/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2151628]

Some people don't realize that his atheism is supposed to be a character flaw, a product of his tortured inner state. His inability to trust others is closely tied to his rejection of religion. Needless to say, idealizing his atheism is misguided at best.

[Anonymous No.2151631]

> Implying anyone idealize House

herp derp

[noko No.2151633]

>Implying atheists aren't right

[Amomynous No.2151635]

House's atheism (oh, and Holmes' atheism too if you ever care to read a book) is a direct result of his uncanny reasoning abilities. His reason also leads to his unsocial nature. Therefore it is his Reasoning skill that is his greatest character flaw, not his atheism

[Anonymous No.2151634]

> Implying anyone idealize House
A lot of teenager do

>Implying atheists aren't right
That's besides the point

[Anonymous No.2151642]

dont you mean his atheism is the result of higher intelligence?

[Anonymous No.2151645]

Who doesn't idealize house?

[Anonymous No.2151648]

>>2151635

>Therefore it is his Reasoning skill that is his greatest character flaw, not his atheism
His reasoning is perfectly fine. The problem is that reason alone isn't enough. His overreliance on reason (a defense mechanism) results in his aloofness. Sure, it makes him special, but it also alienates him from most of humanity. Anyway you look at it, the rational House is not some role-model worthy of emulation.

[noko No.2151651]

>implying that this shouldn't be in /tv

[Anonymous No.2151655]

>>2151635
>His reason also leads to his unsocial nature

Uh, no? His PERSONALITY leads to his unsocial nature.

[Jennie !NSPcQQMvS. No.2151678]

>>2151655
And yet House's nature altogether makes him a more capable person in endeavors of the mind than other people?

[sage No.2151687]

>>2151648
>The problem is that reason alone isn't enough. His overreliance on reason (a defense mechanism) results in his aloofness.

>implying that one can "over-rely" on reason.
>implying that rationality is incompatible with social success.

Begone you foul troll. Back to /b/ from whence you came.

[Anonymous No.2151702]

>>2151687
Ofcourse you can overrely on reason ignoring the fact that people have emotions and might act emotionally etc.

[Axel the Possum No.2151709]

>>2151702

A reasonable person would accept certain realities (you can't change people who are going to act stupid) by working around them. Most people just regard this as being manipulative, though.

Also, House's atheism IS meant to be depicted as something of a defense mechanism, but that seems to be changed depending on the episode.

[Anonymous No.2151746]

Idealizing house is ridiculous. He's a rude, egomanical prick who is only funny and likeable because it's a television show with cleverly written (at least sometimes) dialogue.

[Anonymous No.2151747]

>>2151635
I only read the first Holmes book. It was a pretty funny massive attack on Mormons as woman-stealing polygamous thugs. Is he really established as an atheist though in other books? Which one(s)?

[Anonymous No.2151759]

>>2151747

No. In one of the stories (I don't recall which) he's admiring a flower and remarks that its beauty proves the goodness of its creator.

That's the only evidence in the stories for his belief in God.

[Anonymous No.2151786]

>>2151746
actually there's a reason for that.

he's regarded as a genius, most people who idealize him are generally pseudointellectual faggots geniuses-wannabe

he's a misanthrope, most people that idealize him have in a way been rejected by society.

he doesn't need anybody and doesn't trust anybody, short speaking, he's a loner, most people who idealize him have rejection issues which led to difficulty interacting and making solid relationships.

people need him regardless of his personality, most people who idealize him see this as a way of feeling themselves useful and in a way, needed by society, so they see this as a form of acceptance.

[Anonymous No.2151804]

>>2151786
>>2151746
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-hero
I know you guys are scientists and all, but read a book once in a while.

[Anonymous No.2151822]

>>2151786

>Freud

>mfw

Your argument still is semi-logical, but it's ridiculous to attempt to apply such theories abroad and not expect obvious inaccuracies to occur. This is the problem with psychoanalysis, especially when using it to diagnose disorders and personality defects.

[Anonymous No.2151830]

>>2151702
>Of course you can overrely on reason ignoring the fact that people have emotions and might act emotionally etc.

The problem with this scenario is the fictional person (who is obviously a social retard) failing to use reason properly. Their problem is not with reason itself.

[Anonymous No.2151874]

>>2151830
>>2151830

It depends on what you define as "proper". To to bring up a pointless argument on semantics, but really, what is proper to you?

I believe those who put relevant weight in social nuances, tact, and amount of social relationships to have weak and destructive personalities.

House is a flawed character, because he is cruel and incites emotion, but is not void of it. In fact, he subtly projects a yearning for contact and assimilation. This is what I see as the difference between Holmes and House and why I prefer one over the other.

[Anonymous No.2151880]

>Of course you can overrely on reason ignoring the fact that people have emotions and might act emotionally etc.
A reasonable person will be BETTER at understanding other peoples emotions

[Anonymous No.2151891]

>>2151880

Not necessarily, it depends on their personality.

One may passively utilize reason with consistency and when others approach predicaments with irrationality, it may appear to be a fundamentally foreign pattern of thoughts.

Does that make sense?

ANother may passively exist in an emotional state, but extricate themselves when need be.

[Amomynous No.2151892]

>>2151747
It's never stated in the books directly but it is implied. For instance, in The Sign of the Four Holmes tells Watson to read Winwood Reade's Martyrdom of Man. Reade was a follower of Darwin and The Origin of Species. He was an atheist and a humanist who believed all religions were human contrivances.
Holmes was very intelligent and would have known this. His recommendation is a subtle admission of his own atheism

[Anonymous No.2151909]

>>2151648The problem is that reason alone isn't enough.

REJECT REASON CAUSE FAITH IS BETTA

HERP DERP DERP HERP 100% full retard

[Anonymous No.2151918]

>>2151746Idealizing house is ridiculous. He's a rude, egomanical prick

I see you're new here

[Anonymous No.2151932]

>>2151909
>>2151909

Yeah, what that guy said was ridiculous.

All emotional bias is, essentially, attempted reason. You may utilize cognition to convolute, fine, or entirely deviate from the decision that your "at hand" emotion is directing you towards.

[Anonymous No.2151935]

>>2151880
This. House's reasoning-abilities enables him to manipulate everyone around him, because he knows how they think, how they're acting out on their emotions instead of logic (as he does, rather cynically).

[Anonymous No.2151955]

>>2151935
...which is ironic, because no one acts on anything other than emotions.

[Anonymous No.2151968]

House's atheism is his absolute rejection of conformity in favor of creativity. It's also his Achilles heel: what to do when he sees something he'll never understand? He's confronted with his ignorance with every case and wins every time, but knows he'll lose the war in the end. People die, and he sees the true cost of it and he doesn't sugar coat it.

House is a ancient Greek hero with an actual Achilles' leg. The kind that bangs his mom and kills his dad but saves Greece at the cost of himself. But as long as he rejects the gods, he's still won and saved people. His atheism is the outward envelope of his heroism to the people in the show. If a doctor in the show "loses" he can think "maybe now little Timmy is in a better place" and to not have that is brutal to them. House has taken the safety valve off and is going at it full steam ahead.

His drive to do his job and snarky talk is what makes him awesome to watch! That and the Wilson bromance!

[Anonymous No.2151974]

>>2151874
>I believe those who put relevant weight in social nuances, tact, and amount of social relationships to have weak and destructive personalities.

Well i believe that you are grossly incorrect.

Social interactions are piss easy if you put your mind to them. Like we're talking retarded shit here.

I managed to become a master of social interactions with minimal amounts of reasoning effort. That systemising ability you and i have actually evolved for learning how to navigate social situations. Now that you have used it instead for understanding the world, you have trained it much more than most people and so (unless you're a retarded aspie) you could (like me) become a social master with minimal amount of reasoning effort.

Not that i ever socially manipulate people, but i could if i wanted to.

[Anonymous No.2151979]

>>2151974

I'm not talking about capacity, I'm referring to one's sense of worth towards the topic. Read my paragraph over and over again until you understand it. You may have an impaired working memory.

[Anonymous No.2151990]

I do realize that, and it's one of the reasons I don't like house. In fact, every atheist character on TV is damaged and it's implied that their atheism is its result. If I cared, it would be infuriating.

[Anonymous No.2151999]

>>2151990
>>2151990

It's up subjective interpretation.

I'm sure most sensible individual's interpretation of House's actions and personality are not congruent to OP's trol-fu.

[Anonymous No.2152004]

>>2151974
Sure you are! And everyone else is doing the same thing you do.

"Everybody lies" and now I'm feeling a recursive mind-fuck coming on. D:

[sage No.2152008]

>>2151955
>...which is ironic, because no one acts on anything other than emotions.

Wtf? Plenty of people learn how to act on reason instead of emotions. You may not have the time to reason everything through but logic still > emotions.

In some ways i feel sorry for you. Your thoughts and emotions probably blend seemlessly together as if they were one, just like mine did before my experimentation with stimulants and opiates (training myself to be able to recognise an endorphin release or a dopamine release (and subjectively quantify it) whenever i feel one).

When you act on your emotions you're letting your selfish genes pull the strings, which isn''t neccesarily the best for your (and humanities) long term happiness.

[Anonymous No.2152017]

>>2152008
Logic and rationality do not motivate. They do not provide motive "force". Emotion does. The words are similar for a reason.

>projection snipped

[Anonymous No.2152046]

>>2152008

> derpedy derpedy

Psychfag here. People who get brain damages and reports that they don't feel any emotions, can't make decisions.

So if you can pick one thing over another, yea, there's emotions in there.

[Anonymous No.2152049]

ITT: People who think emotion and reason are mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous No.2152066]

>>2151628
this seems to be true in a lot of shows
I just finished watching Battlestar Galactica
and Gaius Baltar seemed more like the religious view of what an atheist acts like. (no consequences for actions, has sex with anything, etc.)
By the end he's one of the strongest religious leaders, showing that anyone can become religious.
Also the phrase "There are no atheists in foxholes" comes into mind when watching this.

[Anonymous No.2152076]

>>2152049
ITP: anon who makes strawmen

[Anonymous No.2152099]

>>2152066
Or in Kenny, where the main character Kenny is a top bloke and World's Best Dad.

But you know, it's Australian not American.

[sage No.2152108]

>>2152046
>>2152017

You're confusing having emotions with acting on your emotions. There's a huge difference. Sure, our brains are wired so as we need to feel emotions to function, i'm not questioning that (indeed, when you remove emotions completely the whole meaning of life comes crashing down- which is not what i'm urging people to do, i'm urging people to use logic to decide what is best for their long term happiness rather than allowing themselves to run on genetically preprogrammed responses (which are geared towards maximising reproduction, not long term happiness)).

What i'm talking about is the issue of control. Do you try to control your emotions with reason, or do let your emotions control your reasoning.

Cleary the latter group are the herpaderps.

And yes, it is possible to over-ride preprogrammed emotional drives. At the extreme end of the scale you have the 1million people who commit suicide worldwide each year.

[Anonymous No.2152120]

>>2152108
You're talking about something completely other than what I was talking about, then. Even so, this doesn't make House any more logical than anyone else; he's merely acting out from different emotions than the others.

[sage No.2152140]

>>2152120

If this house character bases his decisions on logic (instead of emotions) moreso than the average person then yes, he is more "logical" than the average person.

I have never watched house.

[Anonymous No.2152159]

>>2152140
Emotions are the initiator of all actions and decisions. Application of logic does not "cleanse" them of the emotional content, it merely makes them more likely to succeed at attaining his goals.

[Anonymous No.2152160]

>>2152108
So emotion needs logic and logic needs emotion?

>mfw when parenthesis inside parenthesis

[Anonymous No.2152171]

Atheism is not a sum of beliefs. It is the absence of a particular belief.

have a nice day.

[Anonymous No.2152191]

>>2152171
Incorrect, it is a result of the interaction of many assumptions and beliefs.

[Anonymous No.2152196]

>>2152108
What is this, LISP?

[sage No.2152224]

>>2152159

Let's say someone is doing something they really don't feel like doing, but they know it's the best for their long term happiness. Are they acting on their emotions, even though they're actually going against their emotional compulsion?

I suppose you could say this person is having two different contradictory emotions at once. But in the first instance the emotion is not his choice and in the second instance it is.

If you base an action on the first type of emotion, yes emotion is initiating the decision. But with the second type of emotion i would not see the emotion as the instigator of the decision- I would more see it as a byproduct of the decision.

[Anonymous No.2152258]

7/10

Great job, I raged a little. House is Atheist because, like all thinking men and and women, religion is a joke.

[Anonymous No.2152261]

>>2152191
Nope. Look it up. Hell, look at the word.

[Anonymous No.2152263]

>>2152258
/thread

[Anonymous No.2152268]

>>2152258
No, House is an atheist because the network writers knew it would add drama to the fictional show. The show itself and the character House is trite entertainment... which all atheists are: entertainment.

[Anonymous No.2152273]

>>2152261
If you asked an atheist "Do you believe that there is no god?", what would they answer?

[Anonymous No.2152282]

>>2152273

I know there is no god.

[Anonymous No.2152288]

>>2152282

He "knows"!

LOL!

laughinggirls.jpeg

[Anonymous No.2152291]

>>2152258
It's presented as a pathological defense mechanism. Maybe you don't understand the show because you have the same thing.

[Anonymous No.2152326]

Given the fact that atheists are the smartest people around here, and therefor most difficult to troll, I will give OP a 9/10.

[Anonymous No.2152333]

>>2152273
I do not believe in the concept of god.

Got any more pop-quizzes?

Atheism is not a philosophy of living, its merely elimination of theism.

Most atheist I know are Secular Humanist, to put forward what they believe (versus the long list of what they don't believe)

Some atheist I know actually like the rules of <insert religion> but don't believe the part about god, but dig all the morals and such.

[EK !D96TK2PSsI No.2152344]

>implying atheists are at all difficult to troll

[Anonymous No.2152346]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodAtheist