What is the relation between ethics and aesthetics?

File: 218 KB, 902x902, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri May 22 20:08:32 2015 No.6576860 [Reply] [Original]

What is the relation between ethics and aesthetics?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:09:03 2015 No.6576862 ethics = aesthetics

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:09:46 2015 No.6576865 >>6576862 Why?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:09:48 2015 No.6576866 Wittgenstein HATES you.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:10:28 2015 No.6576868 you cant spell aesthetics with ethics

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:11:03 2015 No.6576873 >>6576865 see >>6576868

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:11:34 2015 No.6576877 >>6576866 Why? >>6576868 WHY?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:12:56 2015 No.6576886 >>6576877 Just look at his eyes. He's had enough of this bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:14:21 2015 No.6576893 >>6576868 Can't spell aesthetics without ass. Fukcer

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:15:47 2015 No.6576898 >>6576877 why is 2 + 2 equal to 4? it just is

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:16:57 2015 No.6576901 >>6576898 >implying mathematics isn't an autistic self-referential puzzle box that has nothing to do with reality

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:17:52 2015 No.6576907 >>6576898 What is 0? Uppidity ass nigger.

>>	Have a meme Fri May 22 20:19:39 2015 No.6576915 Nulla ethica sine aesthetica.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:22:10 2015 No.6576921 >>6576901 At least it's an interesting puzzle box. You can't say the same most philosophical works.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:22:13 2015 No.6576923 File: 19 KB, 389x500, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6576915 What does it all mean?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:23:22 2015 No.6576928 >>6576921 >can't say the same for oops

>>	Have a meme Fri May 22 20:24:16 2015 No.6576931 >>6576923 There's no ethics without aesthetics. It goes in the line of assimilating ethical behavior, to beauty, or harmony. In this way of seeing things, both concepts co-implicate themselves.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:26:33 2015 No.6576940 File: 26 KB, 325x327, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6576931 >>6576931 Cool. Thanks a lot sir. I really appreciate it.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:27:51 2015 No.6576946 this is one of the most intellectual threads in a long, long time

>>	ΟΥΤΙΣ Fri May 22 20:29:53 2015 No.6576950 Read Either/Or

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:29:56 2015 No.6576951 >>6576940 That meme is one of the funniest ones...

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:30:18 2015 No.6576952 File: 147 KB, 806x806, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6576946 Shit or get off the pot nigher

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:30:27 2015 No.6576954 >>6576860 none

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:31:05 2015 No.6576957 >>6576951 why would that meme even be fun?

>>	Have a meme Fri May 22 20:32:05 2015 No.6576962 >>6576957 Only the pure will understand <3

Anonymous Fri May 22 20:32:33 2015 No.6576964
File: 557 KB, 602x820, beyond the pale.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6576860
They're identical, both are about explaining why we like things and why we don't like things.

There's really no distinct difference between not liking murder and not liking Rothko. Both are ultimately just 'muh feels'. People like to make up complex excuses as to why their feels are better than other peoples feels, but ultimately the hierarchy they seek to establish is arbitrary.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:33:58 2015 No.6576968 >>6576898 Actually, 2+2=4 is an axiom that exists merely by consensus. It 'just is' not any more than the rules of chess 'just are'.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:34:28 2015 No.6576971 >>6576964 This

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:34:33 2015 No.6576972 >>6576968 chess just is

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:34:56 2015 No.6576973 >>6576860 Ethics concerns the good, that is, being considered as an end, while aesthetics considers the beautiful, or being considered as intelligible in itself. Goodness and beauty are transcendentals- features of everything, insofar as it is.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:36:10 2015 No.6576978 >>6576972 Chess is a game that exists by virtue of people agreeing on the rules. So is math.

Anonymous Fri May 22 20:38:12 2015 No.6576987

>>6576964

>ultimately the hierarchy they seek to establish is arbitrary

I don't think the word you're looking for here is "arbitrary". You can accurately say it might look like "contingent", or to be precise "relative", yet it can pose as absolute in a relative reference.

As an example: the values of ancient Greece might seem to us relative, but they where absolutely necessary to build their civilization. By the same reason, unless you enforce the values of yours, it will all crumble for those who come after.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:39:19 2015 No.6576989 File: 139 KB, 635x854, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6576973 Shut up. SHUT UP. -Shitgenstain

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:39:52 2015 No.6576995 File: 577 KB, 685x630, quietism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6576989

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:39:59 2015 No.6576996 >>6576978 chess is chess math is math

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:40:52 2015 No.6577001 >>6576987 Aristotle would spot the logical fallacy in one millisecond.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:41:15 2015 No.6577003 >>6576978 Everyone agreeing that the wrong equations will get a satelite into orbit wont actually make that happen.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:42:18 2015 No.6577009 >>6576973 Can there be something good without being beautiful in some aspect as well?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:42:58 2015 No.6577011 File: 29 KB, 440x280, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6576973 "Wardine say momma ain't treat her right. Wardine be cry."--David Foster Wallace

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:44:02 2015 No.6577016 >>6576987 So the point of ethics is to build a successful civilization?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:44:56 2015 No.6577018 >>6577003 That would be physics.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:46:28 2015 No.6577025 >>6577009 >Can there be something good without being beautiful in some aspect as well? No, I don't think it can be. Precisely to understand its goodness, and appreciate it for what it is, is to understand its beauty.

Anonymous Fri May 22 20:47:30 2015 No.6577028

>>6577003

You're speaking about physics, which do not depend on people's agreement, but on the concrete configurations of a given planet.

Mathematical models, do depend on a given set of axioms, and a given set of valid expressions, which are generally deduced, and agreed beforehand.

That is one of the reasons why math can model real things, or be purely theoretical.

Anonymous Fri May 22 20:47:47 2015 No.6577030

>>6576987
The word I was looking for was certainly arbitrary.

>As an example: the values of ancient Greece might seem to us relative, but they where absolutely necessary to build their civilization.
And the preference for the building of ancient Greek civilisation is itself completely arbitrary.

Anonymous Fri May 22 20:48:12 2015 No.6577031

>>6577003
It's the other way around. People say the equation is wrong because it has failed to get them a satellite into orbit, and they say it's right until it fails to get them done something. The game relates to real life outcomes because it has been designed to take that into account. But it's ultimately a matter of consensus, when people didn't care about satellites the equation that were enough to build a good ship were agreed to be right.

And that's just talking about scientist and engineers, mathematicians don't really give a crashing fuck about satellites.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:48:30 2015 No.6577032 >>6577016 In that example, to set the limits of action, in order to preserve, and defend a given civilization.

Anonymous Fri May 22 20:51:12 2015 No.6577043

>>6577030

I agree on the fact you have chosen your word arbitrarily.

In a given moment of time, the core values of an ethical system, are certainly relative to that moment of time, and absolute as a reference to the conservation of those who use said ethical system.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:51:44 2015 No.6577047 >>6577032 The set of conditions under which the hierarchy of feels is established not to be arbitrary is itself an arbitrarily decided set of conditions.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:53:12 2015 No.6577055 >>6577032 but that is absolutely arbitrary

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:54:34 2015 No.6577061 File: 58 KB, 640x360, LudwigFeuerbach.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6577055 No, that is relative to that given civilization, if we see it from ours, and absolute to that civilization, if we see it from within.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:54:37 2015 No.6577062 >>6576996 TAUTOLOGY DETECTED

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:56:35 2015 No.6577072 >>6577061 that assert is in itself so arbitrary, i can't even parry it.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:57:49 2015 No.6577078 >>6577061 societies are arbitrarily defined no one knows where a society begins and where it ends

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:59:07 2015 No.6577087 >>6577028 >which do not depend on people's agreement, but on the concrete configurations of a given planet. You would be surprised... If you only knew.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 21:00:38 2015 No.6577091 >>6577078 Well that is certainly an arbitrary assert, maybe you are mistaking your preconceptions with what things really are?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 21:03:36 2015 No.6577112 >>6576865 something that is aesthetically good means it ought to be admired because ethical obligation

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 21:04:25 2015 No.6577118 >>6577091 ebin

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 21:05:51 2015 No.6577127 >>6577112 It is good to admire the beautiful, but it doesn't follow that the beautiful is beautiful in virtue of the fact that one ought to admire it.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 21:07:21 2015 No.6577134 >>6577112 "Ought"? Don't tell me what to do nigger.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 21:07:28 2015 No.6577135 File: 213 KB, 736x1117, 1425001667721.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6576860 It's morally imperative to be aesthetic

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 21:13:46 2015 No.6577158 >>6577135 Why is this assert a bad intentioned fallacy?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 21:16:37 2015 No.6577167 >>6577134 this is the crux of the nihilist/subjectivist movment: "Don't tell me what to do, man!!!"

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 21:22:27 2015 No.6577192 >>6577028 >>6577018 Physics is expressed through math, two moons plus two moons equals four moons.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 21:31:30 2015 No.6577235 >>6577192 >expressed And there is your problem, you are mistaking the model, with it's reference.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 21:33:21 2015 No.6577245 >>6577235 You're assuming that numbers don't express anything.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 21:40:08 2015 No.6577261 aesth + (ethics - h) = aesthetics

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 22:27:47 2015 No.6577502 >>6577011 Underrated post.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 01:52:17 2015 No.6578296 >>6577043 People don't actually use ethical systems.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 07:29:32 2015 No.6579004 >>6576901 Even if we didn't have numbers - if you took the circumference of a circle and divided it by r squared it would still be pi.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 07:33:36 2015 No.6579017 >>6579004 MIND = BLOWN

Anonymous Sat May 23 07:45:25 2015 No.6579035

>>6579004

This is pretty much a tautology or something. A circle is a mathematical object - it is defined by the relationship between it's radius and pi etc. Evidence of that relationship through the example of a circle doesn't really say anything. I mean you have to accept certain axioms.
This is not to say that math isn't helpful or useful, it is... That's obvious.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 07:45:27 2015 No.6579036 >>6576862 >ethics = aesthetics killing is beautiful in providing a divine feel

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 08:57:54 2015 No.6579184 >>6578296 What an arbitrary comment. >>6577245 You're trying to divide by 0, and it won't work.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 09:11:34 2015 No.6579211 >>6579004 If we didnt have numbers how would we have pi?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 09:31:13 2015 No.6579247 >>6579004 area, not circumference

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 10:06:31 2015 No.6579323 >>6579004 You can't have anything squared without numbers, silly.

Anonymous Sat May 23 10:17:59 2015 No.6579352

>>6577245
They express the way the human brain works. The human brain divides things because of the way it perceives reality. When we abstract that feature we get numbers, symbols that stand for something that you decide on when necessary.
Math is directly linked to how human thought works and how the brain is structured, through evolution, to perceive reality in a way that it would allow the brain to make sense of it.

Humans are some sort of feature or phenomena of reality perceiving itself and thus math is an abstraction of one of the abilities by which we make sense of everything.
Math is useful because its basis, our brain's way of working, is deeply lodged within the reality it helps analyze.
I dont know how to look at it otherwise since all the steps that lead to our existence were natural processes.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 10:54:37 2015 No.6579505 My dick is aesthetic and it's you're moms ethical obligation to suck it.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 11:06:19 2015 No.6579564 >>6579352 >Math is useful because its basis, our brain's way of working, is deeply lodged within the reality it helps analyze. and yet many people are rubbish at maths

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 11:20:54 2015 No.6579627 >>6579564 Because math is no longer just counting how many sheep are in your herd. The basis of the ability to do math is nonetheless in its necessity for an organism that wants to survive under certain conditions.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 11:26:07 2015 No.6579651 >arguing about math sigh, math is about the only thing you can trust to be truth in the universe nothing else can be completely truth except math

Anonymous Sat May 23 11:27:39 2015 No.6579661

>>6579352
>Human brain divides things because of the way it perceives reality

nah, things are divided without human brain or not
you see, mister philosopher, world consists of physical forces, laws and matter. at a certain scale two apples are in fact two different objects unarguably.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 11:27:59 2015 No.6579662 >>6579564 >maths Go eat a crumpet you fucking bong.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 11:28:39 2015 No.6579666 File: 10 KB, 185x278, 207575617.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6579036

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 11:32:01 2015 No.6579685 >>6579651 nice platitude. it also has nothing to do with metamathematical arguments.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 11:34:42 2015 No.6579693 >>6579685 i don't understand you, can you please be more specific and talk simpler, I'm an engineer not linguistic using language people dont understand is not a merit

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 11:39:41 2015 No.6579711 File: 54 KB, 267x400, laughing greeks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6579651 >being impressed by tautology

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 11:41:18 2015 No.6579720 >>6579693 Not understanding language people use is not meritorious either.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 11:43:14 2015 No.6579723 >>6579720 i know the words (i do have a dictionary lol) but I dont see how they function as counterargument you dont claim anything, you just said 2 random sentences and dont comment on this argument you literal geek, comment on why math isnt truth

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 11:45:40 2015 No.6579733 >>6579711 yeah thats a fancy word, but what does it mean? is it bad word? how is math not truth?

Anonymous Sat May 23 11:51:05 2015 No.6579749

>>6579661
>physical forces, laws and matter

oooh spooky. Please mister scientist, tell me what matter is. Oh, im sorry its not a scientific term but a philosophical one.
Matter is a name for a perceptual phenomena that is inherent to the working of our brain.

Anonymous Sat May 23 11:55:56 2015 No.6579766

>>6579749
>what is matter
good question. a lot of truth is known about matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

here is some truth for you to study and learn for starters

I can tell it myself too in a shorter and simpler form if you are unable to learn these texts about reality

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 11:57:13 2015 No.6579771 >>6579749 >>6579766 please note that all of that could be wrong, that is only the current perception of things. but if you disagree, you have to prove it theoretically and empirically.

Anonymous Sat May 23 12:09:26 2015 No.6579827

>>6579651
>>6579661
>>6579685
>>6579693
>>6579711
>>6579720
>>6579723
>>6579733
>>6579749
>>6579766
>>6579771

>someone confronts your views, doesn't accept your way of declaring things without proofs
>you can't hold debate; you fall back and retreat, throwing meaningless linguistics details behind you
>leave engineer alone in the debate-table
/lit/ in a nutshell

please return anytime you want, I'm here to discuss things when you are ready

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 12:28:24 2015 No.6579906 >>6579827 >someone says math is objectively completely 'truth' >lays the burden of proof on those taking issue with that

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 12:30:10 2015 No.6579915 >>6579733 Read a few wikipedia article or something. Try the one on tautology, the one on axioms and the one on the Münchhausen trilemma.

Anonymous Sat May 23 12:37:42 2015 No.6579945

>>6579906
>more linguistic-trashtalk
Math clearly demonstrates reality, there is no question about that. It shits on your 'burden of proof', because guess what, it does prove itself.
Or do you disagree? Prove it wrong. Demonstrate one system what math predicts incorrectly. Take your time, it might take your whole life, like it has for many people.

>>6579915
>I read munchhausen trilemma
Yes, this is great thought. It dictates that theory alone can't lead to truth. Which is exactly why in science both empirical and theoretical facts are needed at the same time. Science 1 - "pondering" 0.

Anonymous Sat May 23 12:44:02 2015 No.6579959

>>6579766
Brilliant.
When you come down to the smallest division we can possibly create we start addressing it more as an unknown phenomena.
Elementary particles only make sense as part of mathematical equations into which they are plugged and math with physics worked relying, initially, on the idea that everything is made up of smaller "parts", which is based on our intuition.
Using an electron microscope or a collider is not perceiving information in the human sense of the word. It is the gathering and parceling of a different type of information all together.
What we do is creat and translate this new information so it makes sense to us(based on how we perceive things) and thus we none the less work and judge reality based on how we are predisposed to.
We translate and focus on information based on our biased needs and desires and our ideological background(inb4 scientists are completely unbiased transcendental souls and the average bias of all scientists somehow negates bias altogether instead of just averaging it).
Math falls into the same trap. We do math a certain way, based on the way our thought and perception operate.

ATM we decided that truth is based on the scientific method because it can solve our current specific problems or questions.
A few centuries ago religion and theology could solve problems they had(all sorts of problems revolving around divinity the soul and so on). Of course by today's standards those problems are not problems and thus a solution for them is not a solution and their very existence seems preposterous because we judge it by different standards.
What i mean is that we deem religious problems(as an example) as none problems because by our agreed upon modern standard of truth that relies heavily on the scientific method does not incorporate them and we chose this new standard because the problems we faced changed and it was better at solving them.
in 500 years people might look at the scientific method and our current problems as non problems and as absurd because they will already have a different standard for what is true based on their future circumstances.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 12:45:03 2015 No.6579965 >>6579827 cool yourself down i was busy doing something, sheesh.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 12:46:52 2015 No.6579974 >>6579965 I expected you to be busy doing this. What's the matter, don't you focus on things and concentrate your time usage? Or multitasking perhaps?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 12:49:44 2015 No.6579986 >>6579959 Didn't read completely. I don't give a shit about your argumentative logic, if those things aren't real then what is?

Anonymous Sat May 23 12:53:57 2015 No.6579998

>>6579959
In short stop thinking you are living in some magical part of history.
Humanity's perception changes as a result of different process like accumulating information which causes us to "spot" or generate new and different problems for which we adjust new methods of solution generation. We constantly perceive in a different way. Looking through a microscope is in no way more "true" then looking with your bare eyes, it just a different information perception method.
Investigating electrons is not more "true" then looking at your hand.
And a person deemed psychologically insane(as an example), because he perceives reality differently is not less true in his perception then we are he just does not fit the current situation so we call such a person abnormal and dismiss them(rightfully so) as his way of generating and processing information is not relevant to our current culture, ideology, societal structure and thus current problems.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 12:55:18 2015 No.6580003 >>6576964 >There's really no distinct difference between not liking murder and not liking Rothko Willing to elaborate? This sounds like a stretch.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 12:59:47 2015 No.6580023 File: 121 KB, 1024x682, Pinecone-Candy-Corn-DIY-1024x682.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6576860 "Keep cool but care."- Tommy R. Pinecone

Anonymous Sat May 23 13:00:05 2015 No.6580024

>>6579986
Those things are true, because we agree they are. Humans and human society are a very complex system with different parts influencing each other back and forth.
Atm, we are on a certain ideological path which posses certain problems and we have the scientific method that we invented and worked out that does the best job at solving our current and particular problems.
Just dont try to force the notion of "absolute truth", the idea that some standards of what is true are always and will always be correct.

Anonymous Sat May 23 13:08:09 2015 No.6580061

>>6580024
In this sense culture and ideology are just as important. A scientist in the middle ages might have been torched while today he sits in a lab, gets paid well and solves our problems and answers the questions that bother us.

Did cavemen think like we do? Did they understand logic as we do? Of course not, they had a different understanding of what works and not, of what is done and how the decisions of what is to be done will be made.
Their standards of what is "true" were different and their problems were different.
We have to perceive people not as individuals since they never really are self contained creatures, they simply cannot be and are influences by other individuals even in the womb.
People are always a part of some greater whole, some greater consiousness. Call it culture or ideology or whatever but there is no self contained individual making decisions by himself.
Our standards and problems are defined by the society we live in, by its size, its structures, its compositions etc..

Anonymous Sat May 23 13:25:08 2015 No.6580123

>>6580024
I want to also add that i mean specifically the idea that our modern standard of what is true can be projected into the past. We cant say our standard of what is true is better then the standard people had in the middle ages.

This is problematic.
You can say that if you go back to the past with you modern knowledge you could solve problems with medicine or build a sewer or whatever else. The issue is that those societies were not interested in solving those problems in the same way or to the same degree we want to solve them today.

Why do people go and become scientists? Because they are curious? but why are they curious about these specific questions which science tries to asnwer?
Why did we have a lot more priests and "spiritual scientists" in the past while having less "scientists"? Because society influences what you are curious about and what you choose to do.
At some point in history society was not interested in many questions we are interested today, they were not problems people were looking to solve while they had problems we aren't looking to solve now.

Everything was somewhat different. How society defined what a problem is, how it looked for problems, what solutions were defined as, how solutions were perused and so on.
Because of modern realities we as a society detect problems a certain way and find and judge what solutions are a certain way.
Its not better in some universal way, its better in a local sense, in the place in time in which we are in.

Lets say in a few decades global society stops growing by choice. This might result or cause huge ideological shifts and our way of defining what true is and what problems are will change drastically.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 13:29:28 2015 No.6580135 >>6576865 because emotivism is correct.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 13:48:27 2015 No.6580225 >>6580024 Haha oh you, no, math is truth whether you believe in it or not. Please think before you speak, you useless geek.

Anonymous Sat May 23 13:51:08 2015 No.6580234
File: 16 KB, 273x350, 1416527701847.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6576860
The answer is that they're both the same because they both deal with value. We can't speak of them because we can only speak facts. However he changed his mind on this later in the Investigations.

>>	Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Sat May 23 13:52:25 2015 No.6580243 >>6576860 dank california kush

Anonymous Sat May 23 14:14:46 2015 No.6580331

>>6576860
Ethics appeal to the morality of an action to justify it.
"I don't drink alcohol because it's wrong."
Aesthetics appeal to the beauty of an action to justify it.
"I don't drink alcohol because it tastes bad."

The obvious difference is that you don't need to any reason to change your mind on the beauty of a thing, while it would be necessary to change your mind on whether something is ethical or not.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 14:22:12 2015 No.6580362 >>6580225 >he believes in absolute truth So you are a religious fanatic? You are arguing in a similar way to the catholic church. What truth is, is mailable and is defined by us and our needs.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 14:25:36 2015 No.6580375 >>6580234 >they share this one thing, therefore they are equivalent! Never once.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 14:26:32 2015 No.6580382 >>6580225 Math is a different type of language. It has abstract symbols and operators. Alone its a useless sandbox much like the word blue means nothing to a blind person.

Anonymous Sat May 23 14:27:25 2015 No.6580387

>>6580362
If truth is just an illusion created by the human mind, then yes. If it is something that exists outside of consciousness, meaning that it would still be there without anyone there to reckognize it, then no. We have different perspectives on things because our senses are incapable of fully understanding the world. We come to different conclusions about a single truth because we are oblivious of different aspects of that truth. Subjectivity is in us, it's a result of our nature, not the nature of the world.

Anonymous Sat May 23 14:30:07 2015 No.6580398

Stating "math is truth" or "science is truth" is just saying math or science are important to you.
In many ways the way we still use the word truth is based on religious influences where it was believed some absolute truth exists, the word of god, that is always correct and useful and important, in all times and in all circumstances.
Time to accept the notion that using the word truth is just a way of emphasizing how important you think something is.

Anonymous Sat May 23 14:42:49 2015 No.6580447

>>6580387
So why is the scientific method more able to find this "objective truth" then say theology or religion?

>inb4 science gives us predictable results

Well, religion also gave predictable results based on how they judged what predictable results were back then.

And in the future something else and not the scientific method will have its own standards by which it will be the thing that is the truth ^^

External, objective reality, is as much of a myth as god is to us today and is as incoherent.
What is external reality outside of thought and perception? It is undefinable and unimaginable.

>inb4 its when something exists even when we dont perceive it

What is to exist without perception? existence becomes a meaningless word.

our collective perception and thinking is reality and the modern scientific method is our invention to solve problems we created and decided upon.

Anonymous Sat May 23 15:12:44 2015 No.6580559

>>6580447
>So why is the scientific method more able to find this "objective truth"
The scientific method is able to measure physical things. If anything outside of the physically measurable exists, then a scientific worldview is utterly reductive. Why do you think a lot of the worlds greatest scientists also wrote about philosophical or theological things? Because they believed that science by itself was inetiquate for understanding the world and the human condition.

>And in the future something else will be the truth
>External, objective reality is incoherent.
>External reality outside of thought and perception is undefinable and unimaginable.
Care to give your reasoning for those claims?

>our collective perception and thinking is reality
The height of human arrogance, and the birth of a lot of the bullshit we're dealing with right now. No, a lot of people believing in a thing does not make it true. We will have to face to face the consequences of our actions, whether we believe in climate change or not.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 15:41:59 2015 No.6580650 >>6577018 Holy fuck, does anyone on /lit/know anything? Lagrangian Mechanics is 100% FUCKING MATHS YOU WILLFULLY IGNORANT PRICKS

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 15:44:29 2015 No.6580659 >>6580375 Read the Tractatus

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 15:46:25 2015 No.6580666 >>6576901 >implying philosophy isn't an autistic self-referential puzzle box that has nothing to do with reality. Philosophy=wordmath

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 15:48:01 2015 No.6580670 >>6579352 >I like to open my anus onto the keyboard and type with rotting gobs of semen instead of using my fingers.

Anonymous Sat May 23 15:54:44 2015 No.6580696

>>6580362
Ahh yes, you are a very skillful debater I see :^) I bet you can sell shit as a gold. The way world works inside your head is meaningless, reality is measurable and so math expresses reality in its truest form.

Please can we stop this argument, you are nonsense. I've given you an option to change my views: Name one system that math predicts incorrectly. Stop with your 'argumentative logic' and fancy words, use real knowledge instead.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 15:58:28 2015 No.6580709 >>6580398 Incorrect. Science is truth regardless of your uneducated opinion. In this day and age, anyone who claims science 'not truth' is against the agenda of finding the truth. Or do you disagree? Post your proof.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 16:01:07 2015 No.6580724 >>6576860 ethics: noble belief system respecting the sanctity of all sapient life, sophisticated philosophies trying to figure out what is right, what is just, delving into the very depths of the soul for answers aesthetics: things that look pretty

Anonymous Sat May 23 16:03:17 2015 No.6580737

Attention! Those who wish to dethrone science from it's rightful, dominant (and everlasting) place on the throne of Truth, in the kingdom of Reality must post their disproving theory. Without it, you are automatically labeled as a troll/bait, experimentative hipster or plainly uneducated. Thank you.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 16:04:25 2015 No.6580741 >>6580559 Basically you've read somewhere on /lit/ that the scientific method is not absolute truth and you've taken that idea too far because you're a dullard bandwagoner

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 16:05:56 2015 No.6580751 >>6580741 I think you're misreading me. What claim do you think I was making in that post?

Anonymous Sat May 23 16:15:09 2015 No.6580785

>>6580751
>Oh, im sorry its not a scientific term but a philosophical one.
Matter is a name for a perceptual phenomena that is inherent to the working of our brain.

I'm sorry but have you even studied any physics or mathematics whatsoever? If not then you have absolutely no grounds to discredit something you literally do not understand. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it not real. Also the Mathematics used to describe Matter, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are ridiculously abstract, we aren't talking high school here.

Anonymous Sat May 23 16:22:30 2015 No.6580811

>>6580559
People declare what truth is.
Religious people declared that internal sensations and subjective experience are true. We believe that statistical data, predictability and repeatability based on certain processes are truth.
People in the middle ages had religious problems, questions about the human soul and divinity, and they had solutions that worked according to how they judged if something worked or not.
They had different standards of judging what a problem was and what a good solution was and if an action was indeed a solution.
At its core there is nothing amazing about the scientific method. It is a certain axiomatic system that best solves our, modern problems that we define and create.
Do you agree we define the problems we face? Meaning that we perceive things and decide what occurrences are a problem for us? You cant dispute this. But today we do it differently then how we did it in the past and in the future it will be different again.
We base this on certain axioms and certain data and standards for what worthy data is.
They did the same in the middle ages only all their standards were different.
You think that global warming is a problem that needs solving because its a problem we created and defined.
Do you not agree that we created this problem?
Of course you do. We created it and now we want to use our favorite problem solving method to solve it.
The more we think that, the more people want to go be scientists and the more most problems are seen and are scientific problems.

looking back from the future they will see problems we have today of which we are not aware of based on future standards and some problems that will be seen as bullshit judging by future standards.
Much like we project our way of defining problems and defining what good solutions are back onto the past.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 16:26:19 2015 No.6580826 >>6580811 >people declare what truth is Stopped reading here. Truth is what truth is, perception has nothing to do with it. Measurements about the reality allow us to predict it, and that is what science is.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 16:32:03 2015 No.6580838 ITT: subjective reality Reality is what your brain tells you what it is. We hope brain tells you what it "really" is, but we cannot be sure about that. /thread

Anonymous Sat May 23 16:37:07 2015 No.6580857

>>6580709
I dont claim science is not truth, I simply claim the definition of what is truth is maliable, has changed in the past many times and will change in the future.
Much like people claimed orthodoxy christianity and its teachings and understandings were absolute truth so do you claim now that math or science are some sort of absolute truth that will be defined as truth forever.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 16:38:08 2015 No.6580864 >>6580709 If you define science as truth then it is truth. Just dont think that its a universally better definition of truth then anything preceding it. Its appropriate for its time and place.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 16:40:20 2015 No.6580872 >>6580826 oh truth is truth. Great stuff. If i ask you what an pple is you will tell me its an apple? topkek. Yes science gives predictions and that is what we call truth right now. Fine but its not universal truth or the best definition of truth.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 16:40:42 2015 No.6580873 >>6580857 Your analogue is fancy, but, as analogues usually are, is omitting the major point. "Truth" declared with christianity wasn't proven as systematically and logically as science.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 16:42:28 2015 No.6580879 >>6580872 >best definition of truth Okay, what is better definition? Name it. Because logically you cannot say that something ISN'T best unless you've seen better.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 16:43:52 2015 No.6580883 File: 43 KB, 370x500, rorts.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6580709 >still believes in truth

Anonymous Sat May 23 16:45:16 2015 No.6580891

>>6580811
ok mr smartypants, what are the axioms that are going to replace the scientific method? surely there must be a combination of axioms that are either at the limit of human perception or are the actually fundamental axioms of truth, when this limit is reached the two are indistinguishable.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 16:46:06 2015 No.6580898 >>6580883 Here, have attention.

Anonymous Sat May 23 16:48:03 2015 No.6580909

>>6580826
>>6580872
Saying that science or math are truth is just saying that you think they are worthy or useful or whatever.

For you the conclusions the scientific method makes are truth.
This is how truth is defined by you.
there is no other definition of truth that your definition of truth, as the scientific method, is the closet to.

Meaning, that through your blabbering about truth what you really mean is that there is some eternal absolute reality and we try to discover how it is and currently the best way to do it is the scientific method.
Well, this is where our understanding of the world differs since what you think of as this absolute external reality that we need to discover might as well be heaven or some transcendental realm from a religious book.

I have no idea what makes you blindy believe that some such unimaginable undefinable thing exists but dont be angry when i compare you to religious fundamentalists.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 16:49:05 2015 No.6580915 >>6580891 extended and you could say they are the same considering humans are the most complex analytic entities currently known about in the physical universe

Anonymous Sat May 23 16:50:48 2015 No.6580922

>>6580879
Not unless I say all definitions of truth are good because what is good and correct is also defined by us.
Again I think the contention here is that you believe in some "external, absolute, complete world" that we must discover and science is the best way to do it. I think that a belief in such a thing is a kin to a religious belief.\
and if you think heaven doesnt exist then i dont see why you would think some external complete and full and absolute reality exists.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 16:52:34 2015 No.6580931 >>6580922 >>6580909 Even talking about the "existence" of such a "real" is incomprehensible, much like talking of god. some unknown transcendental something you cannot describe yada yada.

Anonymous Sat May 23 16:54:57 2015 No.6580940

And much like you science is trying to discover this transcendental supreme and absolute reality so did the theologians and religipous people try to discover it using their religious books and prayer.
your methods are just different and the first is favored today simple because of ideology. We created the problems and we decided on science and the solution to these problems.

Anonymous Sat May 23 16:58:57 2015 No.6580954

>>6580909
how is an absolute external reality either undefinable or unimaginable?

secondly the scientific method's truth is based on statistics, however the truth in mathematics is not. I propose that if you do not believe in the truth or beauty in mathematics its because you haven't studied it in a meaningful way. Governing dynamics nigga.

>I have no idea what makes you blindy believe that some such unimaginable undefinable thing exists but dont be angry when i compare you to religious fundamentalists.
the irony behind this statement is that you are doing the exact same thing. You too have faith in a system except you're system is one of inaction "blah blah blah we can never know anything,so dont even try you lesser mortals, haha I've cunningly discovered a way to be superior"

Anonymous Sat May 23 17:06:00 2015 No.6580977
File: 361 KB, 796x1097, otoko-0111.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6579693
Math isn't "true", it's just collection of definitions and relations and the exploration of the structures created by those definitions. Chess is as much math as calculus is, just played in a different way.

For any given set of mathematical axioms there will exist unprovable truth statements, so the idea of having a few laws from which you can deduce the universe is sort of silly. At best you can use mathematical abstractions to describe real life relations, but you can't scratch beneath the surface of reality itself without encountering infinite complexity and randomness. Not to mention that lots of modern ideas in mathematics and logic have no physical basis in reality, take set theory for example.

When you get down to writing proofs, the best ones rely more on the minds eye having the creativity to unravel a certain idea than brute computation anyways.

It really depends on what you define truth to be I guess. I think math as a metaphysical experience is as meaningful as most religions, so I guess in that sense it's true.

>>6579915
>Münchhausen trilemma
This seems kinda dumb tbh. All knowledge and truth can only be perceptible with the individual self as the point of reference, so it seems like truth is more a matter of personally held axioms and definitions whereas no greater reduction can be made.

If I hold a ball and declare it to be round I can describe it's behavior. If the ball is in fact shaped like a cube, and I'm simply hallucinating it's roundness then I'll soon prove myself wrong through experimentation.

If the ball is in fact a cube yet I hallucinate it to behave like a ball, then from my point of reference it's a ball and my assertions are in fact true.

Anonymous Sat May 23 17:07:08 2015 No.6580981

>>6580811
>People declare what truth is.
People declare opinions and beliefs. People make assumptions.
You say that that which is outside of human consciousness is 'indefinable and unimaginable'. I'd argue that by looking at the past we can make a pretty strong argument for the existence of that which is outside of human consciousness. When people tried to create gold through alchemy it was doomed to fail because atoms were the same they are now. The rules of the world were what they are now because they exist outside of our consciousness. Now, in all likelyhood the chemistry is wrong about the lot of things, and the nature of the elements is very different from what we believe it to be, but when we figure out the next step all of our current erros will make sense in retrospect. We can not know what the ultimate truth is because we are limited. Our definition of truth changes over time. I don't dispute that. What I'm arguing for is that we should believe that truth is a constant and use that as our basis for trying to understand the world, because even if collective subjectivism has it right it's still a dead end.

>The more we think that, the more people want to go be scientists and the more most problems are seen and are scientific problems.
People even try to measure happiness scientifically these days. I agree with you, we can't solve everything with science. If this trend continues it's gonig to lead to all sorts of problems. Does that mean that truth is in our mind? No, it just means that science is limited.

Anonymous Sat May 23 17:08:41 2015 No.6580988

>>6580954
Oh the scientific method is based on statistics ha..Well religious doctrine and prayer was also based on their ideas, tools and processes.
I have studied higher math in uni and i do find it interesting and sometimes satisfying but i also find reading a fatasy book satisfying that does not mean I believe in some transcendental heaven like thing and that reading LOTR will make me understand what it is.
Math is interesting and useful according to the categories and levels of usefulness we agree upon right now but thats it.

Math is a set of symbols and operators. Without us inputing something into them they mean nothing. Math also is a result of the way we think and math itself has changed and redefined itself drastically throughout the ages since the way we think has changed.

Anonymous Sat May 23 17:17:04 2015 No.6581021

>>6580981
You give example of problems science can solve or understand, like your example of gold.
The problem of creating gold is a problem we decided needs solving. do you understand that?It is a problem we created and thought of and we also thought of a solution to it which we call chemistry.

All scientific problems are problems we decided are problems and sciences importance to us is because it is the system we thought of to solve the problems we thought of.
All your example does is shows that we decide different things and ideas nad questions are problematic at different times and right now the scientific method is the problems solver we created for the current problems we created and thought of.

This is in no way evidence of some absolute "real" reality that is somehow "External" to us.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 17:35:36 2015 No.6581093 >>6581021 If there is no external reality, and we are the ones who think up problems and create solutions to them, then why do some succeed and other fail? Why do problems that we aren't trying to solve get solved along the way by accident?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 17:54:27 2015 No.6581170 ethics = aesthetics of living, turning one's own life into a work of art

Anonymous Sat May 23 17:55:48 2015 No.6581177

>>6581093
Maybe you have to think of problems as a set of problems that can be solved using certain problem resolution methods.
Maybe our delineation of the scientific method comes along, influences and is influenced by a huge subset of similar problems.
The question of creating gold out of coal can be generalized into a more basic problem of transforming certain materials that we also delineate.

I dont know if we are some special thing and some sort of center of some creation.
Really we only understand creation as modification at the moment. We modify something that exists.
Perhaps both us and our perception and what we intuitively call perceived reality is one thing constantly changing within some self referential loop.
Historically we seem to be going from some sort of very basic shared experience of some primal perception to a state in which we become more aware of ourselves and more consciously create our perception.
Fuck if i know.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 17:58:14 2015 No.6581192 >>6580709 science is a historical truth, meaning that it is a certain kind of knowledge and a certain kind of regulation of statements, it has its truth-effects in our historical world, etc... but it is not a godly truth.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 18:03:54 2015 No.6581228 >>6580988 But If it were possible to utilise maths to create a perfect model of the the universe would this not be an absolute truth, because of the nature of truth in mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 18:10:31 2015 No.6581257 >>6581228 It would be a mathematically accurate model, nothing more, nothing less.

Anonymous Sat May 23 18:10:32 2015 No.6581258

>>6581192
>>6581177
>>6581021
This. The scientific method, I argue, and mathematics are powerful enough tools for humans to theoretically uncover the physical truths of the universe. This obviously does not apply to supernatural, god, or philosophical truths.

Anonymous Sat May 23 18:18:12 2015 No.6581290

>>6581228
The nature of truth in mathematics?
Math is the language of a certain kind that helps us, together with already created and stored information to create and store more relevant information.
Relevant towards what? Towards solving a certain set of problems that we decided are problems.
I think it might be like saying that eventually religious people and theologians will understand what god is and what heaven is.
I think a "theory of everything" might just be pipe dream, an incoherent notion.

Anonymous Sat May 23 18:30:24 2015 No.6581331

>>6581257
Yes exactly, precisely because of the tautology it would be perfect. To define something without using a system that is in itself tautological is totally meaningless.

>>6581290
relevant to perfectly recreating our own universe in a simulation, up to the details of this on-line conservation.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 18:34:00 2015 No.6581345 >>6581331 actually not up to the details of this conversation because that would be deterministic, a universe where life, love and philosophical thought would all be a possibility

Anonymous Sat May 23 21:10:21 2015 No.6582029

>>6580003
I'd gladly elaborate, but it simply comes down to the fact that I can't find any difference. How would they be different? Both are merely disapproval, it's just that one of those disapprovals tends to be taken more seriously by people then the other.

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