/lit/ - Literature

Looks okay for someone who just started reading. From an experienced reader I'd expect a much larger collection.

>>22484711
power like in doctor strange film. power of the p0ussy. but that gussy was cheating. can power be lying? no. power is autismally withdrawn into the black hole creating endless stream of dimensions of pure potential light. bro, it's the most weighty matter in reality+unreality both together married into the eternity.

>>22484692
I think, you connect much with the dialectical understanding of power.

What does /lit/ think of this book? Just finished it. Some parts were superbly written, but other parts felt dry and uninspired. Ending was meh, and so was the character development. 7/10

>inb4 juvenile

Does /lit/ ever drink while they read? I have a hard time reading while I drink, how does improve?

>>5949662
>end of the empiricism vs. rationalism context

Uhh, no. Newtonian physics and euclidean geometry aren't imposed onto reality by our minds, so Kant's synthetic distinction from analytic doesn't hold.

>>5947654
It would require a revision in how our imposed structure of reality is, that is, through non-Euclidean spacetime, specifically geodesics/topology. Wouldn't change the fundamental idea, though. Yet I'd be cautious to invoke it as there's much to resolve with the boundaries between quantum, relativity, and classical.

>>5937389
Mostly rehashed tropes. Standing in the shadows of giants like Asimov, Clarke, Pohl, Dick, etc.

Anything written by Dan Brown

>>5937136
Anon and Sus at /lit/!

Avoid Bova, Baxter, and Reynolds if you liked Rama and hard scifi generally.

>>5936692
>Behavioral psychology
>Vomits violently

Something Wicked This Way Comes and Either/Or

Arthur C. Clarke
Isaac Asimov
Philip K Dick
Dan Simmons
Frederick Pohl
Frank Herbert

Just say that you don't believe in idealism, gods, etc because there's no evidence for it. If you begin trying to hash out a conception of materialism and matter in physics, you're gonna get into some fucking salad with QM/GR and existentialism

>>5923420
>to my knowledge someone being wittgenstein doesn't absolve them from fallacious thinking

The point flew completely over your head. Since you're completely unable to Google, I'll explain it to you. It's not a true scotsman fallacy but a rejection of the equivocation in philosophy. To argue against my label of pseudoscience, you snuck in your own definition of pseudoscience ("falsely pretending to be science") to contradict my label. The transparency thesis states that such philosophical problems are trivial and philosophy is useless when it just redefines words to match consistency. I'm obviously stating that I think phenomenology doesn't work and rests on methodology we know to be false.

>i asked for several figures, not one. plus he could have been using "science" in a more general way

Jesus, man, can you not google? Check on the wiki page for phenomenology, you'll find dozens of more descriptions. I'm not using the internet for you because you're technologically incompetent.

Again, transparency thesis. One of the biggest problems with continental is that it fails to define its own fucking terminology

>>5923404
Can you define the phenomenal world in any coherent way? I'm having trouble finding anything that even remotely makes sense.

>>5923397
They also fail to capture the fact that classical is still used in all of engineering and in physics at certain scales. It's accurate to some degrees, just not relativistic or quantum. It wasn't abandoned. In fact, quantum decoherence may have the answers for how a universe that is indeterminate on a quantum level and determinate on a classical level is possible.

>>5923376
That's part of the point. Phenomenology has no justification for its discussion of ontology, even if the terms it used were actually coherently defined.

>>5923375
Uhh, no, that's Wittgenstein, actually.

Husserl himself said phenomenology is " a kind of "descriptive psychology".... a transcendental and eidetic science of consciousness"

>>5923360
Husserl ""the reflective study of the essence of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view."

Something entirely qualitative doesn't reveal anything about how the world actually works. You need actual justification for something rather than writing about it.

>>5923335
Does poetry purport to provide a meaningful explanation of the way the world actually works? Answer: no.

>>5923330
I'm aware, I mean specifically for the philosophy of science and all this falsifiability shit

>>5923312
Please tell me how neurology and clinical psych have to make use of phenomenology, or what phenomenology does that they don't. No one can answer that question. I think the only reliable investigations into consciousness are through neuro & psych