/lit/ - Literature

>>22536362
This was not always the case. I suspect it's contrarianism, like many things these days, a reaction against the new atheist "le heckin science" crowd and their odious moralising. Which is certainly something to be critical of, but the contrarianism just pushes it into opposing all their views, including their misrepresentation of the scientific process, regardless of the reason. More a reflection on the absolute state of modern political and intellectual discourse than anything else.

>>20046255
intellectual standards collapsed
you're only expected to be a cog in the late capitalist machine now
don't think just praise science and consume product and get excited for next product

>>19913385
Those words mean two different things, and I'm interested in knowing what people think of the degree. I'll give you an example: I love
philosophy as a fields of study, it has enhanced my life greatly, but to choose it as a degree would be a blunder, employment would
be difficult and academia isn't in the best place currently.

What's so horrifying about commodification, for the most part it allows those interested by the natural world to work in that field. What
makes me agree with you however is the fact that it allows picrel to happen. Also, you get paid to study where I'm from.

>>19913532
In what way are you struggling?

>>19716986

i have one for scientists

What is your favorite book published in 2020? Or 2021 so far? Pic unrelated

>>19300173
>If you have ever even for a second believed in anything other than strict physicalism you are a retard and will never make it or thrive in our new world.
You are calling countless people definitely way smarter than you retards, i'm not saying they were necessarily right but you being so arrogant and quick to dismiss them is midwit shit

Also "our new world", who are you fucking Klaus Schwab?

>Can an inanimate object experience? Of course, so I don't know why you're so afraid of changing our perceptions.
Worthless under materialism

>For me at least, the only partial solution is morality/virtue. That acts as the baseline level of meaning, beyond that, it's up to you, chasing personal preferences and gratification, etc.
Worthless under materialism

>None of these things mean you don't have depression, thats a popsci understanding of depression, not saying you have it, but don't write it off.
But i even do enjoy things normally when i'm not pondering the idea there simply isn't anything to indicate depression there

>>19007168
>Bad genes lead to inability to further your bloodline
I said celibates, not INVOLUNTARY celibates

>and from an evolutionary pov it's probably just best if such a specimen just end itself
Wrong, Newton had amazing genes and he never reproduced
There are countless successful people who committed suicide as well

>>19007176
>Celibacy is easy there are multiple species with neuter worker drones. We're even multicellular organisms where the reproduction of individual cells are heavily regulated.
That's not an evolutionary purpose, how is Newton not reproducing beneficial to the survival of the species? Not every celibate has bad genes

>Martyrdom is easier to understand if you don't think there are truly abstract ideas, every idea is inherently tribal underneath all it's decorative reasoning. Sacrificing yourself for a kin group is not hard to understand evolutionarily.
People don't always sacrifice themselves for the survival of the tribe, sometimes they have sacrificed themselves for abstract things like faith or knowledge, such as Galileo Galilei enduring martyrdom for his heliocentrism

>Suicide is harder but there are still multiple species that exhibit destructive behavior or apathetic behavior to the point of being destructive when they are isolated or put in hopeless situations.
Suicide is still usually detrimental to the survival of the species, most people who commit suicide are not in "hopeless situations", the vast majority of suicide is commited by people with cushy material conditions, not by miserable third worlders, and their survival and self-improvement would have greatly benefitted the species

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210600616300430#:~:text=The%20results%20of%20this%20study,and%20life%20expectancy%20in%20women.

Neither of you have proven that there is good reason to think these behaviors are the direct result of evolutionary instinct

>you should take my random sperg opinion seriously because well uhhhh just trust me guys I know what I'm talking about I read Heidegger pls say I'm smart

>>18676174
STEMfags are fine as long as they aren't eliminative materialists and scientismtards.

>>18384753
cringe

>>18364499
>>18364493

>>18340445
Who cares what this pseud thinks

Let's settle this once and for all. Pic related. Sorry for the meme pic but it's kind of relevant.

(A) On one hand, we had STEMfags who focused greatly on philosophy, and praised the role it had in opening their minds and guiding them towards achieving great things. E.g. Einstein, Godel, Hilbert, Turing, Leibniz, Newton, etc.
(B) On the other hand, there were many great STEMfags that did not care about philosophy or even dismissed it completely. E.g. Feynman, Hawking, Witten, Tao, Neumann, Susskind, etc.

Why did these two groups achieve roughly and arguably the same level of greatness? If philosophy is the spawning grounds of any science or conscious thought, then how is it possible to discover and invent great things without being good at it?
Today, fewer and fewer universities teach philosophy when studying for a STEM degree. Few teach foundational mathematics or foundational computer science.

>>17745910
>>17749250

>>17734221

Because (((science))) is fucking DEEEEEAAAD

>>17672784
this will never not be relevant
dilate

>>17510347