlands' position. The unwavering confidence you have in science is not rationalist, it is informed through history. Science has consistently shown that it pulls philosophy around time and again, not the other way around.

Even continentals admit this capacity of science. But unlike analytics, they're supremely butt blasted about it.

>> No.6016539

>>6016523
>It is a philosophical exploration of a subject
No it isn't. Philosophy is informed by scientific knowledge. Philosophy doesn't mean you can spout bullshit and call yourself correct.

>> No.6016547

>>6016494
>« 零 »
The butterfly posters use " « » " to show the movements of the wings you know.

>> No.6016560

>>6016507
Then go take your fedora and play somewhere else.

>> No.6016563

>>6016539

Philosophy as a practice isn't delimited by your proffered merit of it.

>> No.6016572

>>6016526
It is not a philosophical position. Why do you assume I have unwavering confidence in our current theories?

>> No.6016577

>>6016563
Philosophy as an academic discipline is.
>>6016560
>le posted it again xD

>> No.6016581

>>6016507
>That's what you're doing.

I AM NOT.

>I have no reason to believe your baseless posturing on twins.

IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF BELIEF, OR OF FAITH, BUT OF LOGIC.

YOU CANNOT COMPREHEND CONCEPTS, THEREFORE YOU CANNOT ADDRESS THEM, THEREFORE YOU CANNOT PROVE, OR DISPROVE, THEM; YOUR ONLY CAPACITY CONSISTS IN EXPERIMENTING IN THE CONCRETE WORLD, WITH MATERIAL THINGS, SO YOU EXTRAPOLATE THE PHILOSOPHICAL, OR THE CONCEPTUAL, TO THE DOGMATICALLY MATERIAL.

THAT IS NOT WHY YOU ARE MENTALLY IMPAIRED THOUGH; YOU ARE MENTALLY IMPAIRED BECAUSE YOU FAIL TO REALIZE WHAT YOU ARE DOING —YOU LACK BOTH, SELFAWARENESS, AND SELFCONSCIOUSNESS.

>> No.6016592

>>6016539
>informed
but not based upon it, which is why philosophy is worthless. You can get into a fit about how many hilbert spaces you can get to dance on the tip of a fiber bundle and what it means for the topology of the universe, but that does not mean you are saying anything meaningful.

>> No.6016598

>>6016581
>I AM NOT.
You are. You have offered no evidence whatsoever to support your claim.
>IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF BELIEF, OR OF FAITH, BUT OF LOGIC.
No, not at all. It is a question of biology, not logic. You have not shown that image about the twins to have any truth value.

>> No.6016614
File: 48 KB, 500x301, 27791.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6016614

>>6016507
>I have no reason to believe your baseless posturing

>> No.6016617

>>6016614
Good argument.

>> No.6016627
File: 54 KB, 490x311, putin-laughing (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6016627

>>6016617

>> No.6016636

>>6016572
>It is not a philosophical position.

Read a book.

>Why do you assume I have unwavering confidence in our current theories?

Wrong. Positions on fallibilism are irrelevant to this issue.

>> No.6018150

>>6015902
>i thought that was a joke site
>like the onion for pseudo-intellectuals
Sadly it's not. Yes, that site really is total shit. They even got some hate male and published it, trying to "pwn it" or something. The funny thing is that hate mail is mostly right about them and their reply was total shit as well.

>> No.6018355

Oh look, arrowfag has returned!

>> No.6020651

>>6016268
>If it was worth reading it would be part of mathematics or the sciences.
How old are you? I hope not old enough that your dogma is irrevocably set in stone. Try perhaps opening this line of conversation with established mathematic and scientific academics around you.

You seem to be working off the notion that maths & science guys as a race loathe, deplore, and dismiss any other intellectual field. And I think you'd be surprised to find out this isn't true, and is merely a projection on your part to rationalize your love of a field and your ineptitude in others. I think you would find that proportionate to a mathematician or scientist's intelligence is a respect for or even active interest in other fields.

I just don't see why you have to pigeon-hole yourself like this. You're so wrapped up in fact and formula that you fail to see 'fact' and 'formula' are both just words arising and used within the context of flawed human perception and expression.

Have you looked into quantum mechanics very far? It shows that our study of science and mathematics doesn't have bearing on the concrete world, that the only thing we measure or codify with math is the extent of our ability to measure and codify our view of the world.

Math & science are a concept in the brain and have applications outside the brain because they are mechanical. But that doesn't invalidate more cerebral concepts, the kind that appear in continental philosophy and literature. Mechanic application is one aspect of the human mind, but so is abstract thought and sensual creation and appreciation - proven, empirically, by their constant and lasting expression.