/lit/ - Literature

>>22053418
>t. have not read a line of Kant

einstein was a tard on everything but science, even in his science he was a fraud.

They conveniently scrub from Einstein biographies that he basically spent the last 5 years of his life going down Ancient Aliens-tier rabbit holes. This would be based if he didn't set science back like 200 years.

>>22053418
>>22053735
Back to your wage cage rn!
Also : Kant was all about subjective perception, and nobody except social sciences( lol) gives a shit about it.

>>22053418
Einstein seemed to have only a philosophical dilettante's understanding of Kant's transcendental aesthetic, and in many ways, Kantian notions of space and time are preserved with general relativity (e.g., space as being relational). So you could argue that Einstein never refuted Kant, but only superficially. The key problem is that the extremely dry, yet crucially fundamental, schema of the transcendental aesthetic was utterly destroyed by special relativity. In response to Hume's skepticism, Kant sought to do was to both establish limits to reason but also preserve the truth of reason by dissecting the intellect, hence the schemas (that themselves are based on a union of mathematics and empirical science). Kant without the schemas is like a car without an engine. But with advances in both mathematics and empirical science, Kantian intuitions of space and time were rendered obsolete, which completely destroy the saving graces of Kantian epistemology. The logical connection between the noumena and the phenomena was severed, and something else must be found to bring them back together. Unfortunately, since very few people ruminate on the schema, the Aristotelian metaphysical tradition that inspired it, and developments in science and philosophy that came after it, we'll be at a loss likely for centuries to come.

>>22053760
Please elaborate

>>22053767
he was more about the objective laws of subjective perception, which are the basis of natural science

>>22053767
The spirit of Kant’s writing ought to be taken seriously by scientists. It offers a counterweight to the crude scientific realism that has a strangle hold on the discipline.

>>22053775
On which part?

For the Ancient Aliens-tier stuff, Einstein was friends with Charles Hapgood, who first proposed the cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis, which states that the poles will shift, it happens every couple thousand years (it's what caused the great floods of early civilization myths) and will end humanity. This is clearly woo-woo territory, but Einstein firmly believed it was correct science and even wrote a foreword to Hapgood's book.

As for setting science back, Einstein established the paradigm that must not be questioned. Science is purely theoretical now, not practical. It's concerned with abstract bullshit like time, dimensions and stuff that has no tangible practical application. At least not in our lifetimes.

Scientists before Einstein understood that theoretical science is fine, but at the end of the day, if science doesn't have a practical application that benefits us in some way, there is literally zero point in studying it. Da Vinci, Newton and especially Tesla all completely understood this and their work reflected it.

If you want to truly go down the tinfoil route, the idea is that Tesla basically solved science. He created free energy, free resources, free everything. But of course this was suppressed by the elites. The point of Einstein and theoretical science is a distraction to keep people on wild goose chases to stop them from asking the important questions of science. Like, yeah, knowing there's 11 dimensions is cool and all, but how does that improve your life?

>>22053811
>As for setting science back, Einstein established the paradigm that must not be questioned. Science is purely theoretical now, not practical. It's concerned with abstract bullshit like time, dimensions and stuff that has no tangible practical application. At least not in our lifetimes.
retard alert. if you think science should be about shutting up and calculating without even trying to understand what you're looking for, then you're trying to set science back as far as Newton. we've regressed from Einstein, not progressed from him.

>>22053811
My favorite part about this post is the complete lack of self-awareness.
>wow, this is woo-woo territory
>ANYWAYS, did you know that an overrated Serbian schizo solved everything but he and his work was all v& by the elites and that's why we have scarcity today?
unironically neck yourself, if not for being a massive hypocrite.

>>22053828
Nice reading comprehension. I expect nothing less from /lit/.

>>22053839
That's literally what you said.

>>22053811
>magnetic pole shift is ancient-alien tier
We are slowly approaching the 40 degree mark (picrel) when that happens the poles will flip. This will bring tsunamis and weaken our magnetosphere a lot. The last civilizations of earth got wiped out by a giant flood and hence all have their own flood myth.
Go check out maverickstar reloaded for biweekly updates on the magnetic pole's position.
The facts are that the pole is moving at an exponential rate towards the 40 degree mark, and then the poles will shift. Unless it somehow starts to move backwards, we are all doomed.

>>22053840
No retard, I said that if you CHOOSE to go down the route, here is the hypothetical theory about Tesla. I said it to give context as to why some people believe that science took a theoretical path.

And regardless, if you think that knowledge suppression and rapid pole-shifting are on the same level of woo-woo, then you are a shill and your opinion can be discarded.

>>22053841
Look at the speed it is approaching that 40' mark! We might only have a year left. I am unironically terrified

>>22053854
One can only hope this clown world is washed away as soon as possible. We need a great reset yes, but not the one that "you vill eat ze bugs" man is hoping for.

>>22053861
Only the midlands of America, and Eurasia will be safe really... my country will be wiped out by a tsunami instantly. The data is real, the theory makes sense and follows smaller scale magnetics. Really all we can do is wait the 1 year and see

>>22053877
Isn't Eurasia like the flattest place on Earth? How is that spared? Do the Himalayas act as a buffer?

>>22053884
Mega-tsunamis,earthquakes and tornados will kill do the initial damage. Then our magnetosphere will weaken and radiation will cause massive amounts of cancer and cardiac diseases. Consequently we won't be safe outside and forced into caves/buildings. Food will become scarce as well as supply chains are destroyed completely.

>>22053892
And with Eurasia I mean mostly Russia + Central Asia, not western Europe

>slides reddit gun to the back of Einstein's head
>what's this??
>I'm afraid this is...the Big Bang
>NOOO--

>>22053418
>nothing personal, Kant

>>22053841
Cool bullshit dude

>>22053498
has not "have", you sign in the third person.

>Einstein
Old and busted
>Mach
Still old but unfathomably more interesting.
If you know what the following words mean then you know why: Bedlam, Planet Dirt, Erewhon.

>>22053770
how did modern science destroy his epistemology? In my understanding, it just turned causality from an absolute into a probability

>>22054035
kek

>>22053767
Science isn’t actually objective, nigger

>>22053418
Le fin

Thoughts on this? Tried to read it last year but his prose is shit. Too bumpy and jerky.

They were both retarded. Quantum mechanics proved them wrong.

>>22054607
Green text means he's saying it in the voice of OP, so 1st person is correct

>>22053418
>engravings

>>22054732
>>22054732
I'll give a quick and dirty rundown.

Kant was prompted by (among many others reasons) an appreciation of Newtonian science and its disturbance by Humean skepticism. Newton sidestepped the scientific controversies of the day ("What is really going on here?" etc.) by simply observing phenomena and then creating mathematical models to match what he observed ("I offer no hypotheses."). Hume threatened to overturn the scientific enterprise with the problem of induction, i.e. the fact that we presuppose causality in making observations. Kant, in turn, devises a grand epistemic system that rescues Newtonian science by relegating space and time as the sensible intuitions which both limit and ground knowledge, and (this is often missed) that these intuitions were mathematical in character in order to preserve validity in them (the latent metaphysics inherent in Kant's CPR). Space, of course, has a Euclidean geometric quality. And time, as a succession of moments, has an "arithmetic" quality. Combine the two together, and we have the Newtonian sandbox of motion in absolute coordinate space and absolute time. However, when it comes to making sense of causation, Kant reasons that time is more fundamental than space because, well, there's an internal and external aspect of time. When Kant organizes the schema behind the transcendental aesthetic (i.e., the categories/judgments/etc. "boxes" that experience is filtered through to produce knowledge), time is seen as the defining thread linking the subject and object all together. You can read more about the schema here:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(Kant)

Unfortunately, that's all thrown in the dustbin because advances in 19th and 20th century mathematics and natural science utterly annihilated much of the Kantian assumptions about the nature of space, time, etc. Forget about Euclidean intuitions of space when the nature of space seems to be non-Euclidean. And not even time is salvaged considering the nature of general relativity, which separates time and motion as distinct properties (the faster you go, the slower your internal clock "ticks", etc.). I won't even get started on quantum mechanics. There are Neo-Kantians who argue that the structure of the transcendental aesthetic can be preserved, but they don't understand that it's a folly pursuit given what Kant was trying to do with the CPR, which is to provide a foundation and a limitation to reason. The whole building is condemned and needs to be torn down and rebuilt anew if the goal was to live in a home with dignity and not to simply reside in eternal squalor. And in order to do that, we have to return to the history of categorical thinking, just like Kant did, but armed with new insights from science.

>>22058372
>by simply observing phenomena and then creating mathematical models to match what he observed
>("I offer no hypotheses.")
Anon, that's called a hypothesis.

>>22058384
Tell that to Newton, the darling of the scientific method. Keep in mind, Newton had no idea why objects in free fall and celestial bodies were compelled by apparent forces acting a distance, hence his reluctance to posit "hypotheses" (literally, what is "below" the proposition) and the surrounding the theory of gravity. We still don't know what gravity is, and we arguably know more about subatomic particles than something we interact with every single day. Newton ushered in an era where science both expanded yet humbled its aims in understanding the world.

>>22053841
The magnetosphere governs the solar wind's interaction with the earth, dumbass.
Given that water isn't magnetic in the slightest, how do you suppose that the gradual removal of a relatively weak magnetic field would cause a tsunami, huh?
I mean, it'd suck, since satillites would fail a lot more often, and background surface radiation would go up a bit, but I don't think we are in for fucking 40 days and 40 nights.

bump

>>22053784
I think science (and economics) should go back to Dewey instrumentalism instead

>>22053418
Doesn't time dialation work in Kant's favor (or idealism's in general)?

>>22053811
>free energy

>>22058403
>We still don't know what gravity i-

https://youtube.com/watch?v=DXLL2zz8ndM

>>22059837
how do you take that fat meandering pompous slob seriously?

>>22059837
he's ugly, thus he's wrong

>>22053418
Einstein loved kant

>>22058372
You seem to be arguing from the lens of modern scientific materialism, and thus you don't seperate space/time as it is perceived with space/time as it is understood scientifically. Make this important distinction and you will find that Kant remains relevant.

>>22053841
the shift supposedly takes thousands of years, it's not like flipping a light switch

>>22060700
I'm not a scientific materialist. I was only illustrating that Kant was trying to preserve the scientific materialist enterprise through transcendental idealism. You can still have Kantian structures in light of what is suggested by modern science, but you lose what drove Kant to create his system in the first place: the promise of knowledge.