/lit/ - Literature

Nietzsche was more of a social critic. He didn't try to "understand existence" so much as figure out what he thought was the noblest way to exist in his cultural climate. Philosophy isn't pretentious when it applies to living.

Convert to Christianity and stop vainly trying to answer things which have already been answered by your Creator.

Hope you're sincere about this and not just another /sci/ douchebag coming here to brag about how much more awesome science is than books... anyway.

>Now I'm pretentious. How do I get it out of my system?

You don't? I guess? Or you just stop thinking about shit. You don't have to think in Nietszchean terms necessarily - but the questions that Nietzsche and others are dealing with are still going to be there.

>What's like Nietzsche?

Phenomenology and existentialism and, generally, continental philosophy are the philosophical schools most commonly regarded as successors to Nietzsche (they're also... well, not the most 'science-y' schools of philosophy). Some thinkers are Heidegger, Karl Jaspers, Arendt, many others. Before Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard,

>What makes philosophical types NOT pretentious?

Sincerity. I mean, some of them are pretentious, but I think the reason to be a philosophical type is because there's these really powerful questions that people really want to know the answers to, and many of them are questions that aren't accessible to scientific proof, and so you think seriously about them and read seriously about them. In other words, the fact that there's legitimate intellectual questions being addressed - as long as people bear that as their central motivation, they're not being pretentious.

>>3759063

You're a superficial douchebag.

>trying to understand Nietzsche without prior experience with the Greeks and Schopenhauer
>thinking philosophy is for underachievers

hhhhheheheh

>>3759100
>(they're also... well, not the most 'science-y' schools of philosophy).
What IS sciency? I hope you don't mean "all facts are assumptions because you have to assume logic lol" type bullshit because that's what drove me away from philosophy in the first place. Otherwise I'm interested in more logical philosophy. Less flowery, wordy stuff.

I also liked some Voltaire? I think it was:
>To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.

Love that shit. Nice and simple. Straightforward. Obvious real world applications.

>>3759115
>the Greeks and Schopenhauer
Point me to them.

>thinking philosophy is for underachievers
You have to admit it has a reputation as a joke degree. Like psychology and liberal arts and english.

>>3759115
Understanding is a chimera.

>>3759132

>academic disciplines came into existence along with the modern degree

You're beyond help. Come back here when you're a little bit older.

>>3759095

Gonna have to agree with this one bro.

>>3759132
A reputation, sure, but as a "science type" shouldn't you be a bit more skeptical?

You are pretentious, but not because you have a fleeting interest in philosophy.

>>3759132
>What IS sciency? I hope you don't mean "all facts are assumptions because you have to assume logic lol" type bullshit because that's what drove me away from philosophy in the first place. Otherwise I'm interested in more logical philosophy. Less flowery, wordy stuff.

Traditionally, analytic philosophy tends to be regarded as more 'sciency' - which is, yes, much more focused on logic and meaning and words. I'm sure someone else could give you a better explanation as it's not my forte at all.

In terms of obviousness and simplicity - the thing is that a lot of the flowery, obscure stuff comes from immediate experience or practical needs, it's just that when you think about these things for a couple thousand years and develop whole systems and comment on previous philosophers, these issues can get built up into enormous abstract things. But for instance Kant and Hegel are two of the more abstruse philosophers around and both of them are largely dealing with things of enormous everyday importance; it's just that all their way of seeing those problems and dealing with them is founded on conceptual systems that are fairly well removed from immediate experiential concerns.

It sounds like what you're looking for is more observational, aphoristic philosophy - more thinkin' about life than anything else (this is something that Nietzsche does excel it - he's one of the best stylists among the philosophers). In that case, you might want to read Montaigne (the first essayist), or Rousseau. Can't think of too many others at the moment unfortunately but there's plenty of that kind of thing.

>>3759136
Why is it wrong to discuss the present value of something as opposed to its the average of its aggregate value for all of human history?

>>3759132

All facts are assumptions because to assert understanding over anything you first have to make the assumption that your senses are basically reliable. The only thing that you can be completely 100% without a doubt sure on is that you exist, in some way or another.

>>3759165
That's relatively fine (although understanding their origins can be important historically and in terms of understanding what they are). The problem is that you're not evaluating their present value at all, you're evaluating their reputation as undergraduate degrees, which is a different thing & like ten kinds of dumb (alright maybe only 3 or 4 kinds of dumb).

>>3759172
You can only really be sure that something exists. Saying that "you" exist is an unwarranted assumption; all you can know is that some thinking being exists.

That said, this kind of thing is fairly meaningless, and I would think most of us are pretty comfortable with living in the world of perception, granted that it's provisional and contingent on the reliability of the sense, in circumstances where there's not a specific critique of the senses being made.

>>3759165

Because it's short-sighted, in more ways than one. If you mean to say that a philosophy DEGREE is "useless", then say that. Don't go about attacking the discipline as a whole. Additionally, philosophy is only "useless" in the close-minded, professional sense. If you're as scientific as you say you are, you will realize that philosophy is a prime analyzing tool, just as effective as science. Again, come back here when you're older.

>>3759162

You shouldn't endorse "aphoristic" (read: unrigorous) philosophy. The conceptual systems are developed because they are effective.

>>3759162
I agree he should read montaigne.

>>3759132
>You have to admit it has a reputation as a joke degree. Like psychology and liberal arts and english.

Philosophy is extremely hard. Because:
1) There is no method.
2) You have to know what's going on now AND the whole history of it.
3) If you are right people are probably going to either ignore you until you die or call you a fraud or just misunderstand what you are saying and insist that you are wrong.

>>3759206
>You can only really be sure that something exists. Saying that "you" exist is an unwarranted assumption; all you can know is that some thinking being exists.

Huh? You can only really know that you exist. After all the only thinking you're truly aware of is your own. Are you suggesting that another being might be thinking for you? That's not possible. If that's the case then you essentially are that being and you're just replacing "you" with "thinking being". A man really just comes down to his thoughts in the end anyway.

>>3759224
>Are you suggesting that another being might be thinking for you?

That's what eliminativism says when it says that there is no mind but is the brain that is thinking for you.

>>3759136
Even I know a strawman when I see one. This is why I long considered people like you a joke.

>>3759146
I was. I took my mandatory classes and did all of the optional reading. It was all metaphysical garbage as far as I could tell. Concerned with rhetorical games more than objectivity.

>>3759162
>Montaigne (the first essayist), or Rousseau
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Will check them out.

>>3759172
> The only thing that you can be completely 100% without a doubt sure on is that you exist, in some way or another.
Is that the cogito ergo sum stuff? It's neat but entirely useless in practical application. That's most of my problem with it. It seems to present two choices (and correct me if I'm misusing terms): Absurdism/Nihilism or you disregard it and trust your observations. Doesn't seem like much of a choice if you're interested in doing work.

>>3759221
> Don't go about attacking the discipline as a whole. Additionally, philosophy is only "useless" in the close-minded, professional sense. If you're as scientific as you say you are, you will realize that philosophy is a prime analyzing tool, just as effective as science.
Lawrence Krauss argued once that advancements in Math and Science and specialization in these fields made philosophy mostly obsolete. Useful as a history listen for its fundamental contribution to rational thought but far, far from anywhere near the relevant frontiers of human knowledge for some time now. I can't say I agree but only because I can admit I don't know enough philosophy.

>Again, come back here when you're older.
Wrong guy. Again: This makes you look like a joke. Do you think you're being witty? Funny? Authoritative? Why are you even still posting when you've twice now pretended to terminate the conversation (and by extension, the core thread) in this most petty way possible? And you pretend you're qualified to speak on the topic of pretentiously? I'm guessing your favorite argument is Tu Quoque.

>>3759252
>Useful as a history lesson for its fundamental contribution*

>>3759252
>Wrong guy. Again: This makes you look like a joke. Do you think you're being witty? Funny? Authoritative?

No, he probably just thinks you should come back when you're older.

>>3759233

But then you essentially would be the brain. The "thinking" thing is you. Simple as that. There's no other "you" that's not actually you. Even if there's a thinking being out there and he's creating thoughts for you to have, all the "thinking being" is doing is just thinking, albeit thinking in a strange, abstract way. And that would make you the thinking being.

>>3759252
>Lawrence Krauss argued once that advancements in Math and Science and specialization in these fields made philosophy mostly obsolete. Useful as a history listen for its fundamental contribution to rational thought but far, far from anywhere near the relevant frontiers of human knowledge for some time now.

Well Lawrence does not know about philosophy that much, in fact he then retracted the statement when Dennett talked to him.

But something that surprised me is the kind of constricted world view that people must have to realize that disciplines like Aesthetics, Ethics, Political Philosophy are part of philosophy and there is no way that math and science can solve those problems.

>>3759252

Come back here when you're just a little bit older. I have no obligation to form a decent argument to combat someone so hopelessly inept such as you.

>>3759252

I recommend that you stop reading philosophy and go invent me a new iPhone.

>Is that the cogito ergo sum stuff? It's neat but entirely useless in practical application. That's most of my problem with it. It seems to present two choices (and correct me if I'm misusing terms): Absurdism/Nihilism or you disregard it and trust your observations. Doesn't seem like much of a choice if you're interested in doing work.

Why does "practical application" carry any importance at all? In fact why does anything "matter more" than something else? Is importance really a thing, or is it just something we made up? Philosophy's cool because you can try and answer those questions.

Also there's more than a couple choices, faith is also a valid philosophy, albeit not one based on provable conviction. But yeah without faith if you reason your way through it you basically come down to Absurdism/Nihilism. That's my viewpoint as well. And absurdism is pretty much a nihilism that desperately wants to fool itself into believing that meaning exists.

>>3759268
Let me make you another example.

The Freudian unconcious thinks for you, but you can't identify with the freudian unconcious.

Nothing makes nietzsche obsolete.

Nietzsche makes all other philosopher obsolete.

Unless you are a closet christian then he is the devil/nazi/racist/misogynist/antisemite/insane/dementia/syphilis/etc!

>>3759290
Edgy as hell.

>>3759270
0/10. Go read /v/ and come back when you know how to troll for real.

>>3759274
>Well Lawrence does not know about philosophy that much, in fact he then retracted the statement when Dennett talked to him.
Did he? I'd like to read that if you've got a link. That first discussion was great to read.

>Aesthetics, Ethics, Political Philosophy are part of philosophy and there is no way that math and science can solve those problems.

Why not? Neuroscience? Anthropology? Harder Sociology?
With enough understanding of the brain we can define Aesthetic preference down to individual neurons. We can determine exactly what machinations drive political actions and preferences and human hierarchies and social bargains.

Ethics too, but I usually don't like the topic. If morality is subjective how can people sit around and arbitrate right and wrong for others? Why do they get overriding opinion on matters that're necessarily open to personal perception and opinion?

>>3759275
I work on bionics. If I make anything for smartphones it'll be a way to monitor insulin production in your artificial pancreas.

>>3759282
>Why does "practical application" carry any importance at all? In fact why does anything "matter more" than something else? Is importance really a thing, or is it just something we made up? Philosophy's cool because you can try and answer those questions.
It seems obvious to me that humans invent "importance" and rank priorities by personal preference. Maybe there's some objectivity in critical inputs and outputs like drawing breath or eating. Does philosophy say differently?

>But yeah without faith if you reason your way through it you basically come down to Absurdism/Nihilism. That's my viewpoint as well. And absurdism is pretty much a nihilism that desperately wants to fool itself into believing that meaning exists.
According to wikipedia Existentialism can be Atheistic. I like the sound of that more than the other three.

All the philosophy I'm into really doesn't deal with metaphysics and existence, it's more just analyses of society, human behavior, politics, etc.

Philosophy has it's place, but it's not to explain why we are here. It's to explain how we can be better people while we are here.

>>3759297
>I work on bionics. If I make anything for smartphones it'll be a way to monitor insulin production in your artificial pancreas.

Okay. Go do that. Leave the thinking alone for now. You're not good at it.

>>3759297
>Why not? Neuroscience? Anthropology? Harder Sociology?
>With enough understanding of the brain we can define Aesthetic preference down to individual neurons. We can determine exactly what machinations drive political actions and preferences and human hierarchies and social bargains.

Because some people might argue that aesthetics is not what people like, but about some properties that works of art have weather people recognize it or not. So neuroscience would be useless to decide this question.

Political philosophy does not only deal with how a societies are but also with how societies CAN be or SHOULD be. And Anthropology and Sociology cannot answer that.

>>3759297
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2012/05/lawrence-krauss-clarifies-view-of-philosophy-after-hearing-from-dan-dennett.html

>>3759303
-2/10. I can tell you didn't even bother with /v/. Maybe try /b/ if you don't have the mental energy to post on /v/.

>>3759308
>Because some people might argue that aesthetics is not what people like, but about some properties that works of art have weather people recognize it or not. So neuroscience would be useless to decide this question.
Is Art without interpretation anything more than the physical material it's made out of? The Mona Lisa is just dry paint on canvas without anyone around to recognize it. Relatively similar to every other painting in the marble hall or whatever it sits in in terms of atomic or molecular composition and structure. A dog passing through doesn't note anything special about it. A human plucked from a distant time and space doesn't, either. You need a thread of cognition from daVinci to the observer to imbue any special status to it, right?

Again, correct me if I'm wrong. I dunno anything about philosophy's ideas about art.

>>3759311
That's cool. Thanks for sharing. Though I wonder if those "off the cuff" remarks were really just out of context or if he succumed to tribalism or hubris and backepedaled out of respect or embarrassment.

>>3759308
Sociology can't answer how society works?

>>3759323
>-2/10. I can tell you didn't even bother with /v/. Maybe try /b/ if you don't have the mental energy to post on /v/.

Man, scientists have the worst insults. You couldn't even try to be clever? That -2 is kind of cute, I guess.

>>3759343
-4/10.
This might turn exponential.

>>3759338
Sociology is more of an analysis of past societies and how they have formed themselves; A review of sorts, if anything.

>>3759348
Else it would have no base and be an idealistic, philosophical analysis.

>>3759063
>science type
>not starting philosophy from Popper, Kuhn
Seriously, they write for scientists.

>>3759323
>Is Art without interpretation anything more than the physical material it's made out of? The Mona Lisa is just dry paint on canvas without anyone around to recognize it. Relatively similar to every other painting in the marble hall or whatever it sits in in terms of atomic or molecular composition and structure. A dog passing through doesn't note anything special about it. A human plucked from a distant time and space doesn't, either. You need a thread of cognition from daVinci to the observer to imbue any special status to it, right?
>Again, correct me if I'm wrong. I dunno anything about philosophy's ideas about art.

You are not necessary wrong, but this you are making is a philosophical argument. You are arguing about the "nature" of the work of art, not about the neurology of art appreciation.

>You need a thread of cognition from daVinci to the observer to imbue any special status to it, right?

It's a long and complex problem, and here is not the place to talk about it.

But:

1) The creator and the observer are not the same thing. Maybe to declare that something is art it is sufficient the creator's intention ("I'm gonna make art!" says Da Vinci) or maybe something to be art has to be recognized by a public. But again this is a question that cannot be resolved with neuro-science or a survey asking people "what do you think of art" (because specialists and common people usually have divergent ideas and then you have the question: should we listen to the common people or specialists of art?) cont.

>>3759364
cont.

2) There is even a stranger possibility, and it's hard to think: that what makes an object art is not that something is recognized by someone, but a characteristic shared by all the objects. For example let's say that literature is "a writing composed not for the sake of communication but for its own end". Now let's say that I'm writing a diary. I don't think that I'm doing literature or art, I'm writing a diary. Let's also say that no one reads that diary. But by our definition (which is tentative and just for the sake of this example) we have to admit that the diary is literature.

>>3759338
Yes it can. But it cannot say how it should work.

>>3759348
>>3759376
So from these two things I surmise that I am supposed to think sociology both explains, and seeks to understand the history of society, and yet it cannot answer any questions to the future?

I really get a headache sometimes from you people

>>3759381
Think it like this:
A lawyer can tell you how to get a divorce (what's the paperwork, what are the advantages and disadvantages, assess your and your spouse situation).
A philosopher can help you understand whether you should get a divorce.

>>3759364
> You are arguing about the "nature" of the work of art, not about the neurology of art appreciation.
I thought I was arguing both?
Neuroscience encompasses our understanding of art and that's all that matters because without a mind to imbue paint on canvas with special meaning it's just paint on canvas. The energy of its creator and the social ripples they sent out that've echoed through generations to sustain that meaning all dissipate if physical neural conditions for its propagation, comprehending minds, cease to be or are sufficiently interrupted. The pattern collapses because it's subjective in nature and houses in the most fragile of mediums in dispersed clumps of grey matter.

>The creator and the observer are not the same thing. Maybe to declare that something is art it is sufficient the creator's intention ("I'm gonna make art!" says Da Vinci) or maybe something to be art has to be recognized by a public.
Hadn't thought of this. But of course the pattern doesn't have to start at the creator. And a different pattern of similar quality can be picked up after the thread is broken if another appreciating mind shows up.

>>3759370
>that what makes an object art is not that something is recognized by someone, but a characteristic shared by all the objects
That doesn't make much sense to me.

>But by our definition (which is tentative and just for the sake of this example) we have to admit that the diary is literature.
It is but it's irrelevant until observed, isn't it? The whole tree falling in a forest making sound thing. The classification as literal seems like a purely mental designation rather than a material(?) quality to any object.

>>3759376
Doesn't it work exactly as it should work? Some aspects of science can tell you what social patterns are beneficial or harmful and your society can agree to maximize the beneficial and then sociology can look at the data and tell us how we should try to structure society for everyone's benefit, right?

>>3759392
>Some aspects of science can tell you what social patterns are beneficial or harmful

Okay. They determine homosexuality is harmful.

>and your society can agree to maximize the beneficial

By killing all the homosexuals.

>>3759401
>Okay. They determine homosexuality is harmful.
Why would they?

>By killing all the homosexuals.
Killing people normally lowers net happiness in society, doesn't it?

Even if they did name it harmful, is it so because it's society's subjective appraisal? If homosexuals are found to lower net happiness or whatever metric.

I swear, if you go back to, "nothing is real, everything is assumption" I'll slip into a coma. That's how every philosophy related discussion I've ever had always ends up.

>>3759392
>Doesn't it work exactly as it should work? Some aspects of science can tell you what social patterns are beneficial or harmful and your society can agree to maximize the beneficial and then sociology can look at the data and tell us how we should try to structure society for everyone's benefit, right?

Why for everyone's benefit? Why couldn't I be interested instead of organizing society for the benefit of my family and friends? Science will tell me how I should act to build a society that favors me and maybe I'm strong enough to impose it. Why not?

>>3759412
>Why would they?

It's a hypothetical you dense fuck.

>Killing people normally lowers net happiness in society, doesn't it?

Haha, are you serious? Going to a hanging used to be like going to the fair.

>>3759392
>I thought I was arguing both?
>Neuroscience encompasses our understanding of art and that's all that matters because without a mind to imbue paint on canvas with special meaning it's just paint on canvas. The energy of its creator and the social ripples they sent out that've echoed through generations to sustain that meaning all dissipate if physical neural conditions for its propagation, comprehending minds, cease to be or are sufficiently interrupted. The pattern collapses because it's subjective in nature and houses in the most fragile of mediums in dispersed clumps of grey matter.

What I'm saying that this that you are doing is philosophy not neuroscience.

Neuroscience will tell you what happens in the brain, which could help you to solve the problem, but will not for example answer whether art is what the public agrees, or the curator thinks it's art or what the creator does. There is no single fact of the mind who will tell you who is right when they disagree.

>>3759376
Sociology can and does critique notions of how society ought to work, and how these notions contribute to how it actually does work. Sociologists generally won't say "here are the philosophical underpinnings as to WHY society should work this way" but they will still use philosophical concepts, like autonomy, to argue for one arrangement or another. But to me sociology is most useful when it is descriptive.

>>3759412
You are taking an explicitly philosophical stance, not a scientific one.

>>3759413
>Why for everyone's benefit? Why couldn't I be interested instead of organizing society for the benefit of my family and friends?
I'd hope that if objective truth were laid before most of us, we'd choose to follow it rather than perpetuate everything wrong in the world. And that the majority would check the minority.

>Science will tell me how I should act to build a society that favors me and maybe I'm strong enough to impose it. Why not?
How're you gonna monopolize that? Science tells everyone all of that unless you don't work alone and then don't publish. We're trending towards ever more transparency.

>>3759416
>It's a hypothetical you dense fuck.
I know that. It's also fairly useless to me because it's removed from all real world context.
I'm talking about objective truth, or as close to it as you can get. You're claiming objective truth indicates homosexuality is harmful when it doesn't in the real world? Ok. And that killing all homosexuals is found to objectively be a net positive for society? Ok. That's fine. Really. In that hypothetical world, because it's true there, I don't see the problem. I also don't see the relevance to us.

>Haha, are you serious? Going to a hanging used to be like going to the fair.
Back when we had a much weaker state and more wars and revolutions? Back before a civil war and a civil rights movement? It made a few people happy at the time but I wonder what a comprehensive survey would turn up. I don't think it's a coincidence that we no longer kill people for fun or make a spectacle out of it.

>>3759418
>There is no single fact of the mind who will tell you who is right when they disagree.
That seems like a big assumption. Seems to me like the differing opinions would be part of the findings. Even if they contradict. It'll tell you exactly who thinks what is art. And because "art" is not a physical property of matter that exists without sentient consideration what more is there to say?

>Nietzsche thread
>Atomists/ fake scientists arguing against metaphysics while using metaphysical arguments


We`ve had this thread a 1000 times. Sage

>>3759439
>we no longer kill people for fun or make a spectacle out of it.

Um...sure.

>>3759433
>You are taking an explicitly philosophical stance, not a scientific one.
Where and how and why does it matter?
Sorry, it's getting late for me. My most recent coffee's wearing off fast.

I'll pick this up tomorrow if it's still up, otherwise thanks for having the patience to explain all these things to an utter newbie and simultaneously fuck all of your arcane hypothetical rules. No offense! I just much prefer reality.

>>3759448
>doesn't elaborate
>misuses sage
>ignores that philosophical types literally force you into metaphysical arguments by criticizing everything you say not in coded mumbo jumbo and correcting your statements in metaphysical terms

top lel

>>3759439
>I'd hope that if objective truth were laid before most of us, we'd choose to follow it rather than perpetuate everything wrong in the world. And that the majority would check the minority.

What information will not make me want to exploit others?

>How're you gonna monopolize that? Science tells everyone all of that unless you don't work alone and then don't publish. We're trending towards ever more transparency.

We both may know perfectly well how to command an army. But if you don't have an army and I do you are fucked.

What I mean is: people may all have the same knowledge, but they don't have the same power. Some people are born richer, smarter, luckier, more charismatic than others and with parity of information they will prevail.

>look at how not pretentious I am, studying the clearly superior subject

>>3759473
wait I didn't even read your post
read the greeks, socrates and diogenes doesn't afraid of anything

>Not saging Nietzsche threads

>>3759461
>No offense! I just much prefer reality.
>philosophical types
thinking this category exist in reality

I'm cracking up at the idea that people believe that "aesthetic preference" is a set of neurons waiting around in your brain to be activated. Holy shit. Hopefully real neuroscientists have a better understanding than that.

>>3759439

>objective truth

And by this you mean objective moral law? This REALLY sounds like some ethical shit buddy. It appears as though you embrace utilitarianism, or something comparable to it.

Alright OP, let's see how many philosophical assumptions you make in your initial post.

First, you assume that language is at least a somewhat accurate way to convey knowledge. Furthermore, you believe that the grammar generally accepted by society is satisfactory. Make no mistake: These are colossal epistemological assumptions, and indeed there is an entire branch of philosophy (namely the philosophy of language - one of the most important fields of philosophy in the present day). Wouldn't you, being the scientific fellow you undoubtedly are, like to know if these assumptions are grounded in some sort of objectivity - and if that's a bit to meta, wouldn't you at least like to pin down exactly which assumptions you make? Because if you have 0 interest in justifying the gargantuan assumptions you make - or at least knowing what exactly these assumptions actually are - then I don't know why you claim to be a "scientific" person in the least. And make no mistake: The mere assumption that the language one utilizes is ideal, or at least sufficient, for the conveyance of thought is just as grievous as the assumption that the gods are the originators of all natural occurrences. You appear to me as a Greek from the 8th century BCE might appear to you.
(cont.)

>>3759297
>Why not? Neuroscience? Anthropology? Harder Sociology?

Because it's all from a human-centric point of view - how would it measure the objective value of the object if those properties of aethetics for instance are innate to it?

>muh subjectivism

>It seems like the underachiever's route to trying to understand existence.

Why?

>>3759439
>>3759460

I think it's pretty clear OP is a first-world babby, naive in political and social affairs, human nature, and the world at large.

One of those idiots who thinks by merely associating with the name 'science' he has automatically been branded as a more intelligent being yet he does not realise what a moron he really is.

Science may explain the physical properties of nature but not how man may govern or rule over himself and interact with nature.

>>3760294

Secondly, the assumption that "corruption", "danger" in the moral sense, "monstrosity" in the moral sense, and any other negative or positive moral values exist is just as large - if not larger - than the linguistic assumptions you are already making. You assume that there is a morality, and not just emotive responses by people to certain stimuli, and you must clearly also assume certain forms of what one might call moral wrongs exist. So you commit both to objective morality, AND to a certain sense of that morality. This unwillingness to examine your own beliefs is equivalent to the unwillingness a Southern Baptist might have in admitting it to be even POSSIBLE that the earth did not just celebrate its 6000th birthday.
(cont.)

Biology major reporting in.

FUCK YOU OP

>>3759063

Stop living in the past OP.

Philosophy that is relevant today has long since moved beyond trying to explain natural phenomenon which has quite rightfully been taken over by science.

Many things such as language, ethics, aesthetics, how to live a good life etc are still very much relevant today and for that philosophy past and present shouldn't be dismissed so casually.

>"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." -Einstein

>"How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. ... Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc." -Einstein

>>3760307

Third, there would seem to be an assumption here that unpleasantness and real moral danger are two separate entities. This is a much-debated topic in philosophy, and it hearkens back to Socrates and Plato. Do you really have no interest in whether or not you've been missing out on a life of hedonistic orgy because of a petty misconception of "danger" and "corruption"? Because sure would feel cheated if some philosopher came up with an irrefutable argument for mindless hedonism.

Fourth, you assume there to be things that are true as well as things that are lies. This is something that underpins all of science, and most of philosophy, and indeed, most, if not all, of your everyday activities. You concern yourself with the seemingly esoteric and erudition practice of bionics, but really this practice, as we both well know, impacts a good many people in their everyday lives. Well, philosophy is rather like that, except it impacts everyone.

Fifth, you make the assumption that practical application determines the worth of something. There is also the assumption that worth exists. You do not lead a fully-examined life if you scoff at philosophy.

>>3760330

Because I sure would*

>>3759087
That isn't entirely true.
Nietzsche answered questions about metaphysics and ontology pretty well, he just didn't spend as much space in his books on it as he did on the descriptions of the roots and growth-pattern of morality, words, relationships between concepts or things, etc...

>Starts with Nietzsche
>Lawrence Krauss
>Neuroscience encompasses our understanding of art and that's all that matters

you sound like a clinically retarded teenager who hasn't read anything besides a high-school physics textbook and a bunch of wikipedia articles.
whoever continues to contribute to this cancerous, pop-sci gibberish slobbering of a thread is a disgraceful faggot; it fucking hurts how much of a paltry know-it-all faggot you are. no matter how much philosophy you read, with this kind of haughtiness, your philosophical coherence will always stagnate, and you'll always remain one of those laughable scientismic sheep impotent of any abstract and actually relevant thought.
listen, just consider quitting your daily canonical prayers of your favorite popularizers of the vast and indifferent cosmos for half a year or so; start reading heavily into philosophy of science, epistemology and phenomenology instead and you'll be amazed how little you actually know of.
when it comes to neuroscience, approaching it without comprehending the ontological implications that are discussed within the field of philosophy of mind, makes you a largely ignorant and annoying faggot as well.

now gently fuck off to >>>/sci/; your transparent anti-intellectualism is disgusting.

>>3760367
I agree with this minus the three faggot-droppings

>>3760379

>being PC
>on an anonymous imageboard
>MMXIII

>>3760384

>being non-PC
>just because you can on an anonymous image board

Some of us have grown up and realized that shouting "faggot" and "nigger" for the sake of it isn't necessarily the height of rhetoric.

>>3760387

>for the sake of it

And that's where you're wrong. Words that are normally offensive greatly enhance rhetoric on an imageboard - they incite a greater strength in the words. It is an excellent way to pander to the pathos.

>>3759282
>Why does "practical application" carry any importance at all? In fact why does anything "matter more" than something else? Is importance really a thing, or is it just something we made up? Philosophy's cool because you can try and answer those questions.

People who value their time tend to shoot for practicality, you seem to just love ruminating.

>>3760393

No they don't. After a few years they just become childish. "Oh he said nigger again that's neat".

Trust me, you look a lot more respectable and intelligent if you just speak like a normal person.

>>3760393
you're right. hitler and cicero were technically speaking indistinguishable as rhetoricians

>>3760395

>I don't like the way that sounds because it challenges my fundamental beliefs: Therefore it is ruminating!

I don't even know where to send you: You're a follower of scientism, clearly, but you don't seem smart enough for /sci/.

>>3760409

I don't expect a bunch of underachieving 20-year-olds to achieve anything remotely like a speech by Cicero.

>>3760407

There I can agree with you. But I don't think the guy who posted that was trying to sound intelligent or respectable.

>>3760415
You ask a dumbshit question like "why practical application carries any importance" when it should be very clear with only a little thought, then slap a bunch of other tangential questions right after it. That's ruminating, you like thinking rather than actually finding answers.

>>>/x/

>>3760379
Oh, "faggot" is now just a pronoun used with intent to insult, it's meaningless.

OP, you have to be predisposed to reading philosophy if you want to understanding philosophy. Generally the requirement is understood as "intelligence", but that's clearly not quite true, as there are highly intelligent people who, for some reason or other, seem to hate philosophy. So I suppose it's a certain type of intelligence, requiring some irony and some patience.

>>3760434

Oh really? I still haven't made up my mind as to whether importance exist, and I'm no dummy. I enjoy the process of thinking, yes, but I realize also that the end is the answering of questions. But sometimes the end is quite elusive, so you just gotta stay content with the process.

>>3759132
>You have to admit it has a reputation as a joke degree. Like psychology and liberal arts and english.
>Murrica

>>3760449
>but I realize also that the end is the answering of questions.
You're wrong.

>>3760449
Importance does exist, it's what carries the most relevance at the present moment and the task at hand. If I'm looking to make an apple pie and go to the grocery store, apples are going to be a tad more important to me than bananas.

>>3760450

This is one of those things that's a lot more true on internet message boards than it is in real life.

I've encountered all kinds of "LOL LIBRUL ARTS XD" online, but I've never encountered anything of the sort in real life.

>>3759063
>as a science
What science?

I honestly hate the reputation philosophy has with many. If anything, it has a way of humbling a person, if they've studied it with any degree of intensity or passion. I like to think of it as internalizing Socrates: a gadfly in the back of your mind constantly trying to call you out on your bullshit. The more philosophy you read, understand, and discuss, the more adept that gadfly's going to be.

>>3760456

But really isn't that just preference, and not real importance, as one typically understands it? I agree that I prefer some things to other things at different times, but I don't necessarily deem the apples to be really more important, in a more objective sense, than the bananas.

>>3760465
Objectivity isn't part of this equation. It's about what *you* want, at that moment in time apples are more important than bannanas, because you cannot make an apple pie with bannanas.

In an objective sense? Nothing is more important than the other. So it all boils down to just what we need at the moment, that's what becomes important - then switches out with something else as we go along.

>>3760470

But surely there is some sort of hierarchy in the world. For example, I think that killing a tree and killing a person are both moral wrongs. But the killing of the person is quite a much more severe form of wrong than the killing of the tree. But could it be said that not killing a person is more "important" than not killing a tree? Or is it just that there is a hierarchical mode of morality, without any real "importance" inherent in it?

>>3760481

Ignore the "quite" in the third sentence.

>>3759343
Angry philosopher undergrad detected.

>>3760481
It's harder for you to kill a human than say a tree because you can identify with humans on a much deeper level. Do you know the minds and hearts of trees? Even if you do recognize them as fellow creatures, you'd still instinctual place more importance on your own kind - that's the nature of all creatures. Humans even do that with each other, compare a stranger to your immediate family.

>>3759063

The 'tard' answer is the difference between tactics and strategy. Tactics being how, strategy being why. You can probably guess which is science and which is strategy.

>>3760496

This is absolutely true, but I'm talking about morality, not instincts. Perhaps morality wasn't a good example, because I do think that morality is a subject on which ethics and nueropsychology (and related fields) agree. But still, look at, for example, the hierarchy of society. Are the rich really more "important" than the poor? Or are they just more influential? Or is influence directly correspondent to influence?
I'm not asking you to answer these questions (though I whole-heartedly encourage you to do so if you want to), I'm merely pointing out that this is certainly not ruminating, nor is it a "dumbshit question".

>>3760507

Goddamn I'm sorry, I'm tired.
Or is influence directly correspondent to importance?*

>>3760507
I understand what you mean now. The way I see it people place importance on things based on their own level of interest, like I illustrated before. People would place more importance on a rich man dude to potential favors gained from being in his good graces, a beggar has little to offer anyone other than some fleeting feeling of righteousness after sparing some alms.

>>3760520

I see, so importance is equivalent to interest. But then why not just call it interest? Why not disregard the concept of importance, if it is just a synonym for interest that would appear to have extra meanings attached (however empty these attachments really are)? I generally think there is a reason certain extra meanings - or even "feelings" - are attached to certain words. But maybe importance is just a place where our language fucked up.
This is why a seemingly overwhelmingly erudite and esoteric field such as the philosophy of language is actually quite "important" (there's that word again!).

>>3760542
Yes, words are a tricky thing. I've tried to see than more as symbols for meaning rather than concrete things to abide by - getting the "feeling" as you put it. I admit I'm rather green when it comes to philosophy but this conversation has inspired me to look into it more seriously, good talking to you anon.

>>3759063
Take the philosophical route and ask yourself why you're so concerned with pretentiousness instead of taking the fools route and asking what's the best way to bury your head in the sand.

>>3760542
I agree. That's coming down to interest. Something important is something that almost requires a duty.

Or the philosopher would just tell you that his interest is ruminating, reading and he doesn't understand how one can say that there are things more important. At best one can say there are things that interest him more, but that's his business.

The fact is that there are no useful things in absolute terms, but only in relative ways (useful for this useful for that). People that are obsessed with usefulness to me are just people that are striving to be loved.

When you have everything nothing is useful.

>>3760627

Why do you say they're striving to be loved? And what duty do you speak of? And where did that last anecdote come from?

>>3760654
>And what duty do you speak of?
It was to distinguish it from preference. Important things have an urgency that comes from outside, unlike preference. Maybe not duty maybe another word.

>Why do you say they're striving to be loved?
Because when these practical men talk of practical things they are always concerned so much of important things but of being of being themselves of importance to others.

When they ask the philosopher "what's the importance of that" it seems to me that they ask "Who is gonna care about that?" The impression is that these are people that had to fight for their affection and are not looking for "important things" but for things that will make them important.

>And where did that last anecdote come from?

The last anecdote is just to show that there are really no important things in themselves. But only things that are of interest to individuals.

>>3759132
>I'm interested in more logical philosophy. Less flowery, wordy stuff.
Try Wittgenstein.

>>3759463
>What information will not make me want to exploit others?
Statistically YOU are better off if everyone is better off. By elevating the lowest members of society, you elevate all levels above them. Educating and taking care of the poor trickles up to everyone else.

>What I mean is: people may all have the same knowledge, but they don't have the same power. Some people are born richer, smarter, luckier, more charismatic than others and with parity of information they will prevail.
Where have you been for the past several decades? The global trend, especially in Europe, is to mitigate those factors as much as possible. Unless Social Democracy fails and Islam takes over the West.

>>3759482
>socrates and diogenes
Noted!

>>3760256
>objective moral law
Morality and objective are not two words I generally consider compatible.
I looked up Utilitarianism and I'm not so sure about that. I'm not a fan of Hedonism. We grow as much from self-denial, restraint, and discipline as we do from pleasure.

>>3760305
>Science may explain the physical properties of nature but not how man may govern or rule over himself and interact with nature.
I still don't see why not. Everything is physical. All of our minds are physical. If science can measure it, map out the mind, why can't it encompass anything that arises from that?

>>3760301
>Why?
Seems easier. Lots of rhetorical games to play. Less math and slow, tedious experimentation and research.

>>3760294
>First, you assume that language is at least a somewhat accurate way to convey knowledge.
It's close to being our only option, and easily the fastest and clearest method.

>>3760294
>Wouldn't you, being the scientific fellow you undoubtedly are, like to know if these assumptions are grounded in some sort of objectivity - and if that's a bit to meta, wouldn't you at least like to pin down exactly which assumptions you make?
I'd like to know, but it seems irrelevant. The words don't matter. The concepts matter. Doesn't matter if everyone calls a square a circle so long as everyone draws 4 equal line segments that interact at their ends at right angles.

>You appear to me as a Greek from the 8th century BCE might appear to you.
I suppose that's fair. You appear to me as a skater kid in Hot Topic clothes appears to you!

>>3760307
>So you commit both to objective morality,
Where do I do this? I thought I was clear in saying it's all subjective?

>>3760330
>Well, philosophy is rather like that, except it impacts everyone.
Oh ho, just wait for that one! When you port your mind to a synthetic platform to escape death so you can colonize the stars and spend 100,000 years personally sculpting a lifeless moon into a work of art solely dedicated to one of your philosophical concepts, and everyone you know has made the same jump, we'll see how limited my field is.

>There is also the assumption that worth exists.
I think people define worth. It's not a physical property. It's a mental one. People and the cosmos being physical, I personally think physical needs are more worthy than non physical considerations. The efficiency of your farms, your transport, your medicine, etc.

>You do not lead a fully-examined life if you scoff at philosophy.
That seems true enough. I've read some Buddhist philosophy that was good enough to make me think people should be taught mindfulness and how to cultivate their minds from kindergarten.

>>3759132
>To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.

>>3760876
It's alright, I checked. I posted "Jews did 9/11" on facebook and nothing happened to me.

>>3760876
"The true master will always be criticized and mocked, and kicked out of doors like a dog. Only the weak and fearful demand respect."

>>3760876
However, I'd be willing to bet that if I posted "I hate feminists" or "I hate women", I'd find out how rules over me.

>>3760828

>We grow as much from self-denial, restraint, and discipline as we do from pleasure
So you admit that one grows. Do you consider growth to be a good thing? Because if so, you just committed yourself to a moral law.

>Everything is physical.
And here again do we have colossal assumptions.

>Lots of rhetorical games to play.
Similarly, you have a lot of experimental and research-based games to play. That doesn't make either discipline worthless.

>>3760860

>It's close to being our only option, and easily the fastest and clearest method.
People have invented languages before. Just because it is the quickest and easiest method to communicating with others doesn't mean it's anywhere close to being the best.

>The words don't matter.
And that's where you're wrong. The word is the concept. Whenever you visualize a square, you're also thinking of the word. The concept and the word are inseparable; a nameless concept isn't really much of a concept at all.

>I thought I was clear in saying it's all subjective?
You said it, but you didn't mean it. It would be totally irrational to call something corrupted, when you have no law governing what it means to be corrupted. You, being the scientific person you undoubtedly are, don't want to be irrational, do you?

>Oh ho, just wait for that one! When you port your mind to a synthetic platform to escape death so you can colonize the stars and spend 100,000 years personally sculpting a lifeless moon into a work of art solely dedicated to one of your philosophical concepts, and everyone you know has made the same jump, we'll see how limited my field is.
Now that's hardly practical is it? It is in no way connected to the way things really are. And so, to a thoroughly practical person like yourself, what you just said must have no meaning - it's just airy hypothesizing - no better than science fiction.

>People and the cosmos being physical
Assumptions ahoy!

>>3760906

If you're sufficiently powerless, you might well be left alone.

Trying being a politician, a teacher or a CEO and now post something to that effect on facebook.

>>3760906
Do it in France or Germany or the UK and you can literally be thrown in prison for years for it...

>I've avoided philosophy forever because as a science type
science is a branch of philosophy, of the empirical tradition

>>3760938
>So you admit that one grows. Do you consider growth to be a good thing? Because if so, you just committed yourself to a moral law.
No. Growth is without morality of any kind. Most things are. One can grow wicked, right?

>And here again do we have colossal assumptions.
Ignoring the cogito ergo sum stuff, the material is the only thing we've ever observed. Necessarily so. If it can be observed, it's material. Everything ever observed, including thoughts, are material.

>Similarly, you have a lot of experimental and research-based games to play. That doesn't make either discipline worthless.
It does if you care about reproducibility and modeling reality. Any caveman can be taught the scientific method. I think the need to study centuries of philosophical rhetoric cheapens it.

>People have invented languages before. Just because it is the quickest and easiest method to communicating with others doesn't mean it's anywhere close to being the best.
It does until such an alternative ever arises. And it hasn't. You can tell, you can show, you can have people do the experiments themselves. Language consistently does the job the most efficiently. Maybe some day soon, thanks to Bionics~, we'll be able to port knowledge to people Matrix-style and you can give me your philosophical knowledge and understanding without any conveyance beyond the hardware needed to restructure my neurons.

>Whenever you visualize a square, you're also thinking of the word.
Speaking of assumptions, that seems far larger than mine are. If you draw a fractal but don't know it's a fractal or name its shape did you not draw a fractal pattern? Dimensions like width, height, depth, etc are physical properties so when it comes to shapes it seems like you don't need names because the properties exist whether you name the combination uniquely or not.

>>3760991
>Everything ever observed, including thoughts, are material.
equivocation fallacy. Brain states do not equal the thoughts they are.
Think of a painting replicated on the molecular level of accuracy. This does not mean it was painted by Picasso

>>3760938
>You said it, but you didn't mean it. It would be totally irrational to call something corrupted, when you have no law governing what it means to be corrupted. You, being the scientific person you undoubtedly are, don't want to be irrational, do you?
Context is everything. What're you getting at? Corruption in the political sense? It's subjective. A corrupt government is the ideal for someone else. I said the entire thing was contingent on society's subjective preference.

But corruption of a kind exists in nature. You can say a mineral has become corrupted when it's structure is degraded or impregnated or otherwise altered.
Unless you're emphasizing the negative connotation of corruption, which is subjective.

>Now that's hardly practical is it? It is in no way connected to the way things really are. And so, to a thoroughly practical person like yourself, what you just said must have no meaning - it's just airy hypothesizing - no better than science fiction.
Sure is. I freely admit as much. I don't think that'll hold true for very long, is all.

>Assumptions ahoy!
Nobody's yet identified a non-physical portion of the cosmos. The existence of non-material, unmeasurables seems completely irrelevant to me because it necessarily can't interact with us. Or it'd be physical/material/whatever, right?

>>3760991
There is no growth without morality involved. Science's search for "truth" is as morally biased as a religous man search for "virtue.

>>3761000
The difference is purely subjective, though, isn't it? Unless a sentience is around to emphasize such an arbitrary distinction it doesn't matter to the rest of reality. If you replicate picasso's brain to the atomic level is it then painted by Picasso?

>>3761005
How's that? Please explain.
Since I tend to think Morality is a subjective appraisal, and things can grow and change in any number of metrics, physical and non-physical, it seems to me that amoral growth must not only happy, but be the majority of growth.

And how is "truth' morally biased? How is 2+2=4 biased? I'm really not fond of equivocation of Science and religion because it's so extensively used to try to claim that Science and Atheism informed by Science are themselves religions.

>>3760991

>wicked
Woopsies, looks like we made another moral assumption!

>Ignoring the cogito ergo sum stuff
So in other words, totally ignoring the things that challenge your base assumptions? Yeah, I'd say that's what you're doing. Also, what do you mean by material? You may be a substance dualist, which is cool, but not exactly something one would derive from a purely "scientific" (read: willfully ignorant) standpoint.

>Language consistently does the job the most efficiently
Three problems here.
1. Unless you have some sort of morality-like law, you can't call anything efficient.
2. Just because we've never invented a more effective way of doing it doesn't mean it cannot be done.
3. I wouldn't be so sure that "pure" concepts, as you call them, can be conveyed without language.
And before you say that 2. and 3. contradict themselves, I'm just pointing out that you're making assumptions of many different varieties - some of them conflicting.

Unless you recognize what the fractal is, you aren't seeing the fractal.

>>3761011
>The difference is purely subjective
is it? You've claimed implicitly there can only be physical facts. But it looks like something like authorship contradicts that. Whether or not those facts are contingent on interpretation or sentience or whatever is moot, because current 'reality' is concurrent with current facts.

>Unless a sentience is around to emphasize such an arbitrary distinction it doesn't matter to the rest of reality
what are you trying to say here? Whether accreted materials of a planet formed from the left or right side of the galaxy doesn't matter at all to the protoplanet it forms, yet their is a distinction. Moreover, if the robustness of your argument is contigence on the presence of sentience (or minds), well, they exist in some form.

>If you replicate picasso's brain to the atomic level is it then painted by Picasso?
is this a serious question? Any answer to this, by the way, is metaphysics of identity.

>>3761011
Not "truth", but the search of it. Engaging is scientific matters is a matter of moral, and thus, when you discover "truths", you've been morally inclined by your impulse.

If you're really OP and you're into Nietzsche, I'm assuming you've read Beyond Good and Evil (you've put some quotes of that book in your thread), thus I really don't think this concept would be difficult to grasp.

A critique of truth is based on the notion that senses are tools of interpretation, and that any system which relies in sensual testing is subject to epistemological detours.

Regardless, this shouldn't stop you from doing science. Fuck Nietzsche, and if the search of truth is morality too, just embrace it. There's no reason to not do it.

>>3761012
are you a troll-bait-masochist of some kind? you're literally wasting your time with this cognitively inept kid

>>3761003

>You can say a mineral has become corrupted when its structure is degraded or impregnated
And here again, you cannot call something degraded or impregnated unless you're putting in place a morality-like measuring tool.

>Sure is. I freely admit as much. I don't think that'll hold true for very long, is all.
That's irrelevant. Stop being so philosophical.

Nobody's yet identified a non-physical portion of the cosmos. The existence of non-material, unmeasurables seems completely irrelevant to me because it necessarily can't interact with us. Or it'd be physical/material/whatever, right?
Assumptions ahoy! Who is to say physical matter as you understand it exists?

You're a devout follower of scientism, and at the same time you're not creative enough to free yourself from morality. Truly a sorry state to be in.

OP, I see that you're a scientist, so most of philosopy can seem quite dull. I recommend that you read epistemological philosophy, because it's directly related to the scientific method.

You should read Edgar Morin and his complex thinking theory, which tries to break the paradigm of Descartian dualism of subject-object as separate things.

>>3761021

Well I'm just holding onto the hope that he'll eventually get it. I guess I just have more faith in people than you do.

>>3761029
Even if you don't make someone 'get it', just giving the incentive to think in a new manner is good.

>>3760827

>plunging a dumbass scientism-loving kiddy into Wittgenstein as an introduction to philosophy

Have philosophers gone too far? Click here to find out!

>>3761030

Well then that's one step towards "getting it", isn't it?

>>3759063
Das Kapital. You like common sense (Not Thomas Pain, the actual term), right?

>>3761037
I chuckled.

>underachiever's route to trying to understand existence

people actually replied to this thread...

>>3761065
Don't touch me, you filthy plebeian. We should give the "all-knowing" scientists a chance to dwelve into our world.

>>3761012
>Woopsies, looks like we made another moral assumption!
How so? You can't seriously just call out any traditionally non-neutral language as me asserting some objective morality, can you? If I'm wrong is repeatedly clarifying that this is my subjective opinion and I don't think objective wickedness exists then say so.

>So in other words, totally ignoring the things that challenge your base assumptions?
I mean ignoring irrelevant hypotheticals. :3

>You may be a substance dualist
How do you arrive at this conclusion? From what the wiki says I'm not sure that's accurate. What'd I say that indicated this to you?

>1.
How's that? Efficiency is mathematical, isn't it? Minimize input, maximize output. Emphasize a specific kind of output and deemphasize superfluous factors.
>2.
So? I said as much.
>3.
Why can't they? Language is a vehicle for thoughts and thoughts are brain patterns. Generate the equivalent brain and neural patterns in another person and accommodating secondary and tertiary structures for understanding, you've transferred the concept without language.

>Unless you recognize what the fractal is, you aren't seeing the fractal.
Isn't it a fractal by nature of its physical properties, not subjective labeling? "Fractal" may be our word for it but the golden ratio and repeating patterns exist whether we identify them or not.

>>3761016
>there can only be physical facts
Did I? Everything is physical, including human appraisals because human minds are physical, but that doesn't seem like the same as what you're saying I said.

>because current 'reality' is concurrent with current facts.
How's that? Are you basic that off of the "only physical facts" thing I'm confused about?

>>3761016
>what are you trying to say here?
What are YOU trying to say? False equivocation? I'm saying who painted the painting doesn't matter. If you scramble the atoms in the original Picasso and recreate it atom by atom, the same painting, is it no longer a Picasso?

>is this a serious question?
Now you know how I feel!

>>3761018
>Not "truth", but the search of it. How so? That makes no sense to me. You guys must have a way different definition of morals because every single time you use that word it makes next to no sense to me. I'm not just talking about basic good vs bad morals but really does anything relating to True vs False automatically fall back on morality in some way?

>If you're really OP and you're into Nietzsche, I'm assuming you've read Beyond Good and Evil (you've put some quotes of that book in your thread), thus I really don't think this concept would be difficult to grasp.
I'm only just starting on him. I picked the quotes up off the page that inspired me to read him.

>>3761021
-10/10
If I'm cognitively inept you're a sea sponge. There's no excuse for this kind of irrational hostility. You also still haven't learned how to sage properly.

>>3761022
>And here again, you cannot call something degraded or impregnated unless you're putting in place a morality-like measuring tool.
So now all measuring tools are moral? The fuck?

>That's irrelevant. Stop being so philosophical.
When it comes to work, I do stop!
Are you implying all aspirations or hypotheticals are the domain of philosophy?

>>3761022
>Who is to say physical matter as you understand it exists?
Remember what I said at the start about every philosophical discussion I've ever had ending in bullshit about "everything is an assumption"? You're doing it.

>You're a devout follower of scientism, and at the same time you're not creative enough to free yourself from morality. Truly a sorry state to be in.
I feel adequate at divorcing myself from it. You keep asserting everything is somehow morality and I'm not really seeing it.

>>3761025
>You should read Edgar Morin and his complex thinking theory, which tries to break the paradigm of Descartian dualism of subject-object as separate things.
Thanks for the recommendation. After that dualism discussion above I'm curious about this.

>>3761029
What're you trying to help me see? The deeper you go into the cogito ergo sum stuff (inductive logic? I have no idea) the more I feel justified in my negative critique of philosophy. It just seems like an impotent rhetorical diversion.

>>3761030
I do appreciate that. I like adverse perspectives a great deal. Trying to wrap my head around this is pretty fun.

>>3761039
>Das Kapital. You like common sense (Not Thomas Pain, the actual term), right?
I like sense, for sure. But science is often counterintuitive so "common sense" is often fairly distant from it.

>>3761074
I get hit with the accusation of "ivory tower" a lot from common folk and theists. I imagine this is what it feels like to judge someone for living in an ivory tower of rhetoric. Thanks for the new perspective. :3

>>3761081
> Everything is physical, including human appraisals
appraisals are physical? How much does an appraisal weigh?

>I'm saying who painted the painting doesn't matter
To what or whom? The authorship of the painter is a metaphysical fact. Don't move the goalposts by saying what really matters is the utility of that fact or something. You've said everything is physical, it's a simple claim and this is what is called a counterargument.
The equivocation is physical facts with everything else.

>If you scramble the atoms in the original Picasso and recreate it atom by atom, the same painting, is it no longer a Picasso?
the reason why I am asking why questions such as these are serious is what you expect the answer to contribute to this discussion is probably not what the answer will contribute

>>3761079
>How's that? Efficiency is mathematical, isn't it? Minimize input, maximize output
what kind of output? The kind that has a utility, otherwise output might be entropic, chaotic or diffuse. Efficiency might be about maximizing utilizable (since a lesser input to greater output ratio in physical terms would contradict physical laws). Utility necessarily has a values. You are implicitly invoking values in many of your claims.

>>3761103
>appraisals are physical? How much does an appraisal weigh?
As much as the neural activity that manifests it or the neurons that host it?

>To what or whom?
If it's irrelevant does this matter?
Shouldn't I be asking you to what or whom it matters if it's not irrelevant?

>The authorship of the painter is a metaphysical fact.
Meta? Please elaborate of metaphysical vs physical.

>You've said everything is physical
Yes. The time, place, and person who authored the painting is within the real of physical reality. Additional significance like the fact the person was Picasso isn't relevant unless minds choose to make it so, right?

>the reason why I am asking why questions such as these are serious is what you expect the answer to contribute to this discussion is probably not what the answer will contribute
If you mean I'm evoking philosophical concepts without realizing because philosophy has already thought of everything someone like me can say? Sure. But I count that as a bit of a strike against philosophy. It has neat excuses for literally everything and everything regresses to meaninglessness, to a casual observer like myself.

>>3761106
>Utility necessarily has a values. You are implicitly invoking values in many of your claims.
What's the significance of this? Aside from the physical properties of the output, extra values like, "good product" and "waste product" are subjective designations, aren't they?

>>3761116
>Meta?
>Meta?
>Meta?
>Meta?
>Meta?

>>3761116
>As much as the neural activity that manifests it or the neurons that host it?
unfortunately, this means that two different people making the same appraisal will be making different appraisals according to you, because brains aren't identical, and neural correlates aren't modular. I may not be a neuroscientist, but I have done two semesters of neuroscience. Even simply things like positive affect are rarely the same.

>If it's irrelevant does this matter?
It surprises me we even got here, but we got here because you are avoiding questions. How about this. What's the value of relevance to your claims? First let's complete the claim, then argue the relevance.

>Additional significance like the fact the person was Picasso isn't relevant unless minds choose to make it so, right?
but is it a fact?

>What's the significance of this?
it's necessary to decide whether Efficiency can is purely mathematical like you said. However it seems to rest on implicit or constructed values

>>3761116
>Meta? Please elaborate of metaphysical vs physical.
It would be better to read over wikipedia because there is probably better editing and scope there than a forum post, but think of it this way.
The nature of time, identity, deities and the intrinsic properties of reality are metaphysical. If a person who teleports from one place to another was reconfigured successfully, and in the right place is a physical question. Whether they are the same person is a metaphysical question.

>>3761122
I know the jist. It's required knowledge to get into the sciences. But I feel like we were interchanging "metaphysical" and "physical" up until that point, at which time he started using philosophical language like it was itself a counterargument.

>>3761134
>unfortunately, this means that two different people making the same appraisal will be making different appraisals according to you,
Isn't this why the distinction of "subjective" is important? They won't be identical but they will be very similar. To the exclusion of other patterns. And thus brains work reasonably well despite their high rate of error.

>It surprises me we even got here, but we got here because you are avoiding questions. How about this. What's the value of relevance to your claims? First let's complete the claim, then argue the relevance.
It's more likely that I'm just not understanding the questions!
What claim are we talking about? Did this all start at me claiming a painting is just paint on canvas unless someone imbues it with meaning?

>but is it a fact?
The authorship can be a fact, sure. The person who physically laid the paint on the canvas.
But he himself is just a bag of carbon until he or someone else names him and describes him.

>However it seems to rest on implicit or constructed values
Like everything else?

>>3761145
>The nature of time, identity, deities and the intrinsic properties of reality are metaphysical. If a person who teleports from one place to another was reconfigured successfully, and in the right place is a physical question. Whether they are the same person is a metaphysical question.
That seems like a more narrow definition that what I was taught.

>>3761152
>sn't this why the distinction of "subjective" is important?
shouldn't be, if the appraisal is objectively the same
>hey won't be identical but they will be very similar
only because brains are similar. Think of sea-slug neural networks or hypothetical sentience aliens. Your claim relies on the idea that thoughts are physical because a thought is brain state X, but if the same thought can be expressed with X and Y, or computer state Z, your position is untrue. We then arrive at the position simply that thoughts are contingent on some physical configuration, which is very different from saying there are only physical facts.
>The authorship can be a fact, sure. The person who physically laid the paint on the canvas.
the person who physically the paint on the canvas is not an authorship fact, which is kind of the way you've phrased that point.
What about this: Does a triangle still have three sides if humans don't exist? This is not a tree falls question, this is something that Plato started to describe in his A Priori heaven of sorts

>Like everything else?
let's backtrack a bit to why we are grappling over what efficiency could be. Some guy said

>1. Unless you have some sort of morality-like law, you can't call anything efficient.

to which I assume you attempted to contradict. It's ultimately that premise we should be referring back to (or perhaps whatever premise that was a response to)
In a somewhat tangential response to isn't everything a construct, I would say no; ostensibly everything in our phenomenological experience though

>That seems like a more narrow definition that what I was taught.
could be, it's more of an illustration of the general working differences than a definition

>>3761164
>Does a triangle still have three sides if humans don't exist?
Yes, but the label doesn't?
And what's Plato got to do with anything? Unless you mean to say there's a revolutionary answer to this question you're gonna lay on me thanks to Plato, why couldn't it be a tree falling in a forest just because it came from Plato?

>>1. Unless you have some sort of morality-like law, you can't call anything efficient.
>to which I assume you attempted to contradict.
I just don't see where morality comes into it. Of course some human decides what to emphasize or discard but I don't see how that matters.

>It's ultimately that premise we should be referring back to (or perhaps whatever premise that was a response to)
Sure, and it's getting hard to go back and find each point as it weaves down the thread, so I appreciate the condensed reply. It's better than I could pull off.

I'm still open to reading suggestions. So that I might learn this stuff firsthand rather than get dragged through broken glass to this point or that point with lead questions. :(

>>3761189
Yes, but the label doesn't?
could you elaborate? I understand if no human existed there would be no one to point at a painting and say 'authorship'

>And what's Plato got to do with anything?
It's a suggestion on where to begin regarding these sorts of ontological questions, almost the very beginning. In a sense, for him, the fact that a triangle has three sides resides in (what we call for the purposes of reference) Platonic heaven. It's a flawed idea but it's a thread to follow through analytic philosophy all the way up mathematics and 'true by convention' arguments. It is peripheral, yes.

>I just don't see where morality comes into it
probably because 'constructed values' are sometimes the same as morality, where good things are valuable. Where that lies in regards to that particular point may lie further up the thread, something about language. Since I jumped in midways I mostly care about my own claims and stick to the supposition that the idea of efficiency may very well have a value constructed component

As for reading suggestions regarding science and empiricism, maybe start with Popper. He's fairly readable, and didn't die over a century ago.

The basic motivation for philosophy as I see it, in this day and age, is the is-ought problem. We can describe what is, but what we ought to do does not necessarily follow from that.

To elaborate, say you are standing in front of an oncoming train. Someone asks what you're going to do. You can try to predict your own actions by analyzing your material composition and base your answer on that, or you can decide to get off the train tracks, in which case your answer will be simply "I'm getting the hell out of the way." The latter requires you to make certain abstractions about the universe and your relationship to it. You could say that making these abstractions is a part of the mechanical process of your existence that resulted in you avoiding the train, but how would you justify thinking about chemical compounds as opposed to subatomic particles? Why a higher abstraction instead of a lower one? Where do you draw the line?

That last question is philosophy. You are doing philosophy when you think about it.

I always thought that philosophy came from the need to have a coherent view of the world, a greater system that puts every other thought and experience in the context.
I don't see how science can provide that kind of frame, espiecially now when it's so fragmented and detailed.

>>3761366
Exactly, it can't. Science has entered a tunnel that is so long people can't see the light out of it. The object has been taken so out of context that any view that isn't based on empiricism is just dismissed as "metaphysical". Scientists fail to see their own contradictions.

Nietzsche was an Aphorist, not a philosopher.

He said some pretty interesting things sure, but wandering around the mountains for hours and hours then writing down everything that came to mind isn't any way to come to any sort of syllogistic proof.

>>3761687
Are you at least trying?

His critique of metaphysics and of the death of god are pin point accurate. He also had several ideas of proto-linguistics that would later inspire Wittgenstein to write his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.

Also, he's most of the reason we regard ethics and morals the way we do today (un-religious people, that is).

>>3761687
I presume you haven't read his “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense”?

>>3761321
>The basic motivation for philosophy as I see it, in this day and age, is the is-ought problem.
Lol

>>3761700
>Also, he's most of the reason we regard ethics and morals the way we do today

Lol, again

>>3761682
Maybe it's my science talking but if it's not testable, if it can't be subjected to the Scientific Method, does it have any place in science? I have a hard time taking anything like that remotely seriously.

>>3761724
There's a big difference between testing something regarding it as an thing-in-itself (dualism) and the object as an interpretation of the subject, in an open system.

Seriously, read Edgar Morin or Karl Popper. If you're really interested in scientific method, look these guys up.

>>3759172
I think you just encapsulated the useful part of Descarte's Meditations in 2 sentences

>>3761700

Nietzsche cannot be said to have had much of an influence of Wittgenstein, especially the early Wittgenstein. In his published remarks there exists very few references to Nietzsche and they all come in his middle to late period.

>>3759297
Sartre and Camus are pretty fun to read and relatively easy to understand, and both are atheistic existentialists if that's what you're looking for, I'd recommend Myth of Sisyphus by Camus as a start. Dostoyevsky also consistently addresses nihilism and atheism (most famously in Brothers Karamozov and Crime and Punishment)

>>3761762
You mean Dostoyevsky addresses theism, right? Because Crime and Punishment is basically:

>implying moral doesn't come from god

Nietszche is just Spinoza minus 50-60 IQ points and a lack of modesty. dwi

The basic motivation for philosophy as I see it, in this day and age, ought to be the ought-is problem. We can describe what ought to be, but what we is to do does not necessarily follow from that.

To elaborate, say you are standing in front of an oncoming train. Someone asks what you're going to do. You can try to predict your own actions by analyzing your material composition and base your answer on that, or you can decide to get off the train tracks, in which case your answer will be simply "I'm getting the hell out of the way." The latter requires you to make certain abstractions about the universe and your relationship to it. You could say that making these abstractions ought to be a part of the mechanical process of your existence that resulted in you avoiding the train, but how would you justify thinking about chemical compounds as opposed to subatomic particles? Why a higher abstraction instead of a lower one? Where do you draw the line?

That last question ought to be philosophy. You are doing philosophy when you think about it.

>>3761700

>Also, he's most of the reason we regard ethics and morals the way we do today (un-religious people, that is).

Dear god my fucking sides.

Kant already solved metaphysics. Go home.

>>3761944
Do elaborate.

>>3761687
>Syllogistic proof

Read deleuze, heidegger and loewith on nietzsche before talking.

>>3761103

>How much does an appraisal weigh?

Replace "appraisal" with "thought", and we've got the most hilariously concise and simple criticism of reductive materialism ever. Thanks man, I'm gonna use this from now on.

>>3762439
Can a thought exist without its compositional signal and neural network?
I'd say that's how much a thought ways. Just because many thoughts share the same impulses and the same network doesn't mean thoughts are magic divorced from material reality.

>>3762475
Just because we can see a thought in the neurons doesn't mean the thought originates there. For all we know thats just the receiving place, where the signal gets picked up, and the sender might not even be physical

>>3762475

Nuerophysiology does not account for consciousness as such - we understand the chemicals and physical functions that go into seeing the color blue, but we know nothing of the how the conept of blue actually comes to be. There is a divorcement between neurological events and actual thought, even if thought is dependent upon these events..

>>3762500
>>3762501
Yet.
It's not like neuroscience has hit a ceiling. It's actually growing at breakneck pace. wtf people.
So you really do believe consciousness arises magically rather than from physical structures?

>>3762534

Right, and it is possible we get the neurological machinations down to a precision such that we can determine every thought. Nonetheless, these precise measurements will not explain the actual phenomenon of blue. They will explain what causes blue, but not the thing itself. This is impossible.

>>3762534
why the fuck do you assume its magical? Is magnets magical in your world?

>>3762557

>magnetic force
>a physical property
>in any way similar to consciousness

gb2bed Thales.

>>3762542
Prove. It. Nigga.
Then prove that it matters.

>>3762557
Electromagnetism is reasonably well understood and our understanding of it yet grows. What's magical about magnetism?

Just seems to me like you guys are shrugging and going, "we dunno lol". I take offense to such presumptive rejection. It's crippling to progress whether you're right or not.

>>3762557
>why the fuck do you assume its magical? Is magnets magical in your world?
Schopenhauer says yes and I agree with him

>>3759063
Science is founded upon very specific concepts and principles. Ever heard of the philosophy of science? You aren't skeptical enough to be either a "science type" or a "philosopher type." You should probably just give up and work at a wal-mart.

>>3762598
>10th nearly identical reply
Either one guy is seriously colon obliterated or you're the "dumb type".
That's the least helpful possible reply, the least insightful reply, the least likely to be accurate reply, and the reply most likely to incite trolling or arguing or dick-waving.

You're either a troll trying to degrade the quality of the board or, much more likely, a pretentious idiot that thinks he's any better than OP.

>>3762579

I don't have to prove it. It is self-evident. It matters because what you just said is dead fucking wrong, you moron.

>>3762645
It's not self evident.
Prove. It. Nigga.

Prove I was dead wrong, nigga.

Alright, so here's the list I come away with:
Heidegger
Karl Jaspers
Arendt
Schopenhauer
Kierkegaard
the Greeks
Schopenhauer
Voltaire
Montaigne
Rousseau
Popper
Kuhn
Socrates and Diogenes ("the greeks"?)
Cicero
Wittgenstein.
Epistemological philosophy in general
Edgar Morin and his complex thinking theory
Sartre
Camus
Dostoyevsky
Spinoza

Missing anything? Any particular order for that?
Montaigne, Popper, and Kuhn seemed to get the best endorsements. I'm receptive to rankings of the list, or recommendations on specific titles per author.

Also, finally wiki'd Scientism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Hot damn, that sounds sweet. Though I wouldn't go so far as to say it's the ONLY method.

>>3762691
Forgot the trip.

>>3762691
Stirner

This thread and OP deserve laughingwhores.jpg

Even /lit/ isn't above feeding a Pop-Sci Dawkins-parroting cock-sucking nerd archetype I guess

>>3762772
I was actually feeling more like I was echoing Sam Harris but he actually might be a fan of philosophy.

>>3762691
Start with the Greeks:

Socrates
Plato (read a companion)
Aristotle (read a companion)
Stoicism (at the time more important than Aristotle): Zeno of Citium, Chryssipus, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius
Skepticism: Sextus Empiricus
Epicureanism: Epicurus and Lucretius

Then finish ancient philosophy with Cicero

Next find yourself at least one good book summarizing Renaissance Philosophy (covering AT LEAST Bruni, Mirandola, Erasmus, Petrarch, Montaigne)

Then you have the modern time which is where things get fun.

"Continental" tradition
Descartes
Spinoza
Leibniz

"Empiricist" tradition
Hobbes (politics)
Locke (politics)
Berkeley (epistemology)
Mill (politics)
Hume (epistemology)

Then
Rosseau (politics)
Marx (politics)
Nietzsche (existential)
Sartre (existential)
Heidigger

Once you get through those you won't need help figuring out where to go next

>>3762776
I think Dennett keeps most of that crew honest. They don't want to offend their philosopher pal.

>>3762787
Wow, that's perfect. Thanks for the detailed breakdown.
By companion do you mean an annotated version? Or like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Plato-Companions-Philosophy/dp/0521436109
Is it a synopsis focusing on key points?

>>3762794
Yeah, I used to think he was a pussy of the bunch but now I realize he's just more considerate and Dawkins seems to have the problems. Not so good on recalling his own points on the spot, sometimes, in many of the discussions I've seen him in.

And if we're talking Horsemen, RIP in Peace Hitch.

OP just go read Spinoza's Ethics

>>3762787

>not suggesting any analytics

You're killin' me here!

>>3761832
To be fair, nietzsche was a huge spinoza fanboy, and is probably receiving the D from him in the afterlife

>>3762805
The Cambridge Companions are exactly what I had in mind when I said that (they are what I read). Do not buy them! Your local library will have them. They are not summaries as much as exegetical works focusing on each theme. This is very helpful because they organize their works (Plato and Aristotle wrote a lot, and even the small fragment that is extant is voluminous) in ways that the average reader would be totally incapable of.

>>3762850
Honestly, just guiding "how-do-I-into-philosophy" types to the correct progression of readings starting from the beginning is all I had aimed to do. As I said in my post, once you get into modern times (~1800s) things get fun because the number of philosophers increases by magnitudes. Any oversight on my part is not to suggest that those philosophers not mentioned are not worthwhile to read, but simply a lack of comprehensiveness on my part (which in my opinion is not something the OP needs right now)

>>3762878
>Do not buy them!
Sir, you do not understand my love of books. I've got a full size shelf full already and I won't rest until I catch up to my old man's 12+ shelves of favorite books.

>They are not summaries as much as exegetical works focusing on each theme.
That sounds perfect. I wouldn't trust myself to realize which points were significant on one or two passes. I'd hate to re-read them for 20 years just to realize what was important.

>>3762787
>Marx (politics)
Not that guy, but, assuming you're still here, what should I read by Marx? I'd assume the Communist Manifesto but that just seems so obvious that I can't help but feel I'd be missing something.

>>3762914
http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Marx-Companions-Philosophy/dp/0521366259

or

http://www.amazon.com/Karl-Marx-Selected-Writings/dp/0198782659/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_3

or

http://www.amazon.com/Marx-Political-Writings-Cambridge-History/dp/0521367395/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_5

>>3762878
>>3762787
Optional bonus round: Transhumanism.

>>3759165
nice sentence

>>3759095

/thread

>>3762952
>>>/sci/

>>3762978
Yeah, yeah, but does /lit/ have an opinion on it? If science types are so dumb, what do philosophical types think of transhumanism? What does /lit/ think is good Transhumanism writing?

>>3762992
Transhumanism as in overcoming the basic human condition has been in progress since the first technology and I don't think many people dislike it and won't dislike it for a while. There's a difference between "let's make use of technology to better our lives including augmentation of our bodies etc" to full blown "robojebus3000 will set us free". It's like level headed right wing economic liberals and complete "free market will fix it" retards.

>I've avoided philosophy forever because as a science type it seems like the underachiever's route to trying to understand existence
this is a serious, serious problem of your education system

go read michel de montaigne

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3600/3600-h/3600-h.htm

>It's got a reputation for pretentiousness
i mean seriously, how are you this dumb

have you read any actual books

>>3763033
I'm most interested in Transhumanism moving forward from now rather than the distant, abstract stuff from years past. People actually considering porting consciousness to an internet or synthetic brain.

>>3763043
How would you remedy it?
What shaped my opinion was science lessons handed me insight after insight into the nature of the cosmos and gave me the tools to make my own insights. Everything remotely philosophical I learned was related to basic math history. Nothing enlightening. Nothing informative. Nothing insightful. Nothing that I could use to then go on to acquire more understanding.

>>3762776
Sam Harris wrote a (okay but not greatly contributive and with poor conclusions) book on determinism and free will

>>3763072
>People actually considering porting consciousness to an internet or synthetic brain.
It doesn't work like that. The brain is not a Turing machine.

>>3763613
that's still an open discussion

>>3761766
Brothers Karamazov was originally going to be titled "Atheism," it doesn't end up in favor of atheism (which Dostoyevsky sees as the same as nihilism) but it still addresses the question in a fascinating way. He does the same in Crime and Punishment, the failure of Raskolnikov's constructed relativistic systems, but if you can get past disagreeing with the message it's still a great read, and C&P doesn't get overtly religious until the epilogue (though religion's definitely in there)

>>3761832
>Implying Nietzsche's work isn't dripping with irony
Though Spinoza is cool too

>>3763614
>that's still an open discussion
No, it isn't, because nobody is actually discussing this.

A more correct way of saying this: we don't know, scientifically speaking, if the brain is a Turing machine, since nobody proved it one way or the other formally.

But from a practical, engineering and technological standpoint, 100% of what we do is based on the assumption that it isn't.

(Like P?=NP; formally speaking, we don't know the answer, but on practical terms, we are absolutely sure that P!=NP.)

>>3759095
Was he my Creator? How can you prove it? Why hasn't the Creator proven it? Does the Creator truly prove anything? Are the old books flawed? Are they out of style? Are they passe? Why didn't the Creator have anything to say that would amend the mythological history of the Jews that so many Creationists depend on? Isn't the Creator's lack of effort reason enough to continue raising questions?

>What makes philosophical types NOT pretentious?

Honesty about what you can do, should be trying to do, and are trying to do.

Stop thinking so-called philosophical questions are special, or "deeper" than other questions. They aren't.

Whether or not God exists is an interesting question, whose consequences are especially important to humans, but it's not a "harder" or "deeper" question than, say, the shape of the Earth.

Try pic related, down-to-earth guy, good at dissolving fake questions and teaching you how to dissolve them too, good at finding the real / interesting ones, etc etc.

>>3763940

>ethical dilemmas are just as meaningful as choosing what colour socks to wear

I hate faggots like you.

Also, stop pretending to understand Wittgenstein.

>>3763940
whoop srry pic related

>>3763944
I made no mention of Wittgenstein.

>ethical dilemmas are just as meaningful as choosing what colour socks to wear

I'm not sure what you're opposing. Do you believe that ethical dilemmas are meaningless and that I'm treating them as realer than they are, or do you believe they're deep and I'm treating them as less important than they are?

>>3763669
So the common thread I get from thread is, "lol dunno, better DENY. EVERYTHING."

It's the opposite of opening minded. If I'm getting shit for only appreciating Scientism you deserve just as much for only caring about pseudo-intellectual word games.

Like the world outside of philosophy might be static to you. As if it's just happenstance that we developed the internet or airplanes or satellites and you'd have scoffed at all of it before its time because there's no room for it in the confines of wondering "what is..."

Or is it somehow traumatic to philosophy to generate or host a mind on well-understood material? Does it break one of your dichotomies if we create an AI or port a human mind into a synthetic platform neuron by neuron? If we replace half a brain with synthetic or manipulate the signals and treat the mind like a material thing hosted within the lattice of neurons?

The actual problem with transhumansim is that most transhumanists can't define what they're transitioning out of any more than they can what they're transitioning into. This is the religious aspect, rushing into the heavens "beyond humanity" before understanding what humanity is.

>>3764336
>transhumansim
what a poignant typo

>>3764336
not being able to get a concensus on what humanity is, does not mean all that humanity can be has not been proposed, and all that it is has happened; see Wittgenstein on talking about games or art, for isntance
What I think tranhumanistic issues will raise and help further in the future is bioethics

>>3764324
I don't think a single person in this thread would use epistemics or any form of radical skepticism to challenge the use and practicality of modern science. You've got an immature attitude to receiving these new notions and if you've come in with such an ingrained schema of how navel-gazing A Priori philosophy is then at least don't begin posturing about changing your mind.

>>3764324

I don't think you're as smart as you think you are. If you had two braincells to rub together, you'd realize that just because philosophers recognize the assumptions that they make in day-to-day life doesn't mean they become vegetables. All philosophy helps you to do is examine your life - you don't necessarily need to follow through with these examinations. Just because you can't be sure that something other than your mind exists doesn't mean you need to stop talking to people because they may be fabrications developed by the machinations of the Great Deceiver. But you're too close-minded to see that intellectual activities don't need to have direct and immediate impact on daily life. You say you want your mind changed about philosophy, and yet you wont even accept that assumptions exist. Get out of here, pigfuck.

>>3764336
We mostly know what humans are on a scientific level.
We know composition. We know evolution. We know the genetics and epigenetics. The single place we're still working on is cognition and that won't be long in unraveling.

Just because you haven't been able to TALK your way to a solution to the question in philosophical terms for whatever reason (bias? an object measuring itself?) doesn't mean jack.

The comparison reminds me of Atheism vs Theism. We've solved everything but how the universe began and conveniently now THAT is where God is! He started it all!

>>3764356
I'll agree with most of that. I can't help how I feel. I'm downright offended by the seemingly baseless assertion that because philosophy isn't talking about something that it's impossible for science to do it. There are peerless minds at this very moment working on the problems of cognition, artificial intelligence, and synthetic nervous systems. And this dipshit waltzes in and says it's not happening because nobody's working on the problem?

That's the vibe I keep getting from philosophy students. And it's identical to Christians scoffing at Science just because they don't understand it. Because their higher thought is immersed in this flowery rhetorical construct that's 2,000 years old.

I'm sure I'm wrong. Few opinions born from such sentiment are ever accurate. I'll freely admit that. I wouldn't bother sharing if, on some level, I didn't want to be corrected so that I might learn something.

>>3764365
This whole post, for example, could've been delivered verbatim from a Christian and still fit perfectly. Replace Philosophy with Christianity and it's identical to hundreds of such indignant retaliations I've ever encountered from butthurt Christians.

>>3764368
Boy, you really keep going at this, don't you?

If all you want to do is wank around about how awesome science is, there's a perfectly good board made for you to do that

>>3764370
haha how weird is it that the literary type is being the sensible type and the science type is bein a pretentious blowhard

>>3764368
>I'll agree with most of that. I can't help how I feel. I'm downright offended by the seemingly baseless assertion that because philosophy isn't talking about something that it's impossible for science to do it. There are peerless minds at this very moment working on the problems of cognition, artificial intelligence, and synthetic nervous systems. And this dipshit waltzes in and says it's not happening because nobody's working on the problem?
I can't speak for the philosophy students you know (they may be enormous idiots) but neurologists and cognitive scientists are talking to philosophers because they're running into all kinds of problems that have been examined by philosophers already over the course of hundreds of years. You talk like it's a sport where one side has to win. In reality the "teams" are cooperating. Science and philosophy are friends.

>>3764368

I don't understand how you can dress yourself in the morning if you're incapable of recognizing the difference between Christian theology and philosophy.

>>3764422
He seems to imagine that philosophy is a religion, and that science is a better religion.

>>3764368
I think there are a few crucial things that might help to ingest:
-Science is a branch of philosophy. Is science is 'talking' about something, then philosophy is talking about it.

-while there will always be contrarians, reactionaries and the obstinate, nobody here is seems to be saying 'no one is working on the problem'. What you may interpret as that is probably a cautionary clause against reductionism or knee-jerk conclusions to empirical findings (I know for instance, consciousness came up, and having done a brief unit of perceptual systems I know that conscious experience still has perception psychologists scratching their heads above and beyond the the very sophisticated mechanical knowledge behind say, blind spot correction. What this means is that models working towards may bend empiricism to fit them, as neofreudians have done with subliminal research, and that sometimes instead of claiming that X mystery is a matter of time, engage with the concept of X itself. The relevance of conciousness here is that criticism of Descartes' Cogito from phenomonologists pre-empts futile bridge searching between perception and conscious experience. One particular engagement I liked was Hughling Jacksons' 'Consciousness is the directional mechanism of attention'. end parenthesis)

>>3759132
>I also liked some Voltaire? I think it was:
>To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.
It's actually a misattribution from a neo-nazi who was convicted of pedoshit iirc.

Not sure if that should matter however, since that sort of thinking would lead to us distancing ourselves from modern animal welfare views as they largely originated among the actual Nazis.

>>3764376
>>3764370
Nice circlejerk attempt. He's not being sensible. He's hand-waving instead of making a point. He even posted that less than 60 seconds after the comment he's responding too. He saw the text, flinched, hand-waved.

>>3764388
>Science and philosophy are friends.
That's how I feel about it on the whole. Personally, though, I had to choose a path and I chose science. That's all. I don't mean to cast them against eachother.

Someone above mentioned Harris having a book on Free Will. I've likely got it on my shelf somewhere. But of course, not all philosophy students are the same. But goddamn do all the ones I run into make me want to jam a screwdriver through my eye and into my brain. Just re-reading the above discussions is tediously painful.

>>3764422
>>3764424
How the fuck do philosophers exist that don't understand metaphors? How many times did I use "like" or "as" and you apparently completely missed it? Aren't you supposed to have superior reading comprehension on /lit/?

>>3764432
>-Science is a branch of philosophy. Is science is 'talking' about something, then philosophy is talking about it.
I'm not the one who made that distinction. Someone else implied that because philosophy hadn't answered a question science wasn't going to go anywhere with it.
And you can't deny there's a separation between Science and the core of philosophy. or else you wouldn't be like the 4th person to point out that Science is part of Philosophy, or descended from it.

>while there will always be contrarians, reactionaries and the obstinate, nobody here is seems to be saying 'no one is working on the problem'.
That was a well-put paragraph. Thanks for that. It's something to think on. But I will direct you to: >>3763669
>>that's still an open discussion
>No, it isn't
Seems like an outright refusal to me.

>>3764473
>It's actually a misattribution from a neo-nazi who was convicted of pedoshit iirc.
I'll look into that but I wouldn't care.

>>3764487

It's not a metaphor if you're saying the methodologies of philosophy and Christian theology are actually the same.

>>3764487
>circlejerk attempt
it was an observation. i'm not in this pointless argument, stop being paranoid (I thought scientists got facts before making statements like that?)
another observation: if you have a post a mile long refuting every response to you, you should take off your internet warrior goggles and take a deep breath

>>3764487
>Someone else implied that because philosophy hadn't answered a question science wasn't going to go anywhere with it.
what the implication may be is that without a philosophical understanding, scientific inquiry will ultimately be inert. I think that is true in some cases, and in others empirical discoveries can give is inspiration.

>And you can't deny there's a separation between Science and the core of philosophy
why not? What do you take to be the core of philosophy?

>Seems like an outright refusal to me.
they did amend there statement to 'we don't know' but let's look at scope; for individual premises, it's not so bad for someone to be imperative, particularly towards something they see as factually wrong.

Tell you what, you've got a (perhaps dramatized) aversion to an obnoxious subset of philosophy students. And, platitudinously, every demographic and group: book lovers, art critics, homeopaths, personal trainers, first year philosophy students, models, waiters, Nietzsche scholars, and - definitely - scientists running the whole gamut of chemists, psychiatrists, physicists, and whoever else, all has a subset of the obnoxious in a flavor of irritation unique to their group.

Instead of lashing out, when someone tries to goad you with radical skepticism that seems to work so well on you, saying you can't *know* X, Y or Z because knowing is an A Priori assumption and lightning striking clocks disproves JTB theory, you instead say 'does that mean we should cut the funding to the bionic eye project, since we can't know if what we see is even real?' and the only bullet they can bite is made of cyanide.

>>3764502
I'm saying you act just like defensive Christians. Same phrasing. Same posturing. Same hand-waving. I'm not saying you're exactly like them, though having seen a great many debates involving Christians on defense, maybe THEY are actually copying you when they regress into philosophical semantics under attack. William Lane Craig, etc.

>>3764508
A pointless observation in a pointless discussion. There was little reason for it and it happens all over the internet. It start with your response to him then he responds to you then someone else chimes in and eventually you've got 6 people circlejerking themselves constantly waiting on replies from their common target. If that's not what you were up to, good for you. But some people actively try to rally people who agree with them to create a majority within the thread so they don't have to actually articulate a point.

I'm posting 1-3 sentences or maybe a paragraph per response. Because several people are responding. Should I enter the comment and move on for each reply I get? Why not just respond to 3 posts at once if possible?

Please don't strawman me as a furious aspie frothing at his keyboard. I've got nothing else running on my second monitor while I sip my coffee and catch up on my feeds so I just have the thread sitting open.

>>3764522
okay guy, I'm just saying you're doing a lot of pointless hemming and hawing over pretty much nothing for no real reason.
Instead of just picking up a philosophy book and working your thoughts out for yourself, you're arguing with people on the internet about it. Doesn't sound like a very scientific method at all.

>>3764521
>what the implication may be is that without a philosophical understanding, scientific inquiry will ultimately be inert. I think that is true in some cases, and in others empirical discoveries can give is inspiration.
Fairly put. I, of course, favor empiricism.

>>3764521
>why not? What do you take to be the core of philosophy?
The core of modern philosophy? Every single time I've tried to talk about it I only get a regression to induction or cogito ergo sum or whatever. Everything gets reduced to meaninglessness and assumptions all within an framework of convoluted rhetoric.
Science is relatively simple: Hypothesis. Test. Confirmation or reformulation.
The two things seem worlds apart even if the methodology of science is derived from philosophical logic.

>>3764521
>Instead of lashing out, when someone tries to goad you with radical skepticism that seems to work so well on you, saying you can't *know* X, Y or Z because knowing is an A Priori assumption and lightning striking clocks disproves JTB theory, you instead say 'does that mean we should cut the funding to the bionic eye project, since we can't know if what we see is even real?' and the only bullet they can bite is made of cyanide.
Well put. I just don't see the point in even responding if I'm just going to ask a rhetorical question. Part of the issue is I don't see it as lashing out. My reactions aren't particularly offensive or retaliatory where I was raised, though I'm aware they come across that way here.

>>3764543
I can't do both? The books are in the mail right this moment. You want me to drive 2,000 miles and intercept the shipment? It's not like I'm remaking this same thread repeatedly. It's just the one time, and I'm responding as I see fit as I go.

But damn, I JUST wanted to know if philosophers had anything neat to say on Transhumanism since it's core to my area of study and instead I get more seemingly baseless rhetorical regression to meaninglessness.

>>3764487
>Personally, though, I had to choose a path and I chose science.
It's one thing to choose what you'll study hard and excel in. It's another to say "This Is My Calling And I Will Do Only This One Thing Forever." You don't need to do what I tell you but in your shoes I would ask myself if I wanted to be dogmatic about disciplines where dogmatism is routinely criticized. But maybe you do want to be dogmatic, in which case that's all right. That's your choice I guess.

>>3764555
>The core of modern philosophy? Every single time I've tried to talk about it I only get a regression to induction or cogito ergo sum or whatever. Everything gets reduced to meaninglessness and assumptions all within an framework of convoluted rhetoric.
>Science is relatively simple: Hypothesis. Test. Confirmation or reformulation.
>The two things seem worlds apart even if the methodology of science is derived from philosophical logic.

See >>3759222:
>Philosophy is extremely hard. Because:
>1) There is no method.

I still don't get why people see philosophy and science as adversarial. Hasn't anyone on /sci/ ever heard of the analytical school?

>>3764574
i guess is because science fags believe that Dawkings solved all the existencial questions.

>Chemicals in your brains.

Philosophy kind of underpins the way a lot of us behave and think. I totally see where science comes in as a natural progression in the way we understand, but the very inquiry into the value of something is seemingly philosophical in itself. It would be a wonderful thing to see everyone use the scientific to explain phenomena but that's a bit too idealistic. The best we can do is learn how to make our lives and those around us better and I think philosophy, sociology, and many liberal arts are still integral to how we work things out. Science doesn't know all the answers, hopefully one day it will... but it's obvious that there is a great deal of pleasure and intrigue to be found in other academical pursuits, wouldn't you agree? It's fairly apparent to most of us that being a "bookworm" has for a long time been considered a noble pursuit, so I don't see why it should be lambasted as useless and outdated.

>>3764568
>It's one thing to choose what you'll study hard and excel in. It's another to say "This Is My Calling And I Will Do Only This One Thing Forever." You don't need to do what I tell you but in your shoes I would ask myself if I wanted to be dogmatic about disciplines where dogmatism is routinely criticized. But maybe you do want to be dogmatic, in which case that's all right. That's your choice I guess.
The existence of this thread doesn't demonstrate my intent to diversify my knowledge? Wouldn't your criticism be more fitting in a /sci/ thread bashing philosophy?

>>3764568
>>1) There is no method.
So how can it be remotely trustworthy? How can it ever be more than just word games? I can see why language would be a central point of discussion for philosophy in this case.

>>3764592
Dat strawman. Dat circlejerk.

>>3764604
>It would be a wonderful thing to see everyone use the scientific to explain phenomena but that's a bit too idealistic.
I don't think so. When I step back from the philosophical discussion I feel like I got sucked into bullshit rules.

>Who decides what's good and what's bad?
Self replicating organisms tailored to reproduce naturally consider anything conducive to easy reproduction good. Derp.
>Why learn anything?
Because it's beneficial for a species to receive a mild endorphin high when they learn new things to encourage them to better understand their world and thus survive better and reproduce more.

I dunno why I didn't look at the questions in these terms when they were on-topic 30 or so hours ago. I was just pulled into what seems now like arbitrary constraints that elevate humans and consciousness above the simple chemical and mechanical activity within the skulls of animals.

>>3764620
>Just word games
Good job, you already arrived at Wittgenstein

If you start exploring philosophy expecting to find hard, perfect truth, you will be disappointed. Every philosopher offers a new way of perceiving the world.

>>3764620
Does explaining the mechanical process of how things get evaluated help you make evaluations?

If you want to be turned off 99% of modern philosophy open up some Feyerabend, Popper or Kuhn. Particularly the former two are frankly disgusting if you've worked as a scientist in any degree. Popper seriously argues vehemently that a flaw in a theory means that it should be completely discarded rather than adapting the theory if it still fits.
Feyerabend is pretty much the relativist equivalent of a Creationist with his "All axioms have inherent flaws thus I can do what I want and it's still just as scientific as the next guy!".

If you're more politically inclined then Deleuze, Lacan and Derrida are good ways of being utterly disgusted by it all. Everything wrong with modern Sociology in three easy authors.
>muh post-structuralism
>muh post-modernism
>muh critical theory

>>3764643
>>muh post-modernism
Thanks for the detailed reply. I added notes to Popper and Kuhn and added the other guys to the list.

>>3764638
Helps understand the process, yes.

>>3764643
You get an A+ in misunderstanding Popper and Kuhn. Also good job on not knowing that the falsification principle is used by scientists everywhere.

>>3764555
It should be fairly self evident that 'the core of modern philosophy' is not the content of your personal conversations. The problem of induction was a critique of logical positivism, not of science totally, anyway, and it was some decades ago (by Popper, and some centuries ago by Hume). The core of modern philosophy as I see it is truth seeking, and that splits into metaphysics, aesthetics, ethics and logic. The relevance of the Cogito is a chunk of metaphysics, not the core of anything.

>But damn, I JUST wanted to know if philosophers had anything neat to say on Transhumanism
most things said on transgumanism are philosophical in nature, because their are value claims made about being more intelligent and so on. Tried Ray Kurzweil? I had a bunch of good transhumanism links somewhere, but maybe you'll more or less come across them looking him up.
/tg/ also sometimes talks about Eclipse Phase, which can sometimes result in discussions about transhumanism, but they are rarely fruitful.

>I just don't see the point in even responding
changing bad habits for the better?
>Part of the issue is I don't see it as lashing out
you are. You've begun typifying philosophy as baseless, semantics and so on, and keep falling back on these archetypes. For instance

>Everything gets reduced to meaninglessness and assumptions all within an framework of convoluted rhetoric

is basically like saying all transhumanists are technoreligious idealists transposing messiah as a singularity. It's not happening in this thread but you keep reverting to in response to things you don't like. Maybe that's why you need to ask what you see as a rhetorical question, discourage kneejerk broad strokes immature response and encourage dialogue. It might not even be bad, just because somebody is abusing brains in vats does not mean they are incurably dumb.

>>3764653
>that dialogue
oh god, it's like a bad episode of adventure time

>>3764653
>Helps understand the process, yes.
But does it help you perform those evaluations?

>>3764667
>is basically like saying all transhumanists are technoreligious idealists transposing messiah as a singularity
What if they are?

>>3764659
There's no misunderstanding. Popper argued until his death that entire theories should be discarded rather than adapted for new finds.
Kuhn wasn't as horrific as the other two but some of his claims are along Feyerabend's lines merely less extreme.
The falsification principle isn't "used by Scientists everywhere" at all.
In reality the Induction and Deduction paradigms that Popper mistrusted and criticized are the de-facto Standard in the Formal and Natural Sciences.

>>3764555
hey sciencefag how close is transhumanism and inmortality?

>>3764667
>yfw Nietzsche was a transhumanist wearing a hat made of meat instead of robots
>yfw Übermensch can be translated as transhuman (if you don't care about upgoings and downgoings)

>>3764659
Yeah, Popper is pretty wildly influential. The whole falsification thing was used in the Dover trial after all.

>>3764679
No, this is wrong. The ultimate goal of transhumanism is to defeat mortality.

No mortality, no reason.

>>3764677
>But does it help you perform those evaluations?
Understanding helps. Yes.

>>3764667
>The core of modern philosophy as I see it is truth seeking
That'd be my stumbling block. Like I said in a previous reply, I've never arrived at any great truth or insight from philosophy. But Science has given me a ton of it.

>Ray Kurzweil
Yeah, I should have a book of his lying around somewhere that's in my reading queue. But it's like 20 titles back.

>changing bad habits for the better?
Fair enough.

>Maybe that's why you need to ask what you see as a rhetorical question, discourage kneejerk broad strokes immature response and encourage dialogue.
Can't argue with you there. Which is my problem. I don't see the point in responding if I'm just going to ask, "What?" "How?" "Why?" "Can you elaborate?" 50 times. I already feel like I've done too much of that in this thread. This thread would've died at 30 replies if I'd not attempted to articulate responses.

>>3764681
>hey sciencefag how close is transhumanism and inmortality?
That's a notoriously hard question because everyone tends to pick a date that's just about as long as they think they'll live. A 60 year old will say he thinks they'll do it within 20 years and a 20 year old will guess it'll take another 60 years. Just long enough for science to swoop in and save them from death.
My guess? Maybe 2100. And many of us might live to see that because the incremental steps towards that goal will all push life expectancy up. You gotta keep in mind that current centenarians were all raised in the Depression era. I anticipate artificial limbs with nervous feedback and control fit for the old and infirm by 2020 or 2025. That'll help. More robust exoframe tech will grow during that same time and also help prevent issues like broken hips that can lead to early death.
Then we have a lot to do in replacing organs, either synthetically or organically. That's the hard part. The brain being the hardest.

>>3764700
lets say tomorrow we have "the inmmortality package", a non painful procedure to make you inmortal, with fawless organs, and a superbrain. would you take it?

>>3764709
Yes

>>3764709
Depends on whether or not it's a limited window of availability and whether or not "flawless organs" include genetically faithful, functional gonads.

I'd rather wait and see how it works out for others, just as a matter of caution, if possible. And if I can't preserve my genes for reproduction I'd wait until I was done reproducing if possible.

Then there's the question of immortality vs invincibility. I wouldn't take it if it didn't include a way to self destruct.

But if you can guarantee me it's a truly flawless form with no malfunction or error, that I'd be able to either reproduce with that body or store my material for reproduction in, say, an incubator or surrogate down the road, and that I would have the option of self termination without needing to have access to the technology to migrate to anotherplatform, sure. I'd take it.

>>3764731
Forgot to add: proof against tampering and interference is also a must. Would suck to die during a mediocre solar flair or from a homemade EMP device or for my mind to be vulnerable to hacking or viruses.

>>3764731
preserve your genes what for??

your genes will make shitty organs compared to the flawless, hulk like organs that will be available. why do you want to reproduce in the future when children could be made after a recipe of perfect superhumans??

>>3764731

Oh P.

Would you rather that you can die, or that you can not die?

Reproduction is sooooo fucking banal.

>>3764620
>Self replicating organisms tailored to reproduce naturally consider anything conducive to easy reproduction good
basically, this is the functional argument, something you can find in the prologue of Plato's Republic. But it's bullshit. Another way of putting it is:
it's good if it does what its function is, and it's function is what it is best at or what it is designed to do.
This is already a problem because organisms aren't designed, and function is distinct from purpose.
Subjective value judgements in the organism aren't equivalent to morality claims and if they were, many organisms consider things good that aren't conducive to reproduction.
It's also a problem because what it was designed to do may not be what it is best at.

>Because it's beneficial for a species to receive a mild endorphin high when they learn new things to encourage them to better understand their world and thus survive better and reproduce more.
interestingly, research into happiness shows that being religious, strongly identifying with a group, having low ambitions and not knowing too much are the best correlates for measures such as Subjective Well Being, Positive Affect and Life Satisfaction. However, this isn't the core of the counterargument, it's a counterargument assuming the premise that function = good is at all plausible, which it isn't.

>>3764700
>I've never arrived at any great truth or insight from philosophy. But Science has given me a ton of it.
again, two problems
Science is philosophy, and your inquiry into data is inert without values and interpretation. In particular, you probably adhere to certain positions in the philosophy of mathematics, and probably believe that 'squares have four sides' is true
If you've ever concluded that it's true something was good or bad, you've engaged in philosophy, and probably cognitivist in nature

>>3764700
a prosthetic amygdala is already functional in rats

>>3764690
>The ultimate goal of transhumanism is to defeat mortality
there's no ultimate goal. Some will say that, others will say it's about humans embracing all that they can be

>>3764768

alright I shouldn't give this away any more but I'm a faggot, heres a *hint*:

All=infinite=unending=immortal

>>3764772
if immortality isn't in the scope of what a human can be, then no.
This can be true in two sense, in one case, it's impossible to make a living thing immortal. It will either be mortal or nonliving.
In the second, it's impossible to make a human immortal. It will either be mortal or nonhuman.
Both are pretty plausible so I see no reason why proponents should secede to the clause that trans-humanism should be about immortality.

>>3764780

>post-human

>>3764742
Eugenics and similar manipulations of genes aren't my preference. I'd rather reproduce traditionally, personally. Let humans be human then decide for themselves whether or not they want to make any changes. Personal liberty and all of that. I feel like human alterations, tailoring, or tampering might be a disservice to the resulting human.

>>3764744
I'd rather be capable of dying on my own terms. Not from age or accident or violence.

>>3764762
>Science is philosophy, and your inquiry into data is inert without values and interpretation. In particular, you probably adhere to certain positions in the philosophy of mathematics, and probably believe that 'squares have four sides' is true
>If you've ever concluded that it's true something was good or bad, you've engaged in philosophy, and probably cognitivist in nature
So I'm told. But nobody's ever made it clear beyond the most basic level that this is the case. And it's generally more frustrating than anything when people start with the "values and interpretation" thing. It feels irrelevant to define values that are a natural consequence of our nature as evolved animals.

>>3764753
>it's good if it does what its function is, and it's function is what it is best at or what it is designed to do.
I don't buy that. I don't see how what I said fits into what you're saying it is. You got self-replicating molecules. The ones that like to replicate replicate more. So the resulting replicators consider replication good. Which is a subjective opinion.
Non-replicating subjects that lose crucial resources by replicating might consider replication the greatest taboo.
I'm lost here.

>>3764753
>interestingly, research into happiness shows that being religious, strongly identifying with a group, having low ambitions and not knowing too much are the best correlates for measures such as Subjective Well Being, Positive Affect and Life Satisfaction
But they all have the epiphany moments. They're just not as "deep" or 'broad".

>>3764784
you'll have to elaborate if you wish to makes sense.
I think longevity is fine but immortality is a crapshoot, and relies on consciousness like structures propagating through matter

>>3764753
>basically, this is the functional argument, something you can find in the prologue of Plato's Republic.
No, that's not what he's saying at all. He's saying things are good because our chemical processes make us think they are good.

>>3764762
>Science is philosophy
Science is methodology.

>>3764789
>But nobody's ever made it clear beyond the most basic level that this is the case
it's less about making it clear than it being true.

>But nobody's ever made it clear beyond the most basic level that this is the case
this shouldn't be hard. You answer the who decides what's good and bad with: the organism. But the organism isn't obliged to decide instrumentally reproductive behaviours are good: and they demonstrably don't. So what's your point?

> I don't see how what I said fits into what you're saying it is.
if you're going to claim reproduction is a good, it will reduce to some variant of this claim, from your angle

> The ones that like to replicate replicate more
this loose language is inappropriate. They don't like to replicate, they replicate with high copying fidelity and incidence

>>3764789
ok mister science.
now lets say we have a device to plug into your brand new brain that provide endorphins shots forever.

You dont get addicted, and it doesnt get old because is a futuristic brain that can reset to 0. You just have a infinite pleasure device that takes you out of reality, and compared to this "feeling of discovering new things" the device will be far more fun.

leave it or take it?

>>3764821
The organism decides things the way it decides them. If it decided them another way, it would decide them that way, but it does not. There is no reason to discuss "what if."

>>3764817
that's not contradictory

>He's saying things are good because our chemical processes make us think they are good.
that's nonsequitor. Without filling in an implicit premise, all he can really say is that our brain makes us think things are good

>THIS ENTIRE THREAD

>>3764827
>The organism decides things the way it decides them
that's kind of a tautology
> If it decided them another way, it would decide them that way,
so is this
>There is no reason to discuss "what if."
what if what? It was said organisms find instrumentally reproductive things good. I said this was demonstrably not true in every case. What good is it for creating a value framework?

>>3764789
>But they all have the epiphany moments.
what makes you say that?

>>3764821
>it's less about making it clear than it being true.
Not when I'm stating my personal observations. It may well be true. I'm just saying that's never how it's been presented to me.

>But the organism isn't obliged to decide instrumentally reproductive behaviours are good: and they demonstrably don't. So what's your point?
That when they DO decide so there's no necessary further examination.

>if you're going to claim reproduction is a good, it will reduce to some variant of this claim, from your angle
I'm saying the organism finds it good. Not that it's objectively good.

>>3764821
>this loose language is inappropriate. They don't like to replicate, they replicate with high copying fidelity and incidence
How is fidelity relevant?

>>3764823
>You dont get addicted, and it doesnt get old because is a futuristic brain that can reset to 0. You just have a infinite pleasure device that takes you out of reality, and compared to this "feeling of discovering new things" the device will be far more fun.
>leave it or take it?
Probably leave it.
I'm less concerned with my own pleasure and more concerned with everyone elses. I'd also worry about being non-productive while using it and letting people down. And maybe being aware that it's a sham existence. Even if you told me it'd erase those concerns, I might not use it so as to preserve those emotions I consider productive to what I care about.

>>3764829
>that's nonsequitor. Without filling in an implicit premise, all he can really say is that our brain makes us think things are good
Elaborate? That makes no sense to me. How's simple cause and effect a non sequitur?

>>3764842
>that's kind of a tautology
Is it if it's not the result of a pursuit of it by the organism?

>I said this was demonstrably not true in every case
I wonder about this part.
When isn't it true? Every case of it not being true I can think of arises from either ignorance or overriding short-term needs and goals interfering.

>In the case of all other sciences, arts, skills, and crafts, everyone is convinced that a complex and laborious programme of learning and practice is necessary for competence. Yet when it comes to philosophy, there seems to be a currently prevailing prejudice to the effect that, although not everyone who has eyes and fingers, and is given leather and last, is at once in a position to make shoes, everyone nevertheless immediately understands how to philosophize, and how to evaluate philosophy"

OP you've done nothing but throw around quotes from philosophers and combine it with some flowery and wishy-washy talk about the subject. At best you're a pseudo-intellectual, but you insist on putting yourself on a pedestal and throwing down gems of "wisdom" to us unenlightened masses.

We might tell you to take a philosophy course if you're interested in philosophy, but I'm sure you're too intellectually advanced for such a low-brow thing.

And then we might tell you to start with the Greeks, but they really aren't relevant are they? In fact, I'm sure that everything that has been written from ancient times to the 20th century, apart from a few things that have historical relevance, is completely unimportant and should be disregarded.

So what you really want to do is talk about philosophy, without knowing about philosophy. That's great OP, you really class up this board, thank you.


To whoever said Camus was an existentialist, go read his interview "No, I am not an existentialist".

>>3764842
>What good is it for creating a value framework?
I'm still not clear on the value thing.
The organism has values that match its needs and desires.

>>3764849
>what makes you say that?
Church is about religious experiences and social connections. Feeling faith, feeling contentedness. Feeling like there's an overarching plan or oversight. Feeling part of something large. Feeling connected to people. Trust.

You can replace church with any other similar group and see the same positive benefits. And it all seems to be about seeking answers in reality. Modeling reality. It's just from a smaller, older playbook.

>>3764869
>everyone nevertheless immediately understands how to philosophize, and how to evaluate philosophy"
Might have to do with how philosophy has something to say on everything and then rather than using their own terms, generally reuse common terms like "good" or "bad". Then throws a commotion about how you can't treat these words normally because X, Y, Z!

>>3764864
>very case of it not being true I can think of arises from either ignorance or overriding short-term needs and goals interfering.
you will have to defend this in every case. Protected sex, suicide, deciding not to have a child to due to the problem of overpopulation, recycling, telling the truth, reading the western canon...
What information would an organism be ignorant of to make a choice that wasn't related to reproduction?

> How's simple cause and effect a non sequitur?
think of a syllogism
-All men are mortal
-Socrates is a man
-therefore Socrates is mortal

and yours (according to quoted poster):
-organisms think things (X) are good because their chemical processes tell them they are good (homonculus, by the way)
-X are good.
it doesn't follow
>Is it if it's not the result of a pursuit of it by the organism?
the phrase is a tautology. Things decide what they decide. What do things decide? What they decide. It tells me nothing. Whatever you're asking, you'll have to rephrase it back in context.

>How is fidelity relevant?
it means molecules don't have to like anything to replicate in the propagating manner we see today. The word like is a bit sloppy.

>>3764885
>Church is about...
there's no epiphany in this, nor is epiphany a necessary premise of the happiness it causes

>You can replace church with any other similar group and see the same positive benefits
no you can't. Religiosity has particular existential appeal, that a football team does not.

>>3764864
>I'm less concerned with my own pleasure and more concerned with everyone elses. I'd also worry about being non-productive while using it and letting people down. And maybe being aware that it's a sham existence. Even if you told me it'd erase those concerns, I might not use it so as to preserve those emotions I consider productive to what I care about.
Well, there you go! You know what you should do. You should play the harmonica.

>pretentious

better than being some autistic dork like /sci/

>>3764885
>I'm still not clear on the value thing.
perhaps we should talk about the is-ought fallacy?
I think if we move back it comes to this. You say 'science' gives you some truth, and I say it's inert without a value framework.
You say, the organism makes the value framework
this kind of means you think things are true because you think they are good. You have subjective value, that we are still deciding over whether is universal (reproductive utility) but truth is not subjective. In particular, we talked about different types of true things, like ethical truths (it's true that it's good that...) but we still have the impasse, the organism supposing goodness does not ascertain the truth of goodness.

>>3764894
>Protected sex
Resource protection.

>suicide
aberrant mental state most of the time

>deciding not to have a child to due to the problem of overpopulation
sometimes faulty information, sometimes judged to be better for the organism as a species

>recycling
Like trash? Improves the planet for other people and future offspring?

>telling the truth
We lie constantly. Strangers tell an average of 3 lies within the first 10 minutes of meeting. The average married couple lies in 1 in 10 interactions and the unmarried couple lies in 1 in 3.

>reading the western canon
wat

>What information would an organism be ignorant of to make a choice that wasn't related to reproduction?
Whether or not there's a cougar around the corner or a trap under that dirt or that help was coming tomorrow but they bite the bullet anyhow.

>-X are good.
>it doesn't follow
I said organism thinks X is good and that's it. Not that X is good because organism thinks X is good.

>What they decide. It tells me nothing. Whatever you're asking, you'll have to rephrase it back in context.
I think it says enough.
The famous question is "Why are we here?" or "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Because there is. Otherwise there wouldn't be. It may not be any deeper than that.

>>3764902
>there's no epiphany in this, nor is epiphany a necessary premise of the happiness it causes
Some sense of knowledge is. Surely. I'll be even more anti-Theist if you tell me all these sheep waste their lives on backwards models of reality without even getting anything from it but a sore ass every Sunday from sitting in a wooden pew.

>no you can't. Religiosity has particular existential appeal, that a football team does not.
Existential appeal. But that's far from the only metric. Discipline, willpower, happiness, belonging, all of that comes as well from a football team as from a church congregation.

Fuck this gay 2,000 character limit.

>>3764936
>The famous question is "Why are we here?" or "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Because there is. Otherwise there wouldn't be. It may not be any deeper than that.
So if I ask you what you're going to do, will you tell me you'll do whatever it is you'll do, and I should observe you empirically if I want to know?

>>3764902
>no you can't. Religiosity has particular existential appeal, that a football team does not.
Church attendance is dropping in the West. And I think it's because people are more equipped to find meaning, be it individually or from science, than before.

>>3764913
>You should play the harmonica.
I already do. My father refused to buy a me real instrument until I showed him I had the dedication to learn a song or two on a cheap harmonica.

>>3764917
>this kind of means you think things are true because you think they are good
How so? I think things are true when they match reproducible measurements. I never have understood how true/false fits into good/bad.
Good/bad is made up. True/false, as far as I can tell, means is or isn't.
You define something, usually by measuring it and setting boundaries. If something conforms to those dimensions and standards it's true. If not it's false. All in context.

>>3764937
>So if I ask you what you're going to do, will you tell me you'll do whatever it is you'll do, and I should observe you empirically if I want to know?
Sure? But it might be problematic that you cast it in the future tense.

>>3764945
>I already do.
Wow! You're all set then. You are doing what you need to do in life. You are done with philosophy. Congratulations!

>>3764936
>Resource protection.
for whom?

>aberrant mental state most of the time
requires defending

>sometimes faulty information
what kind?

> sometimes judged to be better for the organism as a species
makes no sense. How is it better for the organism to not reproduce. The organism doesn't care about it's species on a reproductive level

>We lie constantly.
this is not a counterargument. What you have to explain is why telling the truth occurs (in the context of this reproduction dispute), not that it often doesn't. That it never does would be a counterargument.

>I said organism thinks X is good and that's it. Not that X is good because organism thinks X is good.
okay, then perhaps you shouldn't respond to my critique of that argument given by another person.

>The famous question is...etc
I'm sorry, this is wrong on a fundamental level. You're answering the question, 'are things here?'. The fact that things are here is not in itself an answer to why questions, and do not presuppose negative answers (eg, 'why are things here?' 'no reason')
I suppose function/purpose distinctions become important here,.

>Some sense of knowledge is
but contentment and reassurance is not knowledge

>Existential appeal. But that's far from the only metric
who cares how many metrics there are? This is the one that has a go at explaining why religiosity is more strongly correlated with happiness than team membership.

>>3764945
>Church attendance is dropping in the West
okay, but let's go back and examine why it was brought up in the first place, and whether or not attendance over time is relevant. You said, in a mechanistic sense, that the happiness value of an organism was related to reproduction (and therefore to things they will value). For you, so long as religious populations are happier than non-religious ones, you as an organism will be compelled to value religiosity

>>3764370
But literature is the expression of ideas.

>>3764949
>for whom?
The organism. For the sake of itself and its future offspring.
When and where resources are expended matter.

>requires defending
Depression is generally classified as a mental disorder.

>what kind?
We're not facing an overpopulation problem. When people sacrifice their own reproduction for it they're often acting to advance the species and simultaneously spare their own offspring a wasted life anyhow.

>makes no sense. How is it better for the organism to not reproduce. The organism doesn't care about it's species on a reproductive level
It can on an intellectual one. Sometimes it has siblings that're close enough to itself.

>What you have to explain is why telling the truth occurs
I don't see why it's an issue. Do you mean why organisms tell the truth when it doesn't serve them?

>okay, then perhaps you shouldn't respond to my critique of that argument given by another person.
I thought this was in response to me:
>>3764620
>Self replicating organisms tailored to reproduce naturally consider anything conducive to easy reproduction good.

>The fact that things are here is not in itself an answer to why questions
Why not? If the universe hadn't produced this scenario we wouldn't be experiencing it. What if there's nothing to the why or how?

>but contentment and reassurance is not knowledge
They tend to be results of knowledge. "God loves you!" is knowledge.

>who cares how many metrics there are? This is the one that has a go at explaining why religiosity is more strongly correlated with happiness than team membership.
Is it? Everything I've read on the subject says that if you replace every promise from religion you get equitable levels of happiness. Don't over-emphasize something like football that obviously leaves out significant components like, "models reality". Though I know I listed it as an example, I didn't intend to imply that it's a perfect representation.

>>3764964
>You said, in a mechanistic sense, that the happiness value of an organism was related to reproduction (and therefore to things they will value)
Among many other things.

>For you, so long as religious populations are happier than non-religious ones, you as an organism will be compelled to value religiosity
Inclined to, maybe. But happiness isn't everything to the organism. And alternatives exist to religiosity.
If religion is the only route to it, then maybe. I think we saw some of that during the height of the Roman Catholic Empire.

>>3764975
>For the sake of itself and its future offspring.
I thought that the point was to prevent conception. This is not intrinsically related to future offspring, but preventing a child.

>Depression is generally classified as a mental disorder
What's a mental disorder? What about suicides completed by individuals in which the DSM-IV TR does not exist. What about suicides who were not diagnosed with depression (your position does not allow this without error, but a diagnosis is contingent on it being made because mental illnesses are not natural kinds)

>We're not facing an overpopulation problem
might be contentious

>When people sacrifice their own reproduction for it they're often acting to advance the species this contradicts your initial claims, and it also works against the general research that went into that claim eg content of the Selfish Gene
If you have new claims that organisms value their own species (demonstrably untrue in nonhumans) you'll have to explain why

>I thought this was in response to me:
there's a post in between. Worry about it or don't, but it's what I was responding to

>They tend to be results of knowledge.
but they aren't contingent to the moment of attainment of the epiphany you described as the happiness cause and the substitute in non-religiosity
.
>Everything I've read on the subject says that if you replace every promise from religion you get equitable levels of happiness
what on earth study has such specific and extensive operationalization?
however, it might not even be relevant. let's say replacing every promise is problematic, or requires more resources or effort; we revert to religion as a value

>>3765007
>I thought that the point was to prevent conception. This is not intrinsically related to future offspring, but preventing a child.
Until the time and place for reproduction is better. Why have a kid in the desert with no food or water if you can wait till you get to a shady river with fruit trees everywhere?

>What's a mental disorder?
Mental malfunction.

>What about suicides completed by individuals in which the DSM-IV TR does not exist.
The DSM describes it. It doesn't create it.

>What about suicides who were not diagnosed with depression
Without underlying depression? Those are so minor, and so likely to be other mental illnesses I'd wonder if this category even exists. Even the most staunch nihilists don't often self terminate out of boredom or whatever.

>your position does not allow this without error, but a diagnosis is contingent on it being made because mental illnesses are not natural kinds
Elaborate.

>might be contentious
Most Western nations are facing underpopulation problems. The economies are growing faster than the population.
Large swathes of usable land (not necessary for co2 recycling) are unused and resources for water purification and utilization of extra dimensions in construction (vertical) are readily available. Then there's the option of leaving the planet, using the oceans, etc.

>If you have new claims that organisms value their own species (demonstrably untrue in nonhumans) you'll have to explain why
Half your claims are untrue in non-humans. It takes human cognition to consider and carry out half of what you're laying out. And I did mention siblings and other close genetic relatives.

>but they aren't contingent to the moment of attainment of the epiphany you described as the happiness cause and the substitute in non-religiosity
And how's that?

>what on earth study has such specific and extensive operationalization?
Nothing specific, but rather a collection of work. A lot of Baumeister's stuff on Willpower, for example, finds the discipline, self-regulation, etc, (which all correlate with success and happiness) works just as well if the group isn't religious, but acts in the same capacity. Programs like AA.

>we revert to religion as a value
Elaborate.

>>3765040
>Elaborate.
why is religion a value under your system. Because it is associated with happiness which is good for reproducing. The alternative is finding happiness with by replacing all the promises. However if this takes more time or effort than religiosity, it's less functional for happiness. Therefore, religiosity is retained as the value despite (proposed) alternatives.
The problem is you attempting to avoid the underachievers way to explain the world, yet your method allows you, based on reproductive utility, to value things regardless of truth value

>Nothing specific, but rather a collection of work
this is supercool, but doesn't at all imply that nonreligious disciplined people are as happy as either religious people, religious disciplined people, or religious nondisciplined people

>>3765037
depression ...mental malfunction. acoording to what?

is being a commie, or homosexual, or othe things mental malfunctions?

>>3765059
>The problem is you attempting to avoid the underachievers way to explain the world, yet your method allows you, based on reproductive utility, to value things regardless of truth value
I've gotta admit I have a hard time taking this post seriously.

>>3765059
>why is religion a value under your system
A value. Singular.

>Because it is associated with happiness which is good for reproducing.
Do a degree. It is one of many things associated with happiness.

>The alternative is finding happiness with by replacing all the promises.
Some, all any combination of them, in any fashion, accidentally or purposefully.

>However if this takes more time or effort than religiosity
Which is the single biggest variable here. It may, or may not. In what I'm proposing the natural flow would be the path of least resistance and if people didn't choose religion it'd mean better or easier options were available. And they are, in our world.

>it's less functional for happiness.
Not so much less functional as less efficiency. But oh wait! Efficiency is a value! omg how can we measure that.

>Therefore, religiosity is retained as the value despite (proposed) alternatives.
Not remotely.

>this is supercool, but doesn't at all imply that nonreligious disciplined people are as happy as either religious people, religious disciplined people, or religious nondisciplined people
He implies or outright asserts that religion, being a hierarchical world view built on morality, groupthink, service, etc, goes hand in hand with discipline. And that disciplined nonreligious people tend to be as happy as religious people. Because he covers groups similar to Church or AA that don't involve higher powers or spirituality. Moreover, undisciplined people in general tend to be less successful and less happy.
My take away from his work and others like it is that what makes religious people happy might just be a result of self regulation. Structure created by the group.

>>3765094
When compared against standard functionality and mood. And in the way it harms people and societies.

Being a communist or homosexual do neither of those things on their own.