[ 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.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 1.92 MB, 400x400, 1595752327120.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16024647 No.16024647 [Reply] [Original]

Anyone feel like Philosophical ideas are not complex enough to really describe, and explain reality in its scope?


What is the most complex work of literature, or the most abstract idea out there?

>> No.16024671

>>16024647
If you think life is complicated, that's evidence that your stupidity knows no bounds.

>> No.16024694

>>16024647
Fuck nuance.

https://kieranhealy.org/publications/fuck-nuance/

>> No.16024699

>>16024671

You'll have to define what you mean by ''life''

>> No.16024707
File: 330 KB, 1656x1083, DED261A7-D077-4F99-9476-11A675593C82.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16024707

I donno OP. Philosophy is already needlessly complex. You want to make it more so?

>> No.16024711

>>16024699
See what I mean?
Your stupidity knows no bounds.

>> No.16024714

>>16024647
Tao

>> No.16024717

>>16024647
It’s not about complexity at a certain point OP, complexity occurs from abstraction, and there is a need to understand the logic by which the patterns become abstract otherwise it has no information value at all/comes off as rambling.

>> No.16024722

>>16024714
Hahahaha you’re a dumbass.

>> No.16024735

Of course they aren't. You need theology to complete the picture, and to understand it to its fullest, divine intellect.

>> No.16024741

>>16024699
You have gone over too many stupid topics.
You have learnt too many stupid things.
You believe too many stupid things.

Life is not complicated.
The purpose of life is very simple.
If I trap you in an arena with a lion, very quickly will you learn the purpose of life. Although it may be too late by then.

>> No.16024748

>>16024722
Sounds like what you want is extreme autism wank, not 'reality in its scope'.

>> No.16024767

>>16024741

You don't really understand what I am asking, when I talk about philosophy complex enough to explain reality.

How Mathematical patterns relate to chemistry, then to biology, then to physics, then to neuroscience, and psychology, the individual and socities. Like a theory of everything so to speak, but not only for Physics, but everything in it, including us, and our behaviour.

>> No.16024777

>>16024647
Philosophy and, generally speaking, ideas, will never account for reality. Words are at the very most, descriptors for what we experience.
Experience is the only thing that can account for reality.
If I told you everything is light, you would mostly approximate the statement with an idea, unless you experienced it yourself and actually understood waht I meant.

>> No.16024780

>>16024741
>The purpose of life is very simple.
>If I trap you in an arena with a lion, very quickly will you learn the purpose of life. Although it may be too late by then
terrible metaphor. youve learned the purpose of a situation, and now you think you know everything.
If I trap you in divorce counseling with your wife of 20 years, it'll be a lot harder to immediately know what to do. Some bullshit animalistic purpose will not help you navigate that emotional minefield

>> No.16024790

>>16024777
>If I told you everything is light, you would mostly approximate the statement with an idea, unless you experienced it yourself and actually understood waht I meant.

So basically, Mr Lucky Stranger. Your trips are telling me that the human language is absolute garbage, and must be replaced by something more efficient as soon as possible?

>> No.16024798

>>16024790
Human language is a wonderful system of communication, but it cannot be used to transfer experience. Unless some sort of emotional telepathy is ever developed, at the very most we will be stuck at this level of idea sharing.
I'm saying that human language will not suffice and as such, philosophy won't be useful either, for something as monumental as describing life.

>> No.16024826

>>16024647
Even the simplest of ideas can lead to incredibly complex systems. (See the Three Body Problem, not the book...)

>> No.16024873

>>16024826

Well yeah, that's cause all the roads lead to Rome. Whatever idea, or experience you try to analyze will end up you going down the rabbit hole of deeper, and deeper resolution.

Didn't the greeks say that?

>> No.16024883

>>16024873
That's basically the opposite idea, complex systems are complex because it's not easy to determine the outcome, though I don't know what the omnipotent greeks said about the matter.

>> No.16024894

>>16024883

So every idea is basically a computing issue? If you had enough processing power, you could find out anything?

>> No.16024903
File: 62 KB, 900x550, 1587883625660.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16024903

>>16024826
>>16024873
>>16024883
>>16024894
reading posts like this, i cant help but take the chadpill
theres no sense in taking this seriously
i think if i kept up with these arguments seriously, id have an aneurysm

>> No.16024907

>>16024647
>reality in its scope?
Okay, explain the infinite complexity of reality. I'll wait.

>> No.16024916

>>16024907

I can't

>> No.16024918

>>16024894
Actually no, there are some (many) problems that are not solvable even with an unlimited amount of computing power.
For a trivial example of this, look up One Time Pads, which are a form cryptography which, in theory, are completely immune to any form of cracking.

>>16024903
I also choose to simply be happy (all roads lead to Rome (Death) is something I find to believe is an absolute truth)

>> No.16024957

>>16024647
>Anyone feel like Philosophical ideas are not complex enough to really describe, and explain reality in its scope?
How can you know that "reality" (a philosophical concept) is too complicated for philosophical concepts? The only access you have is through philosophical concepts, which makes your whole idea incoherent.

>> No.16024970

>>16024957
>>16024957

Because Philosophers seem to focus on a single issue, their focus seems really narrow. You read a book, you get wrapped in this frame of one single idea, go in-depth and maybe you learn a thing or two you didn't realize before, or didn't realize you already knew from your subconscious. You come out, and you bury your head back in another hole.


We need a philosopher that makes you put your head in all of the holes possible

>> No.16024982

>>16024780
>Because the creation of tools is for things other than survival
Mate you don't know what you're talking about. Why would somebody pair together with a wife? To reproduce, hence it is an extension of the goal of survival.
>Emotions != animalistic purpose
literally everything you have said is wrong.
>>16024767
I do understand what you're asking. It is you who does not understand the simplicity of the all encompassing purpose of survival. Why wouldn't a person develop an understanding if not to survive? Why wouldn't a person develop an understanding of physics if not to survive? It is very simple to figure this out, as everything points to the same conclusion.

>> No.16024990

>>16024671
fpbp

>>16024647
just think dumbass

>> No.16025024

>>16024982
>I do understand what you're asking. It is you who does not understand the simplicity of the all encompassing purpose of survival. Why wouldn't a person develop an understanding if not to survive? Why wouldn't a person develop an understanding of physics if not to survive? It is very simple to figure this out, as everything points to the same conclusion.

>You survive so you can survive so you can survive so you can survive

Makes no sense, I already understand one of Life's main purposes is to replicate it's DNA. But that's kinda like watching a horse race, and claiming that the purpose of the horse is to run, can't you see it running? It is obvious! Look at it run!

Maybe there's a pattern shared amongst all of life that can give a deeper look into where life is headed, and a generalised purpose or goal that is implied in the progress it's had since it began

>> No.16025113

>>16024647
Religion > Philosophy

Philosophy alone cannot satisfy like religion does.

>> No.16025137

>>16024647
How about we discuss the philosophical idea of why all philosophers should forced to suck their own penises and then have their fucking heads cut off?

>> No.16025160

>>16025137

Make your own thread, faggot

>> No.16025168

>>16025160
How about your dad shits down your throat?

>> No.16025170

>>16024767
Math, chemistry, biology, physics, neurology, and psychology are themselves expressions of a theory of knowledge, about empirical generalization and a pretty extreme commitment to a sort of mathematical dualism, in which the immaterial substance of the world is math. The trouble with a theory of everything is that it also has to be a theory of itself, but this is a viewpoint that's already collapsing under its own weight, as its adherents think, "if only we had more computer interconnects..."

>> No.16025179

>>16025168

What philosophy is that?

>> No.16025209

>>16024647
Philosophy rests at least one order of magnitude further removed from reality than math does. Math is the language of being, and philosophy is the language of humans. There's room for both, but the idea that philosophy is somehow more suited to describing truths of the universe than math is just flat ignorant.