/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12460497]

>retroactively refutes Darwinian evolution

[Anonymous No.12460533]

>>12460497
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.12460576]

>>12460497
>>>/lgbt/

[Anonymous No.12460593]

>>12460533
Dilate.

Goethe not only entirely prefigured the Darwinian theory of evolution, but also what would become its still scientific counterargument. Goethe (and those who followed in his footsteps, such as Uexküll) lays the groundwork for a real science.

[Anonymous No.12460657]

Care to elaborate?

[Anonymous No.12461237]

>>12460657
>Goethe there regarded all the outer characteristics of the plant, everything belonging to the visible aspect of the plant, as inconstant, as changing. From this he drew the conclusion that the essential being of the plant, therefore, does not lie in these characteristics, but rather must be sought at deeper levels. It was from observations similar to these of Goethe that Darwin also proceeded when he asserted his doubts about the constancy of the outer forms of genera and species. But the conclusions drawn by the two men are utterly different. Whereas Darwin believes the essential being of the organism to consist in fact only of these outer characteristics, and, from their changeability draws the conclusion that there is therefore nothing constant in the life of the plants, Goethe goes deeper and draws the conclusion that if those outer characteristics are not constant, then the constant element must be sought in something else that underlies those changeable outer aspects. It becomes Goethe’s goal to develop this something else, whereas Darwin’s efforts go in the direction of exploring and presenting the specific causes of that changeability. Both ways of looking at things are necessary and complement one another. It is completely erroneous to believe that Goethe’s greatness in organic science is to be found in the view that he was a mere forerunner of Darwin. Goethe’s way of looking at things is far broader; it comprises two aspects: 1. the typus, i.e., the lawfulness manifesting in the organism, the animalness of the animal, the life that gives form to itself out of itself, that has the power and ability – through the possibilities lying within it – to develop itself in manifold outer shapes (species, genera);

CONT

[Anonymous No.12461249]

>>12460657
>Goethe there regarded all the outer characteristics of the plant, everything belonging to the visible aspect of the plant, as inconstant, as changing. From this he drew the conclusion that the essential being of the plant, therefore, does not lie in these characteristics, but rather must be sought at deeper levels. It was from observations similar to these of Goethe that Darwin also proceeded when he asserted his doubts about the constancy of the outer forms of genera and species. But the conclusions drawn by the two men are utterly different. Whereas Darwin believes the essential being of the organism to consist in fact only of these outer characteristics, and, from their changeability draws the conclusion that there is therefore nothing constant in the life of the plants, Goethe goes deeper and draws the conclusion that if those outer characteristics are not constant, then the constant element must be sought in something else that underlies those changeable outer aspects. It becomes Goethe’s goal to develop this something else, whereas Darwin’s efforts go in the direction of exploring and presenting the specific causes of that changeability. Both ways of looking at things are necessary and complement one another. It is completely erroneous to believe that Goethe’s greatness in organic science is to be found in the view that he was a mere forerunner of Darwin. Goethe’s way of looking at things is far broader; it comprises two aspects: 1. the typus, i.e., the lawfulness manifesting in the organism, the animalness of the animal, the life that gives form to itself out of itself, that has the power and ability – through the possibilities lying within it – to develop itself in manifold outer shapes (species, genera); 2. the interaction of the organism with inorganic nature and of the organisms with each other (adaptation and the struggle for existence).

CONT

[Anonymous No.12461271]

>>12460657
>Goethe there regarded all the outer characteristics of the plant, everything belonging to the visible aspect of the plant, as inconstant, as changing. From this he drew the conclusion that the essential being of the plant, therefore, does not lie in these characteristics, but rather must be sought at deeper levels. It was from observations similar to these of Goethe that Darwin also proceeded when he asserted his doubts about the constancy of the outer forms of genera and species. But the conclusions drawn by the two men are utterly different. Whereas Darwin believes the essential being of the organism to consist in fact only of these outer characteristics, and, from their changeability draws the conclusion that there is therefore nothing constant in the life of the plants, Goethe goes deeper and draws the conclusion that if those outer characteristics are not constant, then the constant element must be sought in something else that underlies those changeable outer aspects. It becomes Goethe’s goal to develop this something else, whereas Darwin’s efforts go in the direction of exploring and presenting the specific causes of that changeability. Both ways of looking at things are necessary and complement one another. It is completely erroneous to believe that Goethe’s greatness in organic science is to be found in the view that he was a mere forerunner of Darwin. Goethe’s way of looking at things is far broader; it comprises two aspects: 1. the typus, i.e., the lawfulness manifesting in the organism, the animalness of the animal, the life that gives form to itself out of itself, that has the power and ability – through the possibilities lying within it – to develop itself in manifold outer shapes (species, genera);

CONT

[Anonymous No.12461278]

>>12460657
>Goethe there regarded all the outer characteristics of the plant, everything belonging to the visible aspect of the plant, as inconstant, as changing. From this he drew the conclusion that the essential being of the plant, therefore, does not lie in these characteristics, but rather must be sought at deeper levels. It was from observations similar to these of Goethe that Darwin also proceeded when he asserted his doubts about the constancy of the outer forms of genera and species. But the conclusions drawn by the two men are utterly different. Whereas Darwin believes the essential being of the organism to consist in fact only of these outer characteristics, and, from their changeability draws the conclusion that there is therefore nothing constant in the life of the plants, Goethe goes deeper and draws the conclusion that if those outer characteristics are not constant, then the constant element must be sought in something else that underlies those changeable outer aspects. It becomes Goethe’s goal to develop this something else, whereas Darwin’s efforts go in the direction of exploring and presenting the specific causes of that changeability. Both ways of looking at things are necessary and complement one another. It is completely erroneous to believe that Goethe’s greatness in organic science is to be found in the view that he was a mere forerunner of Darwin. Goethe’s way of looking at things is far broader; it comprises two aspects: 1. the typus, i.e., the lawfulness manifesting in the organism, the animalness of the animal, the life that gives form to itself out of itself, that has the power and ability – through the possibilities lying within it – to develop itself in manifold outer shapes (species, genera); 2. the interaction of the organism with inorganic nature and of the organisms with each other (adaptation and the struggle for existence). Darwin developed only the latter aspect of organic science.

CONT

[Anonymous No.12461281]

>>12461278
>One cannot therefore say that Darwin’s theory is the elaboration of Goethe’s basic ideas, but rather that it is merely the elaboration of one aspect of his ideas. Darwin’s theory looks only at those facts that cause the world of living beings to evolve in a certain way, but does not look at that “something” upon which those facts act determinatively. If only the one aspect is pursued, then it can also not lead to any complete theory of organisms; essentially, this must be pursued in the spirit of Goethe; the one aspect must be complemented and deepened by the other aspect of his theory. A simple comparison will make the matter clearer. Take a piece of lead; heat it into liquid form; and then pour it into cold water. The lead has gone through two states, two stages, one after the other; the first was brought about by the higher temperature, the second by the lower. Now the form that each stage takes does not depend only on the nature of warmth, but also depends quite essentially on the nature of the lead. A different body, if subjected to the same media, would manifest quite different states. Organisms also allow themselves to be influenced by the media surrounding them; they also, affected by these media, assume different states and do so, in fact, totally in accordance with their own nature, in accordance with that being which makes them organisms. And one does find this being in Goethe’s ideas. Only someone who is equipped with an understanding for this being will be capable of grasping why organisms respond (react) to particular causes in precisely one way and in no other. Only such a person will be capable of correctly picturing to himself the changeability in the manifest forms of organisms and the related laws of adaptation and of the struggle for existence.

[Anonymous No.12461284]

>>12461281
But it gets much more complex than this so I recommend you read the whole link wherein I found these quotes:

https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/urphaenomen.htm

And at least the part of this article wherein it mentions Goethe and his Urphänomen:

https://counter-currents.com/2020/12/heidegger-against-the-traditionalists-part-one/

[Anonymous No.12461936]

bump.

[Anonymous No.12463172]

bump.

[Anonymous No.12463311]

Give a tl;dr goddammit, ain't nobody gonna read that shit.

[Anonymous No.12463415]

>>12463311
Mate, the best tl;dr your'e gonna get is already in the thread.

See >>12460593

and this section of the greentext
>>It is completely erroneous to believe that Goethe’s greatness in organic science is to be found in the view that he was a mere forerunner of Darwin. Goethe’s way of looking at things is far broader; it comprises two aspects: 1. the typus, i.e., the lawfulness manifesting in the organism, the animalness of the animal, the life that gives form to itself out of itself, that has the power and ability – through the possibilities lying within it – to develop itself in manifold outer shapes (species, genera); 2. the interaction of the organism with inorganic nature and of the organisms with each other (adaptation and the struggle for existence). Darwin developed only the latter aspect of organic science.

[Anonymous No.12463443]

>>12461278
understanding goetha vs darwin requires intelligence, the npc on this board do not have intelligence. they can only repeat what they have memorized they don't cannot intuit anything. that is how you can see how stupid modern man and modern science has become anything that requires more than observe and record is beyond their capability to process. fuck these retards bruh, armies of npc zombies

[Anonymous No.12463446]

>>12461284
>counter currents
A man of refined taste I see

[Anonymous No.12464073]

>>12463443
I thank you for your kind response anon, I completely agree. I'm occasionally surprised by how many /sci/ browsers genuinely follow modern science categorically to the very t'. Do they have any care for its historical process to understand its present conceptions; or natural endeavours from those definitions imposed? Many not at all. What really must be hoped for is that general openness of the original scientific spirit, of a Roger Bacon in his laboratory.

[Anonymous No.12464114]

>>12464073
This goethe material you put forth is was actually an exercise we did in my philosophy class. 'what is the essence of a thing". The question put forth was about a river and how its physical characteristics change every day so what makes it the Ohio river? It's location? What makes it a river at all its wetness? This seems silly at first and the dumb fuck tards on this board will do what dumb asses do like say "that's retarded" or some other such thing but when you really start thinking about giving operational definitions to things you realize a lot of them don't have a definition that is true 100 percent of the time. You are not labeling or "defining" its physical manifestation you are in fact defining its essence.

This what the Jews and their post modernist critical theory cult attack to brainwash stupid NPC. How they blur the lines between male and female, right and wrong. They know if you attack the material definition of something you can chip away at it to draw any kind of ridonkuluos new definition you want for people to stupid to understand the true essence of something.

Everyone instinctually knows what a woman is, they are born knowing, they don't any help identifying a woman or telling a woman from a man, but you throw trannies in the mix who are mimicking a woman and then you can chip away at all the things on the material manifestation of woman is that made them separate from men. The Jews are masters are confusing retards with their pilpul sophistry. It is effective because most people are stupid can can't intuit and this board is a perfect example. Modern soience institutions are not turning out scientists, they are turning out technicians at best incapable of doing real science because above all a true scientist requires imagination and intuition and the clowns on this board just ain't got the stuff it takes to do real science.

[Anonymous No.12464124]

>>12464114
sorry for the typos, using my phone

[Anonymous No.12464626]

>>12464114
No I again completely understand. They attack at life at every direction through technologised older scientific theories which were not necessarily in their inception materialistic.

Your exercise that you point out fits it perfectly, "what is a river," now what is that which is living. It surely cannot be defined only by its non-living biochemical composites. And that's why I mentioned Uexküll, the Umwelt, roughly translated as environment gets to that same heart of the question. The existence of the plant is interrelational to its environment, and there is not just the material in it, nor just chance-- but the denial of evolution as just "chance" is a somewhat different topic.

It would probably be described as a phenomenological approach in the 20th century, though I don't think this is a too accurate description in that it loses the scientific nature of its description, as well as becomes attached to the various schools of phenomenology during that century. Really it ceases too much from what it currently is to call it a phenomenology, rather than just involving the phenomenological. Phenomenology is not grounded enough and too broad for what this is.

The response to what what we're both saying I'm sure would be something like "but that's not science," probably because it doesn't fit exactly with an empirical method or something like that. And though I do well think what we're talking about is a broadening of science, and that is still science, even if it is not then it still shows the connection between science and the various other pursuits of knowledge in man.

[Anonymous No.12464719]

>>12464626
I think Ian Malcolm sums it up perfectly. These automatons are taught all procedure and no contemplation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oNgyUAEv0Q

Science without philosophy is a LARP. I already mentioned they are glorified technicians not scientists. They are just procedural no different than automated robots in a factory. They neither know why they are doing it nor care, they just know they have been highly trained to do a very specific task like Pavlov's dog to get a paycheck by ZOG like perfect little ZOGbots ushering the dystopian planet of the retards huxley and Orwell wrote about all because they simply can't think for themselves

[Anonymous No.12464758]

>>12460593
>Goethe not only entirely prefigured the Darwinian theory of evolution
No. Where is natural selection?

>but also what would become its still scientific counterargument
Which is? Your own source says they are "complementary" views, not contradictory.

Biosemiotics is not a real science.

[Anonymous No.12465837]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.12465916]

>>12464626
watch Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within you will find some answers there

[Anonymous No.12465993]

>>12464114
>>12464719
You can either be a cattle herder or cattle's walking mat. Which will be your destiny, Winston?

[Anonymous No.12467694]

bump.

[Anonymous No.12467703]

>>12460497
>>>/baseddepartment/

[Anonymous No.12468434]

>>12464758
>No. Where is natural selection?
It's essentially implicit anon.

>Which is? Your own source says they are "complementary" views, not contradictory.
If you've read the thread, I say counterargument because modern "science" has designated itself as against these ideas. Surely you've heard of a dialectic? Though it is not even that, for it is an illusion of a materialistic way of thinking which utterly dominates science.

Yet no great advancement is made in science with those material methods, it is always intuitive. As the other anon broached.

[Anonymous No.12468721]

bump

[Anonymous No.12469828]

bump.

[Anonymous No.12470421]

>>12460497
Okay but you can literally watch natural selection and evolution in real time lol.

[Anonymous No.12470595]

>>12470421
But can you watch Goethe in real time?

[Anonymous No.12470851]

>>12468434
>It's essentially implicit anon.
You can imply anything if you interpret broadly enough.

>If you've read the thread, I say counterargument because modern "science" has designated itself as against these ideas.
What you've written in the thread is either too vague for science to be "against" or counterfactual.

>Yet no great advancement is made in science with those material methods, it is always intuitive.
You are unaware of unintuitive results, because you have no understanding of what you're discussing.

[Anonymous No.12471501]

>>12470851
>You can imply anything if you interpret broadly enough.
If you're familiar with Goethe's plant theory, it's implicit.

>What you've written in the thread is either too vague for science to be "against" or counterfactual.
Just a materialistic opinionation like any other.

>You are unaware of unintuitive results, because you have no understanding of what you're discussing.
Not intelligible as to what you're trying to say, and so I can only see an insult here. Please explain what you're saying here anon.

You're post is overall disingenuous in that it says little, and makes no attempt to understand what I have said.

[Anonymous No.12472259]

>>12471501
>If you're familiar with Goethe's plant theory, it's implicit.
It's not. His theory is about development based on the "ideal plant." It's teleological and the exact opposite of natural selection.

>Just a materialistic opinionation like any other.
>that's just like your opinion, man
Good luck proving your immaterial religious dogma. Until then, keep it to yourself.

>Not intelligible as to what you're trying to say
It's a simple sentence. Try harder. I'm saying that your claim that no great advancements are made is based on your lack of knowledge, not a failure of science.

[Anonymous No.12472678]

>>12472259
>It's not. His theory is about development based on the "ideal plant." It's teleological and the exact opposite of natural selection.
That's not it at all, have you even bothered to read the fucking thread? That's explicitly what he said he was getting away from and it can be seen plain as day he was, not to mention that if you fucking read the greentext you would see the separation of what you're attempting to denote here only into one half of his scientific ideas here. The other being the essential evolution of the plant in the modern sense.

>Good luck proving your immaterial religious dogma. Until then, keep it to yourself.
Shut the fuck up, you're functionally retarded as shown you can't even read the thread. You're such a complete midwit, let me unpack your question: Do you even bother to explain what's "scientifically unverifiable" about what I said? Or "scientifically counterfactual" either? No, what you said there amounted to nothing other than "that goes against my personal ideology" which itself amounts to nothing more than an unexamined cope. That's why I replied calling your statement just a completely meaningless opinion in the context it was used, because all it was was an insult and no argument.

And then you have the audacity to say
>it's just m- muh skydaddies dogmatic!
Nothing in this thread has mentioned God, but because you lack any real scientific spirit and only the modern LARP of scientism, you have to tie it back to your unscientific resentment of religion.

>It's a simple sentence. Try harder. I'm saying that your claim that no great advancements are made is based on your lack of knowledge, not a failure of science.
Do you even know what my claim was? The reason I asked you to explain your sentence is because you're replying as if you misunderstood what I said, and again you do the same now, but I don't understand what you're misunderstanding. What do you think I said about "no great advancements being made"?

[Anonymous No.12472735]

>>12461278
>Goethe’s way of looking at things is far broader; it comprises two aspects: 1. the typus, i.e., the lawfulness manifesting in the organism, the animalness of the animal, the life that gives form to itself out of itself, that has the power and ability – through the possibilities lying within it – to develop itself in manifold outer shapes (species, genera); 2. the interaction of the organism with inorganic nature and of the organisms with each other (adaptation and the struggle for existence). Darwin developed only the latter aspect of organic science.

I don't understand. How is this broader than Darwinian evolution?

Darwinian evolution consider "the lawfulness manifesting in the organism" by means of the definition of species, etc, and the "interaction of the organism..." by means of the theories of natural selection.

What am I missing?

[Anonymous No.12474034]

Bump.