/sci/ - Science & Math

what

the best part is that op thinks he is smart

>>11406844

>>11406982
>[Not a specific criticism or argument].

>>11407036
These sorts of books aren't as practical as the understanding that basically everything is already available (to somebody). Fusion, quantum construction, health ..

>>11407107
>These sorts of books aren't as practical as the understanding that basically everything is already available
You have no idea how close those sorts of books are to what you've said in OP, which is essentially a transcendentalist exposition. Transcendentalists would nod knowingly at the statements "everything is already available" and "life is simple and easy (with knowledge)". It's kind of pompous of you to dismiss well-articulated wisdom as unpractical, while justifying the veracity of your own wisdom with little more than a bunch of unrelated factoids.

I mean you've barely come out with a single cogent sentence, let alone "knowledge" and certainly not wisdom. It's rather arrogant to throw a load of unrelated tidbits together (e.g. "Fusion, quantum construction, health... Genetic similarity.... Social interest and investment, personality, attractiveness, skillfulness, anatomy, energy levels.... logical method of cellular energy / youth", etc.) and think that the jumble mess you've created somehow demonstrates the simplicity and essentiality of life.

>>11406982
Is right.

>>11407132
You mislabeled / -categorized basically everything; neither had you actually specified a criticism or (counter-)argument.

PS: Knowledge and wisdom are the same.

>>11406975
>>11406982
>>11407036
>>11407107
>>11407132
>>11407138
>replying to and bumping shit that gets posted everyday
Fuck off.

>>11407138
>knowledge and wisdom are the same
Only someone without either would say that.

>>11407139
>[Off-topic garbage].
>>>/global/rules

>>11407144
There's not an effective difference for usual conversation, and (it's obviously beneficial knowing that) in antiquity and else, they're used congruently.

>>11407138
>You mislabeled / -categorized basically everything
Not even one example.

>neither had you actually specified a criticism or (counter-)argument.
I made two quite harsh criticisms... somehow they both went over your head: 1) You unreasonably dismiss knowledge (which itself is somewhat analogous to what you have said, but it that much better articulated) and are ignorant; 2) You are incoherent and have failed to in any way demonstrate the simple truth you claim to have access to.

>PS: Knowledge and wisdom are the same.
Oh, look, semantics.

>>11407153
>>[Off-topic garbage].
You mean like your dogshit thread that you posted a billion times? Kill yourself.

>>11407153
No, the qualifying words effect and usual does not hide the fact that you are talking about naive conversation. There is a large difference between the realm of categories and those of judgements.

>>11406844
Is that a mozzarella and strawberry bread?

>>11407159
>Not even one example.
Your whole response was a projection of a ~non-existent interpretation, coming with neither negative nor positive actual, relevant perspectives or facts. Those scientific plausibilities being possible already is a huge assertion and figurative-QoL. They're important topics ..

You were equating self-help-esque philosophy with scientific freedom.

>>11407164
Comparing to those, this is a new topic.

>>11407185
>naive conversation
>[Projection].

PS:
>[Not an argument].

>>11407311
Dismissing counter-narratives without substantive claims and then simply asserting the importance of some garbled "scientific plausibilities" is not only a weak argument, but a non-argument. It's not clear what your disagreement is because you seem to have missed each point entirely.

>equating self-help-esque philosophy with scientific freedom
No, the problem here is that YOU are falsely equating what you've said with "scientific reason".

With a single jpg, >>11407036 BTFOed you -- in ways that wouldn't have even crossed my mind, in all honesty -- and your ignorance and contentiousness inhibits you from recognising the insight of such a simple observation. With this, you vindicate previous anon, >>11406982.

Although others have tried to point it out, you fail to realise that transcendentalist literature -- which you dismiss as unpractical, self-help-esque philosophy, lacking any of the truth you self-righteously (and unjustifiably) make claim to -- is not only more comprehensible and logically consistent, but also better evidences the inherent (and achievable) simplicity of life, than any of your incoherent schizo-posting, which itself relies entirely on a series of unrelated factoids.

Your claim that, given the right knowledge, life is simple and easy is *emphatically* qualitative, contestable, and profoundly philosophical. It is a belief that I also share, although I would never arrogantly declare its' pure scientific veracity or self-importantly believe that no other philosophers/thinkers in history shared and evinced the same insights. None of the "scientific plausibilities" you have suggested support the claim. With every post, you fail to acknowledge and then counteract criticisms and instead opt for outright repudiation and dismissal. With obstinacy, you to turn your nose up at thought and literature which better encapsulates and justifies the notions you maintain. You're not only pompous, but a literal pleb.

>>11407515
I'll stress again: I agree with your conclusion, just not you reasoning, dismissiveness, obstinacy, or arrogance. This kind of thinking predates you by almost two centuries, and of course has its roots in thinking millennia prior. Here is a widely-circulated transcendentalist excerpt. I hope you find most of it relatable:

"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practice resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion. For most men, it appears to me, are in a strange uncertainty about it, whether it is of the devil or of God, and have somewhat hastily concluded that it is the chief end of man here to "glorify God and enjoy him forever."

[...]

(1/2)

>>11407540
"Still we live meanly, like ants; though the fable tells us that we were long ago changed into men; like pygmies we fight with cranes; it is error upon error, and clout upon clout, and our best virtue has for its occasion a superfluous and evitable wretchedness. Our life is frittered away by detail. An honest man has hardly need to count more than his ten fingers, or in extreme cases he may add his ten toes, and lump the rest. Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity! I say, let your affairs be as two or three, and not a hundred or a thousand; instead of a million count half a dozen, and keep your accounts on your thumb-nail. In the midst of this chopping sea of civilized life, such are the clouds and storms and quicksands and thousand-and-one items to be allowed for, that a man has to live, if he would not founder and go to the bottom and not make his port at all, by dead reckoning, and he must be a great calculator indeed who succeeds. Simplify, simplify."

Walden (1854)

(2/2)