[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 26 KB, 446x480, nietzsche_portrait[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4259455 No.4259455 [Reply] [Original]

What is it with with nietzsche that attracts pseudointellectuals?
Almost every time someone has tried to play it smart to me, it is with nietzsche.


NIetzsche this, nietzsche that and zero knowledge on anything else.


Not to mention that most of the time they misinterpret what he says or simplify it ridiculously.

Opinions?

>> No.4259457

magnets

>> No.4259458
File: 35 KB, 480x640, tumblr_lvta0lXUd01qm437lo1_500[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4259458

the network effect?

>> No.4259460

I live with a boyfirend/girlfriend couple who both adore Nietzche. It's actually really fucking annoying as both think math is retarded, and any argument made against them can be dismissed on the basis of "No one really knows anything"

Stupid ass pretentious bullshit for post teen adults who think they're edgy contrarians.

>> No.4259464

>>4259455
Is your tone typically 'this is the way it is'?

>> No.4259465

>>4259460
>math is retarded
could you elaborate on that?
what are their arguments? Or wanting arguments for their divine opinions is too much of a luxury since they treat 'em like axioms?

>> No.4259470

>>4259464
I would say more like:
>this is the way it most pobably is therefore in order to function properly we should treat it as being like this, until evidence to the contrary presents itself.
...
why?

>> No.4259474

>>4259465
>>4259465
they treat their opinions as axioms. The only argument I have gotten is that it is not necessary.

Which I called bullshit on, and then kindly began trying to educate them on the history of math. Only to have them shoot it all down on the basis that I have no proof. (this is all after I showed them the Sumerians, Egyptians, Hindus, Chinese, and Greeks, and their contributions to math and how it revolutionized society.)

I don't worship math but it really pisses me off when people attribute more value to philosophy than to mathematics.

>> No.4259475

>implying this only happens with Nietzsche

>> No.4259476

its probably a meme.
not the internet kind though.

>> No.4259477

>>4259475
no one implied that. It happens in a large scale with nietzsche though.

>> No.4259482

>>4259470
Thats all fine and well, but if you treat it as true, you may have a tendency to speak about things as if its the 'obvious, absolute truth', which rubs off wrong on many people and may sound pretentious, even if you don't actually feel that way.

>> No.4259485

>>4259458
>Implying that Bitch understands anything that she's reading

>> No.4259487

nietzsche is a synonym for edgy

>> No.4259491

>>4259485
But Ms. Grey is quite the intellectual. I had quite the riveting discussion with her P=NP while the I ravaged her already ravaged asshole.

Nietzche is alright as long as you don't take it to far. I don't like how most people only read about Western philosophy, or just Eastern philosophy. A good understanding of both should yield new and innovative thoughts.

>> No.4259506

>>4259491
I say take it all the way. You can act like you believe even if you don't.
We're actors in a play, write your own script.

>> No.4259573

>Nietzsche thread

>> No.4259583

Well.

>> No.4259587

>>4259455
I've noticed this too.

I went on a science forum when 4chan was down, expecting complex equations and formulas I wouldn't understand, but these people are REALLY dumb.
I think I'm actually really smart.
Like, REALLY smart.
Kinda nice, really. I was feeling depressed from being too stupid, so it's nice to not feel like a total failure.

And related to Nietzsche, the poster used the name NietzcheHimself, and was a total fucktard.

>> No.4259603 [DELETED] 

>>4259506
agree man, if you are going to live like he preached in Zarathrustra you cant fucking half-ass it, you need to follow it completely or undermine the entire idea- like a communist who is selfish, or an environmentalist with a car- makes you a hypocrite if you half-ass. Nietzsche especially

>> No.4259616

I have the same feeling around climate-sceptics who think they understand the problem without any education in thermodynamics. It's quite pathetic.

>> No.4259637

>>4259477
>no-one implied this usually happens with Nietzsche
>>>>>>>>Almost every time someone has tried to play it smart to me, it is with nietzsche.

sorry?

>> No.4259665

>>4259587

give the forum

>> No.4259676

There's something about Nietzsche that just attracts pseudo-intellectual faggots. Its kind of how che-guevara attracts rich white kids who don't know shit about socialism.

>> No.4259677

>>4259485
>implying she doesn't

What kind of person makes a generalisation on a group with similar mean to their own and deviation far above and below it?

>> No.4259682

I subscribe to nihilism for the sheer reason that I understand the insignificance of... just about everything on a universal scale. I hate bitches that twist my philosphical beliefs into a metric fuckton of hedonism and childishness.

>> No.4259684

>>4259616
>climate-sceptics
Best misnomer ever.

>> No.4259696

Nihilism is actually the most deductive philosophy. Its stands up to scrutiny in a way that no other philosophy does. When it comes to arguing online, any philosophy other than nihilism will "lose" the argument.

>> No.4259700

>>4259696

Cool story bro. Its also hard to argue with solipsism, but everyone accepts that as retarded.

>> No.4259701

>>4259696
I don't quite understand. Explain? I get the part about deduction, but how does one auto-win an argument by believing something?

>> No.4259703

>>4259696

If logic is not assumed true, logic cannot be found to be true logically.
If logic is assumed to be true, we are begging the question, therefore making a logically unsound argument.

Ergo, logic is not true

Ergo anything other than absolute agnositicism is more assumptive than it may soundly be.

>> No.4259708

>>4259682
Actually, an universe of this scale is necessary for your sorry little ass to exist.

>> No.4259709

>>4259701

Deductive logic is easy to convey to someone.

Inductive logic takes far too much for online discussions.

Deductive logic
>There is no objective code of morality, if you try to present one, I will deduce that it is in fact bogus

Inductive logic
>herp derp i feel it in my heart and I know it to be true because I have weighed all the factors in my head, believe me.

>> No.4259723

>>4259709
Actually, strong ("true") induction is pretty much assumed by everyone..

90% of men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore there is a 90% chance that Socrates is mortal.

Most people take that as a given, and that is correct inductive reasoning (as opposed to probabilistic reasoning).
>>4259703
I was with you until your "ergo, logic is not true." What you mean is "we don't know if logic is true."

>> No.4259728

>>4259723
What it means is, "it is not possible to logically conclude logic is true".

If you can give me a coherent argument independent of the logical framework that that doesn't make it explicitly untrue, I'd love to see it.

>> No.4259736

>>4259728
Assuming logic as an axiom doesn't make logic explicitly false... As you said, it is not possible to logically conclude that that logic is correct - but that does <span class="math">\mathbf{not}[/spoiler] mean that logic is false.

>> No.4259738

>>4259736
>but that does \mathbf{not} mean that logic is false.

Why not?

>> No.4259742

>>4259738
The fact that we can't know if something is true doesn't automatically make it untrue... Unknowable =/= false.

>> No.4259743

>>4259742
Why?

You're just saying something.

>> No.4259754

>>4259743

...you have yet to demonstrate that all unprovable things are false. The onus is on you to do this.

>> No.4259760
File: 88 KB, 204x200, 145_1324854603342.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4259760

>>4259754
>The onus is on you to do this.
Why?

>> No.4259766

>>4259760
Because you (I'm assuming it was you, anyway) tried to formulate a proof (logically, ironically) that logic is untrue. Your premises did not entail your conclusion, and I am now questioning why you then believe your conclusion.

Are you just attempting to demonstrate the fact that no belief I hold (such as the belief that the onus is on you) is ultimately justified (or justifiable)? I'm not sure if we are arguing about whether your deductive proof was a deductive proof or if we're arguing whether deductive proofs are really proofs.

>> No.4259769

Nietzsche this, Satre that.
Kierkegaard hit me with a wiffle ball bat.

In all honesty I can't say anything about philosophy because I feel that my grasp on any of it is so rudimentary I'd be lying if I said I was anything. Someone asked me and I just said "Dunno lol"

>> No.4259771

>>4259766
>Because you (I'm assuming it was you, anyway)
Yup. Temporary trip enabled
>tried to formulate a proof (logically, ironically) that logic is untrue
It's not ironic at all. Proof by contradiction is one of the oldest methods in the metaphorical book

>Your premises did not entail your conclusion
My conclusion (logic is logically false) follows my premises, as far as I'm aware. Because I have no other yard stick, I can pick anything I like to take away from this.

>Are you just attempting to demonstrate the fact that no belief I hold (such as the belief that the onus is on you) is ultimately justified (or justifiable)?
No, I think you're already smart enough to know that there's only one absolute truth.

>I'm not sure if we are arguing about whether your deductive proof was a deductive proof or if we're arguing whether deductive proofs are really proofs.

We're arguing that they're proofs, but that the very nature of "proof" is a baseless concept.

>> No.4259773

>>4259676
Because Nietzsche was a bit of a poser himself. Just read some of his letters to friends to see how concerned he was with "his name". So much regard for image and posterity...

>> No.4259776

>Newton this, Schrodinger that.
>Krauss hit me with a wiffle ball bat.

>In all honesty I can't say anything about physics because I feel that my grasp on any of it is so rudimentary I'd be lying if I said I was anything. Someone asked me and I just said "Dunno lol"

>> No.4259785

>>4259771
Wherein lies the contradiction?

>> No.4259790

>>4259785
1. Logic is true
2. Logically, nothing is true if its sole proof begs the question
3. Logic's sole proof begs the question
Ergo, logic is not logically true.

>> No.4259796

Roll out the pink carpet because OP is a fucking intellectual!! How 'bout next time someone tries to start a conversation with you, you stop being a bigot and just go with it.

Fucking philosophy idiots. You are the last fuckers to want to judge anyone.

>> No.4259805

>>4259790
Please demonstrate 2.

>> No.4259811

what are some other philosophers you guys know of?
I've read some Nietzsche... I kinda liked his rants on the church and religion, but that's about it...
what are some people that theorize about life/universe with some basis in science/math/reality?

>> No.4259820

>>4259805
Demonstrate that nothing is true if its sole proof begs the question?

I'm working on the assumption that the onus is on the claimant. If the only proof (note I mean the only proof possible, not just of those we know) is invalid, it would be extremely premature to claim the theory was true.

Why do we know the only proof requires that you beg the question? Because logically, nothing is true if it is not logically proven, meaning anything that isn't already logically based is incapable of proving logic valid.

>> No.4259839

>>4259820
>If the only proof (note I mean the only proof possible, not just of those we know) is invalid, it would be extremely premature to claim the theory was true.

This is where I struggle. Of course it is absurd to claim that an idea is true if it is impossible to demonstrate that it is true... but we still have not proven, deduced, demonstrated, shown etc. etc. that said idea is false! I don't see how the objective lack of reason to believe that something is true necessitates the falsity of that something.

>> No.4259854

>>4259839 cont.

What I'm saying is this: the ultimate lack of a proof for something appears to promote agnosticism wrt that something rather than the belief that that something is false.

>> No.4259880

>>4259839
>This is where I struggle. Of course it is absurd to claim that an idea is true if it is impossible to demonstrate that it is true... but we still have not proven, deduced, demonstrated, shown etc. etc. that said idea is false!

1. We know logic is unsubstantiated
2. Consequently we have no reason to base decisions on it
3. Consequently I can say it's explicitly false without requiring logical proof.

My ultimate point is that irtually complete agnosticism is the only rational position though, yes.

>> No.4259884

>>4259880
...which in practise is essentially the same as assuming that logic is false? I think I'm with you now ha, thanks for the discussion.

>> No.4259888

>>4259884
nonono. Important distinction I don't think I've made clear enough:

The proof shows that logic is not true and cannot be found to be true

The conclusion I draw from that, illogically if you will, is that it's explicitly false.

>> No.4259898

what the fuck is this? the 1900s?


get with the times you idiots

>> No.4259902

>>4259888
Nice trips, but I still don't see how a proof that there can be no proof for something is a proof that that something is false! The proof shows that logic cannot be shown to be correct; not that logic is false... so when you move from your proof to the assertion that logic is explicitly false, you are straying from your deductive logic: logic being false is not NECESSITATED by the lack of a proof for its correctness.

>> No.4259907

>>4259902
>Nice trips, but I still don't see how a proof that there can be no proof for something is a proof that that something is false!

All possible logical proofs must be logically based, right? If they aren't, then they aren't logical proofs.

All logically based things are within the realm of logic.

All logical proofs are therefore circular and self-supporting. All illogical proofs are, well, illogical and don't count for diddly squat.

>> No.4259913

>>4259907
But the fact that an argument is circular doesn't necessarily mean that its conclusion is false; it simply means that the conclusion remains undemonstrated.

>> No.4259917

>>4259913
>But the fact that an argument is circular doesn't necessarily mean that its conclusion is false; it simply means that the conclusion remains undemonstrated.
Making it ultimately useless. The bible is useless because the bible is the only thing saying the bible is true. the gospel of the FSM is useless because it's the only thing saying it's true. Logic is useless because the only thing saying it's true is logic.

>> No.4259924

>>4259917
I agree.. maybe I've just been being pedantic.

>> No.4259928

>>4259924
And maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I don't know, I can't speak logic :D

>> No.4259940

>>4259928
The important thing, though, is that we have both agreed that logic is useless but will nonetheless continue to apply logic to virtually everything about which we ever think. Embarrassing, isn't it?

>> No.4259951

>>4259940
I know, it's awful.

Don't even get me started on solipsism and looking after the permanently disabled. I'll go with blissful ignorance.

>> No.4259969

>>4259917
>The bible is useless

I disagree. It has been demonstrated throughout history that the bible can be useful as a tool to manipulate the minds of dumb/uneducated people.

Logic, by virtue of being used frequently to make decisions, cannot be considered to be useless.

>> No.4259980

Because Nietzsche was some weird loner dude who hated religion, they can relate to him.

>> No.4259999

>>4259969
Logic is useless in the sense that it is illogical to assume logic.

>> No.4260000

NietzChe Guevara is my favorite Ayn Rand.

>> No.4260001

>>4259969
>Logic, by virtue of being used frequently to make decisions, cannot be considered to be useless.

You mean
>Logic, by virtue of its good performance when its success is measured by itself.
Or, you're measuring the accuracy of your yardstick with your yardstick.

>> No.4260005

>>4259969

>>4260001
>>4260001
>>4260001
>>4260001
>>4260001

>> No.4260006

>>4259999

That's a very strange definition of "useless", but OK.

>> No.4260011

>>4259999
Nice quads/agreed.
>>4260006
Well I suppose it has uses, but those uses are themselves useless, so we're back where we began.

>> No.4260014
File: 45 KB, 300x301, Consider-The-following.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4260014

>>4259455
I've never read a single book by Nietzsche.

I still think knowledge is unobtainable. I think knowledge is worth searching for and that assumptions need to be made for convention, but regardless of what answers we find, they are all only fragments of a much larger truth.

Here's how I rationalize it:
What makes more sense, that man actually understands the nature of reality, or that man simply evolved to manipulate the world around him?

I know it sounds like it wouldn't make a difference, but it really does. What benefit does an ant have from being able to see an entire human, as opposed to his shoes and a few chemical scents? The mind of an ant is only so small, and therefore can only hold so much information. Being able to understand a human is not only unlikely to happen; it would be downright detrimental to its existence. An ant needs to find food, not understand quantum mechanics.

While humans DO have a much larger mental capacity than an ant, can we really say that we're much different? Are we seeing the world as it REALLY is, or are we only seeing things that we NEED to see?

The survival of man depends both on:
1) Our inability to understand the universe
2) Our attempts to understand it regardless

We live in a glorious age where we are no longer just trying to survive. We have so much excess around us that we are provided the option and ability to branch out and understand things that are more advanced than our 5 senses can ever touch.

Science is a beautiful thing. It is horribly flawed. Yet it recognizes how flawed it is, and constantly tries to correct itself. THAT'S why scientific advancement works so well. The fact of the matter is that the worlds greatest scientists were never the ones who thought they knew anything; It was always the ones who realized they knew nothing, and continued to search anyway. Because "knowing nothing" WAS their motivation to search.

Fair enough?

>> No.4260032

we had this thread on /lit/. it was bad there too

it's funny, i was nervously checking this thread out, because i know /sci/ has a pretty huge analytic/objectivist/rationalist bent and hates continental philosophy, but i saw this post >>4259460 and realized it's probably just a vocal majority on either side.

i associate /sci/ with faggot postmodernist phil. BAs and engineers who wont shut the fuck up about how continental philosophy can't be rigorously justified, in fact nothing can! nothing can be falsified, ultimate humean scepticism can't be disproved, even causality requires reference to itself to prove itself! but the fuckers that post talks about say and do the same things, with a diametrically opposed viewpoint in support.

so fuck everyone and fuck having this stupid discussion.

>> No.4260076

>>4260032
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulIOrQasR18

>> No.4260120

>>4259460
Serious question:

What's more perfect:
Math, or reality? There are slight, but undeniable differences between the nature of mathematics and the nature of reality.

For instance, take the diagonal of a 1x1 square. You end up with the square root of 2, a completely irrational number that cannot be described without simply calling it the square root of 2. Any other attempts to describe it are simply estimates, and there is no numbering system in which both 1 and the square root of 2 can be rational numbers.

Math is designed to be a perfect system, yet it provides us with answers that need to be approximated before they can be understood in any conventional sense. In fact, problems like this are precisely why percent error exists in the first place; because math can't be both exact AND conventional at the same time. One MUST be sacrificed.

So that brings me to the final question:
Is Math a reflection of reality? Or are our perceptions of reality a reflection of mathematics?

It's not that I think math is useless. In fact, I'm learning differential equations right now. It's just that I recognize that liberties MUST be taken in the name of science, but we must always take as few liberties as possible.

Understanding both science and math is necessary, just so you know what liberties you can and cannot take.

>> No.4260130

>>4260032

>even causality requires reference to itself to prove itself!

how do i into timeless physics

>> No.4260239

>>4260120
I don't understand your problem with <div class="math"> \sqrt{2} </div>
It is described perfectly fine by "square root of 2", just like 1/3 is described fine by 1 divided by 3.
While you still might be right about math not being a perfect system, I don't see how arguing that some numbers don't have a finite decimal representation is a good point in favor of that.

>> No.4260270

>>4260120
>>4260032
Define reality.

Also are you calling philosophy science?

>> No.4260375

>>4260130
Just passing by, but what is timeless physics? How can one do physics without time? How else can you refer to diffrent states of a changing system

>> No.4260747

>>4260239
Actually, what you're pointing out with fractions is another illustration of the problems with mathematics.

What I'm mostly driving at is that humans can only understand things which are finite, which have limits. We work with closed systems to solve our problems in life. Mathematics only provides us viable answers within closed systems. The problem is that science requires us to take an open system, i.e., the universe, and apply limits so that it's an artificial closed system. There is no scientific law that works under precise constraints, which is why we work with theories.

Math is a system of laws. Science is a system of theories. Philosophy is a system of ideas.

Math is how the world "should be". Philosophy is how the world "can be". Science is how the world "is".

>>4260270
Neither math nor philosophy are "science". Science is simply the combination of both fields. Philosophy is just as important to science as mathematics is, which is also why most pioneers in science are experts in both philosophy AND mathematics. It's because both are necessary.

As for a definition of reality, I'm not sure if I can describe it without completely losing meaning. I'd say it's simply how the world "is", but if I really knew what that meant, I wouldn't be searching in the first place.

There may be a reality, there may be no reality. I don't know. I'm human, and capable of only so much.