/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6714275]

Hey /lit/, /sci/ here,

I wanted to ask whichever posters end up reading this, why philosophy is so hotly discussed here. Rather, I wanted clarification as to what type of philosophy is discussed - surely it is moral philosophy only, correct? I hope you guys do not actually discuss philosophy of reality, as it is a moot point thanks to the scientific, which itself was born from philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6714288]

>>6714275
>Hey /lit/, /sci/ here
stopped reading right there. don't you have some d&d game waiting for you somewhere?

[Anonymous No.6714290]

>>6714275
0/10, go back to your own board were stirring shit up is the only way to pass time.
Also, read Kierkegaard.

[Anonymous No.6714293]

>>6714275
What do you mean by 'philosophy of reality'?

[Anonymous No.6714306]

>>6714275
>surely it is moral philosophy only
do u even sam harris? science can answer questions on morality.

SCIENCE! SCIENCE! SCIENCE! (chant)

[Anonymous No.6714307]

>>6714288
kek ok bro go back to speculating about what "being" is without utilizing empiricism

>>6714290
I was legitimately asking.

>>6714293
Philosophy of the material world, of that which is external to human thought. Of the natural phenomena that surrounds humanity.

[Anonymous No.6714328]

>which itself is inherently philosophical even if I don't understand why cos I'm a dumbass
fixd that for you

You must have some sort of philosophical reason for believing branches of philosophy have become redundant, even if it is incoherent, intellectually lazy and mildly autistic.

Try harder

[Anonymous No.6714332]

>>6714275
I discuss philosophy because I want to. I like to know stuff.

[Anonymous No.6714336]

>>6714307
Nope, we'd often discuss moral philosophy merily 'cause we have no social life or friends so we just pretend to be "superior" to normies, while in fact we're just a couple of guys with autism.
Philosophy of reality : start with the Greeks.
seriously, I think that they're the only one who spoke about how shit works in the universe, am i tight guise?

[Anonymous No.6714342]

>>6714307
go back to your gaming table and hope that you are lucky enough with the dices to brew an invisibilty potion so you can sneak into the elvish women's sauna.

[Anonymous No.6714345]

>>6714328
Philosophy of reality has not become redundant, but it has far less relevancy unless it is to be coupled with empiricism and scientific understanding of natural phenomena. I wanted to know if this was something that /lit/ discussed on a consistent basis due to the fact that I believe that it does not merit any actual debate if the participants are scientifically illiterate.

>>6714342
How is this even a stereotype? We have /tg/ for that. For you however, I would recommend getting together with your housewife club and discussing how wet 50 shades of gray makes each one of you, you fucking mouth breathing troglodyte.

[Anonymous No.6714349]

>/lit/
>discussing

nice one

[Anonymous No.6714350]

>>6714345
nerd

[Anonymous No.6714355]

>>6714345

I think you have a warped view of what philosophy sets out to do. It doesn't tread on science's toes and try its own ways of investigating the physical world.

[Anonymous No.6714360]

>>6714345
Why are you here again? You want a debate? Read philosophy and debate alone inside of your own head.

[Anonymous No.6714365]

>>6714345
Philosophy is not science.

https://youtu.be/dp8aTYUrPi0

[Anonymous No.6714371]

>>6714275
this is some good bait, m8

[Anonymous No.6714377]

>>6714275

[Anonymous No.6714378]

>>6714355
But what merits this investigation that excludes the tools that were developed for this very idea?

>>6714365
Though Zizek can be full of shit sometimes this provides me with a better understanding of it. However, the subjectivity of "truth" is not really something to question, "what is truth" is to me a problem with a very easy answer. As a discipline, simply exercising skeptical analysis and critique is not something that warrants the existence of such idiotic diatribe against human thought.

[Anonymous No.6714383]

>>6714377
I never once implied that there was an existence of a god nor do I get some sort of relief in winning an internet argument. I wanted to know something yet you fail to provide a verbose and articulate answer.

Also, there is no compelling evidence for or against the existence of a higher being that created the universe.

[Anonymous No.6714385]

>>6714275

Science is fine in its domain. Metaphysics, the philosophy of being qua being, will always be one level deeper though.

[Anonymous No.6714386]

>>6714345
Number one, "philosophy of reality"? Read a fucking book.
Ok, so what you are taking for granted what's involved in empirical verification and perception. Science functions as a sort of superstructure on top of philosophy -though the two can alter each other- eg discoveries in neuroscience or new philosophical theories of what actually constitutes science.

Look, I'm willing to level with you on the fact that it's appalling how many philfags are scientifically illiterate but here's the thing, if you *really* want to understand science you need philosophy, and personally I think it's just as bad how many stemfags are completely ignorant of all the shit they take for granted.

And to answer your question, no we don't discuss this on a consistent basis, we're just here for the memes

[Anonymous No.6714393]

>>6714378
>But what merits this investigation that excludes the tools that were developed for this very idea?

There are a number of things which science has either no say in or no ultimate say in.

[Anonymous No.6714396]

>>6714393
This is tantamount to heresy to these people.

[Anonymous No.6714405]

>>6714393
Care to list some? Curious.

>>6714385
The best scientists seem to indulge both. I don't believe they are mutually exclusive.

>>6714386
But has science not been perfectly defined? It's almost an axiom, that verification through empirical experimentation is what science is. Can subjects of morality not be put under these tests in order to yield answers that can feed into philosophy?

>>6714396
I'm not an engineer so I don't get mad when people say "science can't do x or y."

[Anonymous No.6714412]

>>6714405
>Care to list some? Curious.

Believe it or not; the things that philosophy investigates: Value, logic, metaphysics, epistemology, etc.

Also, science has no say in mathematics.

[Anonymous No.6714417]

>>6714378
Every sentence you make sounds like bait. Can you answer me if I ask you to tell me why you think what you think when you say all this:
"Though Zizek can be full of shit sometimes this provides me with a better understanding of it. However, the subjectivity of "truth" is not really something to question, "what is truth" is to me a problem with a very easy answer. As a discipline, simply exercising skeptical analysis and critique is not something that warrants the existence of such idiotic diatribe against human thought."
Why is he full of shit?
Why is it easy?
Why *insert third sentence*?
Also, what kind of science are you into? (What college/university/whatever did you study at?)

[Anonymous No.6714418]

>>6714412
>Also, science has no say in mathematics.
I agree with the ones above to some level, and I'll expound on it in a sec, but mathematics is science. Ever heard of proof? That in essence is empirical experimentation.

Before we delve in to meta and epi, I'd like to ask you about value and logic. What is it about value that invalidates scientific inquiry? Is it the subjectivity of it? How it is easily corruptible by individual perception? Is this the same with logic?

[Anonymous No.6714422]

>>6714412
Aesthetics and theology/phil of religion are two more.

[Anonymous No.6714426]

>>6714417
>Every sentence you make sounds like bait

I'm inclined to agree; his prose is uncannily unctuous.

[Anonymous No.6714432]

>>6714418
>Ever heard of proof? That in essence is empirical experimentation.

I dont think so.

[Anonymous No.6714439]

>>6714417
1) Zizek tends to critique subjects which, to me, simply require thorough investigation and factual regurgitation in order to acquire legitimacy. He fails to do this numerous times and this is his greatest fault.

2) It's easy because "truth" as we define it is something that is interchangeable from person to person in a way that cannot be refuted, negated or otherwise rebutted. A simple example of truth is for example: human thought itself. Every human can attest to this being something that is experienced - now whether or not that experience is "real" is another realm entirely, but thought is something that is what I would call "truth."

3) I exaggerated here, in retrospect I would never call for a caesura of critique and skeptical analysis - though doing so by ignoring otherwise "superior" methods is an insult to human thinking.

4) Physics. Currently at MIT.

>>6714432
Explain.

[Anonymous No.6714441]

>>6714418
Math is predicated on deduction, so how can it be science, which conversely is largely based in inductive reasoning?

>Ever heard of proof? That in essence is empirical experimentation.

In a proof you argue from axioms though, i.e deductively; in an empirical inquiry you observe an adequate quantity of sensory data, and then you draw conclusions from these particulars to a general rule. I fail to see how a geometric proof predicted on deduction is the same as a scientific theory relent on induction.

[Anonymous No.6714442]

>>6714426
I'm actually curious about this as well - what is it about my prose that seems so unctuous? I'd like to add that english is not my first language.

[Anonymous No.6714443]

>>6714439
give me an empirical proof of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

protip: you can't so don't bother reading the wikipedia entry.

[Anonymous No.6714450]

>>6714442
From the very start you sound like a condescending autist trying to sound smart.

>Hey /lit/, /sci/ here,

>surely it is moral philosophy only, correct?

>I hope you guys do not actually discuss philosophy of reality

Dangerously close to sounding like pic.

[Anonymous No.6714452]

>>6714443
I'm first year right now, and not only that but I'm currently studying things such as doppler linewidths, secondary electron emission, circular polarization, et al. this is within both chemistry and physics + a private instructor.

[Anonymous No.6714461]

>>6714452
impressive

You feel like that interstellar's guy and you are going to save the world from the 5th dimension.

[Anonymous No.6714466]

>>6714461
what

shut up dude I just want to learn this shit so I don't take anything for granted

[Anonymous No.6714475]

>>6714441
Fair enough. I'd like to insist however - is deductive reasoning not an utilization of knowledge and logic prescribed through an observation of axioms that have a root in the physical world? i.e. quantized proportions? Or do I have this wrong?

[Anonymous No.6714489]

>>6714439
1) I can't argue with that. Zizek is really hard to grasp since he is not very organized. I can only recommend you to read people from which he gets his knowledge.

2) I agree though it might not be simple because you might be affected by some ideology which makes your view of the world fucked up. Thought is just one example. It gets more complicated when people say stuff about capitalism, communism and other social stuff.

3) Ignoring science is kinda retarded but it's not bad to criticize and it.

4) Ha! I knew it!

[Anonymous No.6714493]

>>6714275

wow wtf seriously, never try to be smart again

[Anonymous No.6714505]

>>6714418
>Ever heard of proof? That in essence is empirical experimentation.

What ? No. Don't go in the maths department saying that or you'll get yourself killed.

[Anonymous No.6714522]

>>6714466
I'm also a stemfag. I started reading philosophy to try and save my soul from becoming an ignorant stempleb. I recommend you do the same thing. Just start with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.6714524]

>>6714441
Fair enough. I'd like to insist however - is deductive reasoning not an utilization of knowledge and logic prescribed through an observation of axioms that have a root in the physical world? i.e. quantized proportions? Or do I have this wrong? >>6714505

>>6714493
If I don't ask in a moronic matter I won't get blunt answers and critique that I might otherwise be spared of due to antiquated qualms of politeness.

[Anonymous No.6714540]

sup /Lit/

Looking for a picture that was on here a few days ago with Nietzsche and Marx and 3 other philosophers (Believe Kant and Spinoza) on some japanese print with japanese text.

Don't have much in return

[Anonymous No.6714549]

>>6714524
Seriously tho. Don't search for answers on /lit/. Get into philosophy. What's the worst that could happen? (Sam Harris #2 could happen hehe) Seriously tho. Do it yourself and only come here to discuss some philosophy books that you've read.

[Anonymous No.6714551]

>>6714524

using fancy words to camouflage stupidity does not work here

[Anonymous No.6714557]

>>6714551
I never thought that eloquence = intelligence, you fucknut. Besides, unless you break down what makes me a moron I'm not going to care about what you say. Other posters here have contributed to my lack of knowledge but you seem hell bent on memes so supreme you let out a scream.

[Anonymous No.6714562]

>>6714551
I'm not OP but I must say ad hominems shouldn't be used either.

[Anonymous No.6714568]

If a man were to say to me, “I refuse to use my eyesight except through a microscope,” I might think that the man is queer or crazy, and I would certainly try to avoid his company. Imagine taking a walk with a man who keeps one eye closed, and the other, permanently fixed to a microscope! Such a man is worse than blind, for a blind man who cannot see the stars, talks about them, and eagerly seeks to learn; but the man tied to the microscope neither sees nor seeks. The blind man knows that he is blind and acts accordingly, but the man with the microscope thinks that he is the only one who sees, and if you dare to mention the sky before him, he says, “But where is the sky!”, meaning, of course, that the sky could not exist unless it could be placed in his range of vision.

[Anonymous No.6714569]

>>6714275
"I hope you guys do not actually discuss philosophy of reality, as it is a moot point thanks to the scientific, which itself was born from philosophy." Right. So that presupposes that science is Done. That science has already found all the answers to how reality /IS/. I'm sorry anon but that's not very scientific... Philosophy will be needed until Science rids itself of cultural taboos like do not investigate psychical phenomena etc. I don't care if you believe in these things or not but you do have to admit it's not very scientific to refrain from investigating it... Whether or not you agree with this until Science is Done philosophy is needed.

Also one more thing. Science is /external/. It starts from the outside and works its way in. Philosophy starts from /what we know/ and works it's way outwards. Both approaches are completely valid and can nourish eachother. Perhaps philosophy and science isn't so far removed as you think.

[Anonymous No.6714570]

>>6714562
That wasn't an ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.6714572]

Now if you take this clumsy and most unlikely illustration and translate it from the order of sense to the order of intelligence, you get one of the most common intellectual types today, the type of a mind that will not apply its intelligence except through the scientific method. This type of mind is apt to undermine common sense, on the ground that future scientific discovery might disprove any certainty. It discredits philosophy, because the objects of philosophy (God, the spiritual soul, cause, substance, etc.) cannot be weighed or measured, can neither be reduced to a mathematical formula, nor observed in a test tube. And finally, this type of mind discards all revelation, on the ground that religion is not a channel of knowledge and that its value is purely emotional and unintellectual. This is the attitude of mind that is gradually being recognized as a cultural danger by educators and social thinkers, and is coming to be called “scientism”. Scientism is not the same as science, but is rather an abuse of the scientific method and of scientific authority.

[Anonymous No.6714574]

>>6714568
Pure ideology.

[Anonymous No.6714577]

http://catholicism.org/dangers-scientism.html

[Anonymous No.6714578]

>>6714570
Why is he stupid then? You said that he is using fancy words and that he is stupid.

[Anonymous No.6714581]

>>6714569
I never implied that science was done, and I agree with you on the latter points of what you said. I wanted to know if philosophy of the material was obsolete, never once did I think that science didn't need /moral/ philosophy.

>>6714572
>>6714577
>>6714568

kek

[Anonymous No.6714584]

>>6714578
It wasn't me that said that to him.

Denying an argument because of some property of its proponent = Ad hominem

Just insulting someone = not ad hominem

[Anonymous No.6714586]

>>6714562

lol that wasn't ad hominem
I thought logic 101 was a prereq for any phil student

[Anonymous No.6714592]

>>6714557

>surely it is moral philosophy only, correct?

^

[Anonymous No.6714599]

OP, if you really are interested in understanding the flaws in your position you need to just Google "critique of scientism" and stop listening to these autists

[Anonymous No.6714616]

>>6714584
You're stupid.
Is this ad hominem or just an insult? You being stupid makes everyone think that what you said is wrong. Sooooo...

[Anonymous No.6714619]

The scientific method is not empirically testable. The notion that our senses are a reliable source of evidence is not empirically testable. The notion of evidence is not itself empirically testable.

Scientism itself is not empirical science, it is (bad) metaphysics. OP, just because you are a good scientist does not excuse you from being an atrocious mrtaphysician, especially considering that metaphysics is much more important than science.

[Anonymous No.6714621]

>>6714522

[Anonymous No.6714626]

>>6714524
>If I don't ask in a moronic matter I won't get blunt answers and critique that I might otherwise be spared of due to antiquated qualms of politeness.

[Anonymous No.6714629]

Wittgenstein:

>At the basis of the whole modern view of the world lies the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena.

>So people stop short at natural laws as something unassailable, as did the ancients at God and Fate.

>And they are both right and wrong. But the ancients were clearer, in so far as they recognized one clear terminus, whereas the modern system makes it appear as though everything were explained.

>The sense of the world must lie outside the world.

>We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all.

[Anonymous No.6714635]

>>6714581
Another problem with "science" nowadays is it's not very scientific. If you don't give results catering to the party line you may lose your position; that is to say, science isn't /free/. You are not allowed to bring any results that would show a difference between sexes. (I use the word sexes because i don't buy that the word "gender" is needed. Biology explains every ones sexuality, down to boygirls and female men.). You are not allowed to bring any result that show a difference in race. (I don't use the word ethnicity because im not talking about culture AND race here, i'm talking about race). And you are not allowed to investigate psychical phenomena lest you lose your position. And i haven't even mentioned the way science inside a money-system isn't liberated from the forces which both instigate the science and demands certain results.

[Anonymous No.6714640]

>>6714616
On its own, it's just an insult.

It could be an ad hominem if the implication is 'You're stupid [therefore your claim about P is wrong]'.

[Anonymous No.6714641]

>The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach, and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth…

[Anonymous No.6714647]

The Robot is destined to become the centerpiece of the Palace of Discovery… It is he who is the end-all and be-all of so much civilizing “rationalistic” effort…admirably Naturalistic and objective (the Robot occasionally becomes intoxicated, however! the sole human trait of the Robot at this time)… Ever since the Renaissance there has been this tendency to work with everincreasing enthusiasm towards the advent of the Kingdom of the Sciences and the Social robot.

[Anonymous No.6714671]

>>6714647
I want to kill myself. Knowledge doesn't make stop me from wanting to realise my wish: not to exist. I want this feeling to stop. It might just be depression. Depression seems like the only time when I see things clearly. Happiness, faith, optimism and make me feel intoxicated. Rip

[Anonymous No.6714677]

>>6714671
I can't even create sentences without fucking them up.
Knowledge doesn't make stop wanting to realise my wish: not to exist.*
I hope this one is better

[Anonymous No.6714685]

>>6714626
>using memes to try and create a point

you're dogshit kid

>>6714629
This is a wrong understanding of what science is. Science does not "explain" anything. It is simply an umbrella - a variety of different fields that provide explanations of nature through tested methods. Any scientists who calls physics "the laws of nature' is full of shit.

>>6714641
This is mostly true, but they should not have used Feynman. Though he was a known contrarian, you can take his explanation of how the Mayas used arithmetic astronomy as an example of his deep philosophical attitude.

>>6714619
>The scientific method is not empirically testable. The notion that our senses are a reliable source of evidence is not empirically testable. The notion of evidence is not itself empirically testable.

This is true - however, science exists within the world that does not delve past that. Metaphysics is an exercise of the mind in the way that chess is - but chess is not a practical way to study and then implement strategies of war, in the way that philosophy is not a practical way of studying and implementing postulates about how reality works.

[Anonymous No.6714706]

>>6714524
>of knowledge and logic prescribed through an observation of axioms that have a root in the physical world

Only in a very vague sense. You can use geometry in 4 or more dimensions to analyze data sets. You don't often encounter 4 or 5 dimensional manifold in the physical world, yet you can reason on it and apply that reasoning to, say, optimization. Maths is about dealing with information, and the way you deal depends on what you want to achieve, not on wether it fits with how thing appear at face value in the physical world.

[Anonymous No.6714711]

>>6714685
>Philosophy is not a practical way of studying and implementing postulates about how reality works.

What the fuck dude? What the fuck?

[Anonymous No.6714715]

The interpretation of natural phenomena involves the assumed reliability of our senses, which filter the knowledge they apprehend through symbolic systems of representation (language and numbers), as well as a faith in inductive reasoning—this enterprise does not establish objective truth.