/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13860463]

/sci/ here, what is the actual point of philosophy when it's self evident that only the material world exists and that the only non unfalsifiable system is Science?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

[Anonymous No.13860478]

[Anonymous No.13860500]

>>13860463
the actual chart

[Anonymous No.13860506]

I don't know, I just watch the school of life YouTube videos desu

[Anonymous No.13860512]

>>13860500
F'n kek, m8

[Anonymous No.13860513]

>non unfalsifiable system
Turn 360 degrees and walk away.

[Anonymous No.13860528]

>>13860463
>actual
>point
>self
>evident
>material
>world
>exists

wtf do these things mean

[Anonymous No.13860529]

[Anonymous No.13860532]

>>13860463
Prove the material world still exists when left unobserved and I'll believe it exist self-evidently.

[Anonymous No.13860538]

>>13860532
Prove that language carries content and I'll answer your question.

[Anonymous No.13860540]

Real arguments only please. I can't believe I thought you guys would be worth something

[Anonymous No.13860545]

>>13860540
Arguments aren't material

[Anonymous No.13860548]

>>13860529
>accepting the Bible as true
>"pure"
lmaoing out loud my dude

[Anonymous No.13860557]

>>13860463
>the only non unfalsifiable system is Science?
retard

[Anonymous No.13860562]

>>13860463

science is a second or even third order process derived from pure philosophy, you wouldn't have any science otherwise. and fyi, the "only the material world exists" is a metaphysical position, you brainlet

[Anonymous No.13860568]

>>13860548
Truth belongs to god :^)

[Anonymous No.13860570]

>>13860463
>self evident that only the material world exists
Self-evident according to the scientistic worldview

[Anonymous No.13860572]

[Anonymous No.13860576]

>>13860538
Just pointing out your shit was fucked up from the get go. Learn philosophy and you'll know why, puhsued

[Anonymous No.13860591]

furthermore, the question is in the video a good one. it shows that the information that we use to process the world is defined by attributes, as well as our own attributes that we can to experience. the steak might be objectively real, your perception of it is not., maybe in feynman spent more time starving himself he'd understand reality a little better. meanwhile, he claims light is made of photons, so you can put all the little photons in a bag and shake them up, and every time the power lines outside your house move electricity, a bunch of particles move back and forth through them like a rainstick! he's retarded

[Anonymous No.13860615]

>>13860463
Isn't materialism a metaphysical philosophy itself?

[Anonymous No.13860624]

>>13860463
ASS

[Anonymous No.13860642]

>>13860624
Okay partner

[Anonymous No.13860660]

>>13860463
>the material world exists

Whoa there man that's fucking wrong

[Anonymous No.13860707]

>>13860463
>>13860538
>>13860548
>>13860529

[Anonymous No.13860729]

>>13860538

>Prove that language carries content

Uh, isn't anything that's considered a "language"(non-formal) something with content?

Is anything without "content" considered a "language" in the first place? I think the term presumes it outright.

[Anonymous No.13860734]

>>13860532
Is this world a stimulation that it's rendered every time we go to an area like a computer game?

[Anonymous No.13860740]

>>13860463
>self-evident that only the material world exists
read a book sometime

[Anonymous No.13860741]

>>13860463
Now post feynman on magnetisim

[Anonymous No.13860769]

>>13860513
its 180, you fucking english major

[Anonymous No.13860777]

>>13860463
Define material you silly idiot. Even on the level of physical description the concept breaks down at the quantum scale.

[Anonymous No.13860800]

>>13860463
see>>13860478

[Anonymous No.13860804]

>>13860615
No, why would it be

[Anonymous No.13860816]

>>13860769
Not the guy you're responding, but seriously kys if you really think he was serious

[Anonymous No.13860890]

>>13860463
Science is a branch of philosophy. What you should be asking is what's the point of the humanities, in which case the answer is there isn't any.

[Anonymous No.13860901]

>>13860769
Newfag

[Anonymous No.13860909]

nothing is more pathetic than these threads with all these husks of men trying to justify their own faculties by finding the cleverest jpg

[Anonymous No.13860910]

It is not "self-evident" that only the material world exists.

It is only "self-evident" because you have been accustomed to it. Certain experiences reoccur throughout your life, they become commonplace, and then you stamp a label on it and call it "material". Now that you have reached the ripe age of a pimpled teen, everything is or seems ordinary to you. But calling the world "material" is fundamentally a non sequitur. It simply does not follow that what you experience is necessarily "material". Every single experience you have had, are having, and will have, are filtered through and by your mind which can only mean that everything that you have experienced and everything that you have ever known, is actually mental, not "material". "Material", in fact, is a deeply incoherent and misunderstood concept that belongs neither in Philosophy nor (actual) Science. It belongs in trash, as does your education.

Enjoy the novelty of scientism while it lasts, kiddo.

[Anonymous No.13860924]

>>13860910
>It is not "self-evident" that only the material world exists.
If a knife was shoved deep into your stomach, you're going to feel intense pain, bleed out, and die. When your brain ceases to function, everything you think you know will be gone. When you satisfy the body, you satisfy the mind, and vice versa. Materialism is not only self-evident, but the foundation for philosophy, science, and everything good for life.

[Anonymous No.13860933]

>>13860924
Material is a concept. Concepts are immaterial. Now what?

[Anonymous No.13860946]

Worst bait I've seen today.

[Anonymous No.13860954]

>>13860591
how is our perception of the steak not real? because it is subjective? the only thing that can be real are objective phenomena?

[Anonymous No.13860959]

The results of my experiment are objective truth.

Until we develop a more advanced method of measurement that allows me to be proven wrong.

[Anonymous No.13860964]

>>13860924
Assuming the material world is flat out question-begging.

Your knife and brain counterexamples are sophomoric at best and godawful at worst, buttercup.

Reread the wisdom of >>13860910. Cherish and deify it.

As with pimples and acne, materialism and scientism is a common phase in the lives of zealous and ADHD-ridden teens. It too shall pass.

[Anonymous No.13860965]

>destroys induction
pshh... nothin personnel kiddos

[Anonymous No.13860974]

>>13860910
>the ripe age of a pimpled teen
Kek

[Anonymous No.13860983]

>>13860933
>Material is a concept.
Your body is no mere concept. Stay deluded in your dialectics and convinced that you can just imagine the body's afflictions away.

>>13860964
When you die, what remains is the only thing that was ever real: the body, which will then start to decompose and recycle itself into the earth, i.e. the material.

[Anonymous No.13861030]

>>13860463
Because it's impossible to derive an aught from an is. Also I would caution you from assuming that science is something pure from ideology.

[Anonymous No.13861066]

>>13860983
You're still not getting it, booboo.

You have no way of experiencing your body, and the earth, by stringing a bunch of letters together, calling it "material", and posting it on a Chinese anime board. Every experience you have is orchestrated by the mind. Every single one of them. Similarly, you have no way of looking at your thoughts by means of separating yourself from them and observing them from some fantastical vantage point. This is pure, unadulterated rubbish. Bad metaphysics. Alas, very common amongst those unwell with scientism and other pseudoscientific ideologies masquerading as empirical science. Labelling external phenomena "material" is a speculative hypothesis that has no predictive power and is inferior to the thesis that everything is, in fact, mental.

[Anonymous No.13861071]

>>13860954

you would agree that your perception is necessarily limited by various constraints. you have a certain field of view, and a certain quality of eyesight, and an exact position somewhere in the world, and you're trying to eat a steak. so we can define all of these things as "real", but "real" here is illusion. so your perception is subjective in the sense that it is bound by all of these various constraints, you are taking in information from some object that also has it's own constraints, and is subjective in itself. it is affected by time, space, and all of the other things in multiplicity that interact with it. and even though the absolute is here every second of every moment, we have to make a subjective memory in our heads to process it all. the absolute is here all the time, yet we experience change in perception anyway in an attempt to understand. so understanding of the absolute that all of this subjectivity draws from is inherently limited, since it is not the actual substrate from which phenomena derives from, and it is subject to change, so it is not real

[Anonymous No.13861080]

>>13860729
Think more

[Anonymous No.13861117]

>>13861071
>you would agree that your perception is necessarily limited by various constraints. you have a certain field of view, and a certain quality of eyesight, and an exact position somewhere in the world, and you're trying to eat a steak.
sure.
>so your perception is subjective in the sense that it is bound by all of these various constraints, you are taking in information from some object that also has it's own constraints, and is subjective in itself. it is affected by time, space, and all of the other things in multiplicity that interact with it
sure.
>and even though the absolute is here every second of every moment, we have to make a subjective memory in our heads to process it all.
what is the absolute in this context? so far we've defined both the me who is eating the steak and the steak itself as subjective, particular, an instance of some greater thing. the only thing that is 'absolute' in what you've talked about so far is space and time and so on. does the absolute in this context mean the particular subjective conditions myself and the steak find ourselves in?

[Anonymous No.13861169]

>>13860463
>>13860478
>>13860500
>mathematicians and philosophers
>women

[Anonymous No.13861187]

>>13861169
>Sexism

[Anonymous No.13861208]

>>13861187
>failure to recognize patterns like a literal animal can do

[Anonymous No.13861215]

>>13861208
don’t btfo him too hard

[Anonymous No.13861220]

Why do these threads always end up with the person asking the question refusing to attempt to understand the answers they're given? Why even ask?

[Anonymous No.13861247]

>>13861117
>does the absolute in this context mean the particular subjective conditions myself and the steak find ourselves in?

we're going to move beyond mere perception. both you and the object are subject to various changes. you can verify this yourself because you have a memory that "keeps the story going", and you're clearly capable of seeing change yourself. to both of us, this is real, and we certainly identify with it as being so. our perception is created by everything apprehended by the senses, but defined by everything that we can divide from ourselves

so now the absolute is somewhat defined as underlying objective reality, but without quality and without attribute. if it had attribute then necessarily it would be subject to a particular time and place, and subjective, but no. it is always here, unchanging. time and space are absolute processes, sure, but the point here is that anything as a subject underneath time and space is going to be subject to change. if it's subject to change, then it is derived from something objective, but in itself is subjective. it is temporary, an illusion, not real

so to loop back around to the original question, both you are in the steak are real in the sense that both of you have existed in some form for eternity, and will continue to exist in new form, but these perceptions that we have are indeed not real. there are no objective phenomena

[Anonymous No.13861267]

>>13860816
>>13860901
newfags

[Anonymous No.13861269]

>>13861247


there are no objective phenomena that you can perceive*

[Anonymous No.13861290]

>>13860463
>it's self evident that only the material world exists

Universe is 98% unknown quanitity

TRY AGAIN

[Anonymous No.13861335]

>>13861247
i hate to keep bothering you with questions. but i still have one before we're done here.
>if it's subject to change, then it is derived from something objective
explain how this follows. the rest of the post follows just fine for me, but this was kind of pulled out all of the sudden. the steak being subject to change is because it has the properties of a steak, ie its form changes when exposed to a particular stimuli like a fire. and those properties of a steak by which it can change from are derived from commonalities in all of the instances of a steak that exist. each and every one of these steaks is a 'subject' or instance of its category, that much i agree with. but these instances can have objective qualities that they follow the logic and rules of no?

[Anonymous No.13861388]

>>13860538
>provide evidence
>noooooooo that isn’t content it doesn’t count

[Anonymous No.13861468]

>>13860463
Why does the material and the unfalsifiable matter? Don't bother answering.

[Anonymous No.13861472]

>>13860463
I hate this image because it actually shapes so much about how people think.

[Anonymous No.13861482]

>>13861169
>majority definitions apply to minority exceptions
Special Olympian over here

[Anonymous No.13861483]

>>13861335
>and those properties of a steak by which it can change from are derived from commonalities in all of the instances of a steak that exist

for the purposes of living in the day to day world, yes. the importance is not so much in it's common form and attributes since no two objects are alike, but it is simply that it has form and attribute at all

>but these instances can have objective qualities that they follow the logic and rules of no?

i think you are hung up on trying to understand the platonic form of the object, so something like a hydrogen atom has one electron, this is basically an objective fact. but just as the absolute is constantly here, the rule underneath it is that everything is in a constant state of flux. so even the particular hydrogen atom has no observable change between measurements, it is indeed in a constant state of change in relation to itself and to everything else around it. and since the "map is not the territory", one person's understanding despite all of the detail that they could handle is not what it objectively is. your understanding of a hydrogen atom only having one electron is a subjective. understanding of a seemingly objective fact will never be what it actually is. all these changes in form and attribute are necessarily derived from the absolute and objectivity, since it is the underlying reality behind reality. but since the change from even the smallest instance in time and space is always occurring, it cannot be our actual reality. your mind is what makes the unreal real illusion of continuity in an attempt to understand the world, but it indeed illusory and not actually real. to end with heraclitus, you don't step in the same river twice, and you aren't even the same person you are even one second ago. how can you take this world we live in to be real once you accept this?

[Anonymous No.13861520]

What does an immaterial world look like?

[Anonymous No.13861524]

>>13861483
alright. i get what you're going for now. thanks for being patient with explaining it all to me.

[Anonymous No.13861575]

>>13861066
>You have no way of experiencing your body, and the earth, by stringing a bunch of letters together, calling it "material", and posting it on a Chinese anime board.
I didn't imply otherwise.

>Every experience you have is orchestrated by the mind. Every single one of them.
The mind is part of the body, making this statement less accurate than: Every experience you have is the body's, because you are your body and not another thing.

You're completely lost in the dialectic. So fucking lost, in fact, that you're projecting it onto everyone else, and criticizing others for making mistakes that only you are making. The material is all that is and all whining and crying about this is dialectical delusion.

[Anonymous No.13861651]

>>13860463
Do you think it impossible to be a physicalist philosopher? Not all philosophers are crypto-mysticists you know, although after perusing this board (and certainly this thread) I'd forgive you for thinking so.

The point of philosophy is to apply logical standards to our endeavours. It is the science of applied logic (yes, it is ideally a science, as all knowledge is obtained via the conduit of empiricism -- even abstract logic develops from observed relations/consistencies). Most of us perform a basic form a philosophy every day, whenever we reason about things... We employ logical standards when planning, moralizing, arguing on imageboards, etc., to obtain more consistent results than acting on feelings alone would provide.

So, I would say philosophy is more fundamental to our thinking than you give it credit for. Moreover, there is a lot of bad/archaic philosophy just as there is bad/archaic natural science, and half-assed logic can be used to argue for highly illogical/improbable things. This unfortunate reality does not preclude the elucidating potential of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13861658]

>>13860463
>the only non unfalsifiable system is Science
how can someone say shit like this and not feel like an asshat

[Anonymous No.13861725]

>>13861483
You're abstracting yourself off a cliff here. What is strictly 'unreal' about an illusion? Are perceptions not an aspect of reality? Does an appearance not convey some aspect of the noumenal? What logical justification or do you have for supposing the 'mind' is actually non-continuous with the world? How does flux render things unreal?

You're leaping from a position of reasonable consideration of limited perception to a position of unwarranted skepticism (verging on mysticism).

[Anonymous No.13861834]

>>13860624
Am I to guess that the author of the webcomic wrote this

[Anonymous No.13861890]

>>13860463
Kill yourself immediately

[Anonymous No.13861893]

>>13861169
Just because a man has long hair he's a woman now? Fuck off with your sexism.

[Anonymous No.13862181]

>>13860463
>when it's self evident that only the material world exists
It's Not self evident and even If It was you'd know that because of philosophy since you're discussing the issue in philosophical terms.
>and that the only non unfalsifiable system is Science?
Science is unfalsiable If you start in the right places.

[Anonymous No.13862388]

>>13860532
Unironically this, even though I'm a STEMfag

[Anonymous No.13862405]

>>13860532
>>13862388
God is watching it dummy

[Anonymous No.13862426]

>>13861220
Ideology
*sniffs slovenishly"

[Anonymous No.13862436]

>>13860532
this
t. physicist

[Anonymous No.13862447]

>>13860463
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

[Anonymous No.13862467]

>>13860463
nice bait
fuck off to sci

[Anonymous No.13862477]

>>13860804
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

It says right here it is though.

[Anonymous No.13862489]

>>13860769

[Anonymous No.13862520]

>>13861575
Nigga you ever heard of the "mind-body"-problem?

[Anonymous No.13862526]

>>13860463
>what is the actual point of philosophy when it's self evident that only the material world exists and that the only non unfalsifiable system is Science?
Imagine being this much of a pseud
>/sci/ here
Pseuds circlejerking about IQ: The board

[Anonymous No.13862527]

>>13862405
OH NO NO NO NO NO!

[Anonymous No.13862528]

>>13861725
*Not the guy you we're responding to, I simply have a similar opinion to him.
>What is strictly 'unreal' about an illusion?
The fact it only contains our subjective perspective of the world and not what the world actually is.
>Are perceptions not an aspect of reality?
No, they're interpretations we derive from it. Our subjective experience of reality doesen't let us experience the whole of it.
>Does an appearance not convey some aspect of the noumenal?
Yes, but only some aspects, not the whole of it.
>What logical justification or do you have for supposing the 'mind' is actually non-continuous with the world?
It's not, our mind is what derives these wrong perceptions from reality. It's like everything else also bound to change(ie. corruption). Where did he say that it wasn't?
How does flux render things unreal?
It renders them different from how they would be if they were not. It doesen't matter for our subjective experience of it whether it's in a state of flux or not, but if it's in flux it can't be in its original state. So it's corrupted and like our subjective experiences of reality not actually real.

[Anonymous No.13862529]

>>13860463
>it's self evident that only the material world exists
he says through his immaterial consciousness

[Anonymous No.13862532]

>>13862528
Apolgies for the hasty reply, I'm phoneposting

[Anonymous No.13863279]

>>13860463
The irony of someone who seeks to arrange knowledge in a hierarchy of purity based on it's unquestioning adherence to falsifiability, yet who would probably start arguing about socioeconomic and culture factors when you bring up IQs and women/minorities.
>>13860478
Based

[Anonymous No.13863291]

>>13860769
It's an ancient meme

[Anonymous No.13863399]

>>13862520
You mean the problem that solves itself as soon as you drop Christian metaphysics? The problem that wasn't a problem before Plato muddled philosophy? Yeah, I've heard of it.

[Anonymous No.13863436]

>>13860463
fag here, what is the actual point of beer when it's self evident that only peer pressure makes people pretend to like it?

[Anonymous No.13863457]

>>13863436
>fag here
This is your answer

[Anonymous No.13863486]

>>13863436
I tell people I can't drink anything carbonated anymore and have a whiskey and nobody seems to care

[Anonymous No.13863496]

>>13863486
No shit.

"I can't do x" does not have the same implication and reaction as "you only do x because of social pressure, not because you like it"

[Anonymous No.13864119]

>>13862528
Yet all this demonstrates is limited perception. If our experience is continuous with reality, then there is nothing 'unreal' about it. Complete knowledge/perception of reality is not necessary to have some knowledge/perception of it (you concede this when admitting that some aspects of the noumenal are conveyed in appearances).

The issue is that the guy I was responding to (and perhaps you) are trying to present a kind of hard duality between reality and perception. You go so far as to treat perception itself as discrete (non-continuous) from reality by suggesting that it is derived from reality while somehow not being contained within it (which by extension implies the mind also occupies some realm of detachment from reality). On the other hand, you admit that we perceive some of reality and that the mind is subject to the same processes which are reality... In which case, no hard boundary between perception and reality is logically or empirically indicated.

So again, I propose that this is taking a reasonable consideration of limited perception and extrapolating highly assumptive conclusions from it.

[Anonymous No.13864214]

>>13860463
>Self evident that only the material world exists
>Implying scientific conclusions cannot be falsified

[Anonymous No.13864299]

>>13864214
by 'non unfalsifiable system' he means that science is a system made up of falsifiable claims, i.e. if the claim that water turns to steam when heated could be falsified through an empirical test, whereas the kinds of claim you find in a field like psychoanalysis can't always be falsified (so it is an 'unfalsifiable system')

[Anonymous No.13864366]

>>13864299
It's not at all clear that's what they meant, because non unfalsifiable referred to the system of science, not claims made using that system.

[Anonymous No.13864377]

>>13864366
what would it mean for a system to be falsified?

[Anonymous No.13864407]

>>13861290
that unknown quantity is still material
brainlet

[Anonymous No.13864411]

What's the point of any field of study when you can't know nothing?

[Anonymous No.13864450]

>>13860463
Feynman was a god among scientific men of his era. Let me show you the shoulders he stood on, and the shit heaps that fell off of his.

[Anonymous No.13864566]

>>13860478
>>13860500

>this is what the humanities actually believe

[Anonymous No.13864647]

>>13863436
The point of beer is it's intoxicating effects. Why would anyone drink any alcohol if not for the CNS depressant that enhances your GABA in order to better inhibit your excitatory glutamate? We all want that buzz.

[Anonymous No.13864657]

>>13864647
in non shit nations beer tastes good

[Anonymous No.13864697]

>>13864657
>non shit nations
No such thing.

[Anonymous No.13864713]

>>13861169
B A S E D

[Anonymous No.13864765]

>>13860804
No it is fellow: materialism is the thesis that there is at bottom only material "stuff" and everything is composed out of this material "stuff." It is what metaphysicians would call a monism.

You can easily see that it's metaphysics if you ask yourself the question "What branch of science can test the hypothesis that everything is ultimately reducible to one type of thing?

[Anonymous No.13864875]

>>13864765
Saying that the external world is made out of stuff is a neutral metaphysical thesis with respect to the substance of the stuff. Calling said stuff "material" stuff is a non-neutral metaphysical thesis whose truth is yet to be demonstrated conclusively. A mere belief. Just because this stuff has properties and can be reducible to other stuff doesn't mean it is "material".

But nothing is ever solved conclusively in metaphysics, so ultimately it's a pointless exercise in mental masturbation.

[Anonymous No.13864889]

>>13864875
>Saying that the external world is made out of stuff is a neutral metaphysical thesis
>implying there is an external world

[Anonymous No.13864931]

>>13860463
>studying the behavior of an ant colony is just applied individual ant behavior
No. The increased complexity adds more than the sum of the parts. Stupid fucking comic, hate XKCD.

[Anonymous No.13864949]

>>13860463
Science is all about falsifing your own theories. Maybe read up on some popper or Taleb. Science is not all there is to this. There are just some things Science can never and will never be able to answer.

There is a limit for what it can prove, for example it will never be able to prove or disprove god. Would recommand to read some more.

[Anonymous No.13864965]

>>13860769
Imaging being this new.

[Anonymous No.13864975]

>>13860463
Is this bait? The claim for the superiority of science based on falsification is a philosophical position. You can't escape it, nor is there any reason to try. Philosophy is your friend.

[Anonymous No.13865022]

>>13864450
Krauss is such a physically repulsive person I actually feel a bit dirty just saving that image. Obviously that's autism, but he is seriously ugly.

[Anonymous No.13865061]

>>13860924
>When your brain ceases to function, everything you think you know will be gone.
This is just Münchhausen trying to get out of quicksand by pulling on his own hair. Your brain is a part of the material world, therefore it cannot be the cause of the material world.

[Anonymous No.13865083]

>>13865061
Cause and effect is an interpretation. This interpretation does not necessitate the existence of a cause of the material world.

[Anonymous No.13865348]

>>13864647
The buzz is actually more about the inhibition of brain regions that in turn inhibit dopamine release, i.e. dopamine via GABA.

[Anonymous No.13865359]

>>13860463
>it's self evident
Not the most scientific proof there, sport.

[Anonymous No.13865360]

>>13865348
My bad, thanks for the correction, senpai.

[Anonymous No.13865495]

>>13860463
I feel like this is more of a light-hearted joke than an argument to discredit philosophy

[Anonymous No.13865508]

>>13860463
>self evident

No such thing

[Anonymous No.13865553]

>>13860463
>pure
What does that even mean?

[Anonymous No.13865651]

>>13865495
too bad /lit/ and /sci/ need another e-penis war

[Anonymous No.13865670]

>>13864566
What's your major then?