/lit/ - Literature

>>6410207
You're an idiot. Moral realism and atheism are perfectly compatible.

I think he's insufferable. Have you seen him talk about philosophy or politics? He needs to remember cosmology degree is only good for cosmology. I also think the way he presents science is misleading, for example, people who work on quantum mechanics aren't really doing anything besides math, none of them have any understanding of what a wave function *really* is and probably never will. Keep in mind this isn't a critique of science, I'm just saying it's more boring than he would have you believe.

>>6408502
No.

>>6384344
>Münchhausen trilemma
Wow! That's the first time I'd ever heard about that (^:


They're called axioms you fucking moron, the only Heidegger needs is the law of non-contradiction.

>>6379155
>From what I hear about the Iliad
One more reason to hate butterfly

>>6251046
Joyce already has him beat (hopefully(why do I care?))

>>6175668
It is only a misreading if the other poster is correct (which he isn't)

>>6175243
Where would that be?

>>6175229
Show me a real scholar that thinks Hume didn't refine his positions in the enquiry. The critique of pure reason was just a misreading of Hume, right?

>>6175218
>smartness

You really are a faggot

>>6175202
Spinoza did this well, but it leads to things most people wouldn't accept.

>>6175203
That last reply wasn't actually me (though I do agree with him). Regardless, if you think reading anything by Hume is an achievement, you're sorely mistaken.

>>6157836
>Stephen Hilgartner, the Cornell University science and technologies department chairman, wrote "The Sokal Affair in Context" (1997),[12] comparing Sokal's hoax to "Confirmational Response: Bias Among Social Work Journals" (1990), an article by William M. Epstein published in Science, Technology & Human Values.[13] Epstein used a similar approach to Sokal's, submitting fictitious articles to real academic journals to measure their response. Though far more methodologically rigorous than Sokal's work, it received scant media attention. Hilgartner thus argued that the intellectual impact of the successful Sokal hoax cannot be attributed to its quality as a "demonstration" but rather to journalistic hyperbole and the anti-intellectual biases of some American journalists.


>http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair

>>6157831
Probably not, considering its importance

>>6157768
I totally agree. The only reason Deleuze is even in the post-modern camp is his writing style.

>>6157744
Pretty good, standard Foucault really.

>>6157733
You know what I mean faggot

>>6157727
It's extremely comprehensible, if slightly archaic.

>>6157707
>French frauds
How was Deleuze a fraud? I was Foucault a fraud?

The previous responses by "O.P" we're not me by the way

>>6149138
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l93aeOO6fug

>>6149144
>SaulKripke.png

Kek

>>6149135
Don't forget a shitty reading of wittgenstein

>>6149075
Thanks for the contribution friend!! I mainly vist /mu/ (the resident music board) and am not very used to your customs, but I'm glad I evidently made a positive contribution

>>5998246
Literally in the beginning of the ego and his own