[ 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: 45 KB, 300x400, 1419481549611.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6191518 No.6191518 [Reply] [Original]

Why aren't you a continental?

>> No.6191519

Im American

dichotomies are for twerps

>> No.6191531

>>6191519
But you just acknowledged a dichotomy...?

>> No.6191547

I don't like obfuscating pseudo-intellectuals. All of continental philosophy is baseless posturing and nothing more. I'm convinced that it is all a big joke, or at least originally was. Stringing together sentences full of these meaningless buzzwords, arbitrarily capitalised words, baseless 'theories' and archaic, unscientific notions does not teach anyone anything. It is total tripe. Why can't continentals have more scientific rigour?

This sums it up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjNJX64cBOE

>> No.6191551

>>6191519
>>6191531

>American

Don't pick on the retarded.

>> No.6191552

>>6191518
Hegel isn't a continental philosopher.

The continental/analytic divide really came into being in the early 20th century (see the famous Davos conference) and had to do with Heidegger. So continental philosophy is really just a kind of Heideggerianism. Zizek is implicated in that because he's a Lacanian, and therefore also a Heideggerian.

I fucking hate it when people project this divide back onto past philosophers like Hegel. It didn't even exist back then.

>> No.6191555

>>6191552
Every scholarly source I've read traces the divide back to Hegel...?
I think by the time Heidegger was writing the distinctive analytic and continental styles had already solidified...?

>> No.6191565

are continentals supposed to be more full of bullshit and mysticism?

if so, then how come a 'continental' like Nietzsche is way less mystical than analytics such as Russell and Whitehead?

>> No.6191570

>>6191565
>Russell...?
>mystical...?

>> No.6191572

>>6191565
Because analytic fans are fucking retarded, do not read the philosophers they parade around (I don't me look at the words, I mean read with a thinking mind), and know nothing about the history of philosophy (but ruseal rote a book o it haha memay)

>> No.6191577

>>6191565
What mysticism?

>> No.6191578

>>6191570
Literally a fucking mathematical platonist

>> No.6191585

>>6191578
And yet The Problems of Philosophy is essentially a treatise against idealism...?
Platonic and mysticism aren't the same thing...?
Although Plato had mystical tendencies I think Russell explicitly rejects a lot of them...?

>> No.6191586

>>6191578
That's not mysticism, m8.

>> No.6191588

>>6191577
Platos big lie and forms
rationalist bias
absolutes and idealism

>> No.6191590

>>6191547
I don't want to pull the whole 'you just don't understand it' card, but if you think continental philosophy requires scientific rigour then you are missing its entire point. It's concerned with the gap between external, physical reality and interior human experience; that gap creates a partially fictionalised reality, one which obscures our view of concrete reality itself. How are you supposed to find empirical evidence for it if experience is grounded in a consciousness which fictionalises the reality around it according to its presuppositions?

>> No.6191594

>>6191588
see >>6191586

>> No.6191599

>>6191588
You seem to misunderstand the big lie (it isn't an inherently mystical concept in any way, I don't see how you could think it is)...?
Rationalism isn't the same as mysticism...?
He rejects most forms of idealism...?
You don't seem to know who Bertrand Russell was...?
>The formulator of Russell's teapot...?
>A mystic...?
Pick one...?

>> No.6191600

>>6191594
but i summarised the wiki entry. give us a better definition.

anyway the first mention of mysticism ITT was obviously a reference to those, whether thats the correct definition or not.

>> No.6191603

>>6191590
That's not what philosophy is. Philosophy is a broad term encompassing numerous areas of study.
>experience is grounded in a consciousness which fictionalises the reality around it according to its presuppositions
Why should I take that statement to be true?

>> No.6191604

>>6191600
>the first mention of mysticism ITT was obviously a reference to those
Then it was incorrect and we can all stop here.

>> No.6191606

Is Zizek the only continental anyone here knows of?

>> No.6191607

Stop digressing, Nietzsche's conclusions are more empirical than the likes of Russell and Whitehead.

>> No.6191610

>>6191518
What do you have to do to be a continental? I already live on the continent, so the rest is going to be easy, right?

>> No.6191611

>>6191606
He's just the biggest meme, though they all just spout memes anyway.
>>6191607
How so? He never offers any evidence for his claims. Then again, Russell and Whitehead were mathematicians. Though R&W still attempted to provide evidence, whereas Nietzsche did not.

>> No.6191614

>>6191607
Not true, Nietzsche isn't empirical at all and doesn't even like empiricism...?

>> No.6191615

>>6191610
Just make up some bullshit about a very simple concept and use lots of big, pointless words with capital letters.

>> No.6191639

>>6191614
Being more empirical doesn't imply one takes the method out of its proper domain like classic empiricism does.

You guys seriously think mathematical platonism is more empirical than the skeptical naturalist perspectivism of genealogies and will to power?

>> No.6191644
File: 289 KB, 960x960, 1424677156558.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6191644

>>6191639
>mathematical platonism was a major part of Russell and Whitehead's work

>genealogies and will to power?
>not baseless posturing

>> No.6191649

>>6191644

>baseless posturing

just stop
you don't know what you're talking about

what kind of 'base' are you referring to?

>> No.6191653

>>6191603
I was making no such claim as to what philosophy actually is, merely the sorts of things which continentals usually deal in.
>why should I take that statement to be true?
Because that's the nature of lacking omniscience. We cannot observe everything, and therefore fill in the 'gaps' as it were with circumstancial evidence or assumptions in order for events to follow a logical path of cause and effect. However in making these assumptions, part of the reality we perceive is a construction of our own intellect; no matter how accurate it may appear, there is no guarantee that reality has played out in such a fashion.

>> No.6191657

>>6191649
>what kind of 'base' are you referring to?
Evidence.

>> No.6191665

>>6191653
>We cannot observe everything, and therefore fill in the 'gaps' as it were with circumstancial evidence or assumptions in order for events to follow a logical path of cause and effect. However in making these assumptions, part of the reality we perceive is a construction of our own intellect; no matter how accurate it may appear, there is no guarantee that reality has played out in such a fashion.
Don't talk about this as if it is a dogmatic fact. You are speaking without evidence and drawing your own personal conclusions that nobody has any reason to believe.

>> No.6191668

>>6191657

what is 'evidence'? and what does it have to do with the veracity of a truth claim?

>> No.6191670

>>6191644
>>6191657
>Principia Mathematica was an attempt to describe a set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic from which all mathematical truths could in principle be proven.

>> No.6191672
File: 198 KB, 612x861, 1418406897072.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6191672

>>6191599
>Rationalism isn't the same as mysticism...?

Heh heh heh

>> No.6191675

>>6191639
Yes, because it involves things like geometric proofs and reasoning that can actually be demonstrated mathematically, while a 'genealogy of morals' will never be more than a very subjective history of what people may or may not have thought was right or wrong centuries before the author lived, based not on the attitudes of the masses but on the things written in texts that, for the most part, were only read by the upper classes. Plato also never claimed that the Forms were 'empirical,' and affirmed their purely intelligible nature constantly. Remember, you're the one that said there was empiricism involved in any of these people's philosophies, not us. It isn't my fault you don't know the difference mathematical reasoning and empirical observation.

Things like a 'genealogy of morals' will never have actually observable or demonstrable evidence that supports the claims it makes. Histories of morality written by someone who explicitly wants to overthrow the moral norms of his day and the 2,000-year period preceding that day are always going to be of doubtful authenticity, anyway, especially when you take into account Nietzsche's literal insanity.

Claiming that Nietzsche was in any sense empirical shows only that you have no idea what empiricism actually entails. History as a discipline (which, if it were worth the paper it was written on, is the category within which a genealogy of morals would have to be considered) is 'objective' but it isn't 'empirical.' A genealogy of morals is most certainly not objective, particularly when it's written by, as I said before, someone who explicitly opposes himself to the dominant moral ideology.

>> No.6191676

>>6191675

>history is objective

yowza

>> No.6191678

>>6191672
So you think every rationalist is a mystic and all mystics are rationalists...?

>> No.6191679

>>6191668
Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
>>6191670
Yes, that is what PM was written for. What kind of a point are you trying to make?

>> No.6191682

>>6191665
Not taht anon, but a lot of people seem to have reason to believe they are not experiencing immediate reality, but phenomena that are brought to them in ways that are not themselves open to experience. Plato's cave and all, you know? Also, anqlytics don't buy naïve realism, either, they just try to limit themselves to talking about stuff they have clear concepts for, Wittgenstein style (even though witty mainly demonstrated how huge a limitation that is).

>> No.6191683

>>6191657
haha genealogy of morals is filled with philology and evidence nigaa hahaaaa U evn understand what we talkin about anyway dis shit isnt evidence fagOT he not saying "im rite dis shit true," he saying dis shit will help mankind lmfao

>> No.6191685

>>6191679

>facts

you dun goofd

>> No.6191686

>>6191676
It's supposed to be as objective as possible so as to produce an accurate narrative corresponding to the facts as they are known to be.
This is an aspect of the discipline of history. A historian constructs a narrative around a set of objective facts and events.

>> No.6191689

>>6191675
>history is objective
That's some dangerously wrong thinking you have there.

>> No.6191690

>>6191678
All rationalists are mystics, not all mystics are rationalists. No need to be a pedant.

>> No.6191694

>>6191686

observation of phenomena is never objective

try again
read more
etc

>> No.6191696
File: 176 KB, 480x944, 1404037361402.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6191696

>>6191683
>evidence
I didn't see a single citation to archaeological or historical evidence. The best 'evidence' he used was a dictionary.
>believe they are not experiencing immediate reality
Seems like a claim without evidence.
>>6191685
pic related

>> No.6191704

>>6191694
>>6191689
Again, it is objective in the sense that it deals with events which objectively occurred in history. Or do you want to deny that it is an objective fact of our world that the American Revolution occurred?
'Objective' doesn't mean 'the absence of subjectivity' in this sense, but rather 'relating to objects,' these objects being events that occur in time.
I'm a history student, I'm merely relating what has been taught to me in the classroom by every professor I've had. It's wrong to call it 'empirical' because there's a difference between empirical and objective reasoning.
As >>6191696 says, Nietzsche doesn't cite anything when he makes his claims. This is the difference between Nietzsche and a respectable source when it comes to things like the history of an idea.

>> No.6191706

>>6191696
>Seems like a claim without evidence
Two questions: can you see atoms and electrons? Are they part of reality?

>> No.6191708

>>6191706
With a powerful enough microscope, you can indeed observe those things.

>> No.6191711

>>6191683
>Philology
>Evidence
Pick one.

>> No.6191714
File: 1.76 MB, 412x229, okies.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6191714

>>6191708

>> No.6191718

>>6191706
We have not directly observed electrons, but we have manipulated them in numerous different ways. We have observed atoms, however.

>> No.6191719

>>6191708
>observe
That alone is already a different thing than to immediately experience a thing, as it clearly requires the contribution of the intellect. Also, show me a picture of an electron.

>> No.6191721

>>6191719
Define 'experience'.

>> No.6191725

>>6191721
Hey, my entire point was that immediate experience doesn't exist as a meaningful concept. You're the one who claimed otherwise. A minimum requirement would be a lack of theory to fill in the blanks.

>> No.6191727

>>6191714
What's your point? That you can't see atoms under a microscope?
>>6191719
So you need to immediately experience being thrown into the sun to know that it will burn you if it gets too close? You couldn't throw something at it, watch it burn, throw something else, watch that burn, and come to the conclusion after numerous such experiments that if you were thrown into the sun, you, too, would burn?
>show me a picture of an electron.
https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrB8qG0xe1U92kAJ6OJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTIzOHBxbm1rBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAM3ZThlMmRhNTk0ODZjMTU3YzBkMDdmZjM2YzQ5YmYwMgRncG9zAzI0BGl0A2Jpbmc-?.origin=&back=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Datom%2Bmicroscope%26fr2%3Dpiv-web%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D24&w=302&h=300&imgurl=www.bnl.gov%2Fbnlweb%2Fpubaf%2Fpr%2Fphotos%2F2002%2FMgB2-pic.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Flarafael.com%2F22%2Fatom-in-microscope&size=13.1KB&name=%3Cb%3EAtom%3C%2Fb%3E+In+%3Cb%3EMicroscope%3C%2Fb%3E&p=atom+microscope&oid=7e8e2da59486c157c0d07ff36c49bf02&fr2=piv-web&fr=&tt=%3Cb%3EAtom%3C%2Fb%3E+In+%3Cb%3EMicroscope%3C%2Fb%3E&b=0&ni=21&no=24&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=119duv5i3&sigb=13n0unb7n&sigi=11kjkff1h&sigt=1101epks5&sign=1101epks5&.crumb=L.HFfosp4PB&fr2=piv-web&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla
Here's a picture of an atom, if not of an electron. Answering half your question is good enough, since the same principle applies throughout the whole.

>> No.6191732

>>6191725
>immediate experience doesn't exist as a meaningful concept
Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

>> No.6191739

>>6191727
>So you need to immediately experience being thrown into the sun to know that it will burn you if it gets too close
No, you can use your intellectual capacities for that. Still, you have to admit that that's what you're doing, making a conjecture based on inductive reasoning, based on events which were in turn only understood based on inductive reasoning. By that point, any claim to immediacy is effectively out of the window.
>Answering half your question is good enough
It precisely is not, because you admit that things exist whcih cannot be directly observed. Thank you for proving my point.

>> No.6191748

>>6191739
>cannot be directly observed
No, we simply are not able to /directly/ observe them at this time, though we can observe their functions. Please do not make absolute statements.

>> No.6191751

>>6191739
>making a conjecture based on inductive reasoning
I haven't denied the validity of induction at any point. You're the one that's obsessed with 'immediacy,' not me.
>because you admit that things exist whcih cannot be directly observed
No, I admit that we have observed atoms, and if our present understanding of atoms is correct, with a sufficiently powerful microscope or similar implement, we would see electrons when we zoomed in close enough on atoms.

>> No.6191760

>>6191751
>No, I admit that we have observed atoms, and if our present understanding of atoms is correct, with a sufficiently powerful microscope or similar implement, we would see electrons when we zoomed in close enough on atoms.
Also, if we didn't see electrons, we'd still know what's actually there, which would be fine, since actual empirical research within the context of science doesn't strive to be right all the time but to uncover the mathematical laws and the material compounds that govern and constitute our reality.

>> No.6191764

>>6191732
>evidence for a statement about concepts
I'm not sure what kind of thing you're even looking for right here. For a concept to be meaningful, it needs to be at least logically consistent. Also, it would help if it actually applied to something. So if you say that you have a way to make this work, I'm ready to listen to it. Not gonna make up something just to demonstrate its infeasibility, that would be a strawman by definition.

>> No.6191767

>>6191764
Could you provide us with something like a chain of premises to bring us to the conclusion you reached above, O Wise One?

>> No.6191772

>>6191764
So could you give me a reason to accept your little 'concept' as true?

>> No.6191773

holy fuck this thread.

you guys think projecting anthrpocentric abstractions onto nature itself is more empirical than referencing general history some of the greatest books the ancient world produced? N doesnt care about being a "reputable" scholar in the eyes of plebs.

>> No.6191777

>>6191773
>N doesnt care about being a "reputable" scholar in the eyes of plebs.
And that's why nobody takes him seriously.

>> No.6191778

>>6191748
>we simply are not able to /directly/ observe them at this time
That's really all that is required for the statement that reality includes unobserved entities, which are nontheless real, creating a gap between our perception and objective reality.
>>6191751
>You're the one that's obsessed with 'immediacy,' not me.
Then why do you even object to my statement that we do not have immediate experience?

Now we're getting somewhere, with you admitting that science consists largely of theory, not direct observation, which is perfectly fine. So, what's your problem with continental philosophy again?

>> No.6191784

>>6191778
>creating a gap between our perception and objective reality.
We only know that they exist because we can perceive their functions and reactions.

>> No.6191790

>>6191772
My concept? What concept?
>>6191767
The conclusion that you won't be able to produce a useful definition of immediate experience? Oh well, I have your failure to do so thus far. Induction, I know.

>> No.6191794

>>6191790
>My concept? What concept?
The concept of experience not accounting for reality, which should really require some evidence.

>> No.6191795

>>6191784
>We only know that they exist because we can perceive their functions and reactions
For that, however, we need the appropriate theories. Otherwise, we wouldn't know we're looking at phenomena related to unobserved entities called electrons. That is the gap.

>> No.6191796

>>6191777
He intentionally wrote in a style that would alienate pleb simpletons like yourself.

>> No.6191797

>>6191773
>general history
>greatest books the ancient world produced
1) What 'general history' does Nietzsche use when he makes his claims? What sources does he cite? Are those sources reputable? Were they in his day and do they stand up to it today? Why should a syphilitic amoralist like Nietzsche be able to get away with intellectual dishonesty when no one else is allowed the benefit of the doubt?
2) Like what? Were these histories that spend any amount of time detailing the morality of the cultures they cover? If not, they have no place in a history book (which is what a genealogy of morals would be if it were worth reading).
If Nietzsche didn't care about being accurate in his writings, why would you ever consider citing him?
>>6191778
Our ideas about the noumenal/physical world come to us in the form of sensory phenomena rather than as they truly are outside of our minds, but I see no reason to distrust the appearances of these phenomena. Cartesian doubt can only get you so far The laws reason uncovers when it tests the world are trustworthy whether we have 'immediate' experience of them or not.
>science consists largely of theory, not direct observation
Science consists of literally nothing but those two things. Continental philosophy isn't empirical. Its theories have little evidence to support them and the theorists take pride in this fact, or claim that revolutionary praxis is the same as empirical research, which isn't the case.

>> No.6191806

>>6191796
>He intentionally wrote in a style that would alienate pleb simpletons like yourself.
How unscientific. Good thing his ideas don't matter outside of his little circle.

>> No.6191811

>>6191795
>For that, however, we need the appropriate theories
Like we already have.
>Otherwise, we wouldn't know we're looking at phenomena related to unobserved entities called electrons
No, otherwise we wouldn't be looking.
>That is the gap.
The gap between what? Because I'm not seeing any gap.

>> No.6191812

>>6191794
Dreams are the classical example for that I guess, you're experiencing things that aren't real. Also, hallucinations. And now we need to draw a line between those and waking, sober perception, if possible one that isn't entirely pragmatic in nature.

>> No.6191814

>>6191778
>admitting that science consists largely of theory

Science consists largely of models whose veracity is directly related to their falsifiability. You should stop trying to make an equivalence between the scientific process and unrigorous continental babble.

>> No.6191817

>>6191812
>Dreams are the classical example for that I guess, you're experiencing things that aren't real. Also, hallucinations
We know how these things are caused, though, and we know how they differentiate from the waking, sober brain. So how is the waking, sober brain not perceiving reality?

>> No.6191818

>>6191811
>Like we already have
Which no one denied.
>No, otherwise we wouldn't be looking
Right, people started looking at lightning the moment someone had a scientific explanation for them.
>The gap between what?
Between the world and our perception.

>> No.6191822

>>6191812
You haven't gone full Descartes and defined mind as substantially different from matter yet, if you do that you might be making the literal same argument he made. As it is, you're making yourself look like an idiot.

>> No.6191824

>>6191818
>Between the world and our perception.
How are you demonstrating that, though? All you did was agree that we have observed the functions of electrons.

>> No.6191826

>>6191555
>Every scholarly source I've read traces the divide back to Hegel...?
>I think by the time Heidegger was writing the distinctive analytic and continental styles had already solidified...?
Then you haven't read many scholarly sources.
The divide is entirely a product of the twentieth century.

This book gives you a good history and sense of the moment:
http://www.amazon.com/Continental-Divide-Heidegger-Cassirer-Davos/dp/0674064178

>> No.6191828

>>6191822
It was all well and good for Descartes to define the mind like that, but it didn't make it so. All the things we attribute to our mind can be shown as functions of the brain.

>> No.6191829

>>6191818
There isn't a gap between the world and our perception. There is a gap between us and the world, and that gap IS perception. You're trying to mix Kant and Descartes and failing miserably.
All the same, induction gives us the ability to come to valid conclusions about the way objects in the world behave.

>> No.6191830

>>6191797
>1) What 'general history' does Nietzsche use when he makes his claims?
Read any of his books and you'll know.

>What sources does he cite? Are those sources reputable? Were they in his day and do they stand up to it today? Why should a syphilitic amoralist like Nietzsche be able to get away with intellectual dishonesty when no one else is allowed the benefit of the doubt?
His main works aren't merely academic so don't apply such criteria where it is inappropriate. And he did not have that disease, your empirical knowledge is as bad as your philosophical knowledge of the man.

>2) Like what? Were these histories that spend any amount of time detailing the morality of the cultures they cover? If not, they have no place in a history book (which is what a genealogy of morals would be if it were worth reading).
If Nietzsche didn't care about being accurate in his writings, why would you ever consider citing him?
See the point about his books not being merely academic. There is a reason he is still remembered today unlike his colleagues who you would rather he was more similar to. His first book received a lot of the criticisms you are making in fact yet we now know he was the greatest philologist of his day.

>> No.6191832
File: 30 KB, 666x408, 1411975937460.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6191832

>> No.6191833

>>6191814
>Science consists largely of models whose veracity is directly related to their falsifiability
Falsificationism is indeed sort of intuitive to scientisrs, but that's not how normal science works. Read Kuhn for that, and for a sort-of reconciliation, Lakatos.
>>6191817
So, that line consists entirely in a difference between neuronal stimuli. And now be the fucking genius you think you are and tell me how any particular neuronal stimulus can guarantee that reality is being perceived.

>> No.6191834

>>6191833
>And now be the fucking genius you think you are and tell me how any particular neuronal stimulus can guarantee that reality is being perceived.
I'm not making that claim. You're making the inverse claim. I don't make claims without evidence.

>> No.6191839

>>6191833
>but that's not how normal science works
Yes it is.

>> No.6191840

>>6191829
>There isn't a gap between the world and our perception. There is a gap between us and the world, and that gap IS perception
How would we be able to tell the difference between any of those being true?
Also, where am I even mixing in Descartes? If anything, I threw in a Hume here and there.

>> No.6191845

>>6191834
No, I'm making the claim that the only way to distinguish dream from reality is a pragmatic one. The evidence for that is the absence of people who can produce a stronger distinction, which is enough.

>> No.6191852
File: 3 KB, 199x183, 1409871407614.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6191852

>>6191845
>No, I'm making the claim that the only way to distinguish dream from reality is a pragmatic one
Could you expand upon that? How exactly, and pragmatically, could we distinguish between reality and non-reality?
>The evidence for that is the absence of people who can produce a stronger distinction, which is enough.
>absence of evidence is evidence of absence

>> No.6191854

>>6191806
The best literature isn't scientific, scientific books tend to go out of date quickly. Also Nietzsche is one of the largest figures in high culture. Try leaving your little nerd culture sometime.

>> No.6191858

>>6191854
>scientific books tend to go out of date quickly
You say this like it is a bad thing.
>Also Nietzsche is one of the largest figures in high culture
That doesn't make him right about anything? The 'high culture' can eat shit for all I care.

>> No.6191859

I feel like continental philosophy is a bullshit category. It mixes so many conflicting philosophers and ideas that it doesn't' really mean anything.

>> No.6191863

>>6191859
It means unscientific, obfuscating, pseudo-intellectuals.

>> No.6191864

>>6191852
>absence of evidence is evidence of absence
That's how all that new atheism works.
>How exactly, and pragmatically, could we distinguish between reality and non-reality?
For example the rules of identity and causality seem to apply much stronger in reality than in dreams, so we'll just go with distinguishing the two along those lines, without this actually containing any information about a world outside our minds, or about how it relates to our perceptions.

>> No.6191867

>>6191858
>The 'high culture' can eat shit for all I care.
This really sums up the reason you dislike Nietzsche. Enjoy your plebeianism in art, ideas, ethics, etc.

>> No.6191869

>>6191864
>That's how all that new atheism works.
Why are you bringing that up? What relevance does that have here?
>For example the rules of identity and causality seem to apply much stronger in reality than in dreams
Have you studied this?

>> No.6191873

>>6191867
>Enjoy your plebeianism in art, ideas, ethics, etc
I don't really care about that shit, there is no measure or criterion of what makes them acceptable or unacceptable. It is all based on popularity.

>> No.6191886

>>6191869
>Why are you bringing that up? What relevance does that have here?
Well, if that's good enough for some people to reject god, it will be good enough for me to reject immediacy, which has a way lower standing anyway.
>Have you studied this?
All you need to do to know this is dream, and wake. In dreams you can go on a boat cruise with your crush, just for the situation to shift to you sitting in your living room with the cookie monster, without you even necessarily questioning any of it.

>> No.6191891

>>6191886
>Well, if that's good enough for some people to reject god, it will be good enough for me to reject immediacy, which has a way lower standing anyway.
So you think the 'new atheists' make a valid point? I thought you were deriding them.
> In dreams you can go on a boat cruise with your crush, just for the situation to shift to you sitting in your living room with the cookie monster, without you even necessarily questioning any of it.
That may be true for you, but how do you know it is true for everyone?

>> No.6191902

>>6191854
>scientific books tend to go out of date quickly.
This is probably the single most exceptional indicator that a practice is seriously attempting to explain the world to us. And then in the other hand you have the amusing, fluffy bullshit like philosophy, religion and the arts.

>> No.6191907

>>6191891
>So you think the 'new atheists' make a valid point? I thought you were deriding them.
Ok, now THAT really is irrelevant. Let's say I agree with them on the non-existence of god, but not on the reasoning by which they arrive at that conclusion.
>That may be true for you, but how do you know it is true for everyone?
Dan Dennett mentions it, too, so at least it applies to me and him.

>> No.6191911

>>6191907
>Ok, now THAT really is irrelevant. Let's say I agree with them on the non-existence of god, but not on the reasoning by which they arrive at that conclusion.
So their reasoning is actually NOT good enough for you, then, is it?
>Dan Dennett mentions it, too, so at least it applies to me and him.
Maybe you two should study dreams, at least Dan has access to that sort of thing.

>> No.6191937

>>6191911
>So their reasoning is actually NOT good enough for you, then, is it?
In the case of god, no. But the concept of god is quite different from immediacy.
>Maybe you two should study dreams, at least Dan has access to that sort of thing.
Oh well, for the time being, my own experience combined with his own combined with his knowledge of psychology seems sufficient.

>> No.6191938

>>6191830
>he did not have that disease
You've contradicted every source I've read about him, I'm not inclined to believe you.
Being a great philologist doesn't make your ideas about morality correct. Not to mention that he was wrong about the fate of morals, namely because God isn't dead. The evangelical vote in America is very powerful and always has been. While Nietzsche was writing the Second Great Awakening was taking place across the Atlantic. He deserves to be forgotten.

>> No.6191943

>>6191873
Nietzsche is actually the plebbest philosopher

>> No.6191948

>>6191937
>In the case of god, no. But the concept of god is quite different from immediacy.
So you pick and choose your criteria of validity depending on your vested interests in the subject matter?
>Oh well, for the time being, my own experience combined with his own combined with his knowledge of psychology seems sufficient.
You're a determinist, then?

>> No.6191953

People like the science-denier ITT

>> No.6191964

>>6191948
>So you pick and choose your criteria of validity depending on your vested interests in the subject matter?
Nah, I'd rather pick them in accordance to the nature of the subject matter.
>You're a determinist, then?
In what sense exactly?

>> No.6191969

>>6191964
>Nah, I'd rather pick them in accordance to the nature of the subject matter.
That's what I said.
>In what sense exactly?
The sense that Danny Dennet is.

>> No.6191982

>>6191969
>That's what I said.
No, you talked about my vested interest. Or are you saying that that is identical to the nature of the subject matter? Because in that case, you're more relativist than the worst of the continentals.
>The sense that Danny Dennet is.
Because I agreed with his account of dream-logic, which was maybe a paragraph in Consciousness Explained? That goes beyond merely jumping to conclusions, I thought you're a man of science?

>> No.6191990

>>6191982
>No, you talked about my vested interest
Clearly that's what it is about. You think 'god' is a more 'important' 'theory'.
>Or are you saying that that is identical to the nature of the subject matter?
I'm saying that if your criteria of validity is rigorous you wouldn't be picking and choosing where it applies.
>Because I agreed with his account of dream-logic, which was maybe a paragraph in Consciousness Explained?
No, because you said
>his knowledge of psychology seems sufficient.
So is it only sufficient when you choose?

>> No.6191993

It's literally the same thread, over and over again every weekend, and getting worse each time. I'm glad we can argue about dichotomies instead of actually engaging with the material on a case to case basis and in context of historical developments.

>> No.6191994

>>6191993
Because continentals apply a less rigorous method, in fact they accept assertions without evidence.

>> No.6191997

>>6191993
Continentals are terrible at discussing history even though it's relevant to their thought and put too much emphasis on context
Analytics don't care about history or context
There's no common ground

>> No.6192000

>>6191990
>Clearly that's what it is about. You think 'god' is a more 'important' 'theory'.
No, I think god is a more difficult theory, which accounts for the fact that we won't find evidence, unlike immediacy, which falls on its head the moment it can't be produced. A difference in nature warrants a difference in approach.
And Dennett, I see no reason to mistrust him on that, as it is a simple statement about empirical facts, not related to his metaphysical conclusions by any degree of necessity. Also, do you think your attack on my weak distinction between dreams and reality will prove helpful to your own demand for a stronger one? Because, it really seems counter-productive.

>> No.6192007 [DELETED] 
File: 18 KB, 320x272, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6192007

>>6192000

>> No.6192012

>>6191997
I also like generalizing on /lit/, because it means I don't have to read books. They're so scary, why read when I can shitpost about stuff I haven't read instead in an argument that will never go anywhere and that no one in the field actually takes seriously.

>> No.6192017

>>6192000
>No, I think god is a more difficult theory, which accounts for the fact that we won't find evidence, unlike immediacy, which falls on its head the moment it can't be produced
Good thing we don't make claims without evidence.
>not related to his metaphysical conclusions by any degree of necessity
Determinism isn't a metaphysical view, it is similarly based on empirical evidence.
>Also, do you think your attack on my weak distinction between dreams and reality will prove helpful to your own demand for a stronger one? Because, it really seems counter-productive.
I don't see how, a distinction should always be questioned and tested to see what it can account for. Your distinction is very weak, so why wouldn't I question it? Maybe you should consider criticisms and develop a sounder hypothesis.

>> No.6192024

>>6192012
I was mostly joking when I made that post, I'm actually reading Being & Time at the breakfast table and looking forward to the philosophy class I have later today, which will be taught as it is every Monday and Wednesday by a staunch analytic who is certainly deserving of respect.

>> No.6192034

>>6191547

poor demented old hack. barely manages to string a coherent sentence together.

>> No.6192036

>>6192024
Oh, that's good. I mean, I respect those kinds of professors and analytic philosophy, I just don't ever see myself as interested in their fields of concern.

>> No.6192041

>>6192017
>Good thing we don't make claims without evidence
>Determinism isn't a metaphysical view
Ok i don't know how to answer either in any other way than by pic related.
>I don't see how, a distinction should always be questioned and tested to see what it can account for
You haven't done this, though, all you did was attack the source.
>Your distinction is very weak, so why wouldn't I question it?
Because it makes a stronger distinction less likely. If you believe there is a stronger distinction, maybe you should point out what that could be, instead of trying to discredit the minimum of common gound I offered.

>> No.6192042

>>6192036
I wouldn't care about it if I didn't go to a university with a painfully analytic philosophy department but as a philosophy major I feel like the analytic method has a great deal of merit and can be pretty useful when it isn't reduced to memetic terms like it is here.

>> No.6192043

>>6192034
Did the lack of buzzwords and obfuscation confuse you?

>> No.6192053

>>6192041
>You haven't done this, though, all you did was attack the source.
You never posted a source.
>Because it makes a stronger distinction less likely
No it doesn't, it shows you the flaws in yours.
>If you believe there is a stronger distinction, maybe you should point out what that could be
We already have a neurological distinction relating to brain activity.

>> No.6192054
File: 2.42 MB, 328x166, 1424845667174.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6192054

>>6192041
Oh, right, forgot pic.

>> No.6192067

>>6192053
>You never posted a source.
Dan Dennett, Consciousness Explained, page gofuckyourself.
>it shows you the flaws in yours
You haven't even mentioned one flaw, let alone flaws.
>We already have a neurological distinction relating to brain activity
I already told you, a difference in neurological process does not imply a difference in perceived reality.

>> No.6192071

>>6192067
>Dan Dennett, Consciousness Explained, page gofuckyourself.
Oh, you consider that a source. It wasn't cited properly.
>You haven't even mentioned one flaw, let alone flaws.
It is unscientific.
>I already told you, a difference in neurological process does not imply a difference in perceived reality.
Yes it does, actually, as perception is a function of the brain.

>> No.6192073

>>6191665
Yeah, okay, so like say there really IS a super secret truth, buried, at the bottom of it all, a sort of objective, observable reality that exists whether observed or not, Truth, big T style, where answers to questions with currently subjective answers that plague humanity like "how should one live" are finally realized as clear as heliocentricism, the muddled subjectivation peeled back to reveal the Answer, starkly empirical and Positivist-approved and what have you.

Why should this terminate all need for subjective thought in the present? We don"t have all the answers, and there's yet lots of thoughts to be had.

there may be/is some sort of immutable avenue however vastly complex between this objective reality and our subjective experience. Scientists just work from the objective up while continentals (and postmoderns and artists and clergymen) mostly work backwards from the subjective down.

>> No.6192081

>>6192073
>Yeah, okay, so like say there really IS a super secret truth, buried, at the bottom of it all, a sort of objective, observable reality that exists whether observed or not, Truth, big T style, where answers to questions with currently subjective answers that plague humanity like "how should one live" are finally realized as clear as heliocentricism, the muddled subjectivation peeled back to reveal the Answer, starkly empirical and Positivist-approved and what have you.
What a mess. I don't make assumptions and your grammar is deplorable. Stop mis-capitalising words.

>> No.6192084

>>6192071
>Oh, you consider that a source. It wasn't cited properly
Yeah you see, this is not a research paper, but rather an imagboard for dutch wooden shoes.
>it is unscientific
Unless this applies to epistemology in general, in which case science has a problem, I don't see how.
>Yes it does, actually, as perception is a function of the brain.
It is, but knowledge of that fact doesn't imply any knowledge regarding wether or not, or to what degree, the perceived objects are real.

>> No.6192094

>>6191797
Genealogy of Morals is subtitled "A Polemic." Nietzsche is NOT trying to PUSH FORWARD A FACT, he is advocating one value over another, namely advocating the value of life and vitality over asceticism and piety. You can't use "evidence" for this, you can't be an autistical faggot.

>> No.6192102

>>6192094
>you can't be an autistical faggot
Different anon here, they seem to have absolutely no trouble with that.

>> No.6192104

>>6192084
>Unless this applies to epistemology in general, in which case science has a problem, I don't see how.
Why would anyone accept something as true without evidence? Of course your assertions require a scientific base.
>It is, but knowledge of that fact doesn't imply any knowledge regarding wether or not, or to what degree, the perceived objects are real.
We can't tell if they are or aren't, but because I can experience them, and everyone else seems to as well, I'm going to lean towards them existing.

>> No.6192112

>>6192043

>lack of buzzwords and obfuscation confuse you?

I'm an analtic myself, kind of funny to see you jump at anyone threatening to burst your little bubble. If anything you're the one spamming buzzwords you huge autist. Just kill yourself and stop making a bad name for us.

>> No.6192116

>>6191518
But I am.

>> No.6192117

>>6192112
>hurr u hve autism and The Real xDDD
Nice false flag, cuntinental faggot. Go fuck a child like your brooding pseudo-intellectual French heroes.

>> No.6192122

>>6192116
How Can The Real Be Real If Our Perception Is Based On Our Fallible Senses?

>> No.6192126

>>6192043
Fuck Chomsky, most of his theories on linguistics aren't even relevant anymore and have long been debunked. Inherent Grammar was harmful to the study of linguistics and related fields, while using the same speculation and lack of evidence he accuses post-modern theorists of.

>> No.6192133

>>6192104
>Why would anyone accept something as true without evidence?
Let's try and play this through for a second, shall we?
Ok, how do you know you're awake right now?
Is it because you are looking at a scan of your brain that is permanently being done, and that scan shows you 'waking' patterns? Here's the problem with that, if it were the case: you have no way of telling wether you're actually looking at scans of your brain that show you're awake, or wether you're just dreaming it.
>and everyone else seems to as well, I'm going to lean towards them existing
And that is what we call unwarranted assumptions, which in turn your entire super-sound scientific view is founded on. It's a question of intellectual honesty to admit that.

>> No.6192134
File: 321 KB, 445x387, 1400322558144.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6192134

>>6192126
>Fuck Chomsky, most of his theories on linguistics aren't even relevant anymore and have long been debunked. Inherent Grammar was harmful to the study of linguistics and related fields, while using the same speculation and lack of evidence he accuses post-modern theorists of.

>> No.6192136

>>6192122
Descartes in one sentence.

>> No.6192157

>>6192133
>And that is what we call unwarranted assumptions
I believe I said
>lean towards
So, no, I haven't made a claim.
>Ok, how do you know you're awake right now?
I don't think it matters if I am or not. These questions are totally pointless because I will act the same way regardless. But, unlike you, I will be conferring with others and answering the questions of the universe, instead of insisting that nothing is real despite a lack of evidence.

>> No.6192161

>>6192134
If you actually studied linguistics, you would know that he's really only taken seriously in linguistics in the US, and within that at very select institutions, with many top programs like Stanford and OSU teaching him only out of historical significance. Oh wait, you don't actually read anything, or study linguistics, so I guess you wouldn't know this.

>> No.6192166
File: 51 KB, 530x530, 1412766900983.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6192166

>>6192161
>If you actually studied linguistics, you would know that he's really only taken seriously in linguistics in the US, and within that at very select institutions, with many top programs like Stanford and OSU teaching him only out of historical significance. Oh wait, you don't actually read anything, or study linguistics, so I guess you wouldn't know this.

>> No.6192167

>>6192117

Embarrassing..

>> No.6192169

>>6192134

nice meme dude really enjoying these hot dank memes haha he's wearing a hat sick comeback /b/ro

>> No.6192170

>>6192161
People bring this up so much on this board, I'm curious as to how many of our regular posters actually have linguistics degrees or have studied it in any meaningful capacity.

>> No.6192172

>>6192157
>I will be conferring with others and answering the questions of the universe
Or you will just dream that you do.
>I believe I said
So, you believe things pragmatically and without any semblance of evidence. All I wanted you to admit was just that, thank you.
>instead of insisting that nothing is real despite a lack of evidence.
Ok, your insistence that you need evidence in order to be skeptical is probably the most annoyingly stupid thing I have yet encountered on this board.

>> No.6192177

>>6192166

ebin comeback

>> No.6192178

>>6192172
>Or you will just dream that you do.
Like it matters.
>So, you believe things pragmatically and without any semblance of evidence. All I wanted you to admit was just that, thank you.
Whatever small victories you want to take, anon.
>Ok, your insistence that you need evidence in order to be skeptical is probably the most annoyingly stupid thing I have yet encountered on this board.
That's a great argument, bud. you should get some rest, though.

>> No.6192189
File: 122 KB, 558x743, 1403697656479.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6192189

>>6192177
>ebin comeback

>> No.6192190

>>6192178
>Like it matters.
Oh, cool, now reality doesn't even matter anymore. I said it before, you're worse than the worst of the continentals.
>Whatever small victories
You have proven my entire point mate, no way around it.
>That's a great argument
Not an argument, but an observation: you don't understand what skepticism is. For evidence, read your own posts.

>> No.6192196

>>6192190
>Oh, cool, now reality doesn't even matter anymore.
It never has. Whether you think that life is a dream, or you refuse to make a claim without evidence, you will encounter the same results.
>You have proven my entire point mate, no way around it.
That life is but a dream? Hardly, I have offered no evidence for that.
>you don't understand what skepticism is
I haven't been touting scepticism.

>> No.6192201

>>6192189

schweet memes

>> No.6192204
File: 8 KB, 208x280, atheist.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6192204

>>6192201
>schweet memes

>> No.6192366

>>6192196
>life is but a dream? Hardly, I have offered no evidence for that.
That never was anyone's claim to begin with. Instead, the claim was that there isn't any evidence pointing either way, warranting skepticism towards any and all statements about the world.

>> No.6192389
File: 108 KB, 492x600, 35BAB.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6192389

>>6192126
>>6192134
>>6192161
>>6192166
>>6192177
>>6192189
>>6192201
>>6192204
Shrekt

>> No.6192404

>>6191599
I don't know what to think of trip gimmicks.

>> No.6192414

>>6191675
am I reading this wrong, or are you conflating empiricism and rationalism? maybe they're both acceptably "analytic" but they're far from interchangeable, you should brush up on the 18th century a bit

>> No.6192457
File: 179 KB, 404x521, 1422671684876.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6192457

Has analytic philosophy ever produced something actually valuable to non-autists or are they just a bunch of old comfortable liberal english poofters in rocking chairs?

>> No.6192488

>>6192457
Wittgenstein has used it to great effect in showing the limitations of the method. Also I still suspect some unacknowledged dialectical insights in the works of Kripke, Whitehead and Quine, which are unfortunately but expectedly buried under layers of autistic wordwank.

>> No.6192530

>>6191518
Why do you make the same stupid thread every day? And why the fuck do they always get 100+ posts. So many literal morons here.

>> No.6192855

Being a Hegelian, I synthesize.

>> No.6193267

>>6191832
You know, you would think this image is just to troll, but this thread proves that these retards actually exist on both sides.

>> No.6193445

bump

>> No.6193587

>>6191518
Because I prefer to be a wannabe pure mathematician with a massive inferiority complex re: the sciences, i.e. an analytic.

>> No.6193594

>>6191585
>any kind of ontological realism/foundationalism
>not superstition

>> No.6193634

>>6192855
>Hegelian
>synthesize
Now that made me more mad than anything else ITT.

>> No.6193759

>>6192414
I'm not conflating them, I'm saying that rational inquiry AND empirical inquiry can both give us valid information about the world.

>> No.6193766

>>6192855
You're a shit hegelian

>> No.6194053

>>6191614
Nietzsche's not against empiricism you fucking idiot

God /lit/ is so retarded

>> No.6194060

>>6194053
>Equating not liking something with being opposed to it

>> No.6194078

>>6193766
It's a joke, and I'm not, strictly speaking, a Hegelian, since I subscribe to Gentile's conception of Spirit as constructed rather than merely discovered.

>> No.6194121

>>6194078
Sorry, I said Hegelian but I meant poster.

>> No.6196623

>>6191606
Peter Sloterdjik is getting to be pretty huge, albeit not on /lit/. Also I haven't read him yet which I'm gonna try to change soon.

>> No.6197560

>>6192034
but everything he's saying is coherent sentences