/sci/ - Science & Math

I do, but nothing globally noteworthy. I've had personal triumphs and small breakdowns due to my philosophical investigations.

Nicomachean Ethics and most works by Camus impacted me the most.

The Plague left a definite impression upon me.

>>7286664

>OP

I just graduated with a double major B.S/B.A in biology and philosophy. In my last semester I took a class called "The Meaning of Life", and we dealt a lot with the absurd. Following, I bought and began my personal inquiry with The Stranger, and the ending left me for dumb. I'm considering The Rebel next, or should I go The Plague?

Not much, but all I know is that neckbeards who replace their God with Nietzsche make me want to burn my house down.

>>7286666
The Plague. The Stranger will not only make more sense, but it's easily one of the best books by Camus. Not only is his prose incredible, but the storyline is phenomenal and the absurdism is interlaced in every facet of the story. The ending is similar to The Stranger, but easily stronger.

The whole point behind The Stranger is, as ridiculous as this might seem, is that there really is no grand "point." No reasoning. One of the most potent lines from that book is when he analyzes the clock in the courtroom or from within his cell, or when he talks with the priest.

The end is also one of the best endings ever, too. It was written very well.

>>7286694

I honestly felt his rage when he flipped his lid at the priest. I would have reacted in such a similar way, it honestly made me feel like I was throttling the priest myself.

Have you ever read into Thomas Nagel? He has some interesting points on the absurd as well, but he makes more of a claim that the absurd rises from the crossing of the "inescapable seriousness of routine life, and the unavoidability of objective doubt." Whereas Camus's absurdity is derived from the search for meaningfulness in a world devoid of it.

P.S OH MAH QUADS

>>7286694

Oh, and what I guess I meant by "left for dumb" is that I was dumbfounded, not confused. I turned the page and was like "THIS IS IT? FFUCK"

I have a really small base of knowledge on the subject but from what I have read I was really interested in Spinoza for a while, and I tried to read Ethics but it was a bit over my head. Will try again next semester though. I'm a math major and while I don't really care much for philosophy classes I think everyone should strive to understand their personal philosophy and a great way to do that is to just read what the great minds thought.

>>7286646
>or is everyone too far into mathematics to give a fuck?

If you go too far into mathematics you will find philosophy

>>7286713

>OP

I argued with a math major, co-worker of mine who claimed philosophy is pointless, and is a waste of time. I Socrates'd his ass into thinking otherwise.

>You are a mathematician?
>Yes.
>Logic is a root of philosophy and is a set of rules to follow when forming rational thoughts.
>Yes.
>Mathematics is a set of rules to follow when solving a problem using a quantified set of values.
>Yes.
>Mathematics is logic with numbers.
>Yes.
>So mathematics is philosophy with numbers.
>NU UH MAN NO WAY THAT CAN'T BE RIGHT CAUSE YOU CAN'T EXPERIENCE OR TOUCH PHILOSOPHY
>my fucking face when

>>7286723

>OP

I agree m8, 'twas b8.

>>7286646
I do not know whether this will speak to somebody....
The goal to not have a goal is to have less worry, to have less burdens, to be less pessimistic (especially when you compare yourself to others). Furthermore, you replace this habit by something else (philosophers, theologists call that god, it is writing for people in litterature, it is research for the scientific and so on ; in any case it is some sort of a immanence-transcendence). Whatever you call it, you will be left with unordered thoughts and something creative somehow will come out of this.

>>7286694
Is should be a right to a peaceful death but it will be unlikely the case because of the principle of life from all humanist doctrines, doctrines which have been in power for the last centuries.

Until, of course, the feminists dicovered that abortions are alright and must be enticed by the states since from now on, the principle of pain is more valued (if you desire something from the society, you must say, from now on, that it makes you sad and oppressed). From this, there is no longer a justification to forbid a painless manner to give death to yourself, paid by the states.

With the declining population, only the euthanasia is considered. The state does not want to give too much liberties, especially in liberal societies. The humanists of today do not understand that the philosophical suicide can be considered, since all they see is through pleasure/pain. Plus, the naysayers say that it opens the door to the suicides in mass. This is really quite a dilemma for all those humanist societies who rely on consent, whereas they violate this consent on a daily basis already, even from your birth (think of your nationality where your state does not ask you if you wish to be part of it, where the states do nothing to favorize the stateless state (for individuals), or to move abroad etc.).

I think that in a few generations, probably after the century, we will come back from this life penalty, just like we came back from the death penalty. This statement is statistic, which means that a lot of countries will adopt this stance, but there will still be a few to refuse it)

the picture is the poster of an italian film on euthanasia and the last death is a form of philosophical suicide that so few understand.


I think that there is legitimate concerns over euthanasia. Typically, that we already abandon the old in some hospices with the result of them being sad and ill. The euthanasia/suicide-for-the-old would be a bad solution to a false problem.

>>7286782

Yet you're still implying that one needs a goal to accomplish anything of worthiness, even if by some abstract pretense one's goal is to not have one at all. I feel where you're going, but it still seems rather cyclical.

>>7286789
Now, the legitimate concern about suicide (=suicide of the young) is that the suicidant has responsibilities. It is the famous cliché that before you die, you subscribe a financial credit and never pay back. Or you conceive children, only to give death to yourself a few years later.

perhaps, some day, out of the cost of sustaining the life for the old, some country will be the ultimate utilitarian and give death to old people for financial reasons, but I doubt it.

I do not think that the state plots against the people to enslave it in some life penalty. I think the politicians talk about what the public want and can hear. The suicide is too taboo now, euthanasia is more or less hear-able, especially with such a old demography. Since I believe that the humanism will remain the doctrine in power for a few generations, once the euthanasia is accepted, it will be the turn of the suicide to be the subject of attention. I think that it just takes time and nobody can have, at once, all the liberties everyone can conceive.
more precisely, they talk about the affairs whereof they are aware, the affairs whereof the public likes. I do not think that many people will be concious of this kind of suicide.

The peaceful suicide having nothing to do with the hedonism, I think that the suicide in general will never be discussed if the doctrine/morality in place still focuses the feeling, such as it is today. I do not see a bunch of more or less healthy persons going into the streets and asking for a drug to peacefully die in stating that somebody hurts them and oppress them. Perhaps the whole mentality of how to deal with requests in a democracy will change, but it will not be for tomorrow if the change in mentality is gradual over time.

>>7286789
>>7286793
There seems to be several philosophical suicide. Typically, the nihilist person, disgusted by the state of world or its futility, as exposed in the book on history of the suicide. I think that there is another suicide, not the nihilist one nor the one out of despair, but the last one that is exposed in the film. To wit, the suicide where the suicidant is calm and serene about its death. It is a suicide full of quietude. There is a few documentaries on youtube on the swiss group which gives the drug to the sick (who qualify). One person is at peace and is actually glad to have this opportunity. She is sick though, so perhaps she would not have taken the drug if she was healthy, since a chronic disease takes its toll. Typical suicide is Deleuze, and my bet is that he would have applied to get this drug, if it were available at his time.

From the medical staff working in geriatric wards, as well as from the the families directly concerned about the peaceful suicide, the more the suicidant talks about his death, the more it is accepted. This is why I see this suicide becoming trendy since, once more, the ageing population calls for it.

As a last note, the drug that is used today costs 30 euros for a lethal dose. In the grey market it is ten times more. From this, we clearly see that the technology is here, so it is all about the mentalities.

My stance is that the first step in life is to reflect on the suicide.. That is to say, that the beginning in life is to reflect on its end. The first question to me is the one of the solipsism and the knowledge. To know that you will die, you must recognize that the others are a bit like your self. So it is like Camus, that suicide is one of the most relevant question, but I think that a solipsist stance does not call for a suicide. The suicide comes just after the one of the knowledge, since you have no knowledge nor proof that you will die.

i am not a vitalist à la Nietsche or Deluze, though .

I'm a mathematician. To me, philosophy is like sex: the idea is appealing, but I don't have time for it, and most people don't do it the way I like. Regardless, I approach my research very philosophically, by starting with "why" questions and starting in very general places. If I have time near the end of my life, I hope to perhaps study some philosophy. Mathematics is a young man's game, and philosophy is an old man's folly.

>>7286789

I think that, or so it seems intuitively, that euthanasia is a response to the pressures of, as you stated, time and accrued pain and despair.
Euthanasia of one's self only has profound philosophical implications if one attends the thought without a profound biomedical reason, say terminal cancer or the like.

If a healthy twenty something year old kills himself, would not everyone question his motivation, possibly beginning inquiry into the realization of the absurd and inability to face it? What for the 80 something year old with terminal cancer? If he were to commit suicide nobody would question his approach to the absurd, just that he was a sick old man in pain.

>>7286694
But why he shoot him tho

>>7286807

the sun, bro.

>>7286797
>i am not a vitalist à la Nietsche or Deluze, though .
or Camus.

I think that the humanity's essence is to work on reflexivity (relating to the concciousness), solipsism. For instance. I see the animals as having poor reflexivity, and good solipsism. They are what they feel. They are not detached from their emotions, nor thoughts, nor self. They are as close as their skin as it can be. Idem with the women.

men are the same during infancy, but my bet is that our job is to be like those buddhists (not the hippies buddhism) to become selfless, to be in control of our body and mind.

A burning animal would scream and run in every direction. A burning man would not do this, because it has reached a higher essence than the one of its animosity

>>7286809
The sun told him to? Plenty of people can go out into the sun without shooting people; is that really his excuse? It's been a long time since I read it.

>>7286801

I'm not a pure mathematician, but a research biologist. I am not too deep into my research yet however, because I work for a institute rather than a matriculated academic programme. I have the time do philosophy, but that time will be hiatus, I'm sure, as soon as I return to academia.

>>7286812

He went back to the spot where the Arab lie. The Arab pulled out his knife and he drew the gun. The sun burned the sand and all turned red, then he fired. In this scene, it only says that he fired all of the rounds, but not how. It is only revealed during the inquisition, that he fired the first shot lethally, hesitated, and then fired the remaining rounds into the corpse. THIS, is what the real question is, I think.

>>7286821
The real question for me is why did he shoot him?

>>7286831

The only time he ever really answers that, is when he said 'because of the sun', and the courtroom laughed at him. Other than that, the answer is speculation. Too bad Camus died or maybe we would have pried an answer by now.

>>7286831

Him shooting the arab has no reasoning behind, as is Camus' view of life. It made no difference whether the arab died 1- years later of natural causes, just as it wold not matter if Meursault had not been executed. The death is senseless, and pointless, just as all life, according to Camus.

It is within this question where the absurd life is created. You're actually creating it now, but looking for meaning in the death of the arab, where there isn't any.

>>7286844

That's an interesting viewpoint. Thank you for that

>>7286847

Of course.

I don't want to get too literary, but the sun is a constant antagonist to Meursault. He even exclaims that it is inhuman and annoying. It proves to be a problem during his mothers funeral, where he unleashes out all of his bottled up anxiety towards the sun, instead of shedding emotion. Once the Arab flashes the sunlight in his eyes with the knife, he feels justified in pulling the trigger because the sun is being reflected into his eyes, and the arab, by circumstance, happens to be the one doing it. The shots after the first lethal one exist to show the universe's indifference to the death, and that the morality of the following shots is only a construct of society.

>>7286646
Come back when you go insane and won't eat

>>7286797
>My stance is that the first step in life is to reflect on the suicide.. That is to say, that the beginning in life is to reflect on its end. The first question to me is the one of the solipsism and the knowledge. To know that you will die, you must recognize that the others are a bit like your self. So it is like Camus, that suicide is one of the most relevant question, but I think that a solipsist stance does not call for a suicide. The suicide comes just after the one of the knowledge, since you have no knowledge nor proof that you will die.


My stance today is that there is no reason to live, but there is equally no reason to die. I believe that it is permanent that nothing is permanent and that nothing matters (and that it does not matter that nothing matters) so it makes the usual sadness and nagging moments quite endurable, especially when the health is here to have enough liberties to live.
I do not think that I will push my life to reach some natural death, a concept far too ill-defined to be relevant in my opinion. When I judge that I have enough lived, I will go somewhere where the drug is legal.

>>7286873

Interesting. Such any reason one has for living, should be equal parts a reason to die. What if this is not the case? Where one's method of living is not equally perceivable a reason to die? What of the contrary? IS that even possible?

It depends on how one lives their life, and the circumstances provided. I think to Ezio from Assassin's Creed. At the end of Revelations he drops his blades and claims "I have seen enough for one life", yet we know he does not commit suicide. Is this not a form of philosophical suicide in and of itself?

He gave up one life for another, yet many of us are not given the chance to give up such a life, and are born into the life he chose as his suicide. If all man are created equal, then how does one account for such unfair happenstance than circumstance?

>>7286873
Read Cioran.

recently read Wittgenstein's Tractatus, want to buy an edition of the Principia Mathematica even though its project is outdated (my interest is historical). Check the catalog for a thread I made already on the subject.

Can anyone recommend an edition of PM for the determined buyer?

>>7286865
I guess that in the end his stomach was... incomplete.

>>7286922

>>7286646
bump

>>7286646

this:
>>7286723

>>7286646
That is downright absurd there is no point...

>>7286646
What do you think of sparta, aka communism done well for centuries ?

>>7286728
>>Logic is a root of philosophy

Wrong. Logic is a field of math and not understood by philosotards.

>>7286728
>some mathematicians use logic
>some philosophers use logic
>therefore math is philosophy

Is this really your argument? You must be mentally retarded.

I came from /lit/ to find this >>7287756 smh
Wrong you stupid shmug math is an extent of logic (Aristotle's organon) you can't into Leibniz and Bertrand Russell aren't you? ^^

>>7287808
Wrong you stupid shmug math is logic (every real mathematician) you can't into triple integrals, right? ^^

>>7287756
>Wrong. Logic is a field of math and not understood by philosotards.
Mathematics are
-a choice of logic by the mathematician, where he chooses which Rules of inferences to use
-a choice of axioms which are devoid of direct ontology since what matters is now the axiomatic relations between the symbols
(this is key in the language : you no longer ask what is plane, but how it interacts with other concepts in geometry. In natural languages, some stronger degree of ontology remains, but this ontology could well be removed and some mathematics in a natural language would remain)

Most mathematicians denigrate the logical aspect and choose the classical logic, if, by some miracle, they even become aware that there are other logics.

>>7287813
I can't into your mom
logic is older than math it can't be the same thing (logically speaking)
logic and math are distinct but related there's a complementary relationship going on besides both of 'em contributed to scientific knowledge

I owe you triple integrals

>>7287808
Leibniz and Russell were mathematicians, you imbecile. ALL research in logic over the last 150 years has been done by mathematicians.

>>7287826
This is so wrong on so many levels. Please do not talk about math, if you know literally nothing about it.

1. Formal logic is a subfield of math. It has been formalized by mathematicians and all research in logic has been done by mathematicians.
2. Gödel shattered the dream of finding a set of axioms for all of math.
3. Literally no mathematician outside of formal logic itself would ever do math by stating axioms and doing formal inference from them.
4. Math is not abstract puzzles detached from reality. It arises out of the practical necessity to make precise predictions in the physical world.

>>7287923
> logic is older than math
It isn't unless you're taking logic as merely reasoning in the broad sense, in which case math in a pbroad sense is probaly just as old anyway.

>>7287923
Logic is a strict subfield of math. Some mathematicians research logic, but most don't give a shit about it. No, my dear uneducated reddit manchild, "logic" is not a synonym for every act of thinking. Logic is a very specific branch of math.

>>7286811
>Idem with women
>Implying all women are like those you see inthe streets
I feel sad for you

>>7286646

I just wish someone would finally make a board for all these pseudo intellectual philosopher fags

>>7288186
It's called /r9k/. Philosophy threads fit right in, between threads about suicide or about pooping frogs.

>>7288107
He's right though.

I'm a mathematician and I enjoy philosophy.

Pic related, my favorite philosopher.

>>7288186
it's called /lit/

>>7286646
Naw. Get lost

in b4 that butthurt "math phd student" "femanon" comes in and claims philosophy is infantile and spouts le epic

>YOU CAN'T KNO NUFFIN

memes

>>7288242

wow
such gentlemen
amazing
i must get to know this person

>>7288242
He was ahead of his time
RIP our lord and saviour dear Elliot

>>7288242

>>7288107
Make love to one and see what happens. Do you think that a female loves a man like a man loves a female ?
No, most men loves a female, like a female loves her children. But the female does not love the man.
Most men fail to understand that men must love a female, such as an owner loving his dog.
The female knows that Good lovers are egotistic, good husbands are devoted.

bump

>>7286646
What you guys consider good philosophy ?

>>7291625
"My Twisted World" by Elliot Rodger

>>7289349
does philosophy have universally accepted axioms

>>7286646
>Does /sci/ ever /phil/, or is everyone too far into mathematics to give a fuck?
>>7292447
>>7292451
>>7292454
>>7292459
>>7292462
>>7292464

>>7292470
Nobody cares about your shitty copypasta bait.

>>7292006
kek